[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> with congress out of town for the easter and passover recess, we thought it would be the perfect time to talk about bipartisanship. we're going to bring you in just a moment a discussion a town hall meeting, hosted by the bipartisan policy center as they unveiled their new commission on political reform, an event hosted by susan page of "usa today," a bit of a different event. it features a panel of former government officials, former legislators, but also interacts with the audience in a couple of way, via the web, via twitter, and we'll give you a chance to participate this evening with this recorded discussion which was held at the ronald reagan presidential library in simi valley, california. throughout the day, we're going to be asking about whether your

views are represented in the policy discussion. lot of views posted so far, c-span.org. here's one. >> later on this evening, in about 50 minutes or so, we'll stop the program momentarily and give you a chance to weigh in live. we'll read more of those facebook posts and follow twitter, using the hash tag, you'll see it come up in the program, #engageusa. we'll ep the phone lines specifically to ask you, are your views being represented in the u.s. political process. let's get under way with the program from the reagan library. susan page the moderator, the

discussion on unity and government, we'll see you and hear from you in about 50 minutes. >> thank you. thank you, jason. it's a delight to be here today. i say that not only because it is not snowing outside as it is back in d.c., and "usa today" is so proud to be able to work with the bipartisan policy center on these big issues facing our country. when i interview someone who has served in the military, especially those who have served in iraq and afghanistan, i like to say thank you for your service. we have a veteran with us, chris marvin who served in afghanistan. thank you for your service. [applause] but the fact is, we could say thank you for your service to every single person, all 14 people, who are up here on stage for their service in the senate and the house, in presidential cabinet in state houses, in the private sector and in voluntary

organizations. let me say to all i don't have -- all of you, thank for your service. we invite everyone watching to join the conversation that's going to follow. if you're here in the audience, on out a form, the form is our webpage, you can send us an email, find us on facebook or witter, use the hash tag #engageusa. let's start with a brief video that two colleagues of mine at "usa today" prepared. it's highlight the greatest hits of hyper partisanship new york case you had forgotten any of them. let's watch. >> bipartisan solutions. >> biron bills. >> bipartisan support. >> bipartisan agreements. >> broad bipartisan support. >> bipartisan. >> bipartisan. >> bipartisan.

>> nearly everybody in washington says they want bipartisanship. not everybody acts like it. >> president clinton has been impeached by the u.s. house of representatives. >> george bush doesn't care about black people. >> the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. >> lies! >> i got news for you. you and your cronies in the government do this kind of stuff all the time. >> i am convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs butfish wait a minute. >> for the first time in our history, filibuster tactics were used against the president's nominee for secretary of defense. we're still stomach g from one fiscal cliff to the next with no long-term fix in sight. and last year, congress had the least productive legislative record since world war ii. to be sure, politics has always

been a contact sport in america on the house floor, in 1798, a federalist congressman from connecticut used his cane to attack a democrat republican from vermont during a debate over the alien and sedition act. representative matthew lyon had to retreat to the fire pit and grab fire tongs to defend himself. even some of the leading practitioners of politics worries the traditional partisanship has gotten out of control. they say it has polarized our nation and threatened our ability to address our most serious problems. and that, they say, is a change. >> by and large, it is really becoming harder and harder to cover, as a result of the extraordinary deaf lution of the legislate -- devolution of the political process in this country. >> there are a number of reasons for this,ierry mandered congressional districts, the rise of tv and radio with an

ideological slant, the permanent campaign, all that has had an impact. >> how often to john boehner and nancy pelosi talk? i suspect not much. but tom daschle and i talked very much. i had a red phone on my desk, when i picked it up, it rang only in one other place, tom daschle's desk. >> we were asking for the exact piece of legislation that republicans had authored and they wouldn't support them. they would quietly say to me, well you know it's politic well, can't. >> if i were going to make suggestions to the leaders, find a way to have more communication. it would make a huge difference. >> out in the country, outside of washington, there's consensus on how to move forward on a host of issues. >> can anything be done about it? let's hope so. >> senator daschle, let's start with you. we heart senator lott say there was a red tone on your desk and his desk, these days it would

seem like harry reid and mitch mcconnel would only use phones to look at caller i.d. to avoid picking it up if it was the other guy. what happened? >> the phones were taken out, unfortunately. and i think a lot of the communication, senator lott is exactly right. we lost the ability to communicate. some of the means by which we used to communicate have no longer become ones that are being employed by the leadership, by the membership. it's become much more piper bollic. i think a big part of it, susan, is members no longer spend much time in washington. now it's almost a badge of honor to sleep on your sofa in your office and not move your family to town. i'm told in the last congress, not one member -- new member of congress move thared families to washington. because everybody wants to be anti-washington. and i think -- so you start with this mindset, there was a freshman member of congress who said, we don't want to know how

washington works. that's not why we're here. and i think therein lies the challenge. is that we've got to make washington part of the process again and make it a valid venue for accomplishing the work that needs to be done. and it starts with better communication. >> senator snow, you said that this gridlock situation was a primary reason you decided not to run for another term in the senate. and the fact is, it seems like there's almost no one left in thed my. there was a "national journal" study that sid there was not a single republican senator in 2012 who had a more liberal voting record than the most conservative democrat and there wasn't a single democratic senator who had a more conservative voting record than the most liberal republican. we see stharts like yourself, members of congress, choosing not to continue in public service. is it miserable to be in the senate these days in what's it like?

>> if you're results of oriented, it's miserable. when you want to solve problems, you know, facing your constituents of the country, it's miserable. that's the bottom line. i'm a fighter by nature, my spartan side of my greek heritage, and unfortunately, the process has changed in the united states senate. it's no longer reconciling differences. if either side has a position, generally it's reflected as a party position, once that fails, neither side has the vote they don't move to try to resolve the differences. they become irreconcilable. the question is, how do you get past those differences? and that's the fundamental problem that's occurred in the united states senate. and you have more and more new lawmakers in both the house and the senate, in fact, there are by ew stharts since 2008,

2014 it could be 50%, to many have not been part of a legislative poddy and aren't there are with whaw howe to make a law. i always threatened to go to the floor and do schoolhouse rock, you know, and remind everybody how it works. we don't have an amendment process, we don't have a committee process, everything has broken down. i came to the sad conclusion that the fight needs to be take on the outside. that's why this is so appropriate, to engage the public, to demand change and reward those who are willing to engage in consensus building and compromise. and penalize those who don't. >> you could have been a youtube sensation singing school house rock on the floor. did you want to weigh in on this? >> i'm not a policymaker nor have i ever been one or aspire to be one, because it's clearly a complex world to live in, but i would approach this a little

bit more philosophically and i think that we're in the midst of sort of a cultural revolution where with the advance of technology there's a tremendous amount of fragmentation of personal activity and all of us now have to deal with multitasking, being in too many places at one time, having the ability to be in many places at one time, so i think the whole editing function of life has made it complicated for decision making. if we watch our children, we're kind of amazed at how many devices they master, how many activities they have during the day, i would ex-trab late that -- extrapolate that into the world of adults as well. but that brings me to a similar conclusion to senator snowe and i think ownership has to return to communities. and to people who want to model the behavior that they wish to have emulated. so for those of us involved in

business, philanthropy, nonprofit worlds, for us to now start to take possession of these problems that occur, first locally and set up mechanisms where we can have an impact, have collective decision making, demonstrate a way where we can change things first at the grassroots level, not only in our cities and towns, but our states, we clearly acknowledge that a lot of good work is being done by the governors of our states and the mayors of our cities. i think that's a place that has some value moving forward. >> thank you. we're going to post some questions to our audience to answer, three questions this hour, here's the first question. let's put it up. it's a yes or no question, go on the website and vote yes or no the first question is, does the extreme partisanship in washington reflect the true makeup of the country? and when we have some results we're going to come back and show you them. voting on this has already

started. we'll look forward to looking at that. here's a comment we got -- a tweet we got from don in allentown, pennsylvania, on twitter he said -- any impending crisis warrants meaningful action. why can't washington understand? i wonder, chris, if you could, you work with veterans and their families, when you look at something like sequestration, which is of course all the rage in washington now, what do people, what do they think about it? does it affect their lives? what message does it send about the government and how it works to have these automatic spending cuts that everyone initially said would be so unacceptable? >> you know, i think you bring up veterans and the military community and it's a group of people who have chosen voluntarily to serve our country. and i think that both parties are really able to look at the military as a portion of the population that is sort of above

the partisan politics. and so when you see something like sequestration, you see the attempts that lawmakers have taken to try to relieve the military and veterans of the burden that sequestration will have on many americans. but there's definitely going to be a fair share carried by the military. you know, you look at the idea that what everybody is talking about, carrier deployments going to stop, there are retusde naval presence, permanent changes of station when the military moves will be delayed and so you see these as, these are functional parts of both the military from a defense perspective but also of everyday life in the military and the millions of americans that are part of the military families. but moreover, some of these cuts are going to hurt veterans in a larger proportion than they're going to hurt everyday americans. 44% of the department of defense

