and the sole provider. therefore, the talk is now transfigured from a man to a woman and it is not just from a man to a son and a woman to a son and daughter. for the book tv.org complete we can schedule. >> next, a look at the future of political parties in the u.s. with david brady and melissa caen. they look at how issues are shaping public opinion. from the commonwealth club of california, this is just over one hour. >> before he introduced tonight speaker, i want to also announced that tonight is the first time that our conversations are being taped by c-span. you may have noticed some cameras. they promised me that i would look at least 10 years younger. [laughter]

>> which is one of the reasons i agreed to let them come. anyway, they tell me that it will be uploaded to their website in about two weeks, three weeks at the most, if you can search under the archives for the state or one of the names of our speakers or mill valley and you will find it. if you are so inspired, please watch again and also tell your friends and family all about it. let me introduce tonight's speakers. david brady i have known for a number of years partially because my husband attended stanford business school where he is a professor of business. i actually interviewed him and number of times during my own dissertation research. you remember? i must have done ok because he is still talking to me. ok. dave brady is not only a very

well respected professor at stanford, he sits on the faculties of the business school and political science institute and is at the hoover institution. he is very highly regarded, obviously connected to the stanford community, but also appreciated nationally for his insight for commentary on political processes. we are really delighted he is with us tonight, and i am sure you will all end this evening agreeing with me that he is one of the most insightful political commentators have with us today. melissa caen is a political journalist in san francisco. she has a very wide following and does a lot of work with the commonwealth club, and the editor of the commonwealth club

magazine said there was no one who does a better job of commentating. she comes with terrific bona fides. i think this conversation should be wonderful. i don't know it will make us all feel safer. more secure. [laughter] happier. but it will certainly inform us of what is happening. please save your questions for afterwards and we will have time for them. thank you so much. [applause] ms. caen: there we go. the name of tonight's program is the future of american political parties. we have a packed house and i

cannot imagine it is because you think things are going really well. there is a little uncertainty out there. my first question is how bad is it, how bad can it get? at what point should we start hoarding canned goods? [laughter] mr. brady: i will start by quoting t.s. eliot who said the only form of knowledge we can aspire to is humility and humility is endless. that's a cover. we have not had a president like this, however many days it has been.

the question from somebody who has tried to be analytic and step back and say about what is going to happen. in the early days, there are certain things the president can do. he can put some orders out. not that they have been put out efficiently. in the end, on the big issues, taxes, affordable care act, military policy, those sort of things, he is to go through congress. the question people often ask, isn't the congress an independent form of government? the founders, i'm trying to put this in an objective way. the founders knew you might have political operatives who probably were not grand. [laughter] ms. caen: good job.

mr. brady: that was pretty good. they built a system that has checks and balances, and that is what they are for. the question is, but i don't think it is the congress that will stop them. the democrats will not decide, it will be the republicans in congress. i will give you the most likely scenario, or in my view, the other scenarios could happen, but this is what i think is most likely. the republicans in the house have been sitting on an agenda for six years, and in their view they have been frustrated by president obama. they want to pass that agenda. they did not think that republicans would hold the senate or that donald trump be elected president. i think they're sitting there and saying, ok, we have a path we are agreed on.

we want to pass what we can pass that we can agree on. they are not agreed on the affordable care act. they could screw up and make the obamacare rollout look like silk. my opinion is they will wait and get as much as they can through, and at some point unless the president changes his behavior, they're going to say, that is enough, you cannot go anymore. two republicans are going to go to consist only for secretary of republicans are already going to vote against his secretary of education. so they are starting. it is there, you can hear it occasionally from them. i think you have to watch for how congressional republicans -- i don't expect them in the first 10 or 20 days, they are not going to impeach him quickly. it is not going to happen. they will start to object. the only other thing i can say about some of the appointments is, on defense, i know jim

mattis, his office is three doors down from mine, very solid and a very clear thinker. he told the president he should not torture, agreed he would not have signed the iran deal tbut that he will keep to it. i think most of the appointments are reasonable people, but i -- no, i will not go there. ms. caen: no, do. you have people like mattis and other people in his cabinet who are well regarded, and he goes behind their back and issues the executive order on the refugee ban. how long do the honorable people in his cabinet stay on if he continues to do these things? mr. brady: i don't have an answer for that, but i am sure some of them are thinking, what did i sign up for?

