-- polls are showing that republicans are bringing something new to the table. but emily's list was one of the groups celebrating the first woman speaker in history and now you're talking about possibly being threatened. if nothing else, the contrast is something they might try to get some traction on. >> let me finish by asking you this question. the citizens united decision, there are all kinds of new coalitions popping up trying to motivate voters and putting money toward races. what does it look like for groups trying to get the attention of contributors with all these people blame for contributions for the election? >> if you are the old model of group, like l.a.'s list tends to be, you are limited by budget like emily's list tends to be,

you're limited by -- if you are the old model of group, like emily's list tends to be, you are limited by budget donor laws. your contributions are limited. but you might look to spread your resources to other areas in order to make a bigger splash in the electoral pool. >> so you might give to multiple places rather than to give to emily's place. >> not only that, you could give more to other groups, to. >> we have seen that marshall on the republican side. donors who are not excited -- we have seen that more so on the republican side. donors who were not excited are doing that. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> now senior adviser david

axelrod and former white house chief of staff joshua bolton talk about partisanship and house stability and cooperation can return to government. this took place at the washington national cathedral in washington, d.c. both these men are a straight shooters. they're easy to deal with. if everyone in government and everyone in the united states were like these two, we would have stability. as someone just said, however,

if everyone were angels, there would be no need for government. [laughter] i agree with everything that chapel and black said, but probably some of the harshest rhetoric in american politics was as the country was being founded in the riding of the constitution. taxes and those -- attacks in those days were much more personal than today. but i would also say this. i have been in washington 10 for 41 years. i presently believe that we have a meanness that has settled over our politics today that is worse and runs deeper than i can recall in my time here in washington. perhaps there were other times that i cannot speak to and do not know about, but that is just my opinion. so i just want to start with the basic question -- do you think

civility is even possible in today's politics? >> first, thank you for the introductory stuff, to reverend black, to the nation's family who individually and collectively does for our community, to the cathedral for hosting us. bob, may i begin with an apology to much of the audience? i suspect, as strong and dries the ignatius family is, that david axelrod and joshua bolton would may not dry as big a crowd as is here. i suspect you were expecting a smack down between ron emmanuel and john bolton [laughter]

-- between rahman and an animal and john bolton. -- between rahm emanuel and john bolton. [laughter] is civility possible? it is, but only if the incentives in our political discourse change. the discourse has become course, as you say, bob. the administration that i came in with with president bush, he governed in texas as a genuine new niter -- genuine united. his closest ally was bobbleheads -- genuine uniter.

his closest ally was all the bob bullock. the environment has become such that it has become so course that stability is very difficult to achieve alongside political success. in my judgment, bob, yes, civility is possible in washington. it should be possible. it has been possible in our history. it has to be possible in our future. but it will only become possible when the incentives in the political system change. my own instinct is that programs like this is part of changing a culture so that the incentives for politicians to change. >> do you think that neither

side really wants civility? or is it better from a political standpoint to have the kind of discourse we are having right now? >> that is an interesting question. i also want to thank ignatius families for hosting this event. never in my wildest dreams, two weeks ago, think that would be sitting in the washington national cathedral and filling rahm emanuel on a form on civility. [laughter] one of the things that impressed me so much was that, when we came into washington after rid the election, the graciousness and courtesy -- after the

election, the graciousness and courtesy from our counterparts could not have been more hopeful. president bush himself could not have been more helpful. i thought that was a great demonstration of patriotism. i had a chance to tell the president that and i want to tell you that as well. so that gives me some hope. the question u.s. is an interesting one. is it better -- the question you ask is an interesting one. is it better that we issued -- what is your objective in being here? if it is the perpetuation of your party of and your party's goals, given this world politics, there is an

incentive to be strident, in part because of the way our party's work now. we have a redistricted congress. most of the action plays within party primaries. we have media that is now dividing up into ideological camps. more and more people are watching media that affirms their own point of view rather than media that expands thinking through other points of view. incivility is part of the american political tradition. when i talk about political media, i used to talk about a pamphlet that was distributed in the presidential campaign of a 24 called "a catalog of the youthful indiscretions of general andrew jackson from ages 13 to 57." [laughter]

so this is not new. what is new is the shrillness of the media and the prism through which everything is examined. you say, is it more politically beneficial? that is, unfortunately, how much of this is cover these days. are you doing something to promote your own political interests? not are you doing something to promote the country's interest? we need to think more what we're doing. is it the perpetration of a party or the perpetration of herself in congress? the president came here hoping we could overcome some of this. it has been a difficult couple of years. if we can somehow get over the hump and view this as an exercise in moving the country forward, particularly in challenging times, we will do better. but we will be fighting immediate environment and technological environment that

really rewards shrillness and not faultless. >> i want to get back and talk about the media part in a minute. i agree with you. i think that is a very big part of it. you said george bush came here with the hope of getting something done. so what happened, josh, in your case? why did not this idea -- i am familiar with george bush and i grew up in texas. in texas, he did govern pretty much from the center. i think most political analysts would say that. but i also remember, in the campaign, you got to the new hampshire primary. you thought you would win and win big. the campaign had been pretty much a centrist candidate, pretty much the politics he ran in texas. he lost and it surprised everybody in the campaign.

