5, seven days of floor time. the recovery act on mortgage fraud, a 92-4, six days of aforetime. all done to stretch out the time frame and take the most precious commodity of the senate and block things from happening. the 99 desk 0 on cloture votes. filibuster is used for the new nullification are also unprecedented, blocking people or by a considered even by those opposing them as being fully qualified and passing every vetting spent her but blocked for things like the consumer protection bureau, medicare and medicaid services because the people blocking them don't like clause that had been legally and constitutional and acted and

want to keep them from being implemented. if i had a lot of time, i could talk about the debt limit used as a hostage to non-negotiable demands and fulfilling the mitch mcconnell predictions. two other examples of extreme tactics -- but greg conrad fiscal commission where people supported it voted against their own bill because they did not want to give a victory to the other side and the same with the benefit widen health reform bill. these are not simply benefited -- these tactics are not simply don in washington. immemorial bridge was adopted and governor court refused to sign at as he expected other comparable bills because it was introduced by a democrat.

these tactics have been successfully defined by richard murdock who beat richard lugar in the senate. i said by partisanship should -- i said bipartisan should consist of democrats coming to the republican side is what he said. public opinion surveys show that the two parties in congress -- let me put up a couple of charts that show what has happened over time in congress -- the voting records for the house and senate. you will see clearly the republicans in congress are the most conservative that they have been in our lifetimes and, indeed, perhaps more conservative than in a century. the democratic party, especially as a loss to southern democrats, moved some went to the left but nowhere near as much. let me quote the most prominent

and respected conservative intellectual -- calvin coolidge, a conservative favorite. or even ronald reagan who favored large-scale government research be on the missile defense. that recognizes "that came from steve hayward. the party in congress voted to kill the census bureau's survey and economic census which has been used by businesses for a variety of vital purposes to establish different purposes. representative daniel webster who sponsored it said it is not

scientific, it is a random survey. you can see why he is not on the intelligence committee. i've got lots of other examples and examples on rhetoric that start with allen west and move to many others which we will have to discuss during the bottle or other times. that's my eight minutes. >> i want to begin by thanking the senator that said dick cheney should be convicted of war crimes. when conquering roman generals would return to their victory parades in rome, they would place a slave behind him to whisper in his ear that all glory is fleeting. norm is our slave at aei.

does he have a naked pictures of arthur brooks? that wouldn't work because arthur worked out. norm is a very valuable presence around our hallways and keeps us on our game and promises not to confuse ideology with partisanship. it is quite useful to have someone around to point out the inconsistencies and blind spots and petty hypocrisies. norm makes all this better and sharper in our work even if we mutter about his latest provocation. i admire much of his work seeing that his interest in the congress stems from a deep affection of the first branch. his grief is sincere and the worry about the future is well- founded. his work on the continuity of government project urging us to take respective remedies against the worst case terror strike as of the highest value. in contrast to the continuity of

a government project, and less enamored of what i think to be his continuity of liberalism project. i read his book and it is worse than it looks. [laughter] it makes a good holiday gift, i will agree with that [laughter] we live in a time of heightened polarization making the task of governing mentally difficult. a very distinguished political science said this --"democrats and republicans are swaggering and on certain, secure and paranoid, each side is confidence in its own domain." party is fearful that will make a mistake and lose its own empire not just for one term but for decades and the site is hopeful that confined to capture

its rightful complete majority by forcing the other to make a fatal mistake. the result is passive aggressive politics, politics avoiding blame greedy side is so concerned about avoiding a mistake that taking risks to make better policy is increasingly uncommon." i think that is a good anecdotal description. it correctly perceives the symmetry of the two parties and rightly assigning equal blame to both parties. this assessment comes from norm ornstein writing back in 1990. what happens to that guy? i miss him. by the way, the title of the article was "the permanent democratic congress." that seems like a golden age. he said republicans or the chicago cubs of american

politics. according to his hypothesis, things have changed such that to the republicans are and insurgent out liar in american politics. they fear polarization has become asymmetric or it is the republicans' fault. his tricycle one of the political parties and outline what happens to be at its highest level in terms of elected officials nationwide in 70 years unless you are prepared to take the next that does suggest the american people have taken leave of their senses. that does not appear in norma's book. you hardly notice the election of 2010 took place. the republicans did not win majorities until they turned to the extremists of. some people never got over the