what i think of when i think of policy, i think you have to have a strategy and then there are tactics. what bothers me about this president is that there are tactics, but i don't know what the strategy is. there is symbolism and reality. there is campaigning and then there is governing. trump turned out to be better at campaigning than we thought, but now there is governing. he said he would build a wall, some now he is saying he has to build a wall. but what is the purpose? does he really believe he is going to get a better deal from mexicans on trade? already lots of businesses are objecting and are in washington talking to congressman and women saying, don't do this.

same thing with banning muslim refugees, he puts the united states more at risk, and iran and the iraqis that are with us, in my mind there is no strategy behind it. rex tillerson, you may not like the fact that he was at exxon or something, but he is a very accomplished man and he sees the way the world is and i am sure he would not have been advising to do those things. so we have to wait and see what they do, and i don't know what the right timeframe is, they can't do it now. tillerson has been in office one day, he can't quit now. [laughter] mr. brady: i think it will be a matter of time, we will see. it is a matter of belief that the president will stop tweeting

-- [laughter] ms. caen: does anyone believe that? >> no. mr. brady: there is hope. [laughter] faith and charity, too. ms. caen: you said we need to be focusing on republicans in congress. if you are a democrat, it seems they are a little on their heels, too, there is a supreme court nominee coming that some of their constituents do not like, yet they are trying to figure out how to navigate the situation. mr. brady: i think that is a reasonable thing for them to do. the court was 4-4 with kennedy as the deciding vote, and on a bunch of votes -- he is with the democrats on some things and not

with them on others. when obama was the president, replacing scalia, if you replace him with a liberal, that is the greatest shift in the supreme court since probably 1934 because you make it a 6-3 liberal. -3 majority. so if you replace scalia with a conservative, it is the same as it was. if you want to pull out the nuclear clause and say we're going to go with a filibuster, or do you hold your fire on this guy, because you may not agree with all of his opinions, but he is very smart and so on, so i think they're probably right to be thinking about the balance.

ms. caen: there is pressure for them to filibuster everything next entire several yearsrs. filibustering on everything that comes in front of them. trumpk it just plays into hands and makes his supporters feel that he is right and the system is broken. they won't even agree to my nominees and the democrats remember, past the rule that said it only had to be 51 and you could not filibuster pigments and at the time people said it will come back and it cabinets andster at the same time people said it would come back and it has. then you could not actually call the meeting. what do you think that looks like to a trump supporter.

they show a picture and there are none of the democrats in a room and it seems to me that that plays into their hands and allows him to justify his thatior and continue symbolically instead of substantively. melissa: what you think it would take to separate trump supporters from trump? i know there are 30% or 35% no matter what, you change your view of the world to fit that. what would it take in your estimation? david: that is a great question. my friend doug rivers is a professor and he started the economist pollster and he ran over the course of the campaign a recontact survey where we interviewed the same 5000 americans once a month so we

could actually trace who moved where and when, so right on -- these, we were around all smart guys looking at the candidates and there were about 20 of them or 35 or whatever and trump's name came up and everybody was thinking not to put him in, it was not a serious candidate, it was just for showbiz. he was in our list. it turns out -- from other work we did in europe, people who thought their family's income was down or their family's financial system relation was not -- financial system which in bash situation was not as good as a year ago were much more anti-integration. the first choice of those people was no choice, they didn't have

a preference, number two was scott walker at 12%. donald trump comes on and gives the anti-immigration speech and you think he is out and he cannot say that in american politics and suddenly he is at 22% because 40% of republicans said that is what happened to their financials. theydn't matter if it had, perceived it that way. so they were for trump because he was speaking their language. 58% of republicans thought immigration was a very important issue and suddenly we had 41% of them. in a 19-person field, he has 20% that with him twice as high as anyone else and the republicans did another thing, they frontloaded the primary so there are more votes up front. they switched to a new winner take all forecast and the others were fighting over who would be

the establishment candidate. marco rubio, jeb rush, chris christie, john kasich. the others were fighting on the third-party candidates, fiorina -- and we will never know if the republican establishment would trump.en able to beat that is a special circumstance in which he was able to capture the nomination. so back to those voters, those are the voters that supported him all the way. ,ade less than $50,000 a year high school or less, those were the people who were most supportive. the question is -- and we are trying to find this out now whether -- can he continue to with stuff that isn't real or are they results -oriented. can it just be symbolism?