from that moment for, the campaign adopted a new strategy. it was no longer a campaign down the middle, but one that ran from the right, it seems to me. and it proved successful. do you think that had anything to do with the attitude of your administration? you were not the chief of staff at that point. but the attitude of the administration and how it approach to governing became about? it seemed to be much different campaign to me from that point. >> no. [laughter] but i say that with all civility. bob, you were talking about the primary and we were locked in mortal combat with john mccain, who is a great character. the campaign shifted somewhat. but i do not think that was a moment of either shifting philosophy on the part of george

w. bush or a shift in the politics of campaigning. i think the shift for president bush came with the moment of the election itself, when some many people in this country felt that he had won the presidency illegitimate way. that is -- illegitimately. that is a hard way to enter office when such a large number think that you did not win it. had the ground been more affordable for actual -- been more fertile for actual civility, it may not have been that way. as difficult as it was that was

to start the presidency, i do not think you can blame individual events like may be a shift to the right after new hampshire or even something as dramatic as an election where almost half the country thinks that you did not actually win. >> the point i was making, i guess, at that point, going into new hampshire, george bush seemed to be going for the people in the middle. then they decided, if we are going to win this nomination, we have to get our base and shift to the right. you make a very good point about florida. i think it would have been a different presidency had that election been clearly -- had they continued counting the votes down there, he probably would have won. but it would have brought a different atmosphere. today, where it change for you, once an office and you took on health care.

it seems to me you're still feeling the fallout from the battle over health care. i wonder, on reflection, would it have been better to break health care into two parts? would it have been better to go ahead and put all your focus on jobs and getting that done and then trying to get to health care? i think there are a certain number people in this country who feel you passed health care with a parliamentary trick, the reconciliation process. can you ever have civil discourse if you have a large part of the population feeling that? i think they do. i think most people do want health care in some sort. >> there was a lot of money and effort spent in depicting it in certain ways that weren't were consistent with the way it was.

i do want to comment on it. i will not suggest any place like this and being a 100-year quest to providing people with health care. josh lived through the end of it. we came at the beginning of it. we face it. we were told, if we did not act and act decisively and quickly, we faced the prospect of a second great depression. the economists were united in a sense that we had to make sure that the financial system stood up and making the top program -- the tar program effective.

-- the tarp program effective. we took the steps to do that. what was surprising to us was that it was so clearly a time of national emergency. i have such a strong recollection -- i do not want to turn this into a partisan discussion -- but the president went up to capitol hill to talk with republican members of the house about the recovery act. on his way up there, they released a letter saying they were voting unanimously against it before he entered the room to talk. that was long before health care. senator mcconnell has said that the feeling was that they were not going to cooperate with the president on major initiatives as a political strategy. they did not think that was the thing to do. i want to thank senator mcconnell for having the courage

to stand with us. she deserves enormous credit. at a time of maximum peril for the country, she was willing to set aside partisanship and stand with us. that is the reason why we were able to get this done. [applause] >> we could just keep up between the 800 of us here. it would be a lot better for senator collins. >> but in terms of health care, we spent much of the time talking to not just democratic senators, but republican senators. we were criticized within our party and are still being criticized today because we spent so much time trying to forge a bipartisan consensus. the president's idea was that it could be another generation before someone would try.

he was determined to get at this. we wanted to do it in a bipartisan fashion. senators said on a couch with the president and run through the program. at the end of the day, the health care plan was designed largely not on a democratic prototype, but a middle-of-the- road approach to this. we had republican and -- we have republican senators said on the couch and say, we agree with you. the president said, will you vote with me? and they said, no. why not? if i can i get 10 other senators to vote with me, i cannot do it. it has been a sheer rock from the very beginning. >> it was not that different in

the bush administration. we faced a similar kind of situation. the tarp that david talked about, the famous bailout, without which the u.s. economy and the global economy would have been in desperate states, had to be proposed by republican president to home a bailout was an anathema and supported by democrats who rescuing a bunch of big banks was anathema. but that was how what was done. there have been examples in the midst of crisis of the executive and the legislature coming together and in dealing with the crisis. but it is very difficult to do it in the current environment. >> senator mcconnell was the floor manager. it was one of the finest days of