1994 election. i want to lay down a couple of markers. his book contains a catalog of genuine republic embarrassments and hypocrisies. i thank that as susceptible but is it true that the partisanship of republicans today is different in character than the kind of partisanship of to both or the of tip o'neill same position taken by democrats against george bush? his republican harassment fundamentally different than the way democrats use the oversight process to harass or reagan appointees? that extended to eliminate budget appropriations or cutting program funds for long- established programs.

we could waste a lot of time debating whose political calipers are more finely tune but it is ultimately quite futile to argue in this maupertuis can dispense with the balance sheet and go directly to thatsneaky presumption whether into nothingness when the village torn away. take the view that the democratic party is more it illogically and diverse -- ideologically diverse and perfect -- and protective of the government role as it has developed over the course of last century. it seems to make it does not take an extremist to say that is precisely the problem. the democratic party is the status quo party until they get the opportunity to ratchet up the state in a big way which has been the story of most of the last century after which they sit back and protect the status quo and republicans are supposed to be fine with this? this would astound rickey henderson.

they say the ideological center of the republican party must change to regain national health. there could be returned to the kind of accommodation that the principal use of moderate republicans is to shoot the wounded after the battle is over. i suspect that idea of good government would be president david gergin. is the republican party extreme? i certainly hope so. the republican party began its life as an extremist party dedicated to the purpose of a bolling -- abolishing barbarism. the supreme court declared the republican party's platform to be unconstitutional.

there is little reason or purpose for the republican party unless it acts with a new determination to call it the size of all to the and thus ratcheting expansion of centralized government power and reckless spending. gains prominent positions in " the post," but all glory is fleeting. [laughter] disagree with a finger first minute and a half. [laughter] let me next say that i don't know which is meant more disorienting, appearing naked pictures of arthur brooks or david gergan as president. they are on the same park. let me move on to some of your arguments. when i wrote that piece in 1990 and i noted that what would

likely end the democratic majority that was moving toward 38 years would be a democratic president and a counterpoint that would take place but things have changed since 1990. indeed, many of the arguments i would make here, and i want to go back to where i started, neither party is an angel. votes have often crossed lines and done things that are deplorable. the democrats or the way they handled the bork supreme court nomination, blocking estrada statements by people like allen west and cynthia mckinney. we singled out allen west who said that between 79 and 81 democrats in the house are members of the communist party. he asked about cynthia mckinney.

i went back and looked. we have a faulty timers. i got a whole bunch of newspaper clippings. there are differences here on that front. more significantly, so much of this is a matter of degree and not kind but the unprecedented things i have mentioned. look at blogging nominations and i can show you a chart after chart of the number of nominations blocked compared to the reagan years and the swiftness with which the executive and judicial appointments went through. if you want to talk about cooperating with the president, i look at two points of comparison -- when george w. bush came into the white house, in a whi house that was in

tatters almost. you have the most controversial election at least in our lifetime if not an american history. you had a president who had no coattails, 36 days to come in, facing an adversarial environment. it would have been easy for democrats to hold a dinner meeting on inaugural even say the way that we can regain power is to stomp on his neck and lever led up. we can vote against everything he wants his presidency will die. instead, they cooperated immediately on no child left behind. that gave him a victory that established the legitimacy of his presidency. democratic votes provided the margin for the tax cuts. that was a hallmark of the bush presidency. democrats say the vote on the tarp program which saved the bush presidency. contrast that with another book about the meeting that took

place with top republican leaders on inaugural even 2009. the president came in on a landslide with a 70% approval in the worst economy since the great depression. i think that is the difference and when you look at things like blocking nominations that are widely acceptable because you don't want bill to be implemented, that is the difference. let me address the argument that you made that tom and i have lost our marbles and how can a party be extremely good wins elections? let's think of some examples in history of parties that were extreme and won the elections. peter is old enough to remember the 1930's. he is very, very old. 1 he is perhaps our oldest colleague. [laughter] i can give you some examples -- parties win elections when people are unhappy.

