want. the white house knew this wasn't going to work. the policy people knew that you could not keep your plan. the political people one and that is a significant point that will carry i want to see how many democrats don't invite the president to come in and raise money. >> let me follow up on that, following up on that point, two forces right now, president obama, senator cruz. how to they shape the 2014 races, senate democrats, senate republicans, republican candidates? >> let me talk about obamacare, just to follow up on what everyone has been saying. i agree with john if there's one finding from political science that rings true, it is voters are myopic. voters move on from big issues that we in washington think are catastrophic -- we think are world changing and a week late

it's off the agenda. look at the government shutdown as an example of how quickly that is just in the rearview mirror. o how will obamacare figure in 2014? none of us have any idea. right now it's a technical problem, if they fix the website and people are signed up by january, it may not be an issue. >> no, it's a structural problem. >> let me finish. we have statewide elections, in virginia, they're deciding the fate of obamacare in virginia. >> medicaid expansion. >> that's the big state issue. so if you think of obamacare's impact in virginia, it's -- the pro-obamacare argument is carrying the day. in new jersey, i don't remember chris isaak tee talking about obama -- chris christie talking about obamacare much. the two big statewide elections or ba ma cair has either been

not an issue or the pro-obamacare side has won. how it plays out next year, i have no idea. depends on how well they get the exchange fixed. one other point. the exchanges, the people affected by obamacare, the people who are experiencing cancellation are in the individual market. the individual narcotic is 5% of the population. if you weal really want to know how many voters are affected by the reform of the individual market, you have to sort of bore down into that, figure out the states where that's a big deal. if you're keeping your -- >> wait a second. i have dinner -- i had dinner last week in scottsdale, arizona, with alison krause and clint bullock who are two friends of mine they both are on employer-based plans, they both have seen employer-based coverage canceled in the last two weeks and whether or not it's true, their employer and they both believe it was directly related to obamacare and the structural changes

happening in the insurance market. when people lose employer-based -- >> all i'm saying is you have to look at how many people in the group market, how many people in the nongroup market are affecting the horror stories to understand how many voters are going to vote on that issue. >> that's not true. there are sur fwat voters, there are people who vote according to other people's interests. if you're comfortable, you have health insurance, your kids are in colleging you're voting according to the generation above you or friends who you believe should -- and by the way, ryan new york fairness, the white house, the president himself promised that 100% of everybody who wanted to keeper that coverage could. not the 95% as somebody pointed out recently, i with -- i remember who because it's a great quote, it wasn't me, the white house, what the president should have said is, if we like your insurance you can keep it. what they said was if you like

your insurance, you can keep it. >> before we move on to the house, who wins the senate in 2014, starting with josh? >> no idea. but listening to john and kelly i think obamacare must have cinched it. i don't know why we're debating it. i don't have any idea. i think it's about a 50-50 election and the three factors i listed will be the deciding ones. >> i think it's going to be close. this is probably the best shot the republicans have had in the last three cycles and part of it is by then, voters will say obama is not on the ballot anymore but the obama agenda is. if you look at 2010, 2012, do a horrible job running fweps obama but a great job running against the obama agenda. i think by then, bob, many people in the country will want to make sure that the last two years of the obama

administration are checked and balanced. i think they'll worry about expansion of government with no political skin to be lost for pothba ma not on the ballot again. enge they'll want a check and balance on their dels up in 2014, just practically speaking, than republicans. there are always a couple of sur prideses, there are always a couple of races that go one way or the other that nebraska was expecting. >> ryan, what do you think? >> six years ago, the democrats had an unusually good year because of the huge obama victory in 2008. so 2014, six years later, we should be seing a lot of democrats who are vulnerable and overexposed. this is the opportunity for republicans to take back the senate. and as we sit here today, it looks like a lot of things have to go their way to take it back and i -- you know, enge it will depend on the usual factors.

the -- can this tea partiest tab learnment fight, whether the republicans can prevent some of the senate candidates that have helped lose the senate for them, whether they can prevent that die nam exrecurring this cycle, and then the economy. the bottom line is these elections tend to be about fundamentals like the economy. a good indicator of that will be obama's approval rating which tends to ebb and flow with how people are feeling. >> the tea party candidates were not the nominees -- >> keep debating that. >> george allen. >> before we move on, i want john's prediction. >> enge there were people tee tea party candidates that lost them the senate. >> if the election were held today it would be a 50-50 race. one myth that has to be punctured is that republican

senate incumbents are sensitive to tea party channels. the only republican senator who lost to a tea party candidate lost at a convention in utah. name me the republican senate candidate who was an incumbent who lost a challenge by the tea party candidate. i will eat the carpet if mitch mcconnel loses. i will eat the carpet is lamar alexander loses. it's not going to happen. incumbents are much tougher to beat. lindsay graham is running so far to the right he's falling into the atlanta exocean. >> i have made that kind of cat gorical bet many times in my career, and i don't have any carpet fibers in my mouth yet. >> ryan, one piece you wrote for the new yorker, about the suicide caucus versus the survival caucus, that's how you

framed the different blocks in the house republican caucus. there are 233 house republicans right now. where does that number go in 2014? p, down, by how much, and why? >> my view of the house is we basically live in an era where control of the house fluctuates a lot more than it used to. 46 years before 1994, the democrats controlled the house. 12 years the moneys controlled it. four years the democrats controlled it. and now we have four years of republican rule. so -- and the average size of the majority since the 1990's is much, much smaller than the size in those 46 years when the democrats had it. basically the house is much more competitive in the last -- since 1994, than it was for most of the previous 20th century. so is the house potentially in

place -- in play? perhaps. it seems like the democrats have to do everything -- everything has to go their way to get the 17 seats to take it back. question of the suicide caucus, this is a piece i wrote about the 80 republicans who signed a letter so -- to boehner and cantor asking them to use the budget fight to defund obamacare. obviously against boehner's wishes and against the wishes of most of the republican establishment. the thing i thought was interesting is looking at the demographics of what the seats are, where do these 80 republicans, what does it look like if you're one of those republicans, what does it look like back home. not surprisingly, on coverage the districts are 75% white, obama lost their districts in 2012 by an average of 23 points,

so obama won nationally in their districts, he -- won nationally, in their districts he got completely wiped out. and they're super majority districts, they won by an average of 34 points. obama lost by 23 points, they won by 34 points. their world looks very, very different than the national trend. this isn't shocking. on the democrat exside there are similar districts because of the nature of where people live and gerrymandering. my point, the republican party right now essentially has a collective action problem. their base, their strength right now is in the house of representatives and because of gerrymandering and because of the way the population is situated, they're probably, it's going to take a lot for them to use in 2014. -- to lose in 2014. the democrats' base right now is the white house. that's its political base. the democrats have won the

popular vote in phi of the last six presidential elections. those two things are related. the republican party's house caucus is preventing it from doing the things it needs to do to win the white house. so they have a collective action problem. what is that? the individual incentives for average house republicans do not line up with the incentives for the national party. if the gospel on this, just read the republican party's report that it put out after the election. the single most important recommendation in that report, rare far party to actually -- for a party committee to actually make a policy recommendation, it said, pass comprehensive immigration reform. happened in the senate, died, looks like it's dead, in the house. >> is immigration going to be the issue that meab hurts republicans? maybe doesn't lose them the majority but loses them some seats, or not? the inability to pass it. >> imming that there -- it will keeper that fingerprints off the

corpse sufficiently that it will not become a meage issue. most of the people who would vote against them in immigration would vote against them on other grounds. the house, i think, will remain republican for some of the structural reasons brian mentioned. but the issues we keep seaing the republicans are on the wrong side of history, we'll have two very important tests today on issues which i think sometimes speak louder than personalities. in colorado, they're promoting a large tax increase for education, for pre-k, for after school programs. if that passes in that very swing state, i think they can claim momentum. i don't think it will. and that's a tax increase targeted to something that's a feel good issue. new jersey at the same time chris christie is run, he's opposing an initiative on the ballot to index the minimum wage permanently and increase it dramatically. if the minimum wage loses in new jersey, that will show that the

issues sometimes fall afoul of the voters' electorates' perceptions on both sides. watch the minimum wage vote in new jersey and e-- and the tax encrease in colorado. >> what are the issues we're looking at with the house right now? >> definitely health care. because the implementation go into 2014 and beyond there's no way to ignore that. one thing i tried to counsel republicans before the election last year but certainly this year is that, you know, if you're only talking about jobs and the economy, jobs and the economy, of course it has been the number one and number two issues for sex years now. and it accounted for on average 42% of all voters if you look at all the polls across 2012. so republicans leave it at that. jobs, economy, unemployment is so high, obama can't fix it, spending is out of control.