the united states senate. >> it brings up an interesting point, your compliments to senator collins. when i came to washington 41 years ago, we used to have republicans over to dinner. we had democrats over. we had them at the same party. i am finding now that republicans and democrats really do not like to be around each other very much anymore. and they do not like it known if a democrat complement's a republican. look at what happened to gov. crist down in florida. barack obama went down there and put his arm around him. the next thing you know, he had to leave the republican party and run for the senate as an independent. i will give you a personal example of how the situation is now. this happened this year. we were having one of the

republican leaders -- i am not going to tell you who -- and one of the democratic leaders to be on "face the nation." neither one of them -- one of them said, can you have a private waiting room for the boss? he does not like to sit in the same room with his opponent. i said, he will just have to suck it up. [applause] [laughter] we just do not have that much room. the idea that we have come to the point in this country where republicans and democrats do not like to sit in the same room, where a republican cannot be complemented by someone in the other party or a democrat as far as that goes, i think it is a new and different place for the politics in this country.

>> it is stunning to me to see people like senator bennett from utah, a solemnly conservative senator, whose renomination in his state because he voted for the tarp bill. yes, we have a very polarized situation. there are two things that happen in november. it is clear that the dynamics will be somewhat different. i think democrats will retain control both chambers, bu. with relatively equal numbers, responsibility will be shared. that is the optimistic view i hope for. that is the one we will look for.

but senator demint said, "my goal is gridlock." i do not think that is a very promising prospect. hopefully, voices of civility will resist that. we will make every effort to work with a group that is there. there are so many things that are challenging this country. we can overcome them, but only if we can set some of this aside. >> josh, i will need you to speak for the republicans. do you think the goal is gridlock at this point? >> no. i do not think there's anything wrong with obstructionism where there is real disagreement on the substance. the health care debate was poisonous in the extreme. but the gridlock, which is a bad term for, the obstruction that

the republicans were trying to ram pose was actually the product of a deep-seated disagreements -- trying to impose was actually the product of a deep-seated disagreement. the health care debate does not make me despair particularly. a lot of the town bed and a lot of it was completely unacceptable. -- a lot of the tone did and a lot of it was completely unacceptable. it is when there is agreement between the parties, when the leadership of both parties knows basically what the right thing to do is and yet they do not come together and do it because they are viewing a zero sum game in which, if that side gains, i must be losing. that is a bad place to be.

the example i would put on the table is social security reform, which president bush championed. against all political advice, he tried to push the issue of social security reform shortly after his reelection in 2004. he got no support from democrats, and even democrats who basically agreed with the direction he wanted to go, and very little support from republicans who were afraid of being demagogued by democrats. president obama will probably face a similar situation because we will have to come back to social security. if president bush and president obama got together in a room about social security, they may agree. they may disagree on certain details. but the only way we will get social security reform is if the leadership of both parties hold

hands and say, this is very dangerous with our population, extremely dangerous to demagogue, and the only thing we should agree on is not to disagree on a political debate. >> give me some examples of some things where you think that the two sides, in your own view, could work together. i raised one of them, with john boehner on "face the nation." i ask them, "are you still smoking?" he said, "yes." i said, "why do not you and president obama get together and say you will stop smoking for? country" would it -- stops looking for

the country?" -- stop smoking for the country ?" >> let me just say this, i agree with you, josh. difficult problems require the parties to hold hands. we have not seen enough of that. the president, just a few weeks ago, proposed -- >> will u.s. the president about that? >> i will. -- >> will you ask the president about that? >> i will. this is a big issue for you, i can tell. >> i am a cancer survivor. >> he has supported tax credits

to support in novation and things we ought to be able to agree on. but this is the environment, josh. you're not dealing with the day- to-day anymore. i know that you are watching. but we have a situation where we have a historic number of vacancies on the federal court. we have dozens of judges who have been confirmed by committee often unanimously who can i get a vote on the floor the united states senate. senator demint, this is where we are today -- the senator from my state proposed a resolution when the chicago blackhawks won the national hockey league championship and it was sent to committee. [laughter] let's start with the stanley cup and we can work our way up to social security. [laughter]

>> what do you think would be the best target for a bipartisan effort? >> i think social security is a great one. but it will be hard. i predict that president obama will head that way. i know he cares deeply about securing the long term fiscal future. he talks about a lot. i predict he will head that way. i hope he is able and i hope the republican leadership will come together with him and tried to agree on something with that. immigration reform, that is a place where it is hard to get bipartisan agreement. but there is a place in the middle where it ought to be possible