in our system, elections get one and lost far more often because they are referendums on what is going on -- that economies bring about elections. republicans have learned from 1994 and 2010 is that if you make the process looks awful, worse than it usually is, make it even worse than it looks, you may well win elections if people rebel against what they see as the party in power. that is a good thing if you want to win elections. it is not a good thing if you want to solve problems in government. i think that is what is behind jeb bush -- no raving liberals being upset about the direction in which his party is going. >> the bush family has not gotten over from losing to renaldus magnus in 1980.

a lot has changed since 19 '90s. there was a question of debate this year about taxes. why was that answer given by the field? it was because the history of the last 30 years or so since politics became closer is that these deals never work for republicans. they have seen this before. how many times has the republican charlie brown fallen for the lucy and the football trek? trick. this explains why you see the rise of the tea party which is the republican analogue to the

anti-war movement three or four years ago. it is a disruptive force and might tear the party r apart. you mentioned the greg comrade commission. we can play tennis like this all day. there is a piece of evidence was a fundamental problem that the republican party has not gotten over the prison and that they want to be the permit relief party in america. this explains the symmetry of the ferocity of the competition. maybe the best example is the 2004 election. republicans extended their majority. tom daschle was defeated, the

majority leader, in part because of the argument that he is an obstructionist to nominees. terry reid comes in and joe biden was asked to come into said this -- he said majority not filled that role. dianne feinstein said that if we keep going on this way, we will be a minority party. this kind of presumption made perfect sense in 1955 or 1965 or 1985. it does not make sense after the 1990's. you see this subtext often. there's something unnatural

about republican majority? this adds to the ferocity of the republicans who say it will not kick the football again. >> thanks, gentlemen. that was very civil, wasn't it? [laughter] i'm supposed to take some questions but i thought i would each of you one quick question. would you respond to a political party that is about to nominate mitt romney as its presidential nominee and four years earlier, nominated john mccain as its presidential nominee? alice that fit with your idea that this is a bunch of -- how does that fit with your idea that this is a bunch of crazy radicals? steve, i thought i would ask you to address the following

point -- what might make the republicans radical in this day and age is their understanding or maybe there miss understanding of the legislative process. the nature of the legislature involved in a give-and-take and compromise and if you listen to many republicans these days, compromise is a dirty word and they seem unwilling to compromise. if that is how they approach the nature of legislative process, it undermines the institution -- the fundamental nature of the institution. norm, you can start. >> the best way to answer that is to look at what john mccain and mitt romney had to do to win nominations and where they are. i worked a lot with john mccain who has been for much of his career very conservative and a problem solver, somebody who

looks for solutions on immigration, climate change, campaign finance, and other areas. he abandoned all of those positions as he moves forward to win a republican nomination. i look at mitt romney who has taken a position on immigration that has made sure that he has a position outside the bounds of our normal politics, a candidate to openly embrace as donald trump will even george will calls a blow creating big around as but who has gone over the line in terms of some of the things he has said. other litmus test that had to be taken -- when i talked to jon huntsman who could not even get traction in the presidential contest partly because of his own missteps about litmus tests, candidates have to take those positions and you all to them. i don't -- i view mitt romney as

somebody who is not just the etch a sketch a guide but the chameleon. that does not matter. he will move into office if he assumes the presidency and the bound to what he has promised in the past but also to a legislature that has moved far enough outside and that includes budget and tax positions that go very far from what we have seen in the past that would leave him at the edges whatever his internal beliefs are. >> i actually think there's quite a bit to be said that the republican party is not very good at the legislative process. the republican party atrophied during those years when they were out of power. during that time, republicans succeeded in electing presidents

starting with eisenhower. even before that, the two parties had a slightly different character. republicans became the executive-minded party and the democrats became better at the legislative process. had there been a way to organize the tea party, it would have happened earlier. tom delay said we cannot possibly cut spending any more. there was nothing left of any principle core of republicanism in congress. they were not any better than the democratic party from a conservative point of view. they used bill clinton as a foil and got things done. they have yet to prove that they

can actually govern as the majority party in a parliamentary sense for any other and that will be a big task that happen to win the election. >> we will go to questions by want to remind people that they can still either e-mail their questions to aeidebates or twitter. we have a question -- let's start off with this one -- what is the role of the tea party and is it the reason or how much of the reason at all that you think the republicans are extreme and how do you think the tea party fits into the republican party and the question of extremas and? >> i think it is the first time