but what about the other 58%. democrats go down to your ast risks. republicans stop at jobs and this eeconomy. i have never sat, and i've moderate 600 focus groups in my life, maybe more, i've never heard women talk about politics and policies without talking about education. when is the last time you heard anybody talk about it? republicans resist talking about it because they don't believe in federal government control of it. but voters expect you to empathize. they expect you to listen and repeat become to them what they tell you is important. we told cucinelli six months ago, run in the education governor. doesn't mean you believe in taking over. but that's what people say is important to them, you share those concerns. i think there are always sleeper issues. what the republicans need to be careful of is i believe a diversion from obamacare. the white house and democrats are now going to start pushing things like immigration reform

and all different kinds of things. >> haven't they pushed immigration reform for a while? >> have athey passed anything? >> but i'm saying -- when is the last time the president said anything about immigration other than a sound bite. >> i was walking around the capitol, i saw paul ryan. where is entitlement reform in this mention? republicans ran on that. >> you're going to need a republican. it is off the grid this idea, there are a lot of people, republicans and economists who -- and business community who were against the government shutdown and two thicks they as to why they were against it. they said listen, if you want to -- if you weren't talking about the government shutdown we would be talking about obamacare so you're failing to focus on the failure. number two, they said you're wasting time when we could be reforming entitlements.

that could be true but it presupposes the president wants reform entitlements. but the public hears this, they hear change and revolution and that worried them. >> you wrote about the former senator from south carolina and you look at groups like the heritage foundation, heritage action and other conservative pressure groups, how does that impact the house state of play? >> in 2014? >> in 2014. i spent august traveling with jim dement on the defund tour. you got a sense that something big was building up. we know ultimately that led to the defund movement and the shutdown and i think showed heritage and those groups flexing their muscles. my sense since the shutdown is those groups have, and the house legislators who supported them,

have been somewhat chastened by how that all ended. so i don't detect that they're building up another -- i call some of these legislators i talked to, i talked to representative ammash of michigan, big defund guy. one of the guys who has been targeted by the chamber of commerce and business groups as one shade leek to -- they'd like to knock off. i said to him after the shutdown or ba ma cair rollout has been a debacle. does this mean you guys rill organize? now you've got the evidence that was merely kind of hypothetical or speculative last time around. now will you force the issue? and he -- lobbing softball question, didn't want to go anywhere near it. did not seem like he had an appetite to push this again. if that changes and if there is another shutdown in january or in march, then -- if it's driven by these sorts of conservative grass roots groups, that could put troll of -- crolve the house in play. but short of something extreme leek that happening which i

don't expect to happen, i think the house is probably safely in republican hands in 2014. >> that's a good example of someone responding rationally. ammash is not in one of these super majority districts, he's in a close district a little to the right for that district. gerald ford's old district? >> parts of it, yeah. the other thing to talk about, we're sitting in washington, it's easy to talk about national, but when voters in 30 states in this country had to choose who should be the leader, the chief executive other their personal liberties and pocketbook issues they went republican. for all the talk about who in d.c. is amassing the greatest pro file or role decks or fundraising structure for 2016 it could be tough to have a better story to sell than these governors. pick a governors, any governor, we've review what had christie will be able to say, a little on policy but a lot electorally. he's like a sort of walking

demographic, you know, victory success story for the republican party that struggles with those. scott walker not once but twice won handily the second time, and changed the way unions operate in that state. basically running on fairness. is it fair that you pay 100% of somebody else's pension or benefits? you got my -- in indiana, a billion dollar tax cut, 5% for businesses an vedges. refused to set up, refused to take the medicaid money. the governors' sor isries go on and on. >> bobby jindal. >> there's a lot to talk about beyond the house and senate. >> i think the house will start looking at those governors for sort of, what's happening in your state that we can export onto what we're trying to do. >> can i ask you guys a question, do you think kasick,

the way handled obamacare, did that end his president rble ambition? >> ambition, no. no, in -- no, actually he's doing a clever thing. knowing him as we all do, do, he believes it. he has a very, he has sort of what used to be called the hard head, soft heart agenda he believes in social justice, help the poor part of health care reform, education reform and tax reform. >> i was in ohio yesterday. i think the governor made a pragmatic decision. because if he had not -- >> you were in scottsdale -- busy guy. >> i want to take one or two questions. >> he made a pragmatic decision. if he hadn't expanded medicaid, there would have been a remp dumb that expanded it more than he wanted to an would have won

with union money. but the way he pushed it through, crushing conservatives, and not demanding certain waivers from the obama administration, the way other governors have and settling for less in how to restructure medicaid in ohio. that's what he'll have to explain. not so much the medicaid expansion which i think you could make a pragmatic argument for. >> raise your hand if you want to ask a question. we have a microphone here. yes, sir, in the back. say your name and just -- keep it brief. >> billy easley. thank you for the discussion. i want to ask you a question, sir, talking about the tea party before, as someone who is in the tea party back in texas, i agree that it's not a monolithic movement but at this component, do you think that the way an individual who is not exactly someone who looks at washington all the time and is really always interested in poll techs,

at this point don't you think the regular voter probably views it as a monolith exmovement and a negative movement in that way because they're not eable to really view the different echanisms within it? >> look, the tea party doesn't have, because it's decentralized, they don't haver that own propaganda arm or its own rapid response team. it takes attacks from every. everyone is labeled tea party in these attack adds. enge candidates -- ads. i think candidates won't be running on the tea party label because so much mud has been dumped on it but they'll run on tea party themes and tea party issues. as the will have resonance in many states. you'll see tea party successes as well as some failures next year. >> another question? >> i think there was a debate between ryan and some other panelists about how voters vote, what they vote on. seemed like ryan, your

implication was if they're not personally affected by it they won't vote on it. i fwess the corlear then, my question for you if you're personally affected by something will you vote on it that leads into the 47% comment and question that moneys should throw out, people dependent on the government because we are opposed to these giant government programs in principle and theory. i want to know from the panelists just kind of where you think people vote on and what those issues are that they'll actually do. sit something you have to be personally affected by? >> that's a great question. voters are not single issue thinkers and not single issue voters. they may be myopic in terms of their attention span but they're not myopic in terms of what drives them to the polls. years ago that stopped. it's a combination of tangibles and intangibles. even with jobs and the economy, there are -- the republicans own the space about job creators and they even doctor job creator,

you didn't build that, entrepreneurs, terrific, done. they tried job seekers. look at the unemployment rate under obama but the vast majority of american households are filled with neither job creators nor job seekers, but with job holders. those job holders are wondering why unlike when they grandfather had a job, the job is no longer enough. we have households where you have two and three jobs in a household and struggle to pay the bills, to do something extra with the kids on the weekend. enge the republican party needs to tell people why is the job no longer enough. so people vote on affordability, on fairness over equality, more now, fairness over equality. affordability, security, which is not just national security but also just the feeling that you pay your dues, you work hard, what you build for yourself is there. but they also have a clusteff of of intangibles of connections.

