this election about trust and planned parenthood, we know something about trust because every single year, millions of patients trust planned parent hood with their health care and their future. a mother in houston, texas, who found a lump in her breast and trusted us. a transgender teen in north carolina who trust us to provide nonjudgmental high quality health care. [cheers and applause] >> and a young woman far away from home who trusted planned parenthood to get her on birth control. no shame. no judgement. the important thing, trust is earned, earned by actions, not by words and that is why the planned parenthood action fund has trust in hillary clinton. [applause] so this trust has been built over a lifetime. remember back when millions of children in america were going without health care coverage, who did the nation trust to establish the first nation's coverage?

hillary clinton. that's right. >> or in beijing, who did we trust to declare to the world that women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights once and for all. hillary. [cheers and applause] >> remember back when the f.d.a. refused to put emergency contraception over the counter and we needed a champion in the united states senate to get it done. who did we trust? hillary. [applause] >> and in the white house, who do we trust to lead the charge to repeal the hyde amendment and fix the helms amendment including at planned parenthood? hillary clinton. [applause] honestly, who do we trust to simply trust women? that's hillary.

so we are enormously honored that hillary is with us today since this is her very first speech since clinching the nomination. [cheers and applause] >> and as you know, we have talked a lot about it this week, we need a president who will fight for immigration rights, civil rights, voting rights, to keep communities safe from gun violence and toxic water, we need a president who has fought for women and families every single day and will take that fight for all of us to the white house. you know who she is, she's our friend, fighter and leader and going to be the next president of the united states, hillary clinton! [cheers and applause] ♪

secretary clinton: thank you. ♪ hello. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: thank you. thank you so much. [crowd chanting hillary] secretary clinton: thank you all. i have to say pink never looked so good. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: i want to thank my friend and your

courageous leader. cecile is the definition of grace under pressure. she has proven that time and time again in the course of her career and particularly over the course of the last few years. she really is like another great american, her mother, ann richards, was a friend of mine and i just wish she was here to see this election because she would have donald trump tweeting double time. [applause] reached a milestone thanks to you and those all over the country. for the first time a woman will be presidential nominee for president of the united states. [applause]

and yesterday i had the great honor of being endorsed by president obama and vice president biden. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and by senator elizabeth warren. [applause] so it's been a big week, and there's nowhere i'd rather end it than right here with the planned parenthood action fund. i'm grateful for the entire planned parenthood family. you made this campaign your own, whether you knocked on doors in iowa or rallied in california, this victory belongs to all of you. and it belongs to the 1,000 young activists who came together in pittsburgh last month to get organized. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: it belongs to

the staff, the donors and to the providers, providers like dr. dermish in texas who called out donald trump when he said women should be punished for having abortions and the open letter she wrote defending her patients' rights to make their own health care decisions should be required reading for every politician in america. [applause] and i am deeply conscious of the reality that this victory belongs to generations of brave women and men who fought for the radical idea that women should determine our own lives and futures, and it belongs to the women and men who continue to fight for that idea today even in the face of threats and violence.

when a man who never should have had a gun killed three people at planned parenthood in colorado springs, leaders in this room voted unanimously to keep health centers across america open the next day. [applause] secretary clinton: the c.e.o. of planned parenthood rocky mountains made a promise to patients in colorado and beyond when she said, our doors and our hearts stay open. that is really what planned parenthood is all about. so today i want to start by saying something you don't hear often enough. thank you. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: thank you.

thank you for being there for women no matter their race, sexual orientation or immigration status. thank you for being there for natrasha mcqueen in brooklyn who said planned parenthood caught her breast cancer when she was just 33 years old and saved her life. thank you for being there for college students getting s.t.d. testing, the young people who have the tough questions that they're afraid to ask their parents, the sexual assault survivors who turn to planned parenthood for compassionate care, the transgendered teens who come for an appointment and find the first place where they can truly be themselves. thank you for being there for your communities, whether that means taking on hostile politicians in louisiana or handing out clean drinking water in flint, michigan.

[cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and thank you for being there for every woman in every state who has to miss work, drive hundreds of miles sometimes, endure cruel medically unnecessary waiting periods, walk past angry protesters to exercise her constitutional right to safe and legal abortion. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: i've been proud to stand with planned parenthood for a long time, and as president i will always have your back. [cheers and applause]

secretary clinton: because i know that for a century planned parenthood has worked to make sure that women, men, young people who count on you can lead their best lives healthy, safe and free to follow their dreams. just think when planned parenthood was founded, women couldn't vote or serve on juries in most states. it was illegal even to provide information about birth control, let alone prescribe it. but people marched and organized. they protested unjust laws and in some cases even went to prison, and slowly but surely america changed for the better. 51 years ago this week, thanks to a planned parenthood employee

named estelle griswold -- [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: the supreme court legalized birth control for married couples across america. [laughter] secretary clinton: when i used to teach law and i would point to this case, a look of total bewilderment would come across my students' faces, and not long after that, roe v. wade guaranteed the right to safe, legal abortion so young women were no longer dying in emergency rooms and back allies from botched illegal abortions . and this is a fact that is not often heard but i hope you will repeat it. america's maternal mortality rate dropped dramatically and it

turns out being able to plan their families not only saved women's lives, it also transformed them. because it meant that women were able to get education, build careers, enter new fields and rise as far as their talent and hard work would take them. all the opportunities that followed when women are able to stay healthy and choose whether and when to become mothers. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and you know so well, today the percentage of women who finish college is six times what it was before birth control was legal. women represent half of all college graduates in america and nearly half our labor force and our whole economy then is better off.

the movement of women into the work force, a paid work force over the past 40 years was responsible for more than $3.5 trillion in growth in our economy. secretary clinton: and here's another fact that doesn't get enough attention. unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy and abortion rates are , at all-time record lows. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: that reality and studies confirm what planned parenthood knew all along -- accurate sex education and effective, affordable contraception work.

and you know -- back in the 1990's when i helped create the national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy i worked with republicans to get it done. now, things feel quite different now, don't they? instead of working to continue the progress we've made, republicans, led now by donald trump [audience booing] secretary clinton: are working to reverse it. when donald trump says, let's make america great again, that is code for, let's take america backward, back to a time -- [applause] secretary clinton: when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all, back to the days when abortion was

illegal, women had far fewer options and life for too many women and girls was limited. well, donald, those days are over. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: we are not going -- we are not going to let donald trump or anyone else turn back the clock, and that means we've got to get to work because as you know better than anyone, right now across the country, rights that women should be able to take for granted are under attack. any day now the supreme court will rule on the texas law that imposes burdensome and medically unnecessary requirements on abortion providers. if these restrictions are allowed to stand, 5.4 million

women of reproductive age will be left with about 10 health centers that provide abortion in a state the size of france. it is the biggest challenge to roe v. wade in a generation. it's also yet another reminder of what's at stake on the supreme court. president obama has done his job and nominated merrick garland to be the ninth justice. it's time for the senate republicans to do their job. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: the senate should give judge garland the hearing he deserves.