hold them with symbolism or do they have to be action oriented? i happen to believe that they are results-oriented. they are going to be people who want jobs. they want these things to happen and if they don't happen -- and asked aatest poll, we question of trump supporters who were democrats and trump supporters who work independents because they are the ones that inped it to them and asked the next election would they consider voting democrat and 70% said yes. i do not think they are tied to the republican party. they are tied to trump and i think we will find that they are results oriented and the democratic party will have to do what it is going to do, but they will have to rethink how they think about it and talk to those people because green bay, wisconsin voted big for obama and switched. andometown, obama in 2008

illinois. the question is, i think they are going to be results-oriented and i cannot tell you that i have the answer. melissa: you hit on something i want to explore some more. is that part of the democrats problems that i perceive they are more worth -- worst off. of anseems to be sort analytical or statistical answer to a got-driven sort of -- gut-driven sort of cry. david: those statistics do not in illinois you are and your children don't have -- in a specific city in

liveois the white males 3.8 years less than they did before. there are drug epidemics all over there and i think like you said earlier, the democratic party has not spoken to them. the assumption has been that and they do not care much about identity politics in green bay. i don't think they care were you go to the bathroom. i think what they care about is does anybody actually care about them and the jobs they have lost and what their situation is? is it possible to put that together with democratic stuff? sure, but they haven't put it together. written and have spoken about globalization is a big part of why things are happening here and in other

parts of the world and it did seem like, i forgot who exactly said this, but i was watching probably c-span. .avid: hopefully it was me melissa: i think it was c-span where people was saying people and the answer .s we will retrain you what should the answer have been in your estimation? i would like to talk more about globalization in the election here and elsewhere. david: you don't ask any very easy questions. could you talk about the electoral college? here is the reason i don't think it is easy. -- iflobalization does you look at the first period

where there was first globalization, it was 1850 and 1900 or so and 1850, the two major job categories were people working on farms or servants in homes and then there is this huge transformation and people were better off economically for that, but they moved to the , ands and got factory jobs that created a lot of problems. immigration was an issue and it was called of the gilded age and there was wealth inequality and you can expect that every time there is globalization. that is not going to go away. there will be inequality. all these people now in factories and cities and off the farms and what happened was by 1950 those people had good jobs. my father was able to support a family of six children. and so on and the

politics at the time were that there were labor parties and anti-labor parties and the democrats and republicans could be to party, but there was a multiparty system. happened ishat beginning in the 1970's, people started to automate and those jobs started to also. about 50% of the workforce in 1950 -- it was so good in the 1940's that harry truman could 1948.elected in you try that with stanford students. they don't know who bill clinton was. it is true, they don't. they were even born then. at any rate as the jobs left and some moved to china, it was really automation that caused to

that. that is a crossed the world. in france,ational the new party in germany, all the five-star movement in italy, all over europe you get anti-immigration and this rise of what happens to these people as these industrious -- industrial jobs go. the political parties are stuck because they do not have 40% labor said the parties have to try to do stuff. they do stuff like try to put blue-collar workers with stanford professors. democrat. are 90% that works ok, but if you go to a bar and put the professors in the -- and the blue-collar workers there, it doesn't work out too well. they don't have chardonnay and tiny cap -- tap.

no one has solved that problem. what i worry about is not jobs, i do not worry about jobs too much. if you go back and read history you see, oh my god, the mccormick reaper, what will happen, none of these people have jobs. people have jobs, what i worry about is wages. it is not clear to me that these wages will be enough to sustain the political system. is that the crowd from berkeley now? i am just kidding. melissa: they heard the comment about stanford. point and when you talk about things like unemployment democrats said unemployment is low, but the wages for a lot of these jobs are incredibly low. let's assume that the unemployment rate is accurate,

being employed at $7.50 an hour is not the same thing. correct.at's i think you have to have economic growth and if you don't have economic growth, the markets get stripped and you can hire people lower. i don't know if growth alone would cover it. i know without growth, you can't do it. you have to say, what are the president's policies? i don't think banging away at carrier or telling the ford motor company you can't do that -- you make it a couple of them to say that, but i don't think in china00,000 workers are suddenly going to move to the u.s. so i think you have to try and look at the trump you expressicies as them as policies that are likely to generate growth. i don't know. the corporate tax cut may generate growth, but they have