when romney lost to obama 81-18 on the question of which one cares about people leek you, 81-18 means republicans agreed it was obama. hello. even most -- maybe the romney grandchildren said that. 81-18 is way outside the margin of error. it matters to people. it matters to people not just do i like you. s the chris christie magic ams. a lot of people said, i do like him but more important they say, he's like me. a blue collar guy who came from, he's very caring. and so i think that people really want somebody who they feel gets them and connects with them. that's not -- authenticity. it's got to be message, messenger, and delivery. democrats, it's not -- the delivery is not just a style, but a system. where am i putting the information.

big screen, little screen, your ear, your eye. delivery is not a style, should i wear this tie. it's a system. and that also, you've got to have them all. message, messenger, aened delivery. but voters are more about themes than washington-base issues. more about affordability than the debt. more about freedom than health care reform. there are sur fwat voters everywhere. if you try to put somebody in a little box based on gender, race, age, whether you have kids at home, that person may say, i'm all right but i'm worried about the family across the street or the kid down the street who i know got good grades and is struggling to get an intervie. there are lots of surrogate voters in this country. >> on health care, the only, you want to know exactly how many voters find obamacare benefiting them. >> they can't get in the system. >> just listen for a second. you want to, by 2014, if that's

the case by 2014, it's going to be pretty bad. you want to know, one, how many people are just, nothing has cheaged. how many people are adversely affecteding and how many people are affected in a way that's positive. those are the numbers you want by election day next year to understand how this will be a voting issue and if you can figure it out you want to know where they're distributed across the country. those are the numbers i would want to know to know how that issue is going to play. >> we have time for one more question. over here. ma'am. >> my name is lee. one of my favorite quotes from the obama campaign is you said if you were an alien and landed on earth in the obama-romney campaign, you'd think all women are running around constantly seeking abortions from the commercials you saw, that was the number one issue. so what did we learn from that? anything?

race, and cucinelli it's an issue again. >> the war on women was made up ut it was effective. he never owned it or explained it away. and frankly as a conservative i'm mad about that. because i hate to think that part of 2014 will be spent explaining away why he didn'talize because of that. look, i don't think the -- i think the republican party should just stand up -- they won't -- but they should just stand up and say, there are two political parties and there's only one that wants to talk to women from the waist up also. there's where your ears are, your eyes, your brain, your heart. i did say that with the president of planned parenthood on the panel last year and it got -- but the point is a serious one.

in 26 years in politics, ladies and gentlemen, i have never heard the phrase men's issues. anybody here? not one time, not a single time, have i heard men's issues. what is that? football, beer? >> bob dole commercial. >> so what are women's issues? any time a republican even goes there and responds to, quote, women's issues, they're ensulting women. don't jump on the train. all issues are women's issues. in 2010, for the first time ever, more women voted republican than democrat at the congressional level. hat were the issues in 2010? tax, tea party, debt obamacare. if the party can, instead of saying, that's not fair, you called me a mean name, i like girls. instead, hit it back at them. call an extremist an extremist and move on to issues that women tell pollsters they care about

which are the same issues m care about. >> thanks for coming out to the panel today thanks to our online audience at nationalreview.com and on c-span. appreciate the crowd here. it means a lot we are deeply appreciative to our panelist for a lively discussion. i think 2014 looks fluid. we don't know how it is going to unfold, but we've had some great folks here today. thanks so much. [applause] >> it is election day across the in a number of states. we will be focusing on new jersey and virginia tonight when our election coverage gets underway at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. in virginia about a

half an hour from now. today, marilyn tavener medicaredicaid and theices testified before senate committee. here is a little of the back- and-forth. toone of two things is going be true. either the website is going to be working smoothly for the vast majority of its users or it won't. and in both cases, the administration is going to have to take quick action to ensure that individuals across the country are being treated fairly. and i am sure people are planning for this at the end of the month. since it failed. the site works, individuals will have two weeks to shop and enroll in a plan that will take

effect on january 1. is the administration planning and education and outreach strategy to match the text search currently underway? and if the site is not working, then what steps is the administration going to take, including delaying the penalty for not buying the insurance? and then what are they going to do to help individuals to be sure there is not going to be a gap in their insurance coverage? >> yes, there is a public endaign that will match the of november and going into december, january, february, march. there are no plans to delay the individual mandate. quick so, what if the site is not working? >> the site will be working. the site is working now. what we are doing now is making performance improvements, but the site is working.

are enough people able to get on the site? >> yes. >> do you have numbers? >> i already said earlier that we had over 700,000 people that had completed applications. we will have further numbers in november. more detail, i think is what you're asking. >> i had called for extending the open enrollment time and waiving penalties to make up for the lost time it has taken to get the site up and working. so i think that is going to be a continued issue. the things i was concerned about in reading the the contract to award the site for the management. to it really awarded companies that had bid on an i.t. contract back in 2007?

was a not open to other kind -- other companies? >> back in 2007, there was a list of i.t. vendors who do this kind of work. >> but a lot has changed since 2007. >> this is more around the process. these are certainly current i.t. vendors. >> so you are saying it was back on the -- if you are not contract in 2007, would you not be eligible to bid? >> that is correct. series of contractors who have been prescreened, prequalified. they still go through a competitive bid process, but it has been limited to the individuals who qualified in 2007. >> for tech firms who just

started recently, are those companies -- would they have been on that 2007 list of qualified contractors? >> i would have to look. theainly some of contractors on the list have been in the i.t. space. it is not unusual. >> ok. on september 30, the night before the site was set to launch, what were your expect haitians for the launch day? >> my first expectation was that we would go live shortly after midnight. we had pretty much promoted that the site would go live at 8 a.m. the morning of october 1. we went live shortly after midnight. we had tremendous interest, even

during the night. my expectation was that the site would work. it is a complicated website. i think we knew all along that it would have bugs that needed to be handled. we also knew that we needed to pull certain functionality out to focus on the application process. those are the ones we have talked about. so, what i expected was a site that worked, with some issues. what we saw was more volume than we anticipated, and we anticipated pretty high-volume, and then we ran into the issue with the establishment of the e- mail accounts right away, so then we had to problem solve for that. those were two things we did not expect. information i have been reading was that there was morning before the site was to open, and there was a lot of concern that testing had not

been done. in hindsight now, a lot of people are saying why didn't the give moretion forewarning about the sites not living up to the expectations that were being called for. many people understood it would be up and running and that they would be able to access it quite easily. again, the testing was in a live environment with real individuals, which we could not due until after october 1. modularur analysis and testing, we were comfortable and we did not have any high risk recommendations or components. we just could not do the live and to end testing until october

1. we actually signed up and did case testing prior to that. >> thank you very much. fore will have all of that you online. kathleen sibelius, the health and human services secretary, frontestify tomorrow in of the senate finance committee. we will have that for you live that 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today, defense secretary chuck hagel discussed the automatic budget cuts. under sequestration, the department of defense faces nearly $1 billion in cuts over the next decade. this is 40 minutes. have ever seen the

organizational chart of the department of defense, you might have noticed it is a little bit different from most corporate or business arrangements. put structures tend to people in boxes. what you will notice about the pentagon is that the box at the very top has two people, not one, but two people in the same box. it is the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense. john and i each had the pleasure of working inside that box, not as the secretary, mind you, but as the deputy, and we will both tell you there are some downsides to this arrangement. since the secretary chooses who gets what assignments, you can guess who visits with foreign leaders, and who gets to go to guantanamo. having watched firsthand from the closest possible position , i can tell you

oft secretary hagel has one the toughest jobs in the world. combination unique of personal qualities. when you consider secretary hagel's experience and achievements, his resume reads like he has prepared for the job his entire life. his patriotism is unquestioned. even though he could have gone off to college, instead, he , earningin the army two purple hearts for being wounded in combat. he is a highly successful businessman who understands the financial and organizational complexities of the job. he is a former senator, quit to deal with political realities. he was involved in television, so he is ready for the public challenge. as a former deputy at

the veterans administration, he has demonstrated the compassion by fighting to elevate awareness of agent orange and the damage it did to some of our troops. in just a short time in office, he has demonstrated all of these qualities and more, proving he is the right man for the job. ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct honor to present you a true american patriot, the 24th secretary of defense, secretary chuck hagel. [applause] >> bill, thank you. to my friend john amory, thank you. thank you each for what you have done for our country, for what you continue to do, and congratulations on this spectacular new building.