>> it came within a couple of votes of passing in the senate. it is a deal we should have been able to reach, and i am hopeful that the obama administration can arrive there as well, because it is a question that urgently needs to be addressed. >> do you think there is any chance of that? >> we are very eager, and the president has said that. not this summer but last summer, he brought together republicans and democrats at the white house, a large meeting to talk about immigration reform. what he said was, we cannot do this on a partisan basis, but if you guys can provide this much support, i think it was 10 votes from the senate, that we will work to provide the rest. when the issue came up, we could not get one vote on the republican side. there were 11 who voted for a --

when you talk about president bush in texas, one of the things i admired about him and continue to admire about him was that he was willing to take that issue on, even if he resisted some of the darker impulses that were astride the country at that time. he deserves great credit for pushing on this issue as president. we would like to finish that, but it is going to take bipartisan cooperation. the results have been disappointing so far. i must say that the tone of the election is not encouraging. i don't know if people on the republican side are going to feel free to move forward on that. >> bob, i agree with david on this. i think one of the worst of elements we have seen over the last couple of years is just the fact of -- that cooperation can

now put candidates at risk. that is just wrong. >> let me ask both of you to just >> give me your thoughts on the communications landscape where we all operate now. every day, it brings some new development. i grew up and i used to be a newspaper reporter like you, david. then that weekend of the kennedy assassination, television came to a place where most people got their news. now we are in the age of the internet and frankly, we don't know for sure where most people are getting their news. but the internet is the first vehicle we have ever had to deliver news that has no editor. the worst newspaper is an editor that knows where stuff came from. things that appear on the internet, you do not know if

they are true or false. it has totally changed what i do for a living because the main role is to knock down and check out these rumors that pop up on the internet. that is basically what we do. how has this affected politics? i bring it up because it seems to me that the internet is changing the political dialogue and has made it much, much meaner. >> i think you put your finger on one issue which is, there is no filter. i think there is something very positive about the internet in the sense that it is a way for people to get involved at a very grassroots level. sometimes information is legitimate and valuable and would not have surfaced any other way. you state your job is to check out and knocked down these things. the mainstream media often

dignifies things that should not be dignified. we have to report on the political climate. >> we don't report unless we think it is true, which is the difference between what we do and what happens on the internet where things appear with no context. you might disagree with our editorial policies, but generally speaking, they don't put something out unless they know it is true. the think that is the difference. >> what happens is, stories get published, they create part of the political environment, and then newspapers and networks covered it as a political event.

even accepting that it may or may not be true, but it is affecting the political climate, and we have seen instances of that. one instance -- the blogger. andrew. he went online with a truncated piece of tape that gave a completely erroneous impression. our administration reacted, frankly, too quickly to it. it created a media tempest, and you are right. in the past, that would have been looked at and checked out. the other phenomenon, you have one media outlet that has given

a lot of room for that. you have folks on the left as well. fox has basically become an outlet for one party and a point of view. a lot of these things that you would check out as an editor become stories there. and from there, they mushroomed. >> this whole thing has changed politics even since you were there. >> one thing that was certainly true, inside the white house, we felt that fox was relatively fair and balanced, and that of almost the rest of the entire media was biased against us. with the advent of not so much

the internet, but the cable networks are read yours. -- fighting for viewers. i don't believe this country is greatly more divided than it ever has been. we are closely divided, but i don't think we are at that deeply divided. if you go to europe, you can see what really divided is. we actually operate in a pretty narrow band of disagreement. one of the factors that has taken hold is with the advent of cable television, is in their interest to exaggerate our differences in order to get more viewers. all the conservative ones end up on fox and all of the liberal ones and the plot and its nbc, i don't know where exactly. the demise of more of the

mainstream that you grew up and, i think, has been one of the contributing poisons. that does not mean that there is a solution to that. >> that is the point i was making before. we have returned to a place that we were, maybe the beginning of the twentieth century when you had newspapers and that basically had a political point of view and the news coverage reflected that. people read the paper that reflected their point of view. i think that what happens is, people look at websites and they watch the cable channel of their choice. it heightens the sense of divide a lot. we can have disagreements on issues, but we shouldn't have

disagreements over birth certificates, we shouldn't have disagreements over these sort of wacky personal allegations that have no place. what happens there, the story gets written about as a phenomenon. you don't affirm that there is anything to it, but you have to cover it because it is part of the political discourse. >> can i go back to one thing that is very important that david mentioned at the outset? he mentioned it districting, something else that has happened -- redistricitng. -- redistricting. the vast majority of members of congress this year have

absolutely nothing to fear in a general election. david, you know better than i do. what percentage of seats are considered safe? >> is very high, but you're talking to upwards of 70%. >> even in a volatile year, 70 or 80% are safe. there were one or two incumbents out of all the seats that actually lost their races. this comes about because the districts are gerrymandered to ensure safe seats for politicians of one party or the other. and all that member of congress has to worry about is an assault from the fringe of the party. you have to worry about being

insulted in the primary by tea party member or something like that. if you're a democrat, by labor union activist. most people are not on the french. -- fringe. they are center or left or right of center. they lose their representation in a system where the incentives are so badly misaligned. >> most politicians in order to raise enormous sums of money, let's face it, it takes an enormous sum of money for almost any collection now, there are so many interest groups back home, once they get here, coming from these districts, they have lost the ability to compromise. >> this is slightly off topic, but related.