11 states have defunded planned parenthood in the last year, cutting some women off from their only health care provider and, of course, on a national level, republicans in congress have been willing to shut down the entire federal government over planned parenthood funding. have you ever noticed that the same politicians who are against sex education, birth control and safe and legal abortion are also against policies that would make it easier to raise a child, like paid family leave? [cheers and applause] they are for limited government everywhere except when it comes to interfering with women's choices and rights. [cheers and applause]

secretary clinton: well, i'm here today to tell you we need to be just as determined as they are. we need to defend planned parenthood against partisan attacks. if right-wing politicians actually cared as much about protecting women's health as they say they do, they'd join me in calling for more federal funding for planned parenthood. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: we also need to fight back against the erosion of reproductive rights at the federal, state and local levels, ensure that patients and staff can safely walk into health centers without harassment or violence. [applause]

secretary clinton: we need to stand up for access to affordable contraception without interference from politicians or employers. [applause] secretary clinton: and let's invest in long acting reversible contraceptive so every woman can choose the method that is best for her. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: let's strengthen and improve the affordable care act which covers 20 millions americans and helps through no co-pay preventive care. [applause] secretary clinton: and let's take action to stop the spread of the zika virus which threatens the health of children and pregnant women. [applause] secretary clinton: let's repeal

laws like the hyde amendment that make it nearly impossible -- [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: make it nearly impossible for low-income women, disproportionately women of color to exercise their full reproductive right. and it is worth saying, again, defending women's health means defending access to abortion, not just in theory but in reality. [cheers and applause] we know that restricting access doesn't make women less likely to end a pregnancy. it just makes abortion less safe, and that then threatens women's lives. for too long issues like these have been dismissed by many as women's issues, as though that

somehow makes them less worthy, secondary. well, yes, these are women's issues. they're also family issues. they're economic issues. they're justice issues. they are fundamental to our country and our future. and beyond these specific issues we need to get incomes rising, including the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects women. we need to finally guarantee equal pay for women's work. [applause] secretary clinton: we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and we need to break down all the barriers of discrimination and systemic racism that hold too many americans back.

[cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and we need to come together to stop the epidemic of gun violence that is stalking our country. [applause] no parent should live in fear that their child will be hurt or killed by gun violence. 33,000 americans are killed every year. i've met so many mothers on this campaign who have lost their own children. we owe it to them to protect our kids no matter what zip code they live in, and that is going to require -- [applause] secretary clinton: standing up to the gun lobby and making this a voting issue. you know, all the issues that we're talking about today are connected.

they intersect, and that's why i'm grateful to the reproductive justice leaders in this room and across america. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: because you know, you know that all these issues go straight to that fundamental question, whether we believe whether women of all races, backgrounds and income levels deserve an equal shot in life. now, that's what i believe and you won't be surprised to hear donald trump believes something very different. he actually thinks guaranteeing paid family leave would leave america less competitive. he says if women want equal pay we should just -- and this is a quote -- do as good a job as men, as if we weren't already. [booing] he wants to appoint justices who would overturn roe v. wade. he, of course, wants to defund

planned parenthood. and he wants to go after so many of the fundamental rights we have, including safe and legal abortion. and he actually said women should be punished for having abortions. now, once he said that, there was an outcry, as there should have been, and he tried to walk back his comments. he's doing that a lot lately. [laughter] secretary clinton: but anyone who would so casually agree to the idea of punishing women like it was nothing to him, the most obvious thing in the world, that's someone who doesn't hold women in high regard. because if he did, he would trust women to make the right decision for ourselves. [cheers and applause]

secretary clinton: but don't worry. donald assures us that as president he will be, and i quote again, "the best for women." [laughter] secretary clinton: and he wants to defund planned parenthood and wipe out safe, legal abortion has nothing idea what's best for women and this is someone that's called women pigs, dogs and disgusting animals. kind of hard to imagine counting on him to respecour fundamental rights when he says pregnant women are an inconvenience to their employer. what does that say about how he values women, our work, our contributions? and we have to ask ourselves and you have to ask everyone you come in contact with, do we want to put our health, our lives,

our futures in donald trump's hands? now, these questions are not hypothetical. every woman and everyone who cares about women will answer them when they vote in november. now, when i talk like this, donald trump likes to say i'm playing the woman card, and i like to say, if fighting for equal pay, planned parenthood and the ability to make our own health decisions is playing the woman card, then deal me in. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: now, my friends, i come to this issue, of course, as a woman, a mother

and a grandmother now, but i also come to it as a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. and in those roles -- [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: in those roles, i traveled to parts of the world where girls are married off as soon as they are old enough to bear children, places where the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of hardship. i visited countries where governments have strictly regulated women's reproduction , either forcing women to have abortions or forcing women to get pregnant and give birth. everything i have seen has convinced me that life freer, fairer, safer and far more humane when women are empowered to make their own reproductive health decisions. [cheers and applause]

secretary clinton: and everything i've heard from donald trump often seems to echo other leaders who have a very different view of women. the late great maya angelou said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: donald trump has shown us who he is and we sure should believe him. and it's not just on reproductive rights. donald trump would take us in the wrong direction on so many issues we care about -- economic justice, workers' rights, civil rights, human rights, the environment, all of that is on the line in this election. when donald trump says a distinguished judge born in indiana can't do his job because

of his mexican heritage or mocks a reporter with disabilities or denigrates muslims and immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for. he does not see all americans as americans. so this election isn't about the same old fights between democrats and republicans. they'll be there. don't worry. [laughter] secretary clinton: but this election is profoundly different. it is about who we are as a nation. it's about millions of americans coming together to say, we are better than this. so here's my promise to you today. i will be your partner in this election and over the long haul. together we're taking on the attacks and together we will come out stronger, just like planned parenthood has time and again.

[cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and together we're going to unify our country, stop donald trump and fight for an america where we lift each other up instead of tearing each other down. we are not going to just break that highest and hardest glass ceiling. we're going to break down all the barriers that hold women and families back, because you know we do believe we're stronger when every family in every community knows they're not on their own. we are stronger together, and we're going to make history together in november. thank you all so much! [applause]

[chanting hillary] democratic senator tim kaine one of several names being mentioned as a potential running mate for hillary clinton in the general election. we recently sat down with him to discuss his life growing up in kansas and his political rear in virginia as governor. now a first-time senator. you can watch the interview sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:40 p.m. eastern on c-span.

addressed the faith and freedom -- republican presidential candidate donald trump addressed the faith and freedom coalition in washington dc on friday. mr. trump talked about the importance of the evangelical community and restoring marriage and family values. he also give reasons for why he thinks a hillary clinton administration would be problematic for the country. this is 20 minutes. [applause] mr. trump: thank you. thank you, everybody. what a group. so much life. thank you, everybody. we're going to have a very big victory in november.

you're going to very happy. this is my third time and i think the first time it was only ok. the second time i was great. this time, we have to top it. before we begin, i want to thank ralph reed. he has been an amazing guy and amazing support. terrific man and it is a great honor to be invited back some eight times. i've had so much supporters, we have done very well within intel calls -- evangelicals and religion generally speaking. if you look at what has happened with all the races, whether it is south carolina, went there and it was supposed be strong evangelical and i wanted a landslide. and so many other places where you have evangelicals and the heavy christian groups and it

has been an amazing journey. i think we won 37 different states. the support that i've had from you folks has been incredible and i appreciate it much. [applause] go ahead. [applause] i have to be presbyterian. there are about three of you out there. it has been something. some of my friends in the room, i appreciate you being here. i want to thank gary followed junior. he has been a tremendous support. liberty university. the job he has done is incredible. [applause] right from the beginning, i have known her from so long. she is a tremendous person, tremendous woman. pastor mark burns.

i don't if you have watched him on television. between him and pastor darrell scott, these guys are phenomenal. they had been some credit. robert jeffers has been amazing. i think we have rigidly, jim -- richard lee and father frank pagone. i appreciate you being here. i have to say, the world is such a different place. we started 12 months ago and coming up, i see where in france they are having a massive soccer tournament. something so important and they. they are thinking about postponing it or canceling it because of threats and all the problems going on with what is happening with terrorism and it is a very sad thing and a sad place. who would have ever thought our world would be in a position like this where that would happen? you see event after event. radical islamic terrorism is taking over and we can't let that happen. we cannot let that happen. [applause]

and if we are smart, if we are tough, we want let it happen. just remember that. ok. it is an honor to speaker today and to discuss our shared values. i would like to thank all of the wonderful christian leaders and christian voters who have supported me. we've had tremendous support. here we are if you're the goals. i thought i would put some of these together and i did it just the other night because of this meeting. i wanted to come from me, my heart. we want to uphold the sanctity and dignity of life. [applause] marriage and family as the building blocks of happiness and success. so important.

[applause] by the way, i have known many successful people. the happiest people are the ones who have the great religious feel and incredible marriage. children. it is more important than the money. i know plenty with money and they are not happy people. religious freedom, the right of people of faith to freely practice their faith. so important. freedom of any kind means no one should be judged by their race, color, and color of their skin. no one should be judged that way. we have a very divided nation. we're going to bring our nation together. if i win, we're going to bring our nation together. [applause] the importance of faith, the united states society, the

people who go to church who work in a religious charities. so important. should the values. these are the foundations of our society. we must continue to forge our partnership with israel and work to ensure israel's security. [applause] keeping people of faith save from threats like radical islam, whether protecting them here or standing by israel, all of us need to confront together the threat of radical islam. we have to do it. [applause] now, hillary clinton, or as i call her crooked hillary, as

crooked as big-time -- they come, refuses to say the words radical islam. this alone makes her unfit to be president. [applause] in fact, she wants a 500% increase in syrian refugees to come into our country. >> boo! >> no good, we can't do it. we don't know where they come from. we don't know where they are. >> no, no, no! [protesting] >> usa! usa!

>> refugees are welcome here. >> thank you, all right. >> boo! >> usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa!

>> all right, thank you. freedom of speech. thank you. very rude, but what are you going to do? thank you. our country is so divided, it is such a shame. by the way, these are professional agitators. they come in, their center by the other party. believe me. [applause] where we left off. 500% increase in syrian refugees. without documentation, we don't know where they come from. hillary will bring hundreds of thousands of refugees. many of whom have police -- beliefs. some of them, absolutely and

openly support terrorism in our country. we don't need that. we have enough problems. [applause] here is some of what we can are complex together. -- accomplish together. appoint judges. so important. [applause] who will uphold our laws, protect our constitution and protect the rights of all americans. as you know, put a list together of highly respected judges and you will see, and i think you have seen it, a lot of people have come together. one of the most important reasons why we have to win the presidency. if we don't, it is going to be a whole different country.

by the way, these judges are all pro-life. [applause] we will restore respect for people of faith who dutifully raised their children, follow our laws and rules, and we have to really take care of our neighbors. right now, our neighbors are not being taken care of. we have to restore the rule of law. on our border, in our government, no matter where it is. it has to be restored. [applause] by the way, we have to thank great respect to our police and law-enforcement in the country. and not being treated properly. [applause]

all of this includes tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the office of secretary of state. which it has not had any while. the worst dealmakers i've ever seen. iran -- truly one of the worst deals i've ever seen negotiated. [applause] we will protect the right of churches to speak their minds on political matters free from intimidation. [applause] new immigration controls to keep a safe from radical islamic terrorism. [applause] here is what hillary clinton would do to our country. she will appoint radical judges who will legislate from the bench overriding congress.

the will of the people will mean nothing. nothing. her judges will abolish the second amendment and destroy the rule of law. she was to abolish the second amendment and i will say the national rifle association, they endorsed donald trump two weeks ago. [applause] i think it is the realist endorsement they have ever given to a presidential candidate. -- earliest endorsement they have ever given to a presidential candidate. they're are great people. she will keep obamacare in place. it will keep medical decisions in the hands of government. we will repeal and replace. [applause] she will restrict religious freedom with government mandates.

she will push the federal funding of abortion up until the moment of birth, which is where she is. she will undermine the wages of working people with uncontrolled migration creating poverty and income insecurity. her wall street agenda will crush working families. she will put bureaucrats, not parents in charge of our lives. and our children's education. can't have it. she will be trapping kids and feeling schools. she will punch our inner cities into even deeper poverty that is possible. hillary's agenda of taxation, she was to raise your taxes, big league. get used to it. she wants to raise your taxes tremendously. regulation, bureaucracy, government control and open

borders have economically destroyed our inner cities. her policies will be a crushing blow to all poor people in this country. her education policies, economic policies, immigration policies and or trade policies will plunge our poor, african-american, hispanic communities into turmoil and even worse despair. believe me. look at what is going on. [applause] the democratic party has run the scoreboards -- school boards, police department, city councils and mayors offices in most of our inner cities. they have run congressional office. they've horribly failed in almost every single community. in fact, you could ask a say in every community.

i'm going to turn things around. [applause] hillary clinton has jeopardized, totally jeopardized national security by putting her e-mails on a private server all to hide her corrupt dealings. this is the reason she did it. it is to hide her corrupt dealings. she is now under criminal investigation. that was announced yesterday by the white house. it is criminal investigation. [applause] first time ever by the way, president of the united states and or somebody under criminal investigation. interesting. she even appointed to the national security board someone with no national security experience, instead, he was a donor. the recent donor to philly clinton's campaign.