not only is it a remarkable achievement, but it is a testament to this institution and what it has meant for so many years to this country as it has contributed to the shaping and molding and the outcomes of our policies in the world. you continue to do that. two you are and to your leaders, everyone associated with cs i ask, i congratulate and thank you for what you do and what you continue to do. i want to especially recognize sam nunn for his leadership. he was not exactly a bystander in this effort and continues to be rather engaged. he is one of those unique leaders are country produces at the right time. he has for many, many years been

one of the real anchors of our national security policy and one of the real leaders of our country. i know what he has meant to cs i -- csis. and i particularly appreciated his risking his reputation in helping introduce me at my confirmation hearing. i notice he quickly escaped after that. after john warner made the second introduction. he said you are on your own, chuck. [laughter] sam was more genteel. he just left. [laughter] but i am honored to be here and i'm honored to be here to help welcome your participants and also kick off and always a very

important event. again, congratulations. today, this conference will discuss and continue to help shape america's continued national security priorities. it continues a tradition going back to 1962 when great thinkers and leaders were brought to get her, like edward teller and henry kissinger and others like those three men for the center's inaugural security conference. their goal was to look 10 years in the future and define political, military, and economic strategies that would help america ultimately prevail in the cold war. to determine, as david abshire once wrote, how to use power in all its forms to influence the actions of adversaries or would the aggressors as well as friends and allies. that is the essence of strategy. this kind of long-term perspective is always needed and

will always be required. but it is especially relevant today as we try to manage the complexities of a volatile, dangerous and rapidly changing world. particularly when geopolitical and gridlock and budget uncertainty here at home continue to undermine the strategies necessary to protect america's interests and enhance its future. i would like to take this opportunity to join you and looking across looking across the strategic landscape and share with you a few per spec is on our shifting long-term national security challenges, the u.s. military's role in addressing these challenges, and what this means for the department of defense going forward.

as we all know, america's challenges are far more different and complex today than the single defining threat we faced in 1962. they are also far different than they were in 2002. when our nation was reeling from the most devastating terrorist attack in our history or even a few years ago, when 100 thousand u.s. troops were on the ground in iraq and tens of thousands of troops were on their way to afghanistan. with the end of the iraq war and the winding down of the combat mission in afghanistan, president obama has been moving the nation of faith perpetual war footing, one in which our priorities and relationships around the world word dominated by the response to 9/11. as the united states makes this transition to what comes after the post 9/11 era, we are only beginning to see the dramatic shifts underway that will define our future and shape our

interactions in the world. and require our national security institutions to adjust and adapt. this is the story of history of mankind, adaptation and adjustment. chief among these 21st century trends are shifting geopolitical centers of gravity, reflecting the astounding confusion of economic power and the graphic change. -- demographic change. china, india, brazil and indonesia are all helping to reshape the global economy. regional powers like turkey are maturing and asserting greater independence from traditional allies and patriots. the asia-pacific region has taken on a greater prominence in global politics, commerce and security. and as latin america and africa develop and strengthen, they will be important leaders in helping to build a secure and bosporus 21st century world. -- prosperous when he first

century world. -- 21st century world. cyber activists, terrorists and criminal networks and nonstate actors are also playing a role in defining the international system. new structures of governance and power are emerging as the world's population becomes more urbanized, mobile and technologically advanced, bringing new standards and expectations as they develop. technology and 21st-century tools of communication are bringing people closer together than at any time in history of man, helping to link aspirations and their grievances. my friends, one of the political thinkers has called this phenomenon a global political awakening. nowhere is this more evident than in the historic turmoil embroiling the middle east. not since the decade after world war ii has mankind witnessed such a realignment of interests and challenges. history shows these changes and inflection points are not easy to perceive. the former secretary account of his own experience during

another defining time in history when he said only slowly did it dawn upon us that the whole world cost structure and order we had inherited from the 19th century was gone and the struggle to replace it would be directed from two bitterly opposed and ideologically opposed our centers. even as we begin to see dramatic shifts, we know the rapid pace of change will only accelerate as the world undergoes and storage generational shift. more than 40% of the world's 7 billion people today are under 25 and 90% of them live outside the united states and europe.

particularly turbulent regions emma like the middle east and sub-saharan africa will continue to experience these challenges as their populations increase and reach far ahead of the educational and employment opportunities that must match them. they will present more uncertainty and risk to global peace, prosperity and stability as we confront an array of new 21st-century challenges. the challenge of terrorism has evolved as it has metastasized since nine/11. this will continue to demand unprecedented collaboration with partners and allies on counterterrorism efforts. many share a common threat regardless of state differences or political ideologies. destructive technologies and weapons that were once the province of advanced militaries are being sought by nonstate actors and other nations. this will require our continued investment in cutting edge space and cyber technologies and

capabilities like missile defense as well as offense of technologies and capabilities to deter aggressors and respond if we must. sophisticated cyber attacks have the potential of inflicting debilitated damages on critical infrastructure. our adversaries will try to use them to frustrate our military advantages and power, striking at the underpinning strength of a nation, our nation and economy. this will require we continue to place the highest rarity on cyber defense and capabilities. meanwhile, natural disasters, pandemic diseases, and the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction present further destabilizing realities to regions in the world. regional tensions in the middle

east and elsewhere continue to have the potential to erupt into larger scale conflicts, drawing in the united states and russia. some of the most complex and challenging threats remain from heavily armed nation states like iran and north korea. some of the most complex threats remain from the nontransparent and heavily armed nation states like iran and north korea. we continue to adapt to present and emerging threats from nonstate groups, terrorists, and criminal networks, and from within weak states.

statehood can be a fiction that hides dangers lurking beneath. all of these challenges will be with us for the foreseeable future. there is not a short-term vision to these 21st century threats. we must manage through these realities as we engage these complex problems, staying focused on our long-term interests and long-term objectives and outcomes. the imperfect outcomes may be the most we can expect, working our way toward the higher ground of possible solutions. leveraging all aspects of our power, we must multiply and enhance our efforts by working through coalitions of common interest like nato. this is in fact our future. just as we have done since world war ii, but it now may be more essential than ever before. while these challenges are not america's responsibilities alone, they will demand america's continued engagement. no other nation, no other nation has the will, the power, the network of alliances to lead international community in addressing them. however, sustaining our leadership will increasingly depend not only on the extent of our great power, but in an appreciation of its limits and our influence.

we must not fall prey to the notion of american decline. that is a false choice and far too simple an explanation. we must remain the world's only global leader. however, the insidious disease of hubris can undo america's great strengths. we almost not fall prey to hubris. national and personal executives about change and the rate of change will continue to dominate much of our public debate. these must he placed in a broader on texts, particularly because many of the challenges facing us are political, not structural. we remain the world's preeminent military and economic power, and as we deal with new constraints on defense spending, the united states will continue to represent 40% of global defense expenditures. most of the world's other leading military powers are america's close allies.