there is a development this year because of supreme court decisions, it's sort of opened the door for special interests spending that limited amounts of money, and to do it through vehicles that are undisclosed that are called social welfare committees. you have something for committee called true that a policy that won't tell you who fund them. if you look at their charter, they say they are sworn to pursue the social welfare of the state of north carolina and spending $1 million to defeat russ feingold in wisconsin. no one will say where the money is coming from. this is an insidious thing. it is one more thing that we will have to wrestle with. >> i want to thank both of you for a very civil discussion, and i must say, i think things

like this are hopeful because we have kind of an outlined some of the point of where we are today. i am not sure we have come up with any solutions yet, but when the united states government, the executive and legislative branch comes down to it, when they have to do something, they find a way to do it. i always think of that day after 9/11 when the senate came together and voted an emergency appropriation unanimously, that when the republican leader and a democrat leader walked up to the microphone to announced with his arm on a pond-will -- tom daschle's shoulder, it was a wonderful time to see the country come together.

it didn't last very long, but we did what we had to do in a difficult time. somehow, we always find a way to do that and let's hope we always will. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you can stay there, you can move, what ever you are most comfortable with. we now have a special opportunity to hear from someone who is in the thick of the battle day after day. susan collins has represented the state of maine since 1996 and his ranking member of the homeland's security in the governmental affairs committee. she has spent years in state government before seeking federal office and has been a consistent voice in maine and in washington for doing what is

right. the program that you have notes that "o" magazine listed her as one of the few women that could run for president. there have many -- there have been many cents, but we're glad that they were able to recognize her. senator? [applause] >> it is a great honor to participate in this forum this evening. when i was first invited to be part of this forum, i was aware of the families many contributions to seeking new

approaches to the challenges in the fields of politics, religion, and society. i, of course, went on line. i typed in the name ignacious to see what i might find. the first reference was not to this fine family, or even to the founder of the jesuits. the first reference was to the third christian bishop saint ignatius of antioch. i read that he was unremitting in his vigilance and tireless in his efforts to inspire hope. i thought, that sounds pretty good. thinking that perhaps it could

provide guidance for my remarks tonight, i read on only to learn that his reward for preaching hope and peace was to be torn apart by lions in the roman colosseum. while i would not begin to compare life as a compromise seeking a center to being torn limb from lamb by lions, it is nevertheless true that being a moderate in the senate is a difficult place to be at this time in our history.

i am uncertain who first described politics as the art of compromise, but that maxxam to which i have always subscribed seems woefully out of passion today. sitting down with those on the opposite side of an issue, negotiating in good faith and attempting to reach solutions, our actions often vilified by the hard-liners on both sides of the aisle. achieving solutions is not the goal for many today. rather, it is to draw sharp distinctions and score partisan political points even if it means that problems confronting our country go unresolved. perhaps that is why the american people are so angry

with incumbents of all political persuasions, but particularly those who are in charge. there have been times when those of us who have worked to avert the implosion of the legislative process were more welcome. around that example, 14 senators that quickly became known as the gang of 14 came together in 2005 to negotiate an agreement for considering judicial nominees to avoid what was colorfully now as the nuclear option which referred to a change in the senate rules that would have brought about a meltdown of the senate.

as some of you may recall, the democrats have used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of some of president george w. bush's appellant court nominees. with the cry that nominees deserved an up or down vote, senate leaders threatened to change the senate rules in a way that would have prevented filibuster's from being used to block judicial confirmations. the democrats in the senate countered that the rights of the minority had always been protected in the senate, and warned that if the rules were changed, the democrats would block action on everything. the leaders on both sides hardened their positions and

heightened their rhetoric, 14 of us, seven from each party came together to discuss the issue rationally and to forge a solution. we established a new standard for filibuster in the judicial nominees, stating that we would only support filibuster's in extraordinary circumstances. applying that standard, our solution resulted in the democratic senators supporting cloture for five of the seven nominees, resulting in their confirmation. in turn, we agreed to oppose the change in the senate rules to prohibit judicial filibusters, the so-called nuclear option, the sporting the plans of the republican leaders.