-- it is a pretty substantial populist movement of the right. getting into the rallies was unprecedented. >> there were all at country clubs. [laughter] >> there's got to be a good joke about a country club arrived. riots. . just as the new left and the anti-war movement and associated parts push the democratic party to the left in the 1960's and 1970's to the ruination of johnson and mcgovern, the tea party is problematic to republicans. i happen to like to them. they are my kind of peaks. peeps. one of my ironic criticism no

that it does not take this it to -- the thesis seriously enough. the republicans may fracture in two. there is talk of a tea party candidate this year. they would run independently. it would look something like the wallace candidacy in 1968. at that point, i predict n thatorm - norm will look back on with on this on ralph nader. >> can you comment on the occupy wall street movement and with the regard that? >> the tea party movement is a

populist movement said o as theccupy movement this period rose during a time of economic turmoil, as it usually does. it was an attack on leadership and establishment leadership but i think we often use tea party as a kind of shorthand that simplifies things too much. the headaches for john boehner -- mitch mcconnell has been very cold-blooded in his strategy in a way the john boehner has not -- it was in the house for more than the freshman tea party members, the members of the republican study committee including longtime veterans like jim jordan of ohio and mike: pants and a number of others who posed a much deeper challenge. it's part of the problem was there is a natural tendency when you have this movement emerging

and people who are energized to write to that tiger and exploited as much as you can. once you have taken them past the finish line, you can call up to them. you can change the animal metaphor. if you cultivate a hungry rottweiler and it scares everybody in the neighborhood, that can be fabulous until you have to go outside. then it may not recognize to the master really is. it has been frustrating for john boehner who is a legislator and problem solver that he cannot control his troops. that is a part of what is going on here. what is also true is that the tea party people coming in as freshmen viewed themselves as different from the 1994 class. we share a lot of ideology but they went washington.

if you think the 1994 gingrich republicans went washington and they compromised, that tells you something about where we are. the occupy movement emerged from the same routes but it tells you the tribal differences between the two parties. the tea party movement was leaderless but they organized and ran candidates and moved into the political process to have an impact and they did at. he occupy movement is sitting there waiting for something to happen. they have had an impact in changing the dialogue, the 1% and a 99% that is out there and the fact that you had the published "her of the manchester union leader" saying he was going to endorse newt gingrich and not mitt romney because mitt romney is a nice guy but embodied the 1%, tells you the

impact they have had. have they had an impact on our politics or the legislative process- no, find me one candidate who was recruited a an as occupy wall street candidate to run for office. it gets back to why will rogers said heineman member -- said i'm not a member of any organized party. i am a democrat. >> a number of questions, our combatants have already taken a shot at. it has been part of their earlier comments. i think this is a very direct question and let's start with norm. doesn't it seem like democrats are unwilling to meet the gop have white? halfway? it seems the republicans went more than halfway for much of

the last century. they went 80% of the way or more and now the republicans are sticking up for republican principles while democrats the new gilded age is upon us. this leaves the pa with someuse. if you look at the trajectory of discretionary domestic spending which is most of government as we know it, it has been leveled off and declined significantly.