what has always distinguished the united states is not simply the existence of our great power. rather, it is the way in which we have used our power for the purpose of trying to make a better world. we have made mistakes. we will continue to make mistakes. but we cannot allow the overhanging threat of future miscalculation and mistakes to paralyze or intimidate our will and our necessary decision making today. in the 21st century united states must continue to be a force for and an important symbol of humanity, freedom, and progress for all mankind. we must also make a far better effort to understand how the world sees us and why. we must listen more. we must listen more. after more than a decade of costly, controversial, and at times open-ended war, america is redefining its role in the world. the same time more americans including officials are growing

skeptical about our country plus foreign engagements and responsibilities. only looking inward is just as deadly a trap as hubris, and we must avoid both in pursuing a successful foreign policy in the 21st century. america's role in the world should reflect the hope and promise of our country and the possibilities for all mankind, tempered with a wisdom that has been the hallmark of our character. that means pursuing a principled and engage realism that employs diplomatic, economic, and security tools as well as our values to advance our security and our prosperity. as he looked out across the strategic landscape, the united states military will remain an

essential tool of american power in foreign-policy, but one that must be used wisely, precisely, and judiciously. most of the pressing challenges i described today have important national and global, economic and cultural components, and they cannot and will not be resolved by only military strength. as we go forward into a historically unpredictable world, we will need to place more of an emphasis on our civilian incidents of power while adapting our military so that it remains strong, second to none, and relevant in the face of threats markedly different from what she did during the cold war and over the past two decades. america's hard power -- but our success ultimately depends on not on any one instrument of power, it depends on all of our instruments of power, working together. and it depends not only on how

well we maintain and fund all of our instruments of power, and how well they are balanced and integrated with each other. leaders and strategists, including here at csis, have been arguing for this shift for some years. in 2007, i was honored to serve on the csis commission on smart power. that commission was led by john hamry. it called for developing an integrated strategy, resource- based, and will kit to achieve american objectives. its conclusions were echoed soon after by secretary of defense bob gates, who spoke on this topic here, or at the last place, at csis in early 2008. we have a long way to go to fulfill the promise of that

commission. we are moving toward it. president obama's resolve to take military action to respond to the assad's regime's use of chemical weapons help create an opening with russia, which we pursued. that led to a un security council resolution and to the involvement of the organization for the prevention of chemical weapons inspectors on the ground in syria, working to oversee the removal and distraction of chemical weapons. we are on a course to eliminate one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. dod has not only maintain military pressure on the assad regime and will continue, it has also developed the technology that may very well be used to destroy these chemical weapons. we may have another possibility with iran, where we are engaging on a diplomatic path to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

the united states is clear eyed about the challenges and the the united states is clear eyed about the challenges and the uncertainties that lie ahead on this path and the need for iran to demonstrate its seriousness through its actions. we will maintain a strong and ready military presence in the military golf and the broader middle east to determine their destabilizing activities. the multidimensional challenges confronting us with iran and syria are but two pieces of the global complexities we will continue to face in the 21st century. in both cases, our military power has been an important part of the work to possibly find these diplomatic resolutions. we recognize that there is risk in all of this.

we do not live in a risk-free world. we never have. and we never will. we must work to find the smartest and most effective solutions to problems. military force must always remain an option, but it should always be an option of last resort. the military should always play a supporting role am not believing role, in america's foreign policy, and an example of the balance we are seeking to achieve is the renewed engagement in the asia-pacific region. america's military power plays a stabilizing role in the region. helping advance security, stability, and prosperity through our commitments to our allies and our partnerships, and with them, they build new capabilities. the department of defense is not in the lead for the rebalance of the asia-pacific.

it is an effort that also consists of important diplomatic, economic, trade, and cultural initiatives. all these areas will remain a top priority as we continue to implement the strategy. going forward, the united states will use military strength as a supporting component of a comprehensive strategy to protect and advance american interests. this requires striking a careful balance between all elements of our power. just as overdependence on the military carries with it risks and consequences, letting our military strength atrophy would invite disaster. the united states must sustain the kind of military power that gives diplomacy strength, that assures the allies around the world, and deters our adversaries.

we must continue to have a military of unmatched fighting power, and we must be prepared to respond to confrontation and crisis in a new and profoundly volatile world, working closely with our allies and our partners. the united states military has always proved capable of adapting to new realities and geopolitical alignments, even when resources were limited. in the face of reduced deficits and defense budgets, new challenges, our defense institutions must be shaped to ensure our military's continuing readiness. that includes a continued focus on capacity building for our allies and our partners and working closely with them and through alliances. but today, we face the danger that our current budget crisis and the steep, abrupt, and deep

cuts imposed by sequestration will cause an unnecessary strategically unsound and dangerous degradation in military readiness and capability. as you know, the department is facing sequester level cuts in the order of $500 billion over 10 years. this is in addition to the 10- year $487 billion reduction in the dod budget that is already underway. these cuts are too fast, too abrupt, and too irresponsible. dod took a $37 billion sequester cut during the past fiscal year, and we could be forced to absorb a $52 billion sequester cut this fiscal year. we're looking at nearly $1 trillion in dod cuts over this 10-year period unless there is a new budget agreement. we are currently operating under no budget, under a continuing resolution which continues to present dod with one of its most difficult challenges,

uncertainty. dod cannot responsibly, efficiently, and effectively plan, strategists, and implement national security policies with this cloud hanging over it. it forces us into a very bad set of decisions. congress must act to provide the department with time and flexibility to implement spending reductions more strategically. we do not have the option of ignoring reality or assuming something will change. leaders across the department will continue to give their best clear eyed assessment to america's elected leaders about sequestration's damaging impact on military readiness, morale, and capabilities. but we also must prepare the force for whatever lies ahead. with a clear appreciation of dod's vital responsibility of protecting this nation. since becoming secretary, my top

institutional priority has been to help lead the department of defense in not only responding to these physical and strategic challenges, but shaping our strategic -- to our advantage, and to the extent we can, controlling our own destiny. through my first weeks in office i directed a choices in management review about which over the course of several months identify options for reshaping our force and our institutions in the face of difficult budget scenarios. that review pointed to the stark choices and trade-offs in military capabilities that will be required if sequester-level cuts persist. it also identified opportunities to make changes and reforms. above all, it underscored the reality that dod still possesses resources and options. we will need to more efficiently maximize them, more efficiently match our resources to our most

important national security requirements. we can do things better. we must do things better. and we will. to that end, in the months since the strategic review was completed, people across dod and the military services have been working on our longer-term budget strategy, particularly to the department's quadrennial defense review. a much-needed realignment of missions and resources is being undertaken across the department. this will require a certificate change across every aspect of our defense enterprise. i have identified six areas of focus for our budget and should you planning efforts going forward. working closely with the service secretaries, these priorities will shape the priorities of our defense institutions from for

years to come. first, we will continue to focus on institutional reform. coming out of more than a decade of war and budget growth, there is a clear opportunity and need to reform and reshape our entire defense and a price including paring back the world largest back office, and a first step we took this summer was to reduce budgets across the department, beginning with the office of the secretary. our goal is not only to direct more of our resources to real military capabilities and readiness, but to make organizations flatter, more responsive to the needs of our men and women in uniform. second, we will reevaluate our force planning construct, the assumptions and the scenarios that guide how the military should organize, train, and equip our forces. i've asked our military leaders

to take a close look at these assumptions, question these past assumptions, which will also be reevaluated across the services as part of the qdr. the goal is to ensure they better serve our goals and the shifting strategic involvement, the evolving capacity of our allies, real world threats, and the new military capabilities that reside in our force and in the hands of our potential adversaries. we want make sure that contingency scenarios drive force structure decisions and not the other way around. a third priority will be preparing for a prolonged military readiness challenge. the services have rightly protected the training and equipping of deploying forces to ensure that no one goes into a harm's way unprepared. that is our highest responsibility to our forces.