civilians are veterans. and they'll be furloughed. that's 10% of adult americans are veterans. that's 4 1/2 times the effect on the veteran community even though the v.a. is being spared and benefits are being provided. when the department of defense civilians are furloughed they work on military bases. so we're going to have longer lines at commissaries, we're going to have reduced child care hour, maybe school weeks are cut for military schools. family counseling might be pushed off or shortened. these things are going to affect the military's families if not the rest of country. and of course you look at the idea of maintenance in the military as well. they're going to have to choose, whether they're going to defer maintenance on their ampe hangar. let's defer on the hangar because it's already falling apart, make sure we're doing

maintenance on the aircraft or -- airplane or the helicopter. that's a safety issue or readiness issue. as we move forward in the budgeting process, we're going to see lawmakers that can make those types of decisions. they can say these specific readiness decisions that are affecting veterans and military are a priority in a bipartisan nature. >> what would the business world think about this kind of decision making in the government happened in a business? i mean, of course, in some ways, lots of businesses have furloughed employees, have made every department tighten their belts, how does the business world look at this sequestration and assess it? >> i think the business community sees it as a continuation of an inability to have thoughtful discussion, debate, and reach conclusions that result in progress. in a business, one of the expressions i have, is that you appreciate the effort and

activity people put in but you recognize and reward the result that gets produced. we're not producing the right result for the mesh people. people suffering are the 12.3 million who are uninsured. i think from a business point of view, a business would say first let's get the facts. i have the sense of this process, everyone has their own set of facts. it makes it very hard to make decisions and come together. i also have the sense that there is not a respectful level of dialogue and discussion. you know new york a business, it's important not to demonize people who have different p points of view. you want to hear all perspectives, you want to assume that people have positive intent even if they have different points of view than you have. i think some of the demonization that goes on results in hardening of the positions rather than the discussion of

solutions and the production of results that creates business certainty to get more people employed. >> we want to read tweets throughout the hour. this was posted on our website from michelle, she write, partisanship has significantly impacted my conversations with family and friends to the point where i actually the re-train from discussion with people who i know will be difficult to talk to. and brian, who is a u.s. marine serving in japan, write this is on facebook. is there still a great silent majority in thed my snl to go to that question, let's look at the results of the question we've got en initially on the first poll question we posed. the question was, does the extreme partisanship in washington reflect the true makeup of the country? 63% said no. 37% said yes. so by a wide margin, americans say our politics is more driven by partisanship than the country is. i have to say we did a poll with a bipartisan policy center with a trick question to test this

assumption by many american voters, saying it's not their problem, not their fault, it's the result of the politics -- politicians. we had two education policies which we described to half the sample policy a as the republicancy and policy b as the democratic policy. then we flipped the label the policies stayed the same but the democratic policy became the republican one and the republican policy became the democratic one. we found people were -- did just exactly what they accuse politicians of doing, which is reflexively falling back into partisan corners. 75% of republicans and democrats aligned with whatever we told them their party's policy was and most of them said they held that view strongly. not just somewhat. so they were committed to this policy which was designed really, they were reacting only to the label. i wonder, congressman, what does that tell you about american voters today? >> i think they're listening to

too many news shows that reflect their own perspectives and they don't have a variety of sources of information which allows them to think and i think it also reflecks the american educational system, especially in middle school and senior high school where we no longer emphasize civics education, no longer emphasize learning and understand what your government is about, what it's doing. jay leno does this thing called "jaywalking" and they ask the questions that you have to have been born on mars not to know the right answer to, and maybe it's a staged question and answer but in many cases the people look like they were born on mars when they're answering questions about who the president is, who their congressman is, how many congressmen there are in the country, these kinds of things. they are complicated problem bus ultimately our media system, i

don't want to blame the media, our education system doesn't encourage any more, at least, a serious study of government, of politics, of how we actually operates as human beings within the context of a collective system. that is a partial reason why you see this natural i finity to be in one camp or the other catch. we've become tribal a bit. ic the institutions and the media and our educational systems don't do anything to stop that. >> i'll accept the media has some responsibility and the education system, yes. what about voters? should voters look at themselves when they see the problem and think it's so tersnble >> it's like pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us. we do give the greatest power to the people. our political system doesn't necessarily respect that. and our elected officials often don't give the public the benefit of the doubt but the

public also has to ask the right question. the public themselves can't just accept what some media star or some ideological se lot tells them is truth. -- zealot tells them is truth. that's why the communities we have in our society needs to be engaged. ron talked about, you can give me several opinions but the facts are the facts. and it's ultimately up to a lot of institutions to do that. it's not only up to politicians. they've been known to stretch the truth since the gipping of time. >> president company excepted. >> of course, of course. >> governor granholm you are both a former governor and media star. >> i would say a couple of thing thopes media side. the media has a piece of the responsibility for this because there's no doubt the media strives to achieve the most aggressive conflict they can and erefore it's not rewarded to

compromise, boring conflict is exciting. therefore the media strives, certainly the electronic media strives to get that conflict going. but with respect to people, there was a poll done that said that congress' approval rating is less than that of a number of unplus isn't a things like cockroaches and lice and you know, nickelback the band, who knew. but it is better than gonorrhea and meth labs system of maybe we have something to work with. but the reason why congress' approval rating is so lousy and i was having a conversation with a number of students the other day they said basically government has become irrelevant because the structures do not reward people participating. the structures. meaning, as larry lessig from harvard said, we reward the funders not the people. the fund verse a hugely disproportionate mega phone and

the people do not. when the people continue to see themselves be carved out of having an expression, whether it's limiting the amount of time they can vote or requiring onerous hurdles to exercise that right, then that further exacerbates the cynicism of the public. so there is a responsibility in the media, but there's a responsibility for us to devise structures that enable that voice to be heard in relative proportion to the population and in the in relative proportion to people who are millionaires or billionaires. >> the money in politics issue is an important one. before we leave the media point, i wonder, how did you respond when you did your show on current tv after serving in public office, did you find yourself wanting to see people with the most fervant views so it would be better tv? >> we wanted people who were good tv so people who are good tv are people who are talkers, who are interesting, if you have people who are boring speakers

and who are just sort of mealy, soft, nice-nice, that's not going to get you eyeballs. so definitely the cable tv network is part of the problem. in terms of not seeking consensus but seeking conflict. >> we want to read your tweets, use the hash tag, #engageusa. ian from hawaii, writes, we must not underestimate the influence of social media to saturate extreme views on politics, religion and social mores with vi tree yol. you are on social media, on a site where a partisan point of view, i wonder what role you think the media has played -- >> i'm afraid i'm not the right

person to ask about the media. i don't see the media as the heart of the problem. >> media isn't the heart of the problem, whats? >> -- what is? >> i think we have an affluent, stable society. there are some people who are very much executed -- excluded from this prosperity but generally speaking, median voter, people are relatively prosperous. when you have a stable society, there's a lot of loss aversion. we dent have a lot of fiscal capacity, so for many decades, you had relatively robust growth, relatively low taxes, relatively generous social services and now you have a moment when there are hard choices to be made and there's loss aversion system of the question is, who will have to bear the losses, who will have to sustain the burdens. when that's the fundamental questions, there will be disagreements. i think the fact that you have a lot of partisan heat reflects

the fact that loss aversion is a real phenomenon, it's a difficult proposition, when you look at -- it's exacerbated by the way we tried to solve the problem. we have engaged in successive rounds of campaign finance regulation to try to address this kind of perceived concern abfunders. now the problem is that this is in -- this has in various ways weakened the political parties. i believe political parties can flay a constructive role in channeling political passions and seeing to it that parties are oriented toward the median voter. but when you have a candidate centered system rather than a party centered system, there's an every man for himself dynamic that undermines the ability of the parties to discipline their members and discipline the extremist tendency some have identified. you are looking at deep structural problems. we want the government to solve problems. the more the government solves problems, the more it expands the regulatory authority, the

more valuable it is to roll the government and the more money will be poured into politics, rather correctly through campaign finance or indectly by purchasing media outlets. these are deep, structural problems, there are things we can do to ameliorate them but i don't think it's about perm relationships and what have you. it's the fact that we are faced with difficult problems and deep disagreements about how to solve them. >> if that's the case and we head into a round of deficit reduction talk, does that mean this is going to get worse and worse and worse because the hard choices, a lot of them not yet made, because of these hard choices continue to spiral down? >> i think the natural tendency of any democracy, any open society, is to basically only do something when you feel you absolutely must. when there's some hard constraint. i think again when you're looking at the larger economic environment, it's still pretty cheap for states to borrow. when you look at the bipartisan settlement like in 2010, ok,

we'll just extend everything. and then kind of now, you -- the sequester is an example of, they built in a different default but chances are we're going to ease it somehow and continue -- in a continuing resolution or what have you because if you don't have a truly hard constraint which is why it comes back to the parties. i think what we need are actually stronger parties that are capable of disciplining their members. and to kind of orient the parties toward the interests of kind of median voters. >> i should mention we have a second question we're going to ask people to vote on. vote on online. another yes or no question. do you only watch news from sources that agree with your views? we dent specify what shows sources might be, you can probably guess, but do you only watch news from sources that agree with your views? if you'd go on the website and vote on that, that would be great. governor, you have been involved in politics for a long time as a governor, a senator, as a member 24ef6 cabinet.