at a deeper level, our agreement restored trust and helped to preserve the unique culture of the set at that time. it showed that the parties could come together, negotiate, and reach an agreement in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good faith. but how times have changed. when i led the effort to try to forge a more fiscally responsible stimulus bill, i was roundly vilified by partisans on both sides. on the left, i was attacked by

columnists for cutting $100 billion in spending from the bill, and mocked as swine flu sue by blockers buying for contention that spending for a pandemic flew did not belong in a stimulus bill, but should be handled in the regular appropriations process. that is money for pandemic food prepared this and was approved precisely that way. on the right, they were supposedly denoting a republican in name only. one of my own republican

colleagues targeted me for a campaign that generated tens of thousands of out of state e- mail's. they denounced me in no uncertain terms. the point was not whether my judgment was right in trying to fashion a more targeted and less expensive stimulus bill to deal with the most serious economic crisis facing our country since the great depression. my point is, the debate was not civil in the least, and quickly became an extremely personal and painfully nasty. what changed? i am sure that the great

historian who is speaking after me tonight will tell you that the degree of civility in congress has ebbed and flowed over the years. and the chaplain has pointed out to us that at least we don't have a member caning another as happened in 1856 when a representative of caldera -- carolina flawed a member of massachusetts on the floor. i must agree that i have not seen the degree of bitter divisiveness and excessive partisanship now found in the senate. the weapon of choice today is

not a metal topped cane, but poisonous words. i would suggest to you that divided government and a more evenly split senate is much more conducive to buy partisanship that are the supermajorities that one party controls above the executive legislature that are part of our current political landscape. when one party has all of the power, the temptation is to roll over the minority which in turns lead to resentment because the minority has so few options. during the past two years, the minority party has been increasingly shut out of the

discussion, even in the senate which used to pride itself on being the bastion of free and open debate. procedural tactics are routinely used to prevent republican amendments. that causes republicans to overuse the filibuster's because our only option is to stop a bill to which we cannot offer amendments. we saw this unfortunate phenomenon in the recent consideration of the defense authorization bill. let me give you a little bit of background. i have personally supported ending the don't ask don't tell policy and was the sole republican on the armed services committee who voted for

repeal. my view was this. if individuals -- [applause] if individuals are willing to put on the uniform of our country, be deployed in war zones like iraq and afghanistan, to risk their lives for the benefit of their fellow citizens, i think we should be expressing our gratitude to them, not trying to exclude them from serving or expelling them from the military. but i recognize that many of my colleagues disagreed with me. and they should have had the

right to express their views and offer their amendments on this controversial issue as well as on many others in the bill. and thus, after the leaders could not agree, i found myself in the awkward position to proceed to a bill that i supported and that contains a change in policy that i had advocated in order to preserve the rights of a colleague. -- of my colleagues that had a different view. this was the one hundred sixteenth time in this congress that the majority leader or another member of the majority had filed cloture rather than proceeding with the bill under an agreement allowing amendments to be debated.

and what concerns me even more is the practice of filling up the amendment tree to prevent republican amendments. that was the fortieth time that that had been done. by contrast, when it was controlled by one party, and one chamber is and hands of the other, the president has no choice but to reach out and negotiate. i would argue that it would have been a lot easier for president obama to resist the hard left of his party, if he did say that he had to pursue legislation acceptable to a republican house or senate. or better yet, from my perspective, both.

the emergence of the 24-7 news cycle and the cable networks that cater to individuals that are on one side of the political spectrum or the other also pardons' the political lines as has been discussed by the panel. it makes compromise much more difficult. here is why. members of congress with more extreme political views now have an outlet for their rants. and arguably, make for far more interesting interviews than those of us in the colorless center. there is another negative

development that has contributed to the decline instability -- in civility. senator john casey of ryland -- of maryland -- of rhode island was one of the greatest to ever serve. the senate was too small of a place to campaign against your colleagues, he counseled. go into the states with open seats. but did not campaign against your democratic colleagues. it will poison your relationships with them. back then, most senators followed that rule. but that has changed. now many senators

enthusiastically campaign against their colleagues across the aisle. i was shocked when a couple of years ago, two of my democratic colleagues came to me and in my judgment, unfairly criticized my work during my highly competitive race for reelection. my dismay was heightened by the fact that there was no one running that year was more bipartisan legislative initiatives and accomplishments that i had. the willingness to cross the aisle at work on problems had been well established during the past decade. in fact, the primary theme of my campaign was my ability to work across party lines to get things done.