already, we have seen a readiness of non-deploying units suffer as training has been curtailed, flying hours reduced, and exercises being canceled. the strategic choices and management review show that the persistence of sequester-level cuts could lead to a readiness crisis, and unless something changes, we have to think urgently and creatively about how to avoid that, because we are consuming our future readiness now. we may have to accept the reality that not every unit will be at maximum readiness, and some kind of a tiered readiness system is perhaps inevitable. this carries the risk that the president of the united states would have fewer options to fulfill our national security objectives. a fourth priority will be protect investments in emerging military capabilities, especially space, cyber, special

operations or systemic and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. as our potential adversaries invest in more capabilities as he to frustrate our traditional advantages, including our freedom of action, and access, accesses around the world, it will be important to maintain our decisive technological edge. this has always been a hallmark of our armed forces even as war has remained and will remain a fundamentally human endeavor. war is a fundamentally human endeavor. our fifth priority is balance. across the services we will need to carefully reconsider the mix between capacity and capability, between active and reserve forces, between forward- stationed and home-based forces, between conventional and unconventional war-fighting capabilities.

in some cases we will make a shift by merging a smaller, modern, and capable military over a larger force with older equipment. we will also favor a globally active and engaged force over a garrison force. we will look to better leverage the reserve components, tempered by the knowledge and experience that part-time units and ground forces especially cannot expect to perform at the same levels as full-time units and at least in the conflict's early stages. in other cases we will seek to preserve existing balance by trying to control areas of runaway cost. our sixth priority, personnel, may be the most difficult. without attempts to achieve significant savings in this area, which consumes roughly now half of the dod budget and is increasing every year, we risk becoming an unbalanced force,

one that is well compensated, but poorly trained and equipped, with limited readiness and capability. going forward we will have to make hard choices in this area in order to ensure that our defense enterprise is sustainable for the 21st- century. congress must permit meaningful reforms. we need congress to make choices to bend the cost curve of personnel, while meeting all of our responsibilities to all of our people. even as we pursue change across the department of defense, the greatest responsibility of leadership will always remain the people we represent, our men and women in uniform, their families, and our dedicated civilian workforce. that is because institutions are platforms, frameworks, a societal structure for people. they're built to enhance the people they serve.

it is people who change the world. institutions are instruments of change, but it is people who invest heavily, decide, inspire, and both prosper and suffer. when a nation commits its men and women to war, it is people who make the decision to go to war, it is people who fight and die in war. i began my discussion today by talking about the importance of long-term thinking. america's future has always depended on the balance of strategic thinking, decisive actions, and belief in our purpose. perhaps no one more embodied that purpose than president dwight d. eisenhower. so it is appropriate to end my thoughts this morning with an excerpt from his farewell address in 1961, which speaks to the challenges, the exact challenges facing us today in

this very different world. he said, "america's leadership and prestige depend not merely upon our unmatched progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. throughout america's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace but to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. to strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people." very, very, wise words. the challenges that face our world, our nation, and all its institutions are great, so is our unprecedented capacity to deal with those problems.

never in the history of man has a nation possessed or the world possessed so much capacity to deal with these problems. we must not fear change, but rather embrace it. to strive for less would be unworthy of our character and error purpose, and we would feel future generations. that is not who we are. that is not our heritage. that is not our destiny. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] wax >> our coverage of the new jersey and virginia governors races comes up here on c-span.

we have a preview of those races at the national review. >> i don't think the white house cares. the way advocate and new jersey and virginia, he is wanting despite being terry mcauliffe. in virginia, you are describing virginia as a blue state. we will not call it a purple stay anymore. from thebenefiting demographic changes and the fact that he got a right wing northern who alienated virginia. i disagree that in any way that the race is a referendum on ideology.

became ahose issues part of the campaign. campaign ended during sandy. it was over. chris christie one with the way he dealt with sandy. he won by impressing president obama, which conservatives didn't like but new jersey and's the fact that he was being bipartisan. there was never a race after that moment. i think going forward, christie success as a presidential candidate will depend on next year's midterms. the model here is george w. bush in 2000. after 1998, the opening for george w. bush was the disaster is more term election for republicans. had beenrepublicans

discredited after impeachment. they lost how sees when they should've won them. the party was basically looking for a savior who would push up the congressional win. moment in the politics after the next election, if they're looking for someone not of washington and doesn't reek of the unpopularity of house republicans, christie will be that guy. that is a long way away. obamacare, a big question for any republican in 2016 will what did you do to stop obamacare? you could not accept the medicaid funding. he you could not participate in the exchange. christie accepted the medicaid funding. he is going to have to defend that.

>> our coverage of the new jersey virginia governors races coming up tonight live at 9:00 eastern. sebelius backleen on capitol hill to testify on the health care website and the launch of the obamacare coverage. she and other officials of gone on record as saying the problems with the website will be fixed by the end of november. she is testifying before the senate finance committee live at 10:00 eastern on c-span. ahead of our coverage tonight of the election results, conversation from washington journal on third parties. >> it was suggested by a viewer talking about third parties. in a system that uses the electoral college, could a third-party actually win?

what are the realities question mark hopefully will answer those considerations. thank you mr. smith. joining us to answer those questions, david gillespie. he is a professor at the cost -- at charleston. he is joining us from south carolina. thank you. guest: good to be with you. host: our viewers want to know what a third-party is. guest: a third-party is any challenger to the republicans and democrats. to talk about what a party is, a party is an organization that differs from an interest group

and it has an electoral function . not all third parties actually run candidates. they challenged the republicans and the democrats in some way or another. host: is very true influential third-party in the united states? guest: the three leading third parties are libertarian party, green party, and the constitution party. there was a party that ross perot tried to set up, the reform party. it did not go anywhere. like so many parties in the past , the reform party bit the dust. host: when it comes to influence, have third parties been able to influence other elections? guest: yes, absolutely. one of the things the major parties have by way of

indictment is the so-called spoiling affect. i would like to say something about that. when the spoiling effect is looked at from a third-party perspective, it looks very different. there is no doubt that third parties have influence on election outcomes in our history. host: you say in your book -- you describe three. one is short-lived national parties, this second is continuing doctrinal and issue parties come and the third is state and local parties. can you give an example of those three? guest: i would be glad to. the first that you mentioned, the transients national parties are probably the most important. they are probably -- they are parties that rise like a zenith. they participate in one election

around, maybe more than one but not very often. they often times die in part because they don't have the funds to establish themselves to run against democrats and republicans. in part, because they have rust to the floor ideas that the republicans and democrats can take up or appropriate or steel. often times these parties die a successful death. the goal and eight for those types of parties is probably the 19th century -- golden age for those types of parties probably the 19th century. there were two anti-slavery parties before the republicans gave -- republicans came to the floor. later there was the populist party.

the first of these parties was the anti--- there have been a series of progressive parties from 1912. that was the bull moose progressive. that was the only third-party that came in second in a presidential vote. in 1924 in 1948, the american independent party, and the reform party fell within that as well. each one of them, if they were powerful enough to influence the election outcome or threaten to influence the election outcome, also left a legacy of policy. the continuing doctrinal parties are parties that find their reality in an area outside of

the mainstream. they are not so much interested in winning elections as using whatever publicist he they get to make a position known to the american people. they may last a very long time. i think in part because the ideas are not taken up. the oldest continuing third- party today is the prohibition party, which is a prime example of an issue party dated from 1869. the socialist and communist party are also within that domain. host: just a pause to let our folks know that if you have a question about third parties and their influence, our guest is going to be with us until 10:00 to half best to talk about these issues. -- to talk about these issues. 585, 38824 independents. --585-3882 four independents. our first call is from bobby on our republican line.