do you feel that one problem is that politicians, elected officials, are replecting their voters, or do you think -- are reflecting their voters or do you think they're out of touch with their voters when it comes to being able to compromise and negotiate? >> i feel bad >> first, i feel bad for not being invited to the program. [laughter] >> you would have been invited. >> that is what i was looking for. there is nobody left in the middle? you do not have to be in the middle to get along. the last time i was in this magnificent facility, ronald reagan's library, ironically i had received a personal invitation from a democrat ,enator, senator ted kennedy

who had been asked to come to this room and to address a room full of conservatives. he was honored and delighted he had been asked. , afterson he called me the presentation, nancy reagan said she would have a small, intimate dinner party upstairs in the apartment and i can invite a couple of friends. would you be there? i said, there is no other place i would rather be than with you. he wanted a friend in the front row among the conservatives. it was a tremendous evening. when you talk about the middle -- americans for democratic 90ion -- ted kennedy got a and i got a zero. for americans for conservative action -- ted kennedy got zero

five.got ,ancy reagan said, teddy america does not know how much ronny like each other. that is what we need. i do not know that mr. reagan would say yes, sequestration would happen on his watch. i think there have been efforts for bipartisanship. i think american politics today has migrated from an nfl atmosphere to the hunger games. [laughter] do everything possible to be victorious. you outthink, out play, and outhit your opponent. even in the nfl, an athlete will

reach down and lift their opponent back up. in the hunger games, you make sure your opponent never is capable of getting up again. we need to remember that we are still americans and working together for this country and is not jusd not just a party. out ofestration came talks. well you're the senate working with ted kennedy, did you feel it was risky are you in idaho to be in an alliance with that ?iberal alliance question mar ya as someone with a different voting record? .> yes but when you believe in the

people you work for and explain it to them and you can show them and demonstrate this is where we are on the records, but i can show you where those members of the party on the help-- -- are able to pul our founding fathers said we would never again have power in one ruling entity. you have to find consensus. that is what we are moving away from. we need to get back to that. >> congressman, does it look different to you now than when you were serving in the house? >> it has change drastically sto. it is almost as if people are afraid of their own shadows and worried about saying something or a phrase that might end up on twitter or

youtube. it did not used to be like that. some of the stories i heard earlier today are hitting the head right on the nail. talked about working with ted kennedy. some of the strongest allies i have today by democrats. we build strong relationships during those days when we still worked on bills together. were up until 11 p.m. or 12 a.m. at night. you would wind up thinking, you do not like being there that late or arguing and having votes on amendments, that you emerge from those times thinking, we got something done here. there were some colleagues in the room that might have complete opposite voting records on occasionally, but there was still, roderick. we would get up -- we would conramraderie.otter

we would get up and do it again the next day. when you empower people to do your job and get it done, emerge from that stronger. for some reason there seems to be a lack of that in this day and age. point.ade another good you do not need a middle ground, just a willingness to sit down and make tough decisions about major pieces of legislation. though lacking in this day and age is that every vote, every andch made is recorded given out to all the different groups. you may not even say something the way you meant to say it. people portray it as if you're trying to cut benefits or medicare and your supporting something that will be on a tv commercial or some kind of at

back home. it is unfortunate all of that is almost onst everyone an hourly basis. many years ago we do not have this instantaneous reporting and debating. unfortunately, a lot of people are working the internet all the time. who does not get a million e- mails every day from people on one side or the other? did you see this report? did you see the president said this? did you see the majority leader said this? and then they pass it on to their friends. you know it is out there. day in and day out. we have got to this point where they are frie afraid of their on shadows. not going toe're work on anything this week again. >> a senator made an important point. he said one of the problems with

the loss of earmarks. it did get members of congress to be invested in getting legislation through. there's something there. >> 99% of those earmarks that were done usually members and senators would go back home. there were a couple of bad apples that came along and that embarrassed congress. everyone ran from them as quickly as they could. there was a sense back then of having some sense of accomplishment and ownership. you wanted those bills to get done so you could have that cancer research improved or that veterans benefits back home. >> should we go back to earmarks question mar? beware of unintended

consequences. earmarks is one example. i asked howard baker once how he was so successful in getting things done. he said, earmarks. .eople feel invested if they feel invested in legislation because it brings theirhings constituencies, they are more willing. i want that piece to be included. two other quick examples. one of the reforms that occurred washat 1960's and 1970's caucuses. lyndon johnson only had one cock is a year. had in january. -- lyndon johnson had one caucus a year. he had in january. people say, we want to have more caucuses. now we have several of week. now it is a pep rally.

do you know what they just did? now we will do this. and it is a back and forth. everyone is charged and energized and ready to take on each other hunger games style. that is one. , but it hasparency a downside. all of the media scrutiny, even today, it makes people climb out. they do not want to say anything in front of the camera that they can possibly get in trouble with. everyone is very reserved. you cannot really be honest with your colleagues in you have all of this -- i remember we had to go through a terrible chapter of impeachment. we have the cameras on during the day. workshop the cameras off late in the afternoon around 6 p.m. or so -- we shut the cameras off late in the afternoon around 6 p.m. or so. ifwas more candid and honest

there were no cameras. we still have no record of what thereid that night, but were memorable speeches and comments. we have to figure out how to deal with these unintended consequences when we consider reforms, he earmarks, caucuses -- earmarks, caucuses. year howard baker said marks was away i got things done, if there was a new leader and they said, give me one piece of advice, what would you say? >> i would say communicate. we do not do that anymore. if i could go back and be leader again, i would insist that we have one joint caucus at least every other week. i would prefer them every week. we'll then have them disasters.

right after 9/11. we bonded. there was a chemistry. people would go to the floor and say i'm not a republican or democrat. i'm an american. .here was a sense of unity after the anthrax attack at my office, we had joint caucuses. then they dissipated. i do not know when the last one was. we do not have these joint caucuses anymore. it is a small thing. there has got to be a vehicle, a venue of communication. we do not have that. >> senator snowe? >> it happened so long ago. [laughter] every two years there'd be departing members of the senate. traditionally there would be a

bipartisan dinner in the rotunda. even dinners in honor of departing senators have now become partisan. to separate dinners. >-- two separate dinners. women act that way? they have dinners that are bipartisan. gender difference in how they behave? we do have respect, a dinner that is off the record. way it has been for more than a decade. we even wrote a book together. i know that made our male colleagues a little nervous. we met all the time.

even women in the supreme court as well. raderie that , roderic com builds trust. you know you can go to the person and say, can you help me? you work it through. no one has the patience or perseverance to work it through on any issues now. everything is separate. every day there are separate caucuses and separate lunches and discussion groups. everything is done separately to build up that divide. there is no need to build cross party efforts at all. >> let me let you into this. >> i was driving down a busy interstate and there's a billboard that said, like the traffic? don't like the traffic?

you are the traffic. [laughter] i do not live in washington. i think about how i relate to my friends and other people in my life and how we have gotten to where this topic can be toxic to our friendship. it seems so big and unfixable. how willing are my to ask different am i of a viewpoint to talk to me and tell me to understand? if we get enough people willing to do that, we are the traffic. we elect our officials. the way we keep talking about and the otherem .eople, we are all the same i think it takes a small shift for us to recognize that we are

all really at the root wanting the same thing. i come at this from a business perspective. you're trying to make it very difficult decision. you have cited a that says you should be one thing and side b that says you can do something different. and them switch sides argued other persons perspective and develop some appreciation for how the other person sees the world. what happens as a result of that, it you get much better decisions. i do not know how that applies to the political process. businesses are hierarchies. you do this and you do this and people cooperate. the other point i would make is that with all due respect, i think we are giving the hunger games a bad name. [laughter] people at least to get fed based on who wins.

"jerryel is more like springer" where there is a lot of noise, but nothing is getting done. both ron and molly talked about -- at the root of this is that we do not reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. some of these are basic concepts of life in terms of treating people well and being respect full. the public has gotten disengagement this. they see the stuff that is going on and it think all of us in this world behave badly. they also have a responsibility and to behave civilly. that is the faith-based community, the validator's in american society, the news media as well. congress is no different than any other institution.