and also gave as much as $250,000 to a foundation. where did this guy come from? many cut to be shipped to under $250,000, now is on this important board. bill and hillary made $153 million giving speeches to special interest groups since 2001. that is a lot of money. [laughter] these donors own hillary clinton. they own her. and bernie sanders was right about that. [applause] the bottom line is, i will be

working for you. i spent $55 billion running with my money. not easy. i spent $55 million of my money. other people spent many times that amount and they did not do so well. i work for you. i'm working for you. i'm doing this because i want to put back, give back to our country. we will chart a new optimistic course for america. we will put america first. when you look at our deals, military deals, trade deals, we don't put america first. i think anybody negotiating these deals knows anything about what they're doing and i don't think they care about america being first. i care and you care and that is the way it is going to be. [applause]

that is a big, big part of why i am challenging hillary clinton today to replace her support for increased refugee admissions. we have to do it for a new jobs program for our inner cities. we have to take care of the people that are here. [applause] we have to temporarily stop this whole thing with what is going on with refugees where we don't know where they have come from, but we have to take a rest and take a timeout. we have to use the money to take care of our poorest americans and work with them so they can come out of this horrible situation that they are in. [applause] we will restore faith to his proper mental in our society. it is what we have to do and we

have to do that soon. we will respect and defend christian americans. christian americans. [applause] we will get parents control over their schools. so important. we will uphold the values our founders gave us which we are not doing now. [applause] we will work together to rebuild and restore and lift up everyone, not a certain group, everyone. we will lift up the whole country. [applause] we will make america great again for all americans and we will do it together. i want to thank you. this has been a great honor. amazing friendships i have in this room. they keep all very much -- thank you all very much. [applause] thank you.

[applause] thank you. [applause] thank you, everybody. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [cheering] >> newsmakers this weekend, we discussed the presidential race with california congressman xavier becerra. he talks about the role of hispanics in this election year and the recent impact of the california primary. watch the interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and six a clock p.m. eastern on c-span. >> madam secretary.

we probably give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. [cheering] >> now a discussion on political polarization in the united states. speakers include haley barbour and mike mccurry. they talk about the partisan divide in government and what can be learned from the current presidential race and past election cycles. this is from the george w bush

presidential center in dallas. it is just over an hour. [applause] [applause] >> it is great to see you all here today. thank you for joining us. thank you so much for the dallas morning news for hosting this event. if you were up earlier today, questions of diversity in the newsroom, diversity on the panel, it is not always easy to embrace all kind of diversity in any given event, but i want to celebrate this event having done such a remarkable job of embracing ideological diversity. eventterrific to be at an cosponsored by the george bush library, the george w. bush presidential center. i want to put you out of your suspense. can democracy survive?

yes. [laughter] the question we're all wondering and talking about today, how? how bad is it actually. ? what we do about the issue. we all know a couple basic facts. much is a shift in how embers of each party to each other unfavorably. 1984, 60% of democrats beat on -- 16% democrat you'd open unfavorably. now itng percent of -- 43%. perhaps, the more interesting data point, the one that suggests that issues are no longer ideological, but have become a matter of lifestyle and identity. the fact that in 1960 4% of democrats and 5% of republicans would have disapproved of the

child marrying somebody from the other party. now?are those numbers disapprovedrats but -- would disapprove and 49% of republicans. i pulled out some fun facts. no one, you study this. is polarization real? >> i think it is true that polarization is real. what would we have studied this over a much longer history is to look at patterns of rollcall voting in congress. one of the best matters of how partisan or bipartisan our institutions have been over time. a headline fact is that the levels of bipartisanship in congress are the lowest levels since reconstruction. to put that into perspective, the party system based on the

regional cleavages might just resolved civil war had more bipartisanship than the current congress. polarization has not been a constant in history. through much of the 20 century, it was not that way at all. there were large blocks of ,onservative democrats tha republicans were liberal. lots of important legislation. we have seen over the course of the past 40 years, roughly from the night -- 1970's to the current, at large deterioration in the level of bipartisan cooperation. i think it is a serious consequence for the government of society. >> what do you think happened? is one of the core academic mysteries of this point. ,hy a very bipartisan unemployed system begin to take

a different trajectory. to individual historical events such as the election of ronald reagan, the defeat of robert burks nomination, the impeachment in 1998, 2000 election. i don't think there is much behind this arguments. there has been a lot of focus on the way in which we conduct our elections, whether they be partisan primaries or gerrymandered congressional districts or uncontrolled campaign-finance. there's very little evidence that has much at all to do with gerrymandered commercial districts where the way that we conduct primaries. there's a lot less players asia in the 50's and 60's with a lot more gerrymandering and a lot more partisan modes of selecting candidates. there is some evidence that the campaign finance system has contributed to a system that was

already polarized. it is probably making it worse at this point. i'm inclined to believe that our politics became our polarized because the state has become a much more diverse society over the past 45 years. whether that be through taking patterns of immigration, racial ethnic opposition, or economic differences like economic inequality. i think we have become a much more pluralistic, divided society on many of the important legal cleavages that is going to be reflected in the way congress represents the type of society we live in today. >> you point to some historical touch points. we often hear about reagan and tip o'neill as examples of bipartisanship in the 1980's and the events of the 90's. i was to turn to governor barbour who lived through the

highly contentious events of the 1990's. your chairman of the republican national committee during the. government shutdown. lived experience, did you feel a change in how members of the two parties attracted? interactedive? -- ? for and what to washington dc was 1968. jimmy's one was an old segregationist, my granddaddy was his daddy's lawyer. they told me to come back at 5:30, i came back and he walked into his office and was how make a quick ted kennedy and to conservative republican from nebraska democrat senator from georgia.

he was the chairman -- democratic chairman of the judiciary committee. they knew each other. they were friends. they socialize. having a drink together. it is incredibly unusual today. most of the members don't live there. it used to be that the kids went to school together. their wives knew each other. that is one of the reasons, i think. another reason, and i have a different view, i think your mentoring has made a difference because, particularly in the sentence --ve to census it has made the u.s.lature reapportioned house of representatives and the state legislature. or years ago, the parties to get out, if we have control of the legislature, we can change the districts around a little bit will have a better deal. 350y, they are probably

house if that not competitive between the two parties. that make the 350 party members, they are not worried by the general election. they weren't about the primary. if they are in a safe democrat district in the northeast or west coast, or waiver, and i can't let anybody get to the left of them. if they are in the safe republican district, they will not let anybody get to the right of them. that has hollowed out the center. it does not directly affect the u.s. senate, but it certainly indirectly does because the legislation they see, the arguments that the senators constituents are here. there's anyk question this has happened. i think there is more than one reason. >> i'm sure districting is important. we will get back to that. what to talk about party strategy in the 90's.