caller: what i would like to see is a party with some compassion but completely different from the democratic party. , which is just going to make us a non-country. we need some common sense about it. host: what are you specifically talking about when you say compassion? caller: i really do not know. host: does anybody fit that bill? guest: i'm trying to figure out bobby's ideological orientation.

there is a party to the left that is a very compassionate party, the green party. bobby may be more interested in the possibility of a party at the center, that is what ross perot brought in to the mainstream. i think in a very real sense there is a lot of potential on issues that deal with the right to live, one's personal life, pretty left of center. on economic issues, pretty right of center. in 2012 it looked like there may be a party like that, called americans elect. unfortunately did not get off the ground. host: deana is on our republican line. caller: my question is, you do

not mention the tea party at all, which is sort of what is going on the tea party to the fact that the democrats seem -- they cannot say enough bad things about tea party. in other words i have never heard of such a group being so badmouthed and all they want to do is create something that is center for a little right of center. i have never heard such -- and i am 77 years old. it is why i have never heard such horrible things being said about a group of people. host: --guest: the tea party is on the ballot in a few states. i think that the originators of the tea party tended to emphasize more the connection of

that term with the 18th century, "don't tread on me" kind of tea party. for reasons pedro mentioned earlier, there has not been a lot of emphasis on party building of that. working within the republican party -- i do not see it as basically a third-party or probably even as a potential third-party. it is an outsider party. it is a party that's overlapping with a comparable party to the left or a comparable move in -- comparable movement. the two major parties are corporate controlled and the two major parties leave a lot to be

desired. a viewer asked how difficult it is for third parties to get on the ballot. guest: there are a lot of institutional barriers that were not devised to capture and contain third parties. there is a lot to be said for the idea that we have not a naturally falling two-party system but a duopoly, an engineered two-party system. in that category would be ballot access laws. they are still he unbelievable compared to what it takes for a third party in most countries to get going. a new third-party wanting to get on the ballot of all 51 constituencies that vote for president and vice president would have to collect state-by-

state, something like 750,000 ballot signatures. they would have to be filed by august or september at the latest, depending upon the various states. there are all kinds of laws that tend to differ from one state to another about who may collect petitions. some states require that you live in the state as a condition for becoming a petitioner. it is well-known that any successful petition involves a lot more than the basic required number. of course, when a new third- party is trying to get on the ballot, the major parties are using their money to reach out, get out the vote and reach constituencies out there. i would say foremost, ballot

access. there is a person that i think should win the congressional honor of freedom, that is richard winger, he has devoted his entire life to cracking ballots and doing other things that would open our political process. there are other things, a sore loser law, saying in various states that if you have run as a republican or a democrat for an office, you cannot later in the year run as an independent or a third-party candidate. there are anti-fusion laws. there are discriminatory provisions about access to public money at the federal and state level. one of the most notorious things is access to the debate stage. as you probably know, nobody

since ross perot has joined a republican or a democrat on the debate stage since 1992. host: before we move on, who is richard winger? guest: he has devoted his life to opening our political process, especially in the area of ballot access. he publishes a newsletter called "ballot access news," on blog forum at night and is available once a month in letter form. often, he is testifying in federal cases involving ballot access and that sort of thing, trying to tear down sore loser laws and this sort of thing. his entire life has been devoted to the purpose of democratizing our election system. host: here is don from new

jersey, independent line. caller: i have always felt that the democrats and the republicans were like major league baseball. the american league and national league. the corporate money works with the two parties to make it inevitable that one of those two has to win. the only way to get a third- party competitive is to take the corporate money out of the political process. i think the best way to do that is to get citizens together to say we are not going to vote for candidates unless they run their campaigns only with contributions from individuals in the amount of $200 or less. people do not want to do that. i propose a website, vouchervendetta.org, where people can sign up.

it will not matter how much money corporations contribute when that money cannot buy enough votes to win an election. guest: i think you are onto something. there is no doubt that corporate money underlays the two major parties. it used to be that the indictment of the two major parties was that it was tweedledee, tweedledum, there is not different between the two. now, in terms of many policies, the major parties have moved further apart. we see a phenomenon in washington of complete gridlock, especially in congress. the two major parties continue to join together to pull up the ladder against third-party challengers. underlying that is a whole lot of corporate money. i welcome what you are doing to try to inspire a movement there.

host: jacob, illinois, democrat line. caller: hello. my comment on the two-party system is that the game of the red and blues is the game of the ancients. it is the game of water and fire. it is a mixing of the revolutionary. that is why our forefathers left the british monarchy, to create this system where we had a two- party system. that is exactly what i say after eight years of george bush and eight years of barack obama. the solution is in an american revolution. it is bound to happen, it is part of nature. these libertarians and these two-party activists do not have any common sense in what it takes to raise up this great democracy. guest: interestingly enough, the framers of the constitution were

the creators of a two-party system, the first two party system. they had a real dislike of the spirit of party. you know that john adams and james madison, george washington, thomas jefferson, all of them had considerable fear and distaste for third parties -- excuse me, for political parties in general. for some reason, they decided that the system required that there be this kind of division by parties. i see third parties in general, as in some ways, those items that may bring about real reform and change. you are talking about revolutionary movements. even ross perot, a person who set up a movement at the center, he was very fond of quoting thomas jefferson.

god forbid that we go 20 years without a revolution. he gave a reference to that, clean out the barn. do not give up on third parties, it may be that the vehicle is not there yet. i think that is where you are likely to see some real change. host: david gillespie, ron paul gave an interview to the washington post. he talked about the challenges for third parties and was asked why he did not run for president as an independent. [video clip] >> what is the future as the republican party? >> the same as the democrats. the parties will linger because they are locked in by law. the laws are biased against us from competing. if you go third party, you cannot get into the debate, you cannot get on ballot. >> you talked about the grip of the two-party system, did you consider running as an independent?

>> no. >> because it is not practical? >> absolutely not. this would have been a good year to have an alternative. you cannot get a shine on the libertarian or green side. host: his comment that it was not practical at the time. guest: at some point in the future, it may become practical. i understand what ron paul was saying there. interestingly enough, in the round of elections in 2008, ron paul, having run for the republican nomination, then declined to endorse john mccain that year. he endorsed for people's consideration the four third party candidates, ralph nader, the green candidate, the libertarian candidate, and the constitution party candidate. ron paul is certainly right that

there are major barriers. i don't think he has really given up on the possibility of building a third-party movement. he actually ran in 1988 as the libertarian candidate for president, for example. host: here's robert from texas, republican. caller: good morning. i listen to people who call, like the lady who said she was 77-years-old. i have a dad that is 78-years- old. he is on dialysis. these people are talking about big government, how many people out there have children or parents or grandparents on dialysis? do you think they can pay $9,000 a week out of their pockets for dialysis? these republicans in the two- party -- host: our discussion is centering around third parties,

what is your question on that? caller: i don't think the third parties get a good -- most of them are too radical. host: mr. gillespie? guest: i think that we have historically regarded third parties as finding places for themselves on that radical left or right. it would appear that as the two major parties have moved further apart on various policy issues, maybe the place to look for building a third party would be at the center. when you look at what is being said about what people are feeling about the two parties, a recent poll showed that 26% of americans say that americans are being -- by the two-party system.

there was a generic matchup in terms of running for congress, the nbc-wall street journal did a generic matchup. there was an unnamed republican running against an unnamed democrat running against an unnamed third party candidate. the american people, 35%, said that they would vote for the democrat. 28% for the republican. 30% for the indie or third-party candidate. there are a lot of reasons to think that this might be a time for third parties. it may be that it is the center that is feeling disinherited and disenfranchised.

host: how would a third-party work in the electoral college system that we use? guest: here we get into some real institutional problems. there is no doubt about the fact that the electoral college system discriminates. there is a danger that third- party presence may prevent any major party from getting 270 electoral votes and that sort of thing. we know the problems that occurred in 2000, the green ran ralph nader and ralph nader got many more thousands of votes in florida and then the difference between al gore and george w. bush. people blamed the greens and ralph nader ever since. that is unfair, by the way. we can take that in a few minutes.