, they do not behave well are dysfunctional. they do not develop relationships in that kind of thing. the civil behavior concept is important. >> let's look at the results for a second poll question. obviously, a very broad minded audience watching. republicans were much more likely to watch fox news and democrats were more likely to watch msnbc. i would like to ask molly really quickly -- your organization works with the girls, third grade to eighth- grade. , wow.y say i'm looking at politics. that is the path i want? i think -- the girls

determine what the gifts are. if that means serving in congress are being president of the united states, go for it, girl. i really think that maybe part of the conversation i would love to have the people who choose to run. why does this matter to you? why are you doing this? what is your endgame here? i would be honored at one of our girl says she wants to run because her reason for running would be for the greatness of this nation. do work --sk you -- if you found the people you wanted to give appointment to come up for

people he wanted to appoint, was there any reluctance because of the tone of washington? >> it was less the tone and more the burden of the process. we recently completed a mission where we focused on the appointment process our work with the senate in the house. be achieved in number success. i think there is an appetite among congressional leaders to work together to try to find viable solutions. i do want to make a comment. a very important word is relationship. the investment of people in washington d, d.c. we talked at one another. i ended up living in the basement apartment of senator claiborne's house.

one evening i decided to organize a dinner and to invite a lot of my senior white house colleagues will stop some i. someone said to me, you live in that house. can he do that? i asked if it was ok to invite colleagues to dinner. , we have eric, you now always had bipartisan dinners are. we do not think of them that way. we thought of it as inviting friends to the house. how can we not work with people in our community? our kids went to school together. they play soccer together. girl scouts and boy scouts together. investment in american families and enterprise. i haven't tried to get my congressman to have dinner with me and my apartment with some friends on the weekends -- i have tried to get my congressman to have dinner with me in my apartment with some friends on the weekends. he is never around. in as no investment

relationship with colleagues on the hill. that is a real concern. >> here is our third and final restaurant for our online audience. do you feel that your views are in the political process? we hope you will vote and we will get the results. radio,-span and c-span we're going to do something different. we will take a break. you saw the question on the screen moments ago at the discussion. we will ask you that question before we get back to the recorded program. are your views represented in that u.s. political process? we would like to hear from you on the phone, on twitter, and facebook. the numbers are --

you can also post on facebook and twitter. we are getting calls only right now on our others line. are your views represented in the political process? we have openings on our democratic and republican lines. make sure you're new to your set mute your set whenou you call in. usa today published a poll related to the discussion that was done by the bipartisan policy dinner. at bipartisanship. democrats and republicans and independents agree that american politics is more divided than ever was that 76% of those said the same thing.

we have several colors on the line. detroit. go ahead with your comment. hello. thank you for taking my call. i'm speaking for organization that deals and deals with racism in america. host: what kind of organization is this? caller: healing racism in america. host: ok. caller: it is an ongoing process. /u --c.org

caller: tie it into two nice discussion so we can hear from other viewers. a stalemate.ve it i do not know if it is because gentleman was of irish descent. madison, wisconsin. hello. caller: hi. my name is debbie. host: go ahead. caller: interesting what the caller said before me. i'm 57. is -- i have had to

become independent. one of the reasons that has come up around the dinner table is the division between parties. the social programs that are many sociallibearal, programs have permitted women topless. in that regard, you should have permitted women to be helpless ash many social program -- many programs have permitted women to be helpless. a commentke to make as an older, independent.

sometimes we have to drift from auster's poverty. some of the -- fosters poverty. some of the democratic policies have fostered poverty. on the practical side, do you find yourself voting sometimes for republicans and sometimes for democrat or green for independent? caller: absolutely. , i had to educate myself. be veryhe media to biased in one direction or the other. i have to concentrate on it you kidding -- i had to concentrate on educating myself. you talked about jay leno and

things like that. in our education .ystem in educating our voters i do not want to say political correctness i'm a because the context of that lens to being labeled. we have lost a lot in our public education system by not teaching facts. facts that are important. i learned a lot from studying human history. this is something that is interesting. some people might want to go out there and read some books about that. host: i will let you go there. thank you for your comments t. new york. caller: thank you. thank you for having c-span. i do not believe that they care anything about the people. if they cared anything about the people, they would ask

questions. but no one agrees. it is dropped. i'm a senior. we have very little money to live on and yet they sound like they want to take it away from us. host: you are calling on the republican line. bestu feel that your party represents your view right now? caller: no. i do not think any party does. thank you. host: thank you for the call. we are asking if your views are in the political process. does your party speak for you? do you find yourself on the outside of your party at times? we are getting your calls and tweaets. a couple of facebook comments. ofe is 1 -- people talk compromise. compromise an interesting word.

no one should ever compromise their principles or they would not be principles. they work for- the big ceos. ,ext up on the republican line what state are you in? caller: oregon. host: go ahead. am not i really represented very well by either party. -- bothi have been parties have literally forgotten the people and our founding. we have gotten far away from those basic ethics and morals to run our nation on. i have been really upset listening to the fighting back and forth.

they are not looking for solutions. host: a pollster is having some issues with the politics. it is allne -- partisan except jobs. part of his op-ed says, american opinion is stuck in the ditch and cannot crawl its way out. hardrs therefore have a time crafting questioners that can produce anything that's really new. democrat or a republican a question about education, healthcare, guns, energy, or environment, the first instinct is to intimate how their own party or the other party might think about the issue. that is from the hill.com.

democrat line. virginia. go ahead. hello? we lost. oh, you're on the air. go ahead. caller: hello. to thebeen listening views before me. i have to admit that i would love to meet those citizens who get votes. i have a problem with both parties. i would recommend a very good book for all americans, and that of georgeo analyst

washington university who has the en a book "obama onthe the couch."bush onthe couc my husband was a phd psychologist. -- justincountry frank him along with his release. an emptm.d. he is that we have a mental problem in this country. that is why we are unable to come together in a bipartisan manner and do what we have to do.

americansmething need to think about. we need the mental health institution to tell us the truth of how we look. to us, we look ok. host: the caller mentioned bush on the couch and obama on the couch. to can look at book tv.org find that. and much more book tv every weekend beginning at 8 a.m.' eastern on c-span 2. dorothy. are your views being represented in the political debate? caller: no, actually my name is sean. sorry. it is a software thing. we apologize. caller: thank you for taking my call.

my views are unfortunately not being represented. i will try to take to the topic of stop a lo. no negative intention, but you asked about democrats, republicans, and independents. i would classify myself as a libertarian. from that viewpoint, their are a a lot things -- there are of things that would be agreeable things to both parties. they're not confrontational. they're not creating anxiety or negative feelings. middle. he the to use the marriage situation that has been in the news lately between a man and a woman as one side of the issue and for same-sex people to be married on the other side of the issue. the libertarian view on that is that marriage does not have anything to do with government. if you have government

interacting in the marriage arena, then single people are being discriminated against. why would married people get benefits then single people? if everyone would say, that makes a good point and begin a have benefits for married people, that might be a source of revenue that we could keep for the government because nobody would get it. therefore that might solve our problems on the tax side and on the social side and it might make generally accepted principles for singles, married, or gayess of interracial or straight or whatever, it is not any of the governments business. that is a position from the libertarian side. that would be a huge solution to that one issue that everyone could embrace to let the marriage thing go out of government completely. host: thank you for the call.

scottsdale, arizona. republican line. caller: hi. this is alan. can you hear me ok? host: we can. caller: first of all, thank you for c-span. i watch all the time. i got involved in politics in 2008. tea party patriots at of georgia. very upset with the group in terms of leadership. i want to make a statement. i think it is important. the business owner for 25 years. , otherwiseolutions i would not be in business. i have to be flexible enough to know when i have to change and when i have to do different things. here is what i want to say to the american people -- there is one person in government that can say the words i have a

message and this is what i want to do for the country. i want to reduce the costs of living across the board in the united states. we can be the most competitive country in the world by doing a couple of things. our natural to use resources, which is natural gas and actually create an infrastructure on the vehicle side of the business, as well as a homeowner side of the business. companies are building themselves. host: how do you resolve that issue in terms of energy? energy development has become sort of a partisan issue of stoc. caller: companies that are invested in the amount of

profits are not controlling it. don't you agree? we all feel that. the people of the united states over the natural resources. we, the people. it is all about the people and we on the natural resources. it is not chevron or any of those people. we do. take a look at north dakota and those states that are fracturingking. 3% unemployment. we can eliminate the gradid completely by having a natural gas sell that produces electricity -- cell that produces electricity. it is already here. there is a company that has

been on "60 minutes" twice. i'm sure there are other people that have these cells. host: thank you. we want to get as many calls as we can. here is one on twitter. not beingy views are represented. and very socialist and believe lots of public works progresjex. bonilla was a vanill great rep. views beingitical represented? a couple more calls in a moment. flavor of give you a the conversation this evening if you just joined us. comparing the game of politics to the game of thrones to the game of football in the nfl. here is what he had to say. if mr. reaganow

if he could join us if he would say, yes, sequestration would happen on his watch. be effortsre'd toward bipartisanship. i think american politics today has migrated from an nfl atmospheric to hunger games. [laughter] , you do everything possible to be victorious. you outthink him out play, and outhit your opponent. even in the nfl, and athlete will reach down and picked her up on a backup. surenger games, you make your opponent is never capable of getting back up again. stillget that we are americans. we should be working together for this country and not just the parties. back to a couple more calls. are your views being represented? jackson, tennessee. i there. rere. thr