as you are moving into the majority republican congress, that was one of your future competence -- huge accompaniments. strategized party on questions of bipartisanship and early 90's? >> it was a big advantage that had contract with america. we not had a majority in both houses in 40 years. the last time republicans, 1952. we lost in 1954. contract with america gay people something to vote for. most people who but a republican for congress that year were not regular republicans, they were mad at clinton. but having something to vote for like contract of america. easier for them. also meant, when we got the majority, we had an agenda. days,nt the first 100

bringing up the 10 points of the contract of america and are interestingly, the democratic national convention in 1996, when president clint made his -- clinton and his speech, cemented six things that have been done with contract of america. he took credit for ta that. welfare reform and the balance budget. >> what you think about bipartisanship at this time? one little detail, this is 1995 when the white house does a study on the impact of the internet of political communication that is only get rightrst location of the wing conspiracy on attack of the patent -- the clintons. beginning of 1995, this is after speaker gingrich took office, we start in 1995, very contentious environment.

remember, in the early part of that year, they were routine stories in the press about is the president relevant anymore. all the energy was with the new speaker and the new majority in congress. the oklahoma billion was blown up. at that point, president clinton found his voice again and began to shape the contra argument of the contract on america. [laughter] >> polarization. [laughter] >> and we hit over and over again the fact that we needed to invest in the future of the country. we need to balance the budget, we needed to protect the environ. socialmake sure we cap security and medicare strong. that discipline around the message carried us through that you to the point in 9095 we had the -- 1995 when we had the showdown with the republicans

about whether the government would be shut down. brenda stefon diggs at the white house in the morning and have to honestly say that we did not know it were not confident we would come out ahead of the republicans the question of who would be to blamed for shutting down the government. because of our discipline and the president making the case, we ended up cannot on the upper end of that. -- came out on the upper and and that resulted in a strong election year. one thing, that haley said, i agree with -- when mrs. clinton was in the u.s. senate, we had breakfast event one day and i asked her, what is the source of this dysfunction and gridlock employers asian -- polarization?

and she made that point. she said, we don't trust each other. we don't spend enough time with each other. we don't get to know each other well. i feel like if i go out how to play -- halfway and put something medically risk, no one will meet me halfway. yes, there was a study of the internet in 1995. brickley, there was -- frankly, there was one on news cable station. no one was using social media, the internet site the white house had transcripts of my press briefings which were mildly entertaining. era -- it was an

area for the major mainstream media should the contours of the national discussion. you still had come at think at that point, 75-80% of the country reporting that the news from broadcast reports, daily newspapers, the traditional sources of information that we used to be coherent as a country. that has disaggregated now. newspaper circulation has declined. audio share for the major network has been declined. we don't gather around a common campfire to share our stories and develop a narrative. that is something us together as a country. not bring us together as a country. >> some people call it fractionalization and so the polarization. bring brett and here for a

moment. he is a list of things people invoke as possible causes. finance,ting, campaign general fragmentation of the country, but sometimes, people point to the fact that since roughly 1980, elections have been much more contested in the decades before. in that regard, we should recommend that we live in a period of contestatory politics. maybe that is what democracy is about. we should by over the direction that we are heading. brett, he were in the ache of it -- think of it. thick of it. how has this affected your efforts to be a voice adding thoughtfulness and delivering this to the public? >> many respects, it is more youicult just because, if are in the opinion business that i am in, and you offer a view

that is not perfectly in line with what your audience anticipates, you're going to be treated not as someone who disagrees on one issue where a few issues, but as a traitor and you're going to hear it almost immediately from 4000 people on twitter denouncing you in one way or another. it takes some intestinal fortitude not to try to paley that's out offy your audience to think that there might be an audience beyond simply be angry people who have time on their hands to fire off a tweet or a nasty e-mail. that is a real issue journalism. one thing that i fear that modern journalism is that editors increasingly have lost control of the narrative. why?

we are looking, newspapers at that, looking at stores are going to be popular with audiences. did you get on the most viewed, most e-mailed list this week? was at that say about the quality of your writing? there's nothing more depressing than when the wall street aurnal has a huge expense of story about burma and only four people free. i can write another piece about donald trump and i know it would have a huge audience. there is a shelling of ing oflism in a shallow public discourse and rhetoric. naturally, politically want to play to those shallower narratives. it becomes difficult to see complex he and issues. it becomes so much easier to say we say you are on one side, you are on the other, there is no

gray zone. there is no in between and there viewsroom for judgment or that are shaded or colored by some kind of park city. that is a real issue. one thing, i want to point out, since i do write about foreign policy, what is happening in the united states in this electoral season is having all of the world. country, the buildings elected them and described as the donald trump of the philippines. we have a populist right-wing party, illiberal party governing poland. same story and hungry. the movement on the right is gaining traction in france. politicsof centrist that defined the postwar europe

are fragmenting, falling apart not just in the united states. i think it is worth asking, why this is a global phenomenon. it all seems to be happening at the same time. i think that is a question that ought to trouble us. i'm not worried about whether democracy can survive. i am producer democracy can survive. i'm worried about whether liberalism can survive. not left-wing liberalism, but the set of values that inform tolerant, pluralistic rules-based labbe society. -- law based society. >> what he makes about journalism and the pressure of this purity is felt by medical operatives and elected officials. -- political operatives and elected officials. this a group in the country that was. wants peer-to-peer in a

two-party system, purity is the enemy of victory. these to work for ronald reagan. reagan copper mise on everything because the democrats have the majority in the house. he compromised. he said that a fellow who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor. if youas bread said, think it is hard at the wall street journal, the about if you're in campaign accorded in south carolina or kansas montana. that pressure of, if you are not pure, i will be against you. they will get you in the priority -- party primary. >> where did that come from? >> personal, i don't think it came from a lot of people to be this to divided government. republican congress, democratic

house. -- democrat white house. i don't accept that. ronald reagan was an artist a successful and divided government. enormously successful in divided government. topassed reform with hundred democrat majorities in the house. i mentioned those for because they are complex and controversial. bill clinton was the same way. in six years, all republican congress, we passed welfare reform, the first balanced budget in a generation. it is not divided government. in president has to lead this president has not chosen to try to lead to congress, but in fact, he is polarizing. that is not the only reason. >> when my previous losses -- , that my previous bosses

is probably what is happened. there has been a slow-motion erosion of those things that bring together a common good in of common purpose. billing clinton and gamers were battling back-and-forth, they were still on the phone. these to annoy the hell out of everyone on the staff. they would get caught. at the end of the day, they were working in a system that was designed to produce an outcome which is either some form of compromise or some sort of mutual agreement of where will have. that is what is gone. our fundamental function of government, the things that medicine about the federalist papers are not working. >> the question is, to break down social relations, pasadena compromise, orientation to the common good, symptom or cause?

what the playback and. -- i want to pull you back in. >> i think all those things are tightly related. you mentioned, the rise and competition and that everything is competitive and every election is about control the white house or branches of congress, that is a factor. point, on brent's orthodoxy. one of the things that has gone hand-in-hand with limitation -- is party coalition. being a republican goes with having a set of policy positions that all somehow go together. they may not be coherent, but they understand the position. and they understand that democratic policy issue.