the electoral college does discriminate against third parties. ross perot got 20% of the popular vote, not a single electoral vote. one way around that would require a constitutional amendment to bring in something like instant runoff voting. instant runoff voting would be that you would have the ability to vote more than once. you could vote with your head for a candidate and for a candidate of your heart. if we have had instant runoff voting in 2000, for example, a lot of people who by their head went for al gore, could by their heart have gone for ralph nader in the same election. the way it works, if nobody gets the majority of popular vote, what happens is they distribute

the second choice votes to the remaining candidates until you have one candidate that has a majority of the popular vote. instant runoff voting would be an excellent replacement to the electoral college system. it would've assure that we would have a candidate that has a majority. the electoral college is a very serious barrier to third-party participation. the other is the single-member district plurality system. host: professor at the college of charleston, david gillespie joining us from mount pleasant, south carolina. the author of a book "challenges to duopoly" and "politics at the periphery." this was a viewer recommended segment. a viewer sent a suggestion, we are taking him up on it.

mark from hawaii joins us next, independent. caller: good morning. professor gillespie, as far as ballot access, it is easy in hawaii. only about 7000 signatures required. that would be to state, county, and city of honolulu elections, not national elections. you could get on the ballot for national elections -- it is much more in other states, as far as i know. the question is, my feeling is that it is impossible for third parties to make significant inroads due to the phenomenon of the half-century or more theory of convergence. capitalism and communism become more and more alike one another,

ultimately becoming indistinguishable from each other. bill o'reilly said yesterday, citing census figures, more people are on welfare than working. obamacare is going to push that over-the-top. we need to realize that we are no longer capitalists. although russian communism might have failed, chinese communism is succeeding better than our capitalism. host: we will leave it there. mr. gillespie? guest: yes, we are a mixed economy. i do not buy the convergence kind of theory. we are a mixed economy. often times, people are beneficiaries of government programs that they are unaware of being government programs. the democrats were very fond of pointing to tea party signs that

said "government, hands off my medicare." this is an illustration of that. we are a nation that does have a mixed economy. as far as what the caller was talking about in terms of quality, hawaii has relatively good ballot access laws. florida also, colorado, one of the worst states is the state of oklahoma. it is impossible for anybody to appear on that ballot without a d or a republican by his or her name. host: because of the amount of signatures or other hurdles? guest: mainly the signatures and when they have to be filed, various kinds of things. for about 20 years, the only choices that oklahomans have had an presidential elections have

had "d" or "r " by the name. unless it has changed recently, there has also been a law preventing right answer for president in oklahoma. host: george, florida, democrats line. caller: mr. gillespie, how are you? c-span, you have a great show. i wanted to share my question. i never believed in a third- party, but i also ask myself -- republicans and democrats have a lot in common. i have many friends of mine that are republicans, they believe in medicaid, social security. they have many things in common. but when it gets to becoming religiously inclined and we get some of these bureaucrats, i am speaking about religious

factors, the parties go haywire. they start criticizing each other. guest: there are a lot of overlapping things. i really think that democrats and republicans, and americans in general, share more in common then first blush would suggest. we tend to emphasize our differences. one of the problems in the republican party right now is that there is the conflict over the libertarian strain of the party versus the social conservative strain of the party. it sometimes plays out the establishment republicans versus tea party republicans. it really is 2 contrary philosophies that are both competing within the party itself. i suspect that there are comparable things, maybe not as serious at the present, within the democratic party.

i think you are exactly right. there are many overlapping things that link us more than separate us. host: there was a poll done by gallup in october. to the republican and democratic parties do an adequate job representing the american people, or do they do such a poor job that a third party is needed? 60% of americans said that they do such a poor job of for presenting the people that a third party is needed. 26% said that they adequately represented americans. how does this go in with other public polling or public sentiment about the need for a third-party? guest: i have been following the polling since 1990. there have been questions about third-party and independent challengers. usually, the percentage saying we want a third party or an independent challenger hovers

somewhere around the 50% mark. 60% is maybe an all-time high. i think it is a reflection of dissatisfaction with the kind of gridlock we have seen in congress and various other things. our government is not working right now. there used to be the mom's apple pie approach to the two major parties. it was considered to be un- american to think of going outside the domain of the two- party system. that has pretty much dissolved these days. people are fed up. there used to be a thought that the two major parties provided for both democratic and efficient government. now it appears that what it provides is a kind of zero-sum gridlock were nothing gets done. host: here is richard from missouri, independent. caller: good morning. i am a 76-year-old white man.

i have never heard of the tea party until he got a black president. the republican party actually is the dixiecrat party. you look at the leaders in congress, they are all from the south. they are the dixiecrat party. that is all i can say about it. host: we will let our guest answer. guest: it is very true that there was a realignment. i think it again with goldwater in 1964. "a choice not an echo." it continued through nixon's southern strategy and culminated in the victory of ronald reagan in 1980. many of the positions that used to be southern democratic divisions became republican positions, not segregation, not that point.

southern strategy, conservative point of view on social welfare issues and abortion and things of this sort. i think the caller is onto something, maybe stated it more strongly than i would. i do not see that the reporting party has become the new dixiecrat party, it is certainly the new conservative party. host: here is randy from iowa, democrats. caller: hi. i would like to comment on having a third party. i think it is, you know, a good idea. a lot of these two parties, you know, as far as money goes. in the republican party, the koch brothers, they donate tons of money.

propaganda can sway a vote, whether it is true or not. by the time they figure it out, the damage is already done, you know. so, -- host: we will leave it there. guest: in response to what randy says, i think citizens united versus the federal election commission was especially crippling to third parties. it tended to underscore the importance of corporate money in the election process. interestingly enough, when you think about the last third-party presidential candidate that got significant figures, some people would say that was ralph nader. i would say that that was ross perot. ross perot is the only third- party candidate in the 20th

century that may have spent more money on his presidential campaign than either the republican or democratic candidates. it was because he was so well to do. he circumvented the restrictions on what he could spend because he did not get any federal money for his campaign. host: about five minutes left. i wanted to take a minute -- how did you get so interested in third parties? guest: i am a graduate of several universities, wake forest is one of them. way back in the 1960's, there was a challenge symposium. it was about alternative politics. there were two third-party people that came. one was an ultra-far right person, george lincoln rockwell, representing the american nazi party. there was another person, norman

thompson, the long-term candidate of the socialist party. it seemed to me -- one of them totally left me completely floored in terms of the viciousness of what was said. the other person talk about how his party is so influenced major party platforms and all of that. it occurred to me that our two- party system is too narrow for a country this diverse as the u.s. is. i have been interested in third parties ever since that time. host: let's take a call from cincinnati, bob, republicans. caller: i would like mr. gillespie to comment on the idea that there are people who vote republican and independent that are pro-life, that is the reason they are voting that way,

because the democratic party is so radical on abortion. what does he think about the possibility of a third party which was more mainstream antiabortion and economic issues on the abortion and economic issues to attract independents? guest: the response i would make that ross perot in his platform, the centrist platform, did take a largely pro-choice position with regard to abortion. it may very well be that there is not common ground. i think you can think up some pragmatic solutions about where, within the terms of pregnancy, it might be permitted for an abortion to take place. it does seem to me that the pro- choicers and the pro-lifers have dug in. there may not be anything that any political party could do to look for a middle way solution

to that particular issue. >> >> it is election day in 2013. governor chris christie running for a second term against democrat barbara buono. democrat terry mcauliffe and ken cuccinelli. 52.2% of the vote. vote.with 42% of the libertarian with just about it percent of the vote.