caller: i'm in jackson, tennessee. i was just thinking that the problems and so forth, they don't work together. i remember when i was a youngster growing up the bridge washed out. everyone in that community came. from allcame together different denominations of the church. they came together and worked bipartisan and be live just and christian way in the american way of life. everyone was happy. everyone felt great about this. i feel likee people are violating the constitution

of the u.s. i feel like someone needs to be arrested. host: we go to white pine, tennessee. go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm not happy with the representation on a national level. we have been fortunate in tennessee to have some good people responsible in trying to do their job. one of the problems i have experienced in working with young people is i get a chance to work with the kids in the high school here. i had a copy of a textbook. if you want to look at where the problems start, it comes in a basic understanding of what happens in our history. you have revisionist history being taught in tennessee. host: give us a quick example from the textbook. caller: i will give you a good example. i observed this personally at

the smithsonian air museum when it opened up the first week. it was the fact that we drop the bomb. the textbook of my local high school junior class indicated , at this was a racist effort racist motivation to drop the bomb. has no foundation, but they are teaching this that young people sees the united states as a villain and not as the country that brought people together and saved millions of lives all across races. facebook.com/c-span. people on this panel a typical pink tank big

government proponents who haven't a clue what the problem is. all talk and bowl. -- all talk and bull. >host: one more call. back to texas. richmond, texas? hi. go ahead. i think our politicians are saying that they are working for the people. in reality, you are working for themselves. if someone says they're working for an idea, that is not true. what happened in our politics since the election of george , bipartisanship

ended. timesmber in the old senators like jackson and mourn they did notan, work for the democratic party. that type of politics is not here anymore. fory politician is working the next election. host: you mentioned the election of 2000, george bush and al gore, as the high water mark. that started the lack of cooperation. had it been building since then? has it gotten better? as a building before then? -- was it building before then? caller: i didn't see anything getting better.

it is going in the opposite direction. everyone is fighting for their own future. host: thank you for your call. we appreciate all of the calls. the conversation continues online ad facebook.com/c-span. we will take you back to the town hall meeting on governmental unity. they will ask the same question we have been talking about -- are your political views represented? here is a look. >> our third and final question that our online audience can vote on -- do you feel that your views are reflected in the political process? do you feel that your views are reflected? we hope you will go and we will get result in a few minutes. here is a comment on twitter. he says, please solve the root

problem instead of the symptoms. plurality voting is gerrymandering equals -- in a similar comment on sean on primaries pushan candidates to the extreme. a. jungle time areas. incentive is to moderate. of openthis idea primary where the two finalists dance forrimaries the final office, is that something you think would help? our goal is always to make sure that we provided our voters with all the information that they needed so that they could go out and vote. we're always looking for ways to simplify things and encourage voters to participate in this democratic process.

my frustration has been that we have discourage voters. have been discouraged because of negative campaigning. they do not understand what is going on. their lives are so busy that they do not have time to do the proper research. to make sure everything is readily available for them. when they go, they could make an educated vote. a message to everyone has always been, this is one of the most important privileges as americans. but dissipated in this incredible democratic process. we must not give up. my answer ton, any question was, i follow the will of the legislature. those are the people that you elected. look atthat we opc to ways that we can encourage voter participation. always need to look at ways that we can accor n

encourage voter participation. your vote counts. every single vote counts. but that is the perception. people are tired and angry. i often have people come up to me and say, i'm not going to vote. i'm tired of hearing about this election. i say, do not give up on voting because you're not happy. just don't vote on that particular thing. >> what you think people say my vote doesn't count? >> they just feel -- texas, where not a swing state -- but it is not whether you are responsible for electing the president or not. it is the matter that as americans, this is a privilege that we have. we should exercise it.

people like chris, fight for this. we should not take it for granted. in texas we always say that we are texans, but we are americans. i get so disappointed when other countries are fighting for this and we have it and we don't use it. -- i wasoung people always excited when i see our young people at our polling places. it was always the regular theors that helped out of polling places. we need to get young people involved in this. you are the future. we cannot give up. is going tontry uncertainty and we are divided. but you know what? we will get back. .> sorry i do not mean to enter. >> we cannot give up. electione an expert on

law. is it becoming harder to vote with some of these new security laws? or is it appropriate measures that many states are considering? >> it is becoming harder to vote because of security laws and various efforts to make it more difficult for people to get to the polls. it is too bad. the voter id i from academic perspective might be one of the silliest things around for the simple reason that there is no evidence of people committing fraud. imagine you want to steal an election. you are not going to bust 100 people the polling places and have them pretend they're some else and hoping the poll worker doesn't think that the remember that someone so died. >> of advice for people are

question mark -- thereby spared people -- ?o the advice for people is >> they're not looking for the right solutions. >> what is the right solution. >> early voting should be the grand compromise. a lot of republicans are rightly concerned about fraud. a lot of democrats are rightly concerned about access to sto. every american is concerned about both. early voting is highly secure. , it makeser hand voting easier for working people who cannot take it on a tuesday because they had kids to pick up and buses to catch and so on. it is a beautiful solution. the american people love it. >> we sought to of our most

important electoral states limiting early voting. why has that happened? it is for political advantage. the thing about election reform that you learn very quickly is mostpeople who know the about this reform are people who want to manipulate reform. these thingsto use to their advantage, they will. >> you are a republican. there has been a real republican initiative. is it just politics? >> politics will play a role, sure. can i give you a poll? >> absolutely. super bowl ads. the number one ad was by advisor. wiseddweiser.

that is where americans are. they have hope. her. sam simi valley, how many of you might consider some day going into public office? look at that. that is tremendous. there is hope. politics is part of this, but it needs to be pragmatic. it needs to reach out. we talk about relationships. tom, you remember when you and , i wasnd john and pat the only republican with you, but we went on a trip. we were in vietnam. we went to a village where many of them had lost their legs because of the landmines. there was an elderly gentleman. between us he put his arms

around your neck and my neck because he wanted to get across the village. wehad no idea what party were. he just knew that two americans were helping him. that is a relationship. when we come back from that sort of trip, you probably will see a little bit more i die. we may not agree -- will probably see a little bit more eye to eye. it was ted kennedy, the liberal to his senate colleague and said, this guy should be confirmed. we will look at this and look at gerrymandering and the election laws. but we must not lose sight of the young americans in the --rit that exists where there. >> poll question -- do you feel

your views are reflected in the local process? 70% said no. margin, americans do not feel that their views are being reflected. .hris, you're not a politician do you feel this way? >> i don't know if i can answer that for myself but the moment. i'm listening carefully. carefully to what many of the panelists are saying. the secretary said something regarding military service. i served in afghanistan. during the first election post i aman in afghanistan, fortunately went home early because i was wounded -- i

unfortunately went home early because i was wounded. -- f was a friend ballot ramed ballot. they are really pretty actually. that was a significant thing that we had done. we brought the right to vote to the people in afghanistan. while we have heard over and , molly talked about responsibility, and our hash tech today is #engage usa. it is our opportunity to make a decision maker -- entegris let's ability. -- and take responsibility.

>> i work with young people. everyone wants to change the world. what better way then to run for office? that is one great way. and terrified of the notion of running for office. i would rather serve the world in other ways. there's an image of what people who do that are life. sometimes i think young people do not see themselves doing that. i wonder as far as his dialogue -- as far as this dialogue, these are not and that we currently see. >> congressman?

>> people would be more excited about voting it this our results -- if they saw a result -- watch our federal legislature --, you get the feeling that nothing is happening. therefore, it is great to say that voting is this great privilege that we should have him a which it is. if you don't see that it has that much impact, in terms of how of what is coming out of work that is coming out, then it gets you down. maybe it is not so effective. one of the things that we have to marry in addition to the issues we're talking about today

is that the work product of government, it is very important when a person considers how he or she should get engaged with the political system. in recent years, a law folks feel that it hasn't probably probably matter, because they don't see any impact in their lives. we have to address that. >> congressman? >> malaysia something humorous but it hit the nail on the head. a lot of times, we as americans do want to take responsibility for our -- what is happening to us. .an touched on a similar thing no one teaches civics anymore. the school system somehow is lagging in teaching us about responsibility of government and so forth. more people pay attention in this day and age to what cell phone plan they have, good parking spaces, they know more arout the cardassians -- k

dashians. elections are often times more important than a federal election in any given year. the turnout for those elections is in single digits. even my home state of texas, where we think we are always always so responsible, two percent or three percent turn out for a school board election that will determine a salary, school supplies, and the future of whatever district you live in. we really need to reflect as a nation what are we -- we have created this problem for ourselves. americans want america to have more bipartisan elected officials in washington, a could vote for them. ,nfortunate, -- unfortunately they like people who say we don't want you to compromise.