this kind of extreme orthodoxy within both parties and the willingness to punish the heterodox has gone along with it in a lot of ways. opposition tha compromise that the coalitions are fragile. you have to enforce this is orthodoxy because it is not coherent. if you look at donald trump, this timber lining is that he is the first person who is willing to challenge this orthodoxy. to somebody.ppeal it will be interesting to see what happens in the future now that we have a candidate who is going to say republican positions in some of the orthodox positions on immigration are not appealing to

broad swaths of the electorate. getting back to your original question, why do all of these things go together and why do they started to get the same time is still very hard to explain. thinkestion, why do you the system is collapsing globally? >> lots of reasons. , since 1978, to give you a data point, france has not had a signal year of more than 2% growth. thanars, not once more what united states is considered the upper growth. 10.5% unemployment rate, toy 5% rate youth unemployment, same story for much of europe to the last decade. we have had about 2% growth in the nine states. stagnant economies tend to lead to radicalize politics.

i was for the last 10 years, i don't mean to be so marxist and , butst -- the materialist historically, and economies where investors did very well in favors do very poorly, it tends to be a breeding ground for a certain kind of political radicalism. in theare an investor dow jones industrial average, the last eight years you have been great. if you had a savings account at td bank, maybe it made 100 bucks. phenomenon that is true from japan to europe to the united states. there is an economic explanation. there's also a historic back -- fact and then i think 20's and 30's, for a broad set of reasons, the west came disenchanted with april democratic policies as a set of

institutions that created mediocre outcomes, but were broadly fair and inclusive. aere was a sudden thirst for charismatic style politics for men of action, guys who would cut through the bull and make things work. the businessman at the that will throughout the regulatory nonsense. ridden this to the nomination. make it happen. i think part of the story here is that a failure of ordinary politics to deliver on the expectation that modern western societies have in terms of economic well-being, anxiety, turnects, has typically

people into saying, but look at these more radical nonmainstream alternatives. what the hell, let's give it a shot. there is a lot of that in the politics now with the strength of bernie sanders and donald trump at the presumptive nominee. it also throughout the entire world. if you're just an ordinary middle-class person or lower middle class person with money in the bank, you have not done well. you have seen the speculate in class as it is done well. that is one of the contingent factors. all caps of other things, but those are a few that come to mind. >> again, i'm not try to punctuate what he is saying, look at it this way, for three years in a row, public polling has measured by real clear politics averages that they publish every day, more than 50% of americans have said america is going the wrong direction.

of americans are republicans, that means there are a whole lot of people who are not republicans or independents or democrats that have now for three years thought we are going in the wrong direction. why would they not? if you are in the heartland or middle-class or small business person, you can tell the difference between the recovery and the recession. still feels like a recession. the national -- posted report that based on economic indicators like growth in gdp and income tax, only 7% of our 3000 plus counties are out of the recession. 93% are still in the recession based on those measurements. why people are mad and scared. what is interesting, and the hardest thing to understand -- we have polarity with essential

parity. the two parties are very close in numbers. they have the white house, we have the house and senate. have an edge in the electoral college. usually in our country, at least since the civil war, when we have been at parity, we then bunched in the middle. they ain't no middle. >> this election season is an interesting one. on both sides of the spectrum, we have the center, we have heterodoxy coming back. policy paradigms breaking. debt and sanders, and immigration. you made the point that there are serious problems that move politics toward extremes and empty out the center. if we think about how to fix it,

how much do we need to address these physic issues of interaction, civility, tolerance, for alternative views, as part of engaging policy questions? that is, do we have to fix polarization in order to do work on policy? or can we just mullah forward and focus on policy? -- muddle forward and focus on policy? >> we need more campaigns that are aspirational. the one thing i'm struck by are those numbers that say a majority of americans no longer believe that if they work hard, their children will have a better quality of life than they had. that is the fundamental american dream. that has been in the dna of what we think we are as americans. sense of restored some

hope for the future -- by the way, there are different measures. some measures, if you look at things that obama has been able to accomplish, that indicate that we have had some kind of recovery. 77 straight months of job growth. obama has basically accomplished a great deal as president. i am a communications guy. i don't think they have told that story very well. i don't think the country feels it. that is the important thing. we have got to restore that sense that we can move forward and we have a better future for our kids. we need candidates and politicians who speak at that kind of lofty level. we are not getting a lot of that

in this campaign. host: do we need to be, in addition to securing those aspirational purpose, do we need to do the institutional work? may bring it back to redistricting. we might debate on whether we need to work on that. do we need to restructure the electoral process as part of building incentive to work in the opposite direction? >> i would like to restore the actual process. i think one of the reasons why there are 350 members of the house has more with regional realignments in the south. people tend to find themselves in regions which were heterodox in the 1960's and 1970's and are not strongly partisan. -- are now strongly partisan. i think campaign-finance has to be looked at. i don't think it is the primary, initial cause, but a major contributor.

if you go back to 1980, the top 0.01% of donors could you be did 8%.- donors contributed the top 10,000 people contributed about a percent. now, they contribute 40%. we have a copy in finance system that is unaccountable. very wealthy people can put their policy views before the people without the same type of accountability that actual parties have. that is beneath your for exacerbating -- that has been a fuel for exacerbating polarization. what we have to look at in terms of institutional reform is about government. ultimately polarization is not necessarily a bad thing. in the 1950's, scientists

worried there was not enough differentiating between the parties. the eisenhower republicans looked a lot like truman democrats. that is a real problem because voters don't have choices. if you wish for something, you might get too much of it. [laughter] we have a differentiation, but we have not figured out how to govern with that level of differentiation. some of that is norms. a norm of designed. i understand where you're coming from if you understand where i am coming from. we are going to have these debates. we just have to figure out ways to solve them. congress could come up with procedures that are less partisan and more able to have debates and resolve them. one example of an institution that i think should be reformed. in almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world, the speaker of the lower changer is in an and ministry

of bureaucratic position. they are elected to stand up and recognize speakers. uniquely in the u.s., the speaker is a partisan institution. we can see what happens when you have the speaker of the lower house being a partisan institution. where a small fraction of the majority party can hold up position hostages. there are things like that that we can do. i don't like ideas of saying, let's try to eradicate polarization by eliminating differences of opinion. i don't think that is consistent with our underlying values. >> can i throw out one modest proposal? it connects to the idea of kind -- campaign finance reform. many of these members of congress are part of the reason they have their heads down when they were in washington, going to fundraiser after fundraiser. they spend all their time doing that. what if every wednesday that

congress is sitting in session, we declare from 8:00 until 10:00 in the morning to be a fundraising free zone? [laughter] and we instruct the party committees, the dnc and all those raising money, that will be sanctions against you if you host events for your candidate during that time. the expectation is that a number will call someone from the other side of the island say, let's have breakfast. there is one group called the faith and politics institute that gets people together for bible study. that is been important to the members that participate in it. or at least 1/3 of the senate. we create some spaces for these people to get to know each other and create relationships that can then translate to more trust.