to get that through congress. trump can't do that on his own and when you get at that, that is the political problem. what are these workers going to do? will they be able to solve the problem and does the economic policy work? that comes together and you have to get that through congress. melissa: do you think he will? david: i think congress would like to shape what he tries to get through more so. 20% the export tax where tax for imports coming into the united states, going to tax 20%. some of those things go back and forth to were three times, the same products, that just means the american taxpayers are paying for that. the mexicans aren't paying for it. they will in terms of jobs and stuff like that, but not in a real way. i don't think that is a real solution to the problem. will congress be able to get a

tax cut? i think they will get a tax cut. i would look forward to getting because asyourselves i understand it -- suppose you made $1 million. don't you? melissa: we are in marin, so maybe. 43% whenu pay about you add the 39% and federal for obamacare and then you pay state taxes. they are going to cut -- the proposal i have seen is they will cut the taxes from 43% to 33%, but you will not be able to deduct state and local taxes which pretty much makes it a push. the real emphasis will be on corporate tax cuts in the hope that it will bring some of the money they have in foreign places back home in the second

part is the reduce to the capital gains tax. they are proposing between 15% and 20%. david: and they are supposed to melissa: they-- are supposed to generate jobs? david: the capital gains and the money that other companies have could generate jobs. it probably will. how many? i don't know. you have to get an economist to do this. melissa: we are talking about political parties and we know that california, the growing client --party the declind to state. -- do we needt parties?l especially younger people are declining to join either.

david: i am glad you asked that. i have data on this. -- sometimescted you ask me something i actually know. [laughter] so we caught all the gallup poll data on party identification and what happened was democrats had this big lead, but in the mid-1980's with reagan, there was a big rise in the number of independents and a decline in the number of democrats. amocrats generally have about three to five point lead and more people say they are independent, so i think that is significant because i think what happened with the political parties was -- it is nice to be able to talk to people, remember the days there were liberal republican senators like senator brooke from massachusetts, clark

, rockefeller, scranton, and there were conservative , but the party started and there are some moderates in the democratic party and in the republican party, but the bottom line is the parties are more like european political parties and the democratare on the left and republicans are on the right and i think by and large that the average american is not as liberal on economics as the democrats and they are nowhere near as conservative on social issues as republicans and i think that accounts for a hunk in the rise of independents. i think that is a good sign. that may be because i consider myself one. melissa: why don't you start a party for those folks? if there is enough people in the middle -- of these socially liberal economically

conservative -- why don't we see something coalesce for them or see them take over one of the other parties? david: the trouble is there is not that many of us. only 15% and there are some on the periphery, but the hard-core like that is about 15% and i think the answer to why they don't take over a party is because -- is -- it is a lot of work. you have to go out and recruit candidates in 435 districts and that is hard so what you get is third-party candidates jumping in, ross perot and others. the real reason is because it is easier to take over a political party. the united states is the only democracy in the world where we have democracy within the party and democracy between parties. we are the only one that people run against each other in that way in each of the congressional

districts. a democrat runs against a democrat and republicans run against a demo -- a republican. the result is, look at donald trump. he is not a republican. he is not free trade or anything the republican party was for. he wasn't even pro-choice until about two months ago or two years ago or whatever. the point is -- and he took over the republican party and he won. he took it over and this takes a populous. oft happened in these eras globalization is there is a lot of flip-flopping. it was true in the 1870's in the u.s. and it is true now. in 2004, i remember reading this piece saying after the victory, we have created a mckinley era and republicans have won three state elections in control of the house and senate and i have n iush saying

am going to spend it and then 2006 they all got beat and 2008 will and now the democrats control america for the next generation and apparently generations are shorter than a meant to be. president obama overreaches in 2010 republicans -- all that flip-flopping is a result of and economic undercutting you don't have a solution. under those times -- and the democrat populous was rising as thinktical party and they william james bryant is not a bad guy and they capture the democratic party. it is just too easy to do it. melissa: is that where you see democrats going? do they follow the bernie sanders or do we try to stay on this other path of these more establishment democrats? , but ithis is strange