this year's elections have shown just how far the destruction of that collegial attitude has digressed, with some members containing -- campaigning to endorse their primary opponent. these personal attacks and campaigns from one's colleagues have detrimental impact that goes far beyond election day. it is very difficult to consider someone a colleague and a potential legislative partner who has traveled to your home state to criticize your work. the seemingly constant campaign

cycle aided and abetted by cable and radio shows whose ratings may depend on reaching a small but highly partisan member of the electorate coarsens the debate. of course, i did not mean to suggest that civility requires us to except the unacceptable. good manners, graciousness, and avoiding undue offense must not prevent the telling of an unpleasant truths. if they do, we're left with nothing more than polite but meaningless discourse the void of passion and principal. when senator smith went to the senate floor 60 years ago to

deliver her famous declaration of conscience, she did not do so to demonize the wisconsin senator mccarthy, but to denounce his actions. she certainly gave him great offense, but she spoke the truth about his tactics of ruining reputations, and smearing his opponent. telling the truth about senator mccarthy's conduct in strong, tough language was far more important than worrying about offending him. similarly, president reagan undoubtedly offended gorbachev when he describes the soviet union as an evil empire and

called upon him to tear down this wall. at home, president reagan was roundly criticized by those who accused him of being uncivil, insensitive, and aggressive. as with senator smith's legendary speech against mccarthyism, president reagan's willingness to speak truth and challenge the soviets was much more important than sustaining a polite but ultimately meaningless and inconsequential discourse. in contrast, consider the house member from my party who interrupted president obama's

speech to a joint session of congress last year by yelling, " ." -- "you lie." those were decidedly uncivil acts, designed not to reveal truth, but to give offense. in taking about president reagan, it is important to remember that one of his fundamental commitments that allowed him to work so well with speaker tip o'neill and forge a genuine friendship. his belief in political stability led to the formulation of the eleventh commandment, thou shalt not speak ill of another republican.

something that is older followed. but president reagan also understood that there were times when civility for civility's sake is not the premier value. where does this leave us? those of you sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting my remedy for this problem can relax. i have no miracle cure. finding a cure requires us to first identify the disease. students of american culture might ask whether incivility is a washington phenomenon or reflections of the changing behavior of our society at large.

i am reminded of the response that a former senator gave to an unhappy constituent when the constituent angrily denounced him and his colleagues, saying they you are all a bunch of liars, thieves, and womanizers. the senator, replied, what it is, after all, a representative form of government. [laughter] i will not try to play sociologists and way and except to say that there are indications that as a people, we are becoming a less civil. i cited the popularity of the attack journalism on cable television. the growing incidence of bullying in schools. the use of the internet to

anonymously smear those that one does not like. in the appeal of television programs in which people are either fired or voted off of the island. better social historians that i might take a look at these as simply contemporary manifestations of an ongoing facet of our culture. but at a minimum, they demonstrate that we are not becoming immeasurably nicer to one another. i am more confident in offering the observation that even if washington leads the nation in incivility, it is not likely to change until those outside washington demand it. i believe in the maxxam that

what it -- what gets rewarded gets done. for those of us in congress, re-election is the ultimate reward. not collecting in the first place or voting out of office those that put partisanship over progress, stridency over statesmanship, and conflict over compromise, would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not to win the debate. a return to civility in a spirit of compromise must be driven by the voters, and it is not inevitable. to keep around those of us to bridge the partisan divide will require the energetic support of the opinion leaders like you to say that they want less

confrontational and more effective government. it may not be easy to feel passionately about civility and compromise. but it is easy to feel passionate about a vibrant, just, and prosperous america. to achieve that and, on route to that goal, we need to get passionate about electing legislators who not only work hard, but work together. not long ago, i happened upon the an amazing document by one of our founders. it is george washington's rules

of civility, a transcription of various guides to etiquette written when george washington was but 16 years old. there are 110 points. i am not going to read all of them. first of all, be respectful. if you itch, be careful where you scratch. don't scare your friends. in the presence of others, avoid harming or drumming your fingers. i cannot tell you how wonderful it would be if coming in drumming or the greatest threats to stability in the senate today. it is not until #110 that young

george got to the heart of the matter. labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. that little spark light our way much more brightly than bomb throwing, scorched earth, incendiary political rhetoric ever will. when i was invited to participate in this form, i was told that there was something about this magnificent cathedral that seems to facilitate thoughtful, civil discussions. that prompted me to suggest to him that conducting senate debates on issues of note in

this peaceful setting might be the most effective way to elevate the level of discourse and restore stability. but be mindful of the adage that god helps those who help themselves, waiting for divine intervention is probably not the wisest strategy. unfortunately, helping ourselves out of this problem is going to take what it always takes. namely hard work on the part of those who are committed to the future of this country. and we need people like you who cared enough to come to this form to be among the leaders of

that effort if we are to have any chance of success. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the very thought provoking comments. our next speaker has explored the presidencies and policies of world war two and the cold war, he profiled president kennedy and johnson. he recently offered "presidential courage." i read recently that in 1800, a lawyer wrote to a connecticut

newspaper warning that if thomas jefferson became president, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, incest will be openly taught and practiced. the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, the nation black with crime. we wonder if the overheated rhetoric is part of our traditional national history. perhaps we will get a little context. thank you. [applause] >> sometimes things get a little bit overheated. i couldn't help but remember the story about the nervous immigrant to america that came to ellis island and the official said to her, the believe in the overthrow by force or violence?