we've talked about how those deals were bad and republicans have been screwed repeatedly. i'll go back to my friend jenna bush who noted the 1990 budget agreement where you got some very significant restraint with tax increases and as a group -- bruce bartlett says that when you cut taxes, you don't cut spending and when you raise taxes you do and that is where we have seen those dynamics. i think you see some significant opportunity here to do more than meet halfway with the gang of six plan. steve mentioned the simpson balls commission. when president obama said positive things about the gang of six planned an said this is a framework from which we can work. that killed it for republicans because they were against it. we are not saying that the

amount play out. >> this is way to fund. too fun. obama saying positive things about the gang of six deal -- i have a more cynical take on that. that was his way of killing it. the quickest way for obama to kill a deal he doesn't like is to praise it. i've actually toured with the idea that maybe we should raise the taxes on the 1% because many vote for obama and they deserve it. the more serious part of the theory is if you want people to want less government, mabel they will pay for the government they're getting and they will want less of it.

under obama, we have seen the federal government's share of gdp go from a historic range of .3% in peacetime to 27% su we have already had this wretched with obama care and the stimulus. we're told meet us halfway. they are open to higher revenues but not necessarily higher tax rates but obama does not want to have that are given. he believes in punitive liberalism to tax the rich. people will have to move off of that if there will be in a move on the republican side to. >> do you want to respond? >> i could give a fairly robust

response to that. including that the elected government other than entitlements which have been supported by both, that spending has gone down. you have seen a willingness. you can say is a cynical move when a president says he is a part of a plan that makes dramatic cuts in most of government including medicare, so security, and medicare which is what the gang of six plan endorsed by tom -- by tom coburn and others did, you will have a hard time backing away from that and you have laid down a marker that is different from what republicans other than john boehner have laid down. as soon as they got to a dime of revenues in negotiations, eric cantor walked out admitted clear there would not be any negotiation over that period we are now dealing with a world in which there will be some increases overall because we have a population that is aging and living longer.

however you want to deal with it, we will have some increases in entitlements although we can curb that rate of growth. when you got taxes better at los level of gdp since the 1950's, the idea that cutting them further will enable you to deal with deficits and debt i find just bizarre. >> the next question -- i get this question all the time. this is one of the classic questions of an icebreaker. we have members of the media here so this is an opportunity to beat up on somebody. we will start with you -- how much does the media make the republican party look more extreme than they really are? is the media a factor or not? >> this question went around in the 2004 election.

republicans seem to be able to win despite media criticism. what is fun these days is -- i watched robert rice give elector and we all say it will likely old-style news but they don't like fox news. they're reasonable criticism is that we select the news we agree with. the media coverage was the most egregious during the goldwater era. that does not happen as much. i don't play that game. >> tom and i have written a lot about this. i think there was substantial liberal bias in the 19 60's. our media environment has

changed rapidly. we have a partisan press now that his back to the future but and much greater reach, deathah depth than we have ever seen before. it creates different facts for people. when you live in the world were 30 or 40% of the self identified members of one party believe the president is not legitimate because he was not born in the united states, it tells you something about the way our media dynamic is working. that has left the mainstream press with a dilemma. i believe they solve that dilemma by falling back on an old truism that a report both sides of the story. there is a holocaust denier and a holocaust victim and you want to give them equal shrift. if there is a hit and run driver and a hit-and-run victim -- i

think it has helped to enable some of the disfunction we have now. go back to the filibuster. when you get news stories that say the bill died in the senate when they got a majority of support and died only because of the filibuster and you don't mention the filibuster, that seems to be an accurate way of reporting what went on. means that however this plays out with either party, you're not holding the people accountable for their actions. >> try to imagine mitt romney elected president, the republicans win the senate, the house is about the same period shouldn't we expect the democrats in opposition to be a just like the republicans are beating now? it do you think they will be magnanimous, looking to concede

the republican agenda? will be so different? >> it will be interesting to watch. whether they can work together remains to be seen. let me give you another scenario that is comparable. imagine that the democrats held the senate and mitt romney becomes president. to a think the democrats will say screw you? we will be paid as the republicans did then blocked everything and all they're getting sought -- hostage? >> no, i think mitt romney will go to democrats in the sent far more than to republicans and say help me out here. and i would bet a considerable amount, not $10,000, but i bet he would find plenty of democrats willing to cut deals

with him. >> one of the problems that norm identifies in his book is that both parties are now subject to enormous pressures from outside groups. some of their reforms they like over the past 30 years is their fault. on the left, there is the rough equivalent of grover norquist. there is organized labor and other groups that bring pressure to draw a line in the sand. that will exist. this is one of my arguments i have had with norm and another domain. -- in another domain.