there is a huge voting block out there that is not show up that wants bipartisanship, but they don't educate themselves enough to even show up and have responsible votes. let us not forget that the root of the problem might be, it may not be in washington, it may not be in the state houses it may be in our own homes and neighborhoods where the root of this problem is. >> thank you. >> i think that it is true that people are discouraged and don't show up. there is some rash -- rationality. they thought if there he show up, then their vote doesn't really count. they are making a decision that michael is not going to count because it does not reflect the community that i and man. i do think that the tweet that talked about gerrymandering was a right on the money.

california is doing an experiment that is worth watching. can you elevate the redistricting process to something outside of the purely 2010,cal arena in every 2020 question mark can you move it somewhere else so that you can make rational deciansis rinr man during -- or not gerrymandering. we are rewarded for good behavior, we are rewarded for bad behavior in congress because of gerrymandering. i saw a comment by one of the president advisers who said should he call marco rubio by immigration, and he said, does marco rubio want to be seen out into the president? we are rewarded for being a part -- apart. early voting is a great idea to

allow more people to express themselves. a different system on form and congressional districts is critical. money is absolutely corrosive. the issue has to be fixed to read -- has to be fixed. >> people don't have those choices anymore. ,ecause of the gerrymandering but you don't have centerleft and center-right candidates in primaries. even in the general election, you'll have a choice. in the final analysis, because on the -- because of times the far left is the only choice that emerges from a primary. that spells over into the legislative process. over into the legislative process. you mentioned earlier that they

-- there are no people in the middle. thepoint is, i agree with director, you do not have to be in the middle to work things out. there was a time in my district where we could work things out from the right and the left. the disagreements, that is why we were there. are republicans, democrats, independents. it is how you work it through. as what is not happening now. -- that is why it is not happening now. n't the case anymore. opening up these primaries is going to be crucial to -- so there are more choices. >> quickly, i think she is so right. there is one other element to this. elections have become so

sophisticated that it takes jennifer's point about money and the sophistication that comes with voter turnout, and groups can now hijack the primary process. -- when theycked hijacked it, it no longer reflects the views of the people who live there, because they do not turn out because there is utility to it. that whole environment allows for groups to capture that elective process and exacerbate this process significantly. >> gerrymandering is also pointed to as the one source of the problem. we see high levels of polarization in places that cannot be gerrymandered. polarized.e highly

it does not take much work or money or effort to get a small group of people out there so the interest groups earn a huge amount of power during the primary process. -- i have, the effect been puzzled by this conversation about the conversation of washington now and 10 years ago. people haven't changed. the incentives have changed. even the people that we understood to be moderate in the past, the fear of the primary challenge has yielded such control over the imagination of folks in washington that the reason they are so nervous of taking any position is because of the primary challenge, which is where they get punished any way that the middle voter would never punish them. it the primary voters will because of the power money yields.

>> that is a trend that has developed in recent years. >> that is what i think is the incentive. >> one indication of that is there are only 21 senators and the knighted states senate that are one party affiliation and their states voted for the presidential candidate of the opposing party. 79% of the senate isn't going to be willing to take a risk by incurring a primary challenge by crossing over. there is no benefit. thehe public, it is true, public feels differently. when you have $.5 billion outside advertising in these campaigns, the difference between this election and 1990 is 75 times the amount. can't even fight

, or in primaries general elections. that is where it is emerging in these primaries. that is the recent. we always had differences. we could work it out. >> we have spoken a lot about this corrosive cynicism that seems to be perpetuating itself. lest you feel that all is lost, i want to assure you that some of the was rewarding years i have had in federal government was being on the side of the desk and meeting people every day who wanted to serve their country. but not given up on the american enterprise. i was so happy to see the number of you who raise your hand in the audience. our mission is to engage everyone in a conversation about how we ensure that people who want to serve can serve effectively and get good results. there are people every day sign up to serve, who really believe

that service is the best commitment, and the greatest gift they can give back to their country. i do not want that to be lost the challenges we have here today. >> you beat me to it. that is what i wanted to reassure. there is a sense of pride. when i was growing up, someone would say, he is your senator. i look up with such pride. he was our senator, or she was our congresswoman. don't lose that. some years ago, air force one flew right over me as i was headed on a highway. tears started rolling, because it was air force one. it it matter who the president was at that time. it was air force one. plane.the president's it will come back.

everyone is watching us. we have to come back. i wanted to add something that heather had said. that is the great thing about these forums. we may respectfully disagree, but we are out -- all trying to work together to make this a better nation. i will tell you that for me, it wasn't about who was right and who was wrong, it was about protecting the process. making sure that voters have the confidence that this process was one that everyone could be proud of and respect. there was a report in 2005 that was done at -- a bipartisan report. a voter id to protect that process. just keep that in mind. we look at these things, it is republican it is a issue or democratic issue. are we doing the right thing to

protect the process? and, early voting really is the trend. i saw that more than half of our voters did early voting rate you could stop as you're going to the grocery store, on your way to work, anywhere. i see that as a trend. we should continue to do that. >> we now 5000 people watching us on the webcast. a big audience across the country great we are still taking their tweets and reading their questions. the governor raise the issue -- the first is, from jones and orlando flowed our -- from jones in orlando, florida. it seems like all interesting legislation these days is written by corporations or some

special interest group. how do we stop this? another comment from twitter, how can we get our elected officials to vote against the interest of campaign contributors? what would you say to these two questions? >> this is such an enormous issue. members of congress represent -- spend their time raising money. members of congress spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money. whenever there is a bill to be considered, they chair people of those committees have a huge opportunity to raise money from those who were effected area death whenever there is a sunset provision on a tax extender, there is an opportunity. those who are benefiting want to preserve their benefits. the amount of money being raised is so out of proportion

from those special interests to that being raised by -- induals, and fax, fact the top 32 donors match the donations of 3.7 million people giving under $200. 37 people versus $3.7 million. he you are going to go where you can get the biggest bang for your buck. these races are too expensive. getting money or reducing the influence of money over elections is the most important job that this group can consider. >> how would you do that? >> you need a constitutional amendment, honestly. that would reduce or limit the amount of donations of that -- you have the whole issue of spending being speech.

the supreme court has decided. if the issue corporations being people him and therefore being free to spend. there is a cluster of issues that have gone to the supreme court that could be addressed by constitutional amendment. that would require a huge lift. it would mean that they people across the country would have to be involved. two thirds of the state would have to have congress to convene a constitutional convention, and three quarters of the states would have to ratify the amendment. that is a huge lift. if ever there was an issue that needs to purify our elections, it is removing the overwhelming influence of money in politics. some indication of the trend here, when i ran my last time in 2004, i race was the most expensive in the country. all the money spent on both

sides was $50 million. i thought i was a lot. in the last cycle, the two most excites of races or virginia and massachusetts. those two races, all the money spent in each of the two races was over $80 million. just a short number of years, we've gone from $50 million to $80 million. i have no doubt in the next cycle we will see -- we will exceed $100 million. there has to be an end to this incredible escalation. >> how would you end it? >> i do not think there is much financing. public i support it. i do not think you will ever get it done. jennifer has the only real answer. draw this tension between speech and money to read this a prank or has ruled that money is speech. you can't limit speech by limiting -- you are limiting speech by limiting money. i don't view that

interpretation to be the correct one. that is how the court ruled. the only way you can get around it is to offer constitutional amendments. i am sure people our audience participants, i suspect that today there would be this support for it. i cannot think of another way to deal with the alternative. >> we should pull that question. >> when gene mccarthy ran for president, he was going up against an incumbent president. the only reason while he was asked why he was able to run was because it is centric antiwar millionaires. when you look at a system that is very tightly regulated, it is going to tend to benefit people who don't have to worry about spending as much money because they already have name identification. we tend to be talking about them, politicians. there is a legitimate amount of

problems. there is interesting issue here. your political party, these are the broad relations that represent people of different views in our country. these political parties are not allowed to engage in corrugated spending with their candidates. if the democratic party were able to engage in unlimited spending with candidates, they could say, we're going to turn this this into a competitive race. we are allegedly that by a young iraq war veteran who does not have a big fundraising network, isn't a multimillionaire. let's had all the expenditure limits are placed right now, but say say the democratic party can run a candidate with a promising candidate, and we're going to engage in coordinated spending. with the sealer packs, uncoordinated spending does not work very well. it is highly inefficient. this is how you will see the

article consultants -- political consultants owning up to this. these are public and super packs were buying ads in windsor ontario -- windsor, ontario because it would make it into the markets. folks who cannot finance campaigns.can run if you are an incumbent politician, you don't necessarily want situation in which both our teas are able to run far more competitive races. it is absolutely right. think about how much individual candidates have to spin. read about the quality of candidates you're missing out on when you only allow candidates that can raise a certain amount of money on their own.