she said, and violence? -- she said, "violence." [laughter] i will be as brief as i possibly can. i think one way to think about how things used to be is to go back to 1964. that was the year that the first major campaign by a woman for president. lyndon johnson was trying to get a civil rights bill through congress, and he was in pretty good shape in the house but with problems in the senate. as others will remember, in 1954, he could not depend on democrats to pass this bill. white southern democrats were not for it, so he needed republicans. it was a very different time, because johnson knew that the

senate leader, a senator from my home state -- they had been leaders of the senate in the 1950's and they knew each other extremely well. they were very good friends, disagree about all sorts of issues, but like each other a lot. so to try to get the civil- rights bill passed, he called him up and said, i you have some doubts about this bill. it might be dangerous for you politically in southern illinois, but look at it this way. if you vote for this and support it, other republicans will support it, and if that happens, the bill will pass the senate. it will change history. 100 years from now, american schoolchildren will know only two games. abraham lincoln and everett dirkson. [laughter]

he liked what he heard and it did change history. i'm not sure that every school child in america these days know the name, but they probably should. he is an example of the way things used to beat it should be more often these days. i think we don't like partisanship, the best person to complain to is james madison. his idea was that we had a great danger in starting the united states, that we might somehow evolve into a marquee or a dictatorship like those of europe. that would happen if there was not enough conflict within the american government. he would not have to worry these days about the about of conflict. the think he would be appalled

by the degree to which things have gotten some nasty as our panelists described so well earlier. i think sometimes, congress has not been partisan enough. in 1964, the senate should have debated very carefully the pitfalls and the opportunities in giving the president irresolution that would allow things to -- all but two senators voted for it. there has been an ad and flow -- ebb and flow of partisanship. but during the time of the civil war and reconstruction. if james madison were to come back tonight, and i wish you would for all sorts of reasons,

what would he find different about this time from any other time in american history? you will no longer have the number of parties that have prevailed through the american history, it leads to more conflict. we live in a society that people encourage -- not very kind about people that disagree. one thing that is important is that technological developments that madison could not have imagined, john kennedy complained that compared to the time of george washington, the senator had to have suffered a

very great retribution, if he noted that during the time of washington, he supported a very unpopular treaty and when americans found out about it, they sent him letters that were unpleasant. washington was heartbroken over the fact that the response was so negative, but compared to nowadays, he had it extremely easy. if you cast a vote that might cause you problems with your party or with other groups, you will hear about it about five seconds thereafter. they will hear about it instantly on the internet and they will make their views known. it makes it much tougher to be civil in public life. above all, the one thing that james madison would notice is money and politics. there was not a case where to run for governor, you might

raise $100 million or $200 million. it never entered his mind. all the candidates running might cost $2 billion or more. people have said tonight that they're trying to raise money and it doesn't work well if he said the letter saying that we disagree, but he loves the country as much as we do. we think he is a patriot. instead, you raise money by saying that mitch mcconnell is seated and wants to destroy this country. or harry reid wants to and america as we know it. money is so important in politics, it almost commands that kind of behavior that most

of us have lamented tonight. we want to reduce the amount of hostility, i think there are a lot of ways you can do it. i will only mention a couple. do whatever we can to reduce the influence of money in politics which is going to be even harder with the citizens united ruling of the supreme court that leads to some things that he mentioned. but we have got to do something to turn back the clock and make the influence of money less important. above all, it comes to us because in the end, we have leaders that understand that through history, great leaders have not been those that were character assassinations, the people that were able to talk to the other side with people with whom they disagree. the best example of this, to keep this brief would be harry truman. when he left office in 1953, we remember him as a great president.

he left office in 1953 with an approval rating of about 23%. 23% in 1953 was about 8% nowadays, because people were shy about telling people they didn't like a president. it is not our problems americans have had the last 10 years or more. you look at the numbers. why was he unpopular? one of the reasons was that people said that truman was too angry about his opponents. it is true that in 1952, he was asked by a reporter what he thought of richard nixon, in his reply was, i think richard nixon is full of the door. not very simple. -- full of manure. not very civil. the response was, you have no idea how long it got me to get him to use the word "manure."

[laughter] this was a guy that worked with republicans to do the kind of things that began our response to aggression that allowed people -- that is why we honor harry truman and the fact that he was able to deal with the other side on a matter of absolute national security. we all have the vote in four weeks. some of us are encouraged to vote more than once on election day. even those of you that are not from chicago that are voting, i would say that if you don't like incivility, if you like people that can govern, think about this very carefully.

thank you all very much. [applause]