actually think the democrats have an easier time of it than the republicans. not in the short run, because the short run is as you say. the question is they lost the election, but why did they lose? they lost because of the distribution of votes. they actually lost by about 3 million votes. in of you need to move to green bay and so on. votes --ost by 77,000 77,000 votes in pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan had changed, mrs. clinton would be president and the headlines would be america rejects racism and misogyny, etc. the votes were the same, you just get these different headlines. democrats have the problem that they lost the election and their problem is they lost to the election by 77,000 votes. so then there is going to be the

fight exactly as you expressed between the left, bernie sanders and in the governor of montana. other people are saying we have to be more centrist. that is a normal fight after an election. that is not going to be particularly easy, but think of what happens when donald trump is gone from the republicans. what are they as a party? they don't know. they are now sitting there as a bunch of people that believe in things -- lower taxes, more freedom, and they are thinking donald trump -- they are waiting because they want to pass the agenda, but he is not a republican in the ordinary sense. does he redefine the republican party or does the traditional parts of the republican party come forward? i think that is a much tougher question than the question of democrats tried to figure out how to win next time. we will come around with the microphone soon.

do the democrats need to rethink their view -- views on immigration? that seems to be the thing that galvanized so many people in had votedaces that for obama wants and then they switched, was this issue. should they at least have that conversation? david: in principle, no, but in reality, probably yes. the data on that have shown for a long time that democrats were -- ir -- that independents think about it as democrats, republicans, and independents. there were fractions of the democratic -- democrats in general were on the side of more immigration. bushlicans -- president put forward an immigration plan.

it is a question about independents and i think it is the way you talk about immigration and i think that not talking about it -- they either did not talk about it or disparaged trump. it didn't work. i think they have to think about it and talk about it in a different way. -- they can have a position close to where there position is now and still win the next election. that is going to be easier than republicans thinking about what the republican party means now. answer,n't much of an by the way. melissa: i think democrats would love to hear about how they have an easier go. in withust jump audience questions at this point if that is ok and let me take a prerogative and ask the first question. a few years ago, a book came out

about -- called "why nations fail," that i thought was particularly precedent. they argue that when institutions no longer work, the countries no longer work. our institutions, congress, the media, parties, are broken. ournder if you think that institutions are going to save us or fail us. about you are talking robinson's book? she got a phd. >> i can't pronounce his name, so i didn't say. not a book that was a big seller. [laughter] is, if you are looking for markets and why the economies don't work better,

their argument is these institutions make a difference in institutions are weighted a particular way and some people have an advantage and some do not. if you don't get institutions right, you don't get the economy right. our american institution is , no, i don't think they are broken. i think they are in a situation like the situations across europe and australia -- and this time capitalism and the transformation of the economy is much harder than it was before. first of all, now it is 80% of the world. you havee world and the problem of -- is anything you do sustainable? .hina has 7% or 8% growth the question is, can we do this

in a sustainable fashion? i think our institution may be damaged, but if you actually crisis,how -- the big 2007, 2008, 2009 was a horrendous recession and if you look at how we have done relative to europe, australia, japan, the united states is in pretty good shape. not great, but relative to everybody else with the possible exception of germany, we have created more jobs and incomes are up some. i think we have done better, so i think our institutions -- i don't think we should turn to a parliamentary government or anything, but they are damaged. >> my question is about the electoral college. do you see the electoral college going away and what possible

alternative scenario do you see? which do you see as being the best one and which do you see as being the most probable? david: i never think of the best -- i don't know because i don't think it is possible. the electoral college, is a going away? no. in the 1950's, there were several bipartisan attempts to and basically they were going to do it like congressional districts like nebraska and maine, but it got congress because little state and big states did not like it. little states a didn't like it because they like the fact that candidates pay more attention --

and little states like it because otherwise, nobody would know you are there. wyoming, nothing. this way they get 3. there is some hillary clinton, democrats do .ot come here if they do, they go to silicon valley and hollywood. campaign -- campaigned here and that means california no longer gets the candidates coming. there is more of a chance for a movement but it has to come from is states and the problem raking it down by congressional district. and democrats are not going to like that. i will give you an example by. in 2012, president obama won by

over 5 million votes. 226from the carried congressional districts. had we gone to that system, romney would have been elected. i do believe that states as a come along will start to do things like maine and nebraska. there will be some changes but it will take a while. >> in all of this, you have talked about would they respond to results. with the electorate respond to results for instance in the next election. i think we just watched a situation where that did not happen. where people had more health care, the economy was up, the list is long.