richard lugar would still have a seat if you still have the central party finance reforms. they have diminished the power of central party organizations and increase the power of independent organizations and insurgent groups such that a political party establishment is not very well established and cannot come to the rescue of their long serving members. >> we have time for maybe one or two more questions before closing statements. steve, this is a question that was asked about the depth ceilingvote. was the debt ceiling debate and example of extremism or do you think it was appropriate tool to constrain government? >> a fight over the debt ceiling represents the new moment we are in where republicans are saying

stop. norm is right, that is a dangerous thing to do and i am not impressed by credit ratings. the downgrade does not get mixed terribly excited. however the election comes out, the first run of the debt ceiling which was a train wreck, it might be the fiscal equivalent of a summit on arms control which ended in failure and turns out to be the key moment when people came back and said we have to see our way through this. we may have to go couple more rounds on this. we can talk about the lame duck session depending on the elections but i will stop their. >> isn't this a modern version of the game of chicken and the republicans are playing it better than the democrats? >> i was appalled what happened

with the democrats. you don't put chicken with the full faith and credit of the united states. you are ratifying previous debts. it has been a political football since we have done this. if you look at all the votes over many decades, it is almost funny as you watch the parties to exchange their scripts with each other as the presidency changes. the level of hypocrisy when you say you will stand firm for fiscal responsibility when the other guy is president and you take the script from the other guy and say we have to be responsible, all that is enough to leave anybody cynical. every time in the past the leaders know it was a game and they're not actually in danger of ruin in the full faith and credit of the unit states and

they had votes in reserve. this was different. i don't hold much truck with rating agencies and i have used standard and poor's as both standard an dpoor. when they wrote about tests -- they said this leaves as doubt that you can manage the future and watched the debacle with the super committee. it is the political equivalent "of the events"years but with kryptonite speaker john boehner said when he became speaker that there are some things where we will have to behave like adults and irresponsible and that includes the debt limit and the left the charge for another hostage taking mechanism. it says we are operating on dangerous ground. we can get away with that as long as there is no other reserve currency and other countries are doing worse than we are. it is not a gate i think we

should be playing. >> i was interviewing a candidate earlier in the cycle. we were discussing the position on raising the debt ceiling. i asked -- would you really push hard enough that we would go into default? candidate i thought was reasonably bright and articulate and do something about this the said -- yes, because everyone would know it would just be a technical default. the u.s. government is not really going to default. i thought to myself that i'm sure the european market would be very affected by that i don't know whether that is radical but that is different. we will now go to each of argentum and who will have five

minutes closing statements and i will have a brief conclusion. -- we will now go to each of our gentleman will have a five minute closing statement and i will have a brief conclusion. let's go to steve. >> ok, let me start my time -- it seems that you cannot conclude the republican party is too extreme when you began with an odd premise that democrats are liberals and really pragmatic problem solvers. in the case of obama, they self- conscious to use the rhetoric of large-scale changes. when conservatives seek changes or reforms, they are being radical or extreme. this is a nice way of avoiding arguing the merits of any issue closely. we should step back and not look at some meticulous of the hypothesis tonight including some of the reforms.

we did not get into the reforms of the filibuster and so forth the which i think would make very little difference. let's look at best from the summit. everyone should read an article that appeared in "the new criterion." the zero three is jim pierson who says we are on the cusp of a fourth great political revolution in this country. that brought home the order to our government. usually that was put through a new party becoming a dominant and long lasting majority. it could be that the fourth revolution is already under way. you could see the results from wisconsin last week. there is a classic realignment

theory but in the present case, the blue state model of governance is irretrievably broken. we are looking at extraordinary growth in multiple times of gross gdp another 30 or 40 years. it seems some state level democrats get this. democrats in san jose, san diego, the mayor of chicago, the governor of new york, they seem to get this the national democrats don't seem to know it yet even if obama is reelected in november, increasingly he and his ideology will look like a last gasp of a dying era of government putting him in the same ranks as john adams, james buchanan, and herbert hoover as the end of an age. suppose that the class of the party could be diminished