>> my own modest proposal was marry a liberal. [laughter] >> or a conservative. >> well, advised that i took. and it does me some good. both the essence of a good citizen in a liberal democracy is someone that can say, i might be wrong. i am only in possession of say, 80% of the truth, and i don't know which 1/5 is wrong. that is an important personal characteristic to have. what are the institutions in our society which are cultivating qualities of self-doubt? i meant that. this is something that we think about often in our editorial meetings. toch might shock some of you hear. [laughter] >> tell us more about self-doubt at the wall street journal. [laughter] >> we try to resolve them before we go with the paper.

[laughter] but also, in terms of our pedagogical institutions, i would turn around on you -- what are universities doing? one of the things that astounds me when i get mail in connection to the current article season -- we gave up on this do nothing republican congress. and what do they do with it? you are tempted to write back, to you realize that the government can't be run out of the congress? you need the cooperation of the president? that is the way the system works? this nonstop assault from surgeon radio -- from certain radio show hosts about the losers in congress that do nothing, overturn obamacare and x, y, and z. clearly these people don't seem to know how our system of checks and balances work. i wonder why that is.

i wonder what failures have taken place from grade school to college, to what people are listening to on the morning commutes, that they don't understand these things. all these institutional fixes are terrific, but they are not going to work unless you have human beings who might say to themselves, i might disagree with the president/ i might disagree with him it vehemently, but i don't think that he is a bad man. right? can we do that as a country? that is the question i keep returning to. one last point. the republican party was born from a president that some aren't the better -- that summoned the better angels of our nature. i wonder who was summoning those angels in our political season this year? when one guy is saying put all of wall street in jail. another guy is asking for mass deportations of one ethnic group

or another. who are the summoner's of the better angels? that is what i am concerned about. >> i want to talk about education and civic education. theink it is -- you list victims of polarization. civic education is one of them. the common core curriculum was at its beginnings, a bipartisan effort. as we know now, it has become a controversial issue, fully embedded in the polarized conversations. one feature of the core curriculum was that national governors association worked with governors -- worked with educators to establish standards in math and language and social studies education. out.third piece fell

it was unachievable because of polarized views about how we should engage with american history. in some esense, the battle what are over whether or not the narrative should be triumphalist, fundamentally critical about the failings of the u.s. and efforts to overcome them. we have a deep problem with regard to this issue of education. and out and ability to share a common historical narrative. were you in office? >> i was in office. some of you may know that my state is a little conservative. [laughter] of peoplea lot against common core. i publicly supported the development of common core. . what it never gets said. fixes englishly

and math. that is the whole curriculum. all the complaining is, they are going to take religion out of the schools. they are going to teach god knows what in terms of history and social studies. that's bunk. [laughter] i mean, the mississippi state department of education ultimately decides what the curriculum is. they have common core standards for english and math they decide, are we going to use these? the state totally controls it at the end of the day. the federal government doesn't. but that goes back to something that i think was the 1.i was going to make, if i didn't any other. i became chairman of the republican national committee at the time of the rise of rush limbaugh. fox news. i loved it. i mean, i had grown up in the same america as y'all. when i graduated from high

school and and we got, 90% of the stations, we thought all of liberal. stations were we would finally get some conservatives out there, tell our side. in the last 3-4 years, the most bitter, the most harsh, the most negative critics of republicans have been the conservative media elite. the sean hannity's, the rush limbaugh, the laura ingrams, some of these people are friends of mine. but the fact of the matter is, may be because of ratings, but they are the leaders, they are the agitators for the purity cause. for saying, if you don't agree with me 100% of the time, you are a bad person. that is the opposite how you win in our system. the american two party system is about a bigger party.

it's about addition and multilocation, not division and subtraction. mitt romney got 60 million votes last time. if you think we are going to have a party where 60 million people are voting on everything, you need your head examined. my wife and i don't agree on everything. she says i have the right to be wrong sometimes. [laughter] cannot get towe where you have to agree on everything to be a good republican. one of the biggest victories we had in 1994, one of the things i was most proud of, in state after state, you see pro-choice pro-lifen voters for republican candidates and vice versa. he agrees with me on 10 issues out of 12, and i'm not going to vote.

that is how parties are supposed to think. until we get back to that, we are going to have a hard time. >> on this prior point, there was or is a national civics curriculum that looks at k-12 that would leave us with more fully functioning citizens going out into the world as they move into college and become voting age. i think there has to be an intentional commitment to that kind of work in schools. we are asking a largely public school system to do some things that are risky. i technology that. social studies teachers, when they are dabbling in government works and how they function, you know you're on shaky ground sometimes. you might get some parent group coming into complaints. that is where collectively

voices can stand up and say we cannot avoid to teach these students -- to cheat these students out of some understanding of this country. a lot of work has to be done on that. i'm going to tell a short story. when i first went to work in the senate as a press secretary, it was in 19 summary nine. there was a piece of labor legislation to reform labor law. i worked for the chairman of the senate labor committee, very prounion democrat. as i wrote a press release one day, it was aimed at orrin hatch, leading to filibuster against labor law reform. i wrote a quote "any senator who would suggest that the slightest leads to mandatory unitization --mandatory unionization breaks truth to the

breaking point." he's took me out in the hall, and he said you better be damn glad if that press release didn't go out. that puts in the mouth of our boss a statement that calls one of the colleagues in a statement a liar. stretches truth to the breaking point? that is toxic language compared to what we have now? [laughter] my question is, who are the people taking the young hotshot preceptors in washington? who are those enforcing some sense of civility in our discussion? the media is gone. they used to be something like a referee. now they are more a part of the problem than the solution.