news told themx that was not the case. everyone said obama had a good message but did not get it across. the people who needed to have that did not hear it on fox news. it does not seem to me that any of that will change. it won't matter whether trump provides respond -- results theyse they will be told are getting results and that everything is fine and they will continue to listen to fox news. or that is how it feels to me. and it is happening already in the first 10 days. written --e he is while he is president, they are responsible. the areas it turns out where mr. clinton did not do as well or not the areas where there had been growth.

we sampled the six midwestern states that flipped. the areas where population and jobs went down -- population and jobs were down and trumps vote was up 2.9% over obama's. himareas that voted against were areas where the jobs were not. makehe third point i would is i do not think -- fox news. do you know the max for bill o'reilly? 3.2 million. that is it. that is who watches him. or cnn. do you know how many people watch dancing with the stars? [laughter] 24 million.

i do think there is a problem with those news sources because now people can just listen to what they want. no walter cronkite. to interpret events. i do think there is a bit of a problem. we are looking at that now. may begest problem facebook. that is where most people under 40, that is where they get their news. >> and youtube actually. my husband and i volunteered at a middle school. we were teaching a journalism class. we would say, we're going to research -- they wanted to write about video games, of course. ok, they would just go to youtube and type in video games. or if we were going to research whales, they would go to youtube and type in wales.

fox news is positively cnn compared to some of the nutty stuff on youtube. there is whole flat earth movement. google it. [laughter] >> or youtube it. it is kind of interesting. i think there was a lot of silo-ing in this election, but if in reality their places were losing jobs and population and life expectancy was going down, that wasn't just something fake that fox was telling them. i just want to point out that rick perry was on both. [laughter] i just want to say. >> what are the prospects for healthy democracy in an era of really powerful gerrymandering? >> the gerrymandering, i think gerrymandering is overestimated.

if you actually look at it, there are between 65 and 75 seats that are majority -- and majority districts so that means they are from these districts that are set so they will have the majority with minority representative. once you sort those in, then republicans have a great game. they say you can have another one. just put some more democrats in that district. if you look at the distribution of the democrat and republican votes in house seats, the democrats have a fat end of the tale, 50%. the democrats have a lot of districts where the winner gets 75%, 80% of the vote. the republican tail looks nowhere near that fat on the

end. the question is, if you want to draw the district differently, you could get that, but part of the gerrymandering is these districts. these is districts. once they are there, our best estimate of this is that, of the districts that are left, the republicans got about a 53%, 53 %, 54% tendency to windows. the way things are set up now, i think the democrats are going to have a hard time taking the house. it will take some event like the disaffection with bush in 2006 for the democrats to get the house again, unless they change the way those districts are drawn. somewhat heartened by

your observation about general as as and rex tillerson guy with perspective and a worldview. what do you make of the fact that secretary manus was standing right behind president trump when he announced the immigration order on friday? >> what could he do? then what happens? is, if you are jim mattis, you may disagree with that, but there are many things that mrs. clinton, when she was secretary of state, and obama didn't agree on. i think he would be thinking something like this. the immigration issue, relative to what damage he could do, is pretty miniscule. you, and you are

thinking, what could he do? it seems to me that you might well have stayed there and say, i don't agree with this, but that is what i've got to do. i don't know. he didn't call me. he didn't ask me anything. but that would be my view. you take those jobs in washington, you sign on and you are in. unless you are willing to resign. i take the point that the secretary of homeland security has not been confirmed, but he's the secretary of defense. it seems, i don't know -- >> he probably -- he was the guy that said, i wouldn't have signed the iran deal, but i wouldn't get out of it now. don't torture anybody. frankly, i'm glad he didn't resign. there's principle and there's getting stuff done.

that is the trade-off. it is true that in a washington job, you take that job, and you argue like hell inside for, this is what i think we should do, and when you lose, you go along with the president because that is the game. if you don't do that, which has happened a few times, you are not back in the game ever again. >> it does seem like our democratic party, well i'm an independent too, but anyway, that we have a tendency to sort of put our heads in the sand when it comes to jobs. we seem to think that everybody when they really are not. maybe employment is up, but the people that worked in the factory are now working at walmart and are not so happy. this is what we experience.