-- to give them more power would be a mistake. there is a room for finance reform. >> i have a secret to tell. i have never told anybody else. >> you can trust us. when summit came into see me to ask for for my boat or my position, in the back of my would think, that would be a good person to invite my next fundraiser. here is the point. it it defies the point -- force of laser -- it defies nature that people give the money with the expected something in return. that is the way it has always been. the question is what has become

everything else. what can we do about it? without getting so overregulated. i would love to pass a constitutional amendment. i opened the public is going to be inspired to do that. there are some things, for example, ali congress is in session, why should they be able to go out and raise money? well you're in session, you can't raise money during session. at least the time you're voting on bills, you're not out seeking money and resources. everything has consequences, so they can find other times to do it and work around it. we're going to be more creative in finding ways to reduce the impact that it has on the time and the occupation box ability -- flexibility. i love a constitutional and minute, but i do not think it is likely to be in the cards. >> we spent a better part of a

decade trying to pass a bill. ultimately we did. one of their provisions was mine struck down in citizens united. ,e drew a very bright line saying if a group ran an ad 30 days before a primary, 60 days before an election, and said tell senator snowe to vote no on this legislation, then, it would have to be able to be a political action committee. that was struck down in citizens united. what was worse was what the court did. they would 100 years back and unraveled case president on

corporations and unions being able to provide unlimited funding. the biggest change that has occurred is outside money. candidates no longer have control of their races. you have outside groups coming and spendingate, thousands if not millions of dollars. the lady of toward but the person you're running, you have to have to worry about how much money has the -- you spent a lot of time raising money. with everyentioned, election. it is going to be a question of both sides working against -- again together. there was a mention in the last congress, the disclose act. it was not something that was put together by both republicans and democrats. we would work on that to make

sure there was a balance. this outside money is a crucial question. one is going to have to be addressed by both sides if we're ever going to tackle it. i don't think an amendment would work. the way to think about a money problem is that you cannot get a constitutional amendment. think about where the money is coming from and where it is going. it would be very useful if we started matching small donors so they have an incentive to come out to small donors. the obama campaign figured this out. moneywere moments where was just rolling in. if that money were match, it would create a lot more incentive to patent into the small donors. you do care about where the money comes from.

the other point is where the money is going. the parties can sullivan accountable for what they are doing and stay on message. you can also hold the money accountable when they cross the line. those components, where the money is from, and where the money goes has to be on the table. >> we've gotten a whole series of questions from twitter, and from facebook, and from our audience about filibusters. one of the questions about the filibuster. what is the worst example of the filibuster in the senate? who is a candidate for the worst use of the can't -- the filibuster? >> we have two former senators. >> that is interesting. however you wish to answer is

fine. >> while others are thinking, the worst is the number. the sheer number. -- from 1917 to 1967, is going through difficult times, including the vietnam war and the civil rights movement. there were 50 filibusters. th congress, there were 129. the sheer number is in my view the worst aspects. there is plenty of blame to go around with regard to why that is. i think that would be my candidate. >> anybody else? i think the question is really the number.

the sheer number. it gets down to breda in the senate and the lack of communication and 20 liters in to theto -- it gets down lack of communication. as you know, the leadership reached an agreement at the beginning of this year, albeit temporary, where there will be a motion to proceed, there will not be a filibuster him and the majority has agreed to allow amendments, but i hope that is not the ceiling. it is designed to be a deliberative body. it is what it is all about. to slow down the process and do -- to work it through. it is not the rules of the senate. it is the human behavior behind it. the fact is, we are not having

a deliberative process. you get the threat to the fella but ash -- filibuster on our side. .r, there is a concerted effort that is going to change. there is a reason for the culture to end the filibuster. it is to protect the rights of a minority. thresholdild -- vote is important. it is majority rule, but it is predicated on accommodating the rights of the minority. hopefully they can return to some traditional means by which to consider legislation in the senate. or all article purposes, that is not happening. ,- four all practical purposes that is not happening. compared to the previous

majority leaders, where it was 40 times over 22 years, we have a problem on both sides. >> to pick on that. the house of representatives, the people's house, 435 members, often they are limited to one minute to two minutes of comment. that's it. there are so many. the body of the senate, if at any point one party gets over 60 votes, where high per theftically they can change the rules and eliminate, they would never do it. some day with low politics they will be in the minority so they want the 60 vote. along with the filibuster and it is the tool of butting a hold on the nominee. this is what drives a lot of good people away. you put a person's life on hold.

someone is going to say, nope, we're not going to vote on this nominee until this issue is dealt with. it may have nothing to do with the person. in role playing, sometimes you should argue the side. congress does this all the time. i will tell you when we flipped sides. it is when we go from my or thety -- minority to majority. when they have the white house, they believe that the president's nominations taken up or down. but as soon as they lose the white house they are the obstructionists. here's my suggestion, that is if you all agree, and you have them on record, both parties on record, even when they were in the majority that they support that. put an effective date that is in this instance five years from now when you do not know who will have the white house. don't affect the incumbent.

but put it far enough out there. a number of these measures can be done that away. put an effect i have date that does not -- effective date that does not affect the incumbents. >> we're almost out of time so i want to see if anyone has a point they want to make that they feel has been overlooked or a response that someone did not get to. > we can't aforget the affectiveness of social media. among 80% of the voters, they did not get their information from tv. when you look at this money that is spent on television ortizing it may or may not be effective. it is facebook, twilter, and that is where this -- twitter and that is where the there is a science. that is where it is growing. at some point the dollar may not

be relevant, it may be who understanding social media most effectively. >> our founding fathers wanted our system to not work very well. we have to start with that. they created a system that institutionalized conflict because they created separation of powers. they did not want a strong executive versus a strong congress. they wanted equal. then they divided congress into two equal bodies. the whole thing was designed so we wouldn't be able to rush over anybody. we couldn't move fast. it is the one foot on the brake action oot on the accelerator. that is what they wanted. in order to get anything done you have to work through relationship building and develop trust in order to get through that great barrier that

the constitution has set in. in my mind in recent years those barriers are more difficult to jump over because of all the factors we talked about today. even if we get -- make changes and get through the barriers, this country still operated pretty well because there is a fern distrust of giving too much power to the government. i don't want people to think that we make these changes and we'll be able to solve every problem overnight. this system was meant to be slow, complex, and at times very frustrating. >> governor, did you have a final comment you wanted to make? no. senator daschle. >> you started the video by talking about the caining incident and there's a number of incidents. i just read an account -- there's a fantastic man who worked in the senate for 67

years and he writes with great clarity about the many things he saw on the floor. senators used to pull guns on each other and they passed a resolution that all fisticuffs had to occur off the floor. i can testify in the last 30 or 40 years there has not been one cain or gun pulled on the senate floor. >> something to brag about. >> exactly. >> i guess i would make a final comment. that is what a pleasure we've launched this here at the ronald reagan library. nancy reagan, again a lady of great class issued a letter to us welcoming us. our collective love and affection for nancy reagan. when you think about her and the role that she played as ronald

reagan's support, soul mate, some day if you have a panel with our spouses. if trish was here instead of me, four spouses -- i think you would get that perspective too, the role that families play and how they need to be factored into this as well. it not just political science, it is people trying to live. to nancy reagan and all the spouses trying to live, god bless you. [applause] >> that's a great note to close on. i would like to say the people who are sending us questions and twitter are talking to each other. here's a comment from jason in florida. the two parties have been like red sox and camp i can fans. yankee fans.

and half of "u.s.a. today" the bipartisan center i would like to thank everyone who made this possible, including all of the panel and the ronald reagan library and especially the audience here and online. this is not the end of the conversation but it was a great start. thank you. [applause] >> you can watch the town hall again tomorrow morning. we'll have it at 11:00 eastern time here on c-span. on another note on bipartisanship, the chamber of commerce and the c.i.o. says that big business and major labor unions appear to end a fight over low-skilled egotiations.

that story from the associated press and we'll hear from the head of a.f.l. -- c.i.o. he'll talk about visa programs for workers from other countries and what they should be paid in the u.s. and how the company wants a system of wage rates that ensure u.s. workers won't be hurt by foreign workers. more on wages on "washington journal." we'll talk about payroll taxes and wages. then president obama named juliet peterson as the new secret service director. we'll talk about the mission, the role of the agency. that is followed by the influence of the glock pistol in the united states. all of that on "washington journal" starting live tomorrow 7:00 a.m. eastern.

next investigative journalist seymour hersh talks to journalist students about using unanimous sources. we won the pulitzer prize for the coverup in the vietnam war. this is about an hour and a half . [applause] >> thank you. investigative journalists are described as custodians of conscience. investigating reporting, the craft of revealing hidden truth is thought to be the highest form of journalism. in the practice there are few more prominent figures seymour hersh. e started in 1959.

his subsequent career of checking things out like exposing the my lai assacre. these revelations won him a pulitzer prize, and there have been numerous national awards ecognitions cents. -- since. those journalists who have dabbled in investigative reporting that challenge and official emeritus and make mincemeat out of sacred cows know the work invites criticism, and he has received some. one comment came from a former defense official who called him the closest thing america has to a terrorist.