through process reforms. i think that takes optimism to a whole new level. i think that that basis that norm is taking seriously -- the problem democratic stability has been taken too much for granted. the prospect for instability happen to miss damaged by the great success of postwar democracy here and in europe. i think it is not impossible that six from -- six months from now greece would be governed by military government or spain could ask help from nato for military assistance. our prospects are not really as dire despite the suggestion that the republicans might be extremists in the same way that holocaust deniers were extremists. we are more stable than that but i think there is some prospect of the republican party breaking

up a musket ball -- holds together for its principles. it could be cut out for the tea party. if that prospect comes along, norm will look back with was a warm feelings for john boehner and mitch mcconnell and stu, you can pass the airsick bag to norm and the last word. >> thanks, i have valued having steve as a colleague and i am said he will be leaving austin. -- leaving us sen. he is moving to california. of all things. we won't go into that. i would also note that steve has been somewhat of an apostate within the conservative faction of his party and we quote

liberally from pieces he has written trying to rein in a conservative movement. we also have in steve someone who takes a conservative position on climate change but it now as there may be a problem which has resulted in him being ostracized by many as well. i have a lot of sympathy for him and what he is trying to do. i am uneasy about the future. i don't believe we will see the emergence of a new majority. i think we are evenly divided country and a large -- a large part of the problem we have is not structural, it is cultural. moving beyond a travel policy back to something where review the tribe and a larger sense and look for problem solving will be difficult to do. our book is the lament of the decline of problem-solving. as i look over the trajectory of the last few years and think about the entitlement state and think about the reality that reining in the cost and size of government comes down

fundamentally to health care costs and we did not have two parties playing to rein in health-care costs -- repeal and replace is basically repeal and we will talk about it later. populationng at a that is getting older and people living longer. long-term care will be a huge. problem we funded largely through medicaid. anybody who believes that if you cut it 30% and give it to the states they will find a formula for taking care of the elderly in nursing homes that goes beyond moving from a nurse's aide for five patients to one for every 25 is simply deluding themselves. has there been any willingness to sit down and discuss how we the liberals or conservatives can figure out a way for society to deal with the problem that people have with their parents and grandparents down the road?

whether you're liberal, conservative or anything else, these are problems that need to be resolved. they will mount a result entirely by government the government will play a role and we are no longer at a point where we can even have a conversation on those things. how we move to that point remains an enormous challenge for us. it is a challenge for both parties. i worry about a democratic party that may itself become more extreme or more liberal. it has moved probably to the 25 yard line while the republican party has basically move beyond its own goal post. you can imagine a democratic party that loses almost all of its remaining elements of its moderate and conservative movement's and decides more and more to dig it seals in. i don't think that has happened and it thinks some of the rhetoric is kind of ridiculous. the democratic party that took

prince of power and did not enact any of the labour wish list items, that came up with a health care plan that did not do single play repair but did not include a single auction, the idea that this is the secular socialist machine that newt gingrich calls it or that this is administration and the democratic party that as herman cain said is consciously trying to destroy capitalism i find a little bit ridiculous. you can imagine both parties moving further apart am leaving those traditional conservatives with no easy place to go. i do not think a third party will emerge. our system and culture will not tolerate that. we will have to find some way to get back to a culture problem solving or the rest of the country may end up looking like california squared. >> i would like to st tha thank

steve and norm for a terrific debate [applause] they showed their great intellect and stability. this and other debates are available and aei.org. norm's book will be available for purchase after we adjourn. can i see this book? kerry says. it is worse than it looks. look at these two gentlemen -- the title of this book is "it's even worse than. it looks" these two are even better than they look. we are adjourned, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the national press club will have national security and the federal budget subject. speakers include the chairman of the armed services committee and retired general james cartwright, a former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. that is on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls live on [video clip] "washington journal." buerkle testified for the senate judiciary committee. in about 45 and it's, we will look at politics and the economy with national review senior editor. at 8:30 eastern, we will at 8:30 eastern, we will discus