i've been in manufacturing, running a company for 20 years, and we didn't lose the jobs because of automation. we lost jobs because attacks havens, zero income tax in malaysia, zero income tax in ireland. i'm just wondering, how do we combat that? globalizationl, is really hard to combat. first of all it is global. donald trump can do what he wants, but the chinese can do what they want and the europeans are going to do what they want. the second thing is, inequality is just going to increase. robert downing, isn't he the guy [indiscernible] head?uy or iron

robert downing, right, actor. >> robert downey junior, ironman. i will translate. >> thank god for that. so on the last ironman movie, he made $80 million. how did he make that? 320 million people around the world, he got a quarter for everyone that came in. suppose you are the best carpenter or plumber. how much can you make? the question is, how do you redistribute it? can it be done? it is a very tough issue. -- by theink anybody way, inequality, what happens is, in the old days -- so my daughter, well-educated, she is an investment banker, making pretty good money -- i don't know, $300,000, and her husband

is a lawyer, and they get married. in the old days, there would have been one salary, his. now they are making $600,000. that also increases inequality. what are we going to do? are we going to say to people, don't do that, you your job -- you say that to my daughter. i'm not. the final thing is, you can help inequality if you say, no more google, no more facebook. that will bring about a quality in facebook. >> that will bring about a revolution. at least they are going to unlike it. the democrats to talk about jobs. the problem is if you went to hillary clinton's website, it was a 28-point plan for job creation that no one really understood. you had to go to the right tab under the right menu to find the thing. was,istic as the message

at least you knew what he was going to do. hillary clinton made it clear she cared, but the practical steps were just sort of more than the attention span of a lot of people. >> on the subject of immigration and institutions, i'm an immigration lawyer and i can tell you that the tow executive orders that were issued last week, they read like statutes. they are plainly unconstitutional, both in violation of separation of powers and individual rights. they are major overhauls of immigration. what has been called the refugee ban is a lot more than a refugee ban it also affects iranian americans. it also affects a host of other visas.

i can tell you from my own practice that there's a stream of about 25 emails from clients i'm getting every hour that it has totally upended immigration law. there have been four federal court issues in the last 12 days. all the reports from my colleagues are that the administration is in violation with these executive orders. it is a total meltdown of rule of law. >> why is that a meltdown of the rule of law? the president puts together a not very well drafted -- four judges, it is going to go through the courts, and i'm happy to have it solved in the courts. that is what the constitution is about. it is a check. >> i agree with that, but that he's in violation with the court orders, to me, this is troubling. the department of state -- order theges can

trump administration to appear. there's plenty of mechanisms. any party who refuses to appear, refuses to abide by a court order, is subject to a series of other court actions. presumably, the administration would be subject to those same -- >> i'm pretty sure the republican caucus is not happy with that order. inside, they are saying, this is crazy. we should back off and come down. >> from the perspective of looking at the future of the parties, what is your take on the growth of republican control of state houses? good question.

it has grown. but you knew that. was, president obama, who was such a great campaigner in 2008 and 2012, the 2010 election decimated the republican party. they lost all those house seats. they lost 675 legislative seats. in 2014, they lost another 400 legislative seats. decimation,nd of and states tend to choose , sornors that kind of flip i think democrats should not be unhappy. 2018. i think democrats in 2018 are going to pick up five to seven governorships, and those are

governors that are going to be there potential candidates for the presidency in 2020. it is going to reestablish some of that. the next thing -- that is one thing that is going to happen that is good. i think the other thing is the clintons, however good they've been, they are gone. since -- that is a long time. they are out now. the democratic party is going to pick up some governorships. they are going to rebuild that way. we will see what happens. the main thing was the decimation of the 2010 election, followed by 2014. >> even party operatives will tell you they did not do a good job building their bench. it was one of these, our guy is in the white house, we don't need to worry. there was some neglect in the party to build these grassroots

organizations that need to be there. so i think that one of the lessons of this election, one of the things they need to do, is to focus better on that, to use the republican playbook to some degree. quick question. as far as dealing with the current administration, this is a very biased question, but all the papers that have come out, the marches and so forth, in your view, what is the best strategy, speaking of strategies, for trying to preserve some of the values that were in the obama administration? >> moved to green bay. [laughter] >> good answer. >> thank you. as a wise man once said, move to green bay.