collectively, it might sound will martin -- sound school marmish, these people that throughout these toxic courts, that is not how we conduct ourselves in politics. let me ask one question before we turn it over for questions. your point about setting standards was very well taken. brett, from your point of view, what can newspapers and news organizations do to set better standards in this regard? can they do anything? is that a lost cause? >> that is a great question and answer.n a 2 minute [laughter] look, there has been a shallow in of the news. it turns out that not only it makes for bad journalism, it

makes for bored readings. it's not an accident that the newspapers that are still doing reasonably well are the ones that take the deeper dives. in the country of 300 million, if you have even 1% of the country, that is a lot of readers. the journal has 2.4 million. we would like to get to 1%. bucking thens almost irresistible trend towards catering to the audience preferences. and what seems to be popular now. it means, essentially, following nition that youo don't know what you want until i give it to you. you did note that you wanted an iphone until you got one, then you could not live without it. i think the news business could

do something similar, which is to try and wrest back control of who gets to set the agenda. there is a wonderful line in "scoop," a novel in which the lord whatever his name is, the all press baron asks that questions be answered with "yes sir" or "up to a point, sir." a lot of we do in the news business should be considered in an up to a point way. of course we want our readers to be in sync with us, like what we do, but up to a point. we want to have grown ups in charge of the newspapers, not be slaves to audience preference. that is true in academia, where i sometimes feel professors have

lost the agenda setting prerogative. may be in government as well, where senators are terrified of being primaried. how do you get the grown-ups to be in charge? it is a great question. i don't think liberalism survives almost those grown-ups -- survives unless those grown-ups reassert those prerogatives. host: let us open it up since we have these mics. would love to hear from you. i understand that george washington in the early days of our country warned of the beginning of the two-party system being the death of the republic. so this year in the primary what i am seeing, and i understand that in primaries, there will always be a disagreement and people citing mean things about each other. but in this particular year,

candidate after candidate has said that one of the candidates is a con artist, a pathological liar, dangerous. all sorts of scary things. is now suddenyly that he presumably going to be the nominate, suddenly that is okay. i have a problem with the idea that party politics is just some kind of a game. i think the preservation of our country as we know it should be more important than that. i'm wondering how you see those things. yeah.l, [laughter] mike mentioned that wonderful phrase from pat monahan, defining deviancy down.

we have a new normal in this country where serious presidential candidates get away with saying things that i find a scandalous. that is not going to stop unless some larger number of americans say no, this is not right at all and we will run you out of our political system for saying these things. this is what worries me about this political season. bear in mind, i will say something overtly partisan -- these are the candidates we are getting. when growth is around 2%. one-day growth is going to be minus 2%. what are we going to get then? and what will be considered all right then? one last point -- you mentioned george washington. i was rereading the other day -- george washington spent time as a young man writing out rules for conduct and stability. it is well worth reading, not spitting in public or how to

comport himself with a lady. this is how the republic was founded, with a man of that kind of character. and republicans especially, go on about the character issue, may be should care more about the character of the candidates they put forward for high office. >> let me make one observation about the two party system. montesquieu, or one of the 19th century french philosopher's said that the two party system is the miracle of america because it acted like a teeter tottering. if one pottery got -- one party got too far this way, the public would run to the middle. that certainly hasn't happened in either party this time. one of my old friends from the white house days said, can you understand any of this? i said no, nobody can. i have never seen anything like it. >> he said yeah, that had to

create a new term after sanders and trump. it's called electile dysfunction. [laughter] we are hoping one of the big pharmaceutical companies-- [laughter] >> i think we all needed that. thank you. >> mr. stevens made a remark that i fully agree with. i too would be concerned if we 2%come a country with a minus growth rate, reminiscent of the early 1930's. my questioning goes to the , when there was

a presentation of statistics that the negativity that is felt towards our potential candidates for president. over the past 30-40 years, we have seen a diminishing percentage of our citizens voting. are we going to continue to see that? and if so, is it that i real threat to the democracy? actually we haven't seen a diminution sense 1972. there is a good reason why it dropped, is because 18-year-olds got the vote, and they still don't use it. the real changes in the electorate, other than increasing numbers of residents, since 2008, turnout has been higher than it as ever been. yet it hasn't resulted in

changing this conflict. one thing that concerns me, you look at the public opinion polls and see that voters have much more extreme views then nonvoters. it seems obvious that you should give some of the nonvoters to vote. the evidence shows once they become voters, they become just like voters. [laughter] in a have just as extreme views. i hate to be negative on this. turnout is probably not the problem. the problems are probably deeper than that. >> i was wondering about how much the polarization has to do and the gap between wealthy poor? i had a question for the governor. if you were still in the committee, the republican national committee chairman, would you have endorsed trump? [laughter]

choices.s a series of [laughter] and if the choice for president is hillary clinton and donald trump, i'm going to vote for donald trump. it wasn't my first choice. but that's the choice that i've got. campaigns, through 2 a third-party candidate is a vote for clinton. you might as well go and vote for clinton instead of some third-party candidate. i was chairman of the republican national committee. id on't know if you were born then. [laughter] no, okay, thank you for that. not my party. and donald trump is going to get 12 or 13 million votes in the primaries, not mine. mine was not one of those.

and i'm noton, going to put my opinion, my views above these people. they have the right to pick the nominee. and i have the obligation to compare the choices. i voted for some democrats in my life, don't get my wrong. i'm just not going to vote for this one. >> what we do know is that periods of american politics in which partisan divisions have been the largest are also once in which economic divisions have been the largest. earlier, polarization was quite high during the gilded age through the 1920's. theously a period in which golden age was one of high economic inequality.lots of polarization and he was history from the 1930's to the 1970's, the lowest recorded levels of

economic inequality. the upward trend begins in 1975, which is not quite steadily the the same time economic inequality started going up. there's a lot of debate about what the causes are. but i think that based on my work and others that there is some causal relationship. that different groups of americans suffer different economic success. it polarizes the discourse and leads to greater divisions. what we said about low growth. economic inequality and low growth tended to correlate with one another. and low growth does lead to political extremism, as we have seen in the u.s. and increasingly throughout the rest of the world. >> thank you. thank you for a great panel.

this has been terrific. >> thank you for sharing oyyour thoughts. very appreciative. my question is along the lines of the difference between governance and ideology. we see ideology playing out for several decades, as far as what colbert would call truthiness. the idea where facts are now see n as subjective, not objective. and that please so much and are -- that plays so much in our convertible campaign process. now i see it much more read into our governance. we have stayed legislatures -- state legislatures in texas that propose solutions to nonexistent problems. and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on problems

that don't exist, but exist in people's minds, or placed there through politics. again, not based on fact, the solely on opinion or identity politics. what do we do about how it creeps into the way we govern? i had a democratic majority in the state house everyday. and i had a democratic majority in the senate seven years out of 8. the last thing that i wanted was a partyline vote. what did we do? we nature the democrats understood my job was to get the job done. that we had problems that we had to do with, an big problems. ote withouta

winning democrats over. we did it by focusing on solving problems. lott, io tell trent would like to say he was a third-year law student and i was a freshman. i would say, trent, senators talk about doing things, and governors do things. [laughter] that is the attitude that you have to have. together andrk learn to work the job. it doesn't have to be 100% my way every time. i have an ideology, but my job is to get the job done. >> i want to defend the press, since we are here. 100th anniversary of the pulitzer. a surprising thing for a guy

that used to be the human piñata for the press. [laughter] the ability to make facts come alive, and make the truth important enough and vivid enough that people engage it regularly -- that is the hallmark of brilliant journalism. for not sufficient journalists ti sao say, we haveo tweetw welikes, more have to boost circulations,. that is never been the task of the journalist. the task has been to take the important information and make it interesting enough of that people will pay attention. we did not know enough slaughterhouses in chicago until the muck makers mucked. that is what we have to get more out of. i tell editors and f t