the nixon administration snooped through his tax forms. mr. hersh has kept reporting. one thing that makes that notable is some of his best work has been done as an independent journalist, not backed by resources. he was called a scoop artist. a recent history describe him as a new reporter known for his rains. tonight the indiana university school of journalism is delighted to welcome mr. seymour hersh. >> you will not be laughing or smiling when i am done.

i will talk about chasing a story and do a narrative. i will try to make get interactive. try to talk a little bit about that oxymoron, journalistic ethics. [laughter] then there is the world going to hell today as it was 10 years ago. we're not out of the woods yet n the sunni-shia muslim -- we can talk about that and i will answer your questions. i will tell you a little bit about journalism, the back to the my lai story. i know you want to get your parties later tonight. what we will do is i will put

you back in 1969. a free-lance kid. i started at city news, and i failed law school. i did not like it. i went to chicago, i had gone to college there, and i bumped around and got a job as a reporter for the city news eporter, which covered crime because there was so much in chicago, but i worked with other guys so i got a taste of some of the good journalists around. they did the army stuff, which is boring, and it was before any war and you played a toy soldier. it was ok, and i went back and got to upi and covering the legislature in south dakota -- that was ok. you learn something about

cynicism because i spent a lot of time with the soiux tribes, because nobody was writing about hem. george mcgovern, a decent guy, e wrote a lot of stories about them, and you never knew where stories will go. that got me to the associated press which got me to washington, covering the vietnam war. in 1965, on-the-job training for learning how to hate a war, because going there, working in washington, and as a correspondent, and the a.p. has juice because every story you write is on every editor's esk.

the other thing was you get to now military guys. i was saying earlier although i m critical of my government, one thing that you find in the cia, all these agencies in the military, what makes the world work is you find a one-star general or people that are not loyal to the two-star generals or the chief of staff or the army, but are loyal to the constitution, and that is drifting away more particularly as you see the erosion of congress in its oversight capacity, the growth of the executive. there are still people deep inside, so as a young reporter covering and having lunch with officers who have been to vietnam, i would learn about

what was going on that everybody killed was counted as an enemy. the body count, some of you know about it. if you are young and you do not know about it, that is the -- i remember growing up in chicago in the 1940's, and world war i and was flanders field and fields of poppies. it was not impossible for students not to worry about a war. the thing that ought to be worrying about that war that we fought a war in a country about which we knew very little. i am talking at the top, the civilian top, in the white house. we did not know the history, ulture, society. we saw them as potential commie adversaries. one of the things that was so

horrifying to me as i got into the my lai story was our soldiers would go unprepared for the primitive society, but it had been a society for 2000 years. if you ever moved -- we were relocating people at some point. they were badlands, areas controlled by the communists, and we wanted to relocate badlands. we built little hamlets in safe places and try to relocate people who had been on the same place for 2000 years. one of the things that happen is mothers always crossed a threshold first before the children. that is a cultural thing. our boys would come in and gather the people up and we are going to relocate a village. we had 10 choppers and fly them out. the mothers would insist, and

american boys, we put the kids on the plane first. the mothers would fight like hell to be there first, and the kids with the how horrible these others were. it is amazing stuff. the only thing that is important about the war now is that we end up a couple decades later going into another culture in iraq about which we know very little, and then we go into afghanistan and now the french have gone into mali. hat will not end well. it is always amazing to me, breathtaking how we can just stagger from one colossal destructive mechanism to another. in some way, being america and a lot of good things -- anyway, so worked for the a.p.

i got edgy in my reporting. the a.p. was negative about my reporting. my attitude was toward the truth. i was pushed out, reassigned to an education beat, and i resigned and went to work for eugene mccarthy, who was running against johnson. mccarthy was a benedictine, brilliant philosopher type from minnesota. there were a lot of things he did not know much about. he played hockey in college, and baseball, and an amazing the bright guy who would talk about the vietnam war as immoral. what? a politician making the notion that something is immoral that we do? is iraq immoral?

it was breathtaking to see the hopeful period. i moved on from that. politics is awful. it is, just awful. i read today that axelrod is oining nbc and robert gibbs is joining nbc, and we know that george stephanopoulos is now at abc. it is amazing -- and you wonder what the press does not really get going. my attitude toward cable television and all these reporters going on cable television is simple. if you took away all these guys, this clause, "i think," none of them could say anything, because none of them know very much. so i am there in 1968, freelancing.

mccarthy, i do four or five months there. i am freelancing in 1969. nixon is in. nixon campaigned on that great campaign slogan, had a plan to end the war. it turned out that his plan was to win it, but we did not know that. so i'm minding my business. i had done a book, chemical and biological warfare, but i was married, had a kid, and if i made $8,000 in 1969 it was a lot. my wife was a social worker. four gallons of gasoline for a uck. also heating oil was 18 cents. you could live. in late 1969 i got a contract from random house to do something on pentagon waste. i am doing it.

it is money in the bank. i get a call one day. it was from somebody who ended up -- he became an educator who became head of the voice of america for bill clinton. he was chairman of the department of journalism at southern california. at that time he was an anti-war awyer. somehow he has picked up -- he will not tell me -- he said, there is an amazing story going on. some guy, some g.i. has shot up by a lot of people, it is a huge scandal and the pentagon is trying to suppress it. i could not -- he would not tell me who told him. i only knew him through his brother, i did not know him, but i had read all of these --

advice i give to journalists is simple -- read before you write. i had read the various books published by the american friends committee and the anti-war people who would come back from vietnam. there were worked hearings in 1968 to talk about atrocities they witnessed. i read that stuff and paid attention to it. i also knew from talking to the young generals i met at the pentagon, you meet young generals and we talk about the redskins and you get to learn that basically a lot of them thought they were in the business of mass murder. absolutely, the good ones. i knew there was something to this story, and i started working it. probably because i was bored with my book. what do you do? you are confronted with the rumor. the first thing i did is -- because i spent time at the pentagon -- we keep very good records of any criminal

activity. that it was he was being prosecuted. went to the legal office of the pentagon and into the bowels of the bureaucracy, and i started reading the files, looking for a murder indictment or investigation. i found nothing that met that criteria. there were the usual rate at here and murdered there. nothing that smacked of anything improper that was grotesque. this is instinct, and you do it, and i will tell this story a ood way and a bad way. i want you journalists to be or aybe not to be -- if you think about it -- where are the jobs? you will find something. [laughter] there is always the 7/eleven. tough business right now.

mind you, i do not have a lot of economic worries. you did not have that much money, you could -- we rented a little house for 200 bucks. you could do not -- you could not do that today in washington. i kept on poking, and i did not go anywhere, and for a couple weeks and 10 days later or so, i read newspapers, went back. most of the major things you learn about if you go back and read the papers they are there, but you just did not see it because you do not know the context. that is what is so fascinating about being a journalist, that you can see what is there. after i did my lai, if you read that the trust account, there were so many accounts, they had a war crimes tribunal that nobody paid attention to. if you read that you would see the my lai story 50 times.

my lai was a day in march of 968, a group of american boys, in a subliminal -- a unit made up people largely who were accepted, the standards had been lowered by robert mcnamara because it essentially he wanted to get us he lowered the standards to bring more, if you will, hispanics, rural americans as a kid from indiana who told me played a big role, underclass, african-americans, they wanted to change the color of the corpses, get rid of a white corpses and get a little more color in the mix because that would help the public relations. you lowered the standards and these kids are packed into a unit. most of them did not have a high

school equivalence. they did not know much. march 16, they went into a village and they were told the night before that they were going to meet the enemy for the first time. they had been in the country for about 12 weeks and had lost about 15% to get an occasional bullets. they were falling into booby traps. you get somebody wounded that way. we called them viet cong. what i call them was vietnamese ationalists. in any case, they had lost enough, and they had gone brutalized in the 12 weeks. they do not have refrigerators and i do not know how to cross a threshold, which made them convinced that they were dealing with some humans, which is the way you get people to kill people in a war. you have to dehumanize them. the big memory was kill, kill,

kill, don't think, think, think. they were told they were going to meet the bad boys for the irst time. they did what kids did in that more than. the officers and enlisted men drank, and the enlisted men and took to get up, and they got stoned. 5:00, 4:00 in the morning came, they took their weapons, and they got on choppers to go kill for america. they did do that. they found nothing but women and children and old men. for some reason, they pulled them together, put them in ditches, and executed them slowly, killing them randomly with bullet after bullet. they raped women before they would kill them. it was all seen by senior officers and covered up. they exhumed 535 bodies later.

they came back to the village a few weeks letter and buried the bodies properly. this is a pretty bad day. i am into the story, and i grew up world war ii. the movies i saw, john wayne, van johnson, who fly out around in their planes, and remember the movies about the nips would start with the night before, the american officers were in a bar, chasing some nurse, and there is a fight, and a guy's got into a terrible fight, van johnson and errol flynn got into a terrible fight. the next morning they were flying together, and the nips, there was an air battle, and the nips would fly with the canopy closed. they would wear the leather caps that would tie under the chins. squinty glassean