it is hard. because we are in the bay area and our congresspeople, it is not like we can go out and root for a more liberal member of congress or senate, so there is some limitation to the grassroots things we can do. to some degree the best thing you can do is donate to organizations you feel are under threat, planned parenthood, the aclu, etc. in the bay area, there's not a lot of doorknocking to get any further left. off and going to sauce send us into the ocean. marching of course. it seems that trump does respond and he is interested in numbers and bigness of crowds. i think it really hurt his feelings, frankly, to see the women'sturnout for the

march and march is elsewhere. [laughter] >> i know, but if that is what you want to do, get out there. it does matter, the size and the number of women's march and march is elsewhere. [laughter] people who show up. those would be the things i would advise. >> i agree with all that. the republican party. watch what they start to do. if there are people doing the thing you want, right them, encourage them. they should do something about that. are under some pressure. one last thing, all of this about trump's way or the republican party, let's be realistic. he's starting with the lowest, ever since we did gallup polls, he starts with the lowest approval rating. the lowest. up in our poll, and over the weekend, when all this

went on, he fell to 38% on the refugee thing. , 51%ll to 38% approval disapproval. and among republicans who voted for him, and democrats who voted for him, and i think we kept independents out, but 48% thought he handled it very badly. that that is what you've got to look for. you've got to contribute to the causes you believe in. ain'ter, politics beanbag. it is hard. it takes time to do it but the great thing is we have elections every two years. and the filibuster. >> at least for now. >> this is a two-part question. df hillary's motto ha

been rebuild america, would that have strengthened the hand of democrats? and if the democrats got behind true infrastructure redevelopment, would that compensate in part for the loss of jobs in things like coal mining, energy, globalization, and modernization? pathway for the democrats? the stronger together, you know, in retrospect, may not have appealed to everyone. not everyone wants to be together. sometimes they just want to buy a house. should the democrats focus more on infrastructure? now, the democrats are in an enviable position.

i interviewed nancy pelosi about this. she said, we want to get behind an infrastructure bill. there's this great new deal idea of putting people to work, kind of an fdr recipe for bringing america back. but she said, the republicans, the only thing they want to do is build toll roads and put yunis abilities and the federal government further in debt and benefit large financial institutions. then the democrats are going to be in a position of saying no to an infrastructure bill for a lot of working people. jobs, andwe want the the democrats say, no, it is a municipal bond. even if they are for an infrastructure bill, not just any one will do. that could get them back into a corner. republicans are pushing for more of a public-private partnership, emphasis on private.

>> i think that is right. >> smart man. [laughter] >> then i would like to ask each of you, do you want to make a closing comment or thought? >> i don't, particularly. [laughter] >> i think the people in this room could use some good news. you are the professor. i'm just lame stream media over here. i think they could use some happy news. have we gone through worse in history? >> come on. we had presidents who kept lists meanemies, watergate, i this country has been through quite a few things. -- why do i have to do this? aboutlatively optimistic how our institutions will handle

this situation. quitek the probability is high that there's going to be a break in the republican party. there will be a sorting. that will stop a good deal of what might have happened. that's it. my job is to be an analyst. i'm not a preacher. latin]ng go in peace, children. >> on that note, melissa kane, david brady, thank you so much. [applause] newsmakers,end, on

our guest is kentucky senator rand paul. he talks about republican efforts to repeal and replace the health care law, including his own proposal. he's also asked about other issues relating to foreign policy and surveillance. watch the interview sunday on c-span. >> sunday night on "q&a" -- >> in all these years, i've never seen a case, where so uncritically, journalists have accepted information from a single source, edward snowden, who is in moscow, under the control of the russian government. >> investigative journalist edward epstein on his book, how america lost its secrets. >> he did enormous damage. i don't even know if his

supporters say that he did no damage. they say he did enormous good. that is their view. maybe he did some good because he started a national conversation. he opened up a subject of interest. but i think where trump is certainly right is that this man has not faced justice and he deserves to face justice, whatever we decide. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> president trump welcomed japanese prime minister shinzo abe to the white house for a meeting in the oval office. they discussed trade policy and global security. before holding a joint news conference in the eastern. -- on the east room. while taking questions from reporters, the president was asked about his executive order on immigration and his reaction to the ninth circuit court of appeals ruling that keeps the government from implementing the order. this is 30 minutes.