much money but lavish lifestyle. announcer: sunday night on "q&a." announcer: the university of southern california recently hosted a daylong conference on president trump's first 100 days in office. part of the event focused on the president's current to messick policy and how it compares to previous administrations. speakers include ron christie, special assistant to george w. bush, and former hillary clinton campaign advisor ron klain. this is just under an hour and a half. >> my name is morris levy, assistant professor of political science. thanks to everyone for coming, to unruh for helping set this up, to dennis and bob for their hard work. research shows that judges' sentencing is harshest before lunch.

i assume that similar patterns hold for political discussions, so my pledge is we will make up some time and aim for a safe landing by 12:30, and hopefully won't have to throw anyone off the flight along the way. let me begin by introducing our very distinguished panel, which in the spirit of this conference combines some luminaries from academia with people who have really rich experience in the political world. academia with pe really rich experience in the political world. to begin, going from left to right, not necessarily an ideological order, matthew khan is a professor of economics, spatial studies, and environmental science. ron klain is former chief of staff to joe biden and al gore and a former clinton 2016 advisor. ron christie is a bbc political commentator and former special

assistant to george w. bush. my colleague jane is a professor of political science here at usc, and abel maldonado is the 48th lieutenant governor of our own california, from 2010 to 2011. let me begin by asking a general question. maybe we can just go starting from left to right, because i'm interested in getting everyone's take. the trump campaign was unlike any other in modern american history, i think we can all agree. i would like to begin by asking our panelists, since this is a panel on trump at home, how have the first 100 days mirrored the unconventional nature of the campaign, or have they had all? have what we seen from trump broken with his predecessors, and in what ways are they about par for the course, fairly ordinary for

contemporary politics? >> very briefly, economists used to be relatively carful in washington. it has fascinated me and many that academicnow accomplishments do not seem to be playing a major role in policy deliberations, so that is a surprise to me. it might be a statement about our value added. something i teach my students here is we can only know the effectiveness of a public policy if we have variation. president trump, by changing public policy, we are losing -- we're learning a lot about effectiveness, creating a control group. to an economist, these are very interesting days because there is literature in economics about uncertainty, the investment can freeze up when there is uncertainty about where political winds are going.

president trump, who has been a successful businessman and his thinking about how to make the economy grow, i hope he anticipates some unintended consequences. mr. klain: i think there are three things that have stood out. the first is, donald trump came to the white house as the president least owing anything to a major political party in 50-60 years, most independent of both parties. he had an opportunity to govern in a bipartisan way. democrats traipsed to trump tower during the transition. even liberals were saying they wanted to work on infrastructure. yet he has governed as a traditional republican, aligned himself with mitch mcconnell and paul ryan. unlike bush and obama, he did not put a member of the opposite party in his cabinet. the first surprise is how much of a republican partisan he has been. the second thing that has surprised me is how much he has really abandoned his economic

populist agenda in these first 100 days. he started off with health care, not infrastructure. he has re-stoked cultural wars around immigration, but really has not delivered. october 22, he outlined a 10 point plan of 10 things economically related to do during the first 100 days. nine of them he did not even sent to congress, let alone get done. third, personnel. personnel matters when you are president. there has never been a modern president who has done less to staff his government in the first 100 days. that will have consequences if there is some crisis. as crazy and tumultuous as the 100 days have been, he has been fortunate, spared a major foreign or domestic crisis. when something like that happens, he is going to find nobody home in a lot of these agencies. >> good morning, everybody. i want to start by thanking my friend bob for the invitation.

hard to say no, so here i am. three quick points that there when you look at the first 100 days and similarities between previous administrations. for us, the bush presidency, when we came in in 2001, there were a lot of people who questioned his legitimacy, a lot of democrats who were upset -- hey, we won. there were a lot of democrats who were upset by what happened in florida. ron and i both know this -- he was on one side, i was on the other. the first couple of months, the media made a lot of the legitimacy, and you see that now with president trump. the second, as the other ron mentioned, personnel. my chief of staff of staff used to say that personnel's policy and policy is personnel. one of the thing that has struck me by this white house, by having been into it and talking to colleagues, is that there is nobody there.

you walk into the white house and offices are dark. there is new computer equipment, chairs, staffers waiting, but they are not there. to put that into perspective, of the 16 executive branch agencies , we only have two deputy secretaries. you wonder who is really doing the work. that is something i find intriguing at this point. the third point is, this is obviously the twitter presidency. presidents are known for discipline and staying on message. i don't think we have ever seen a president who takes to twitter to get their message out. that certainly is pleasing to trump supporters, gives a lot of people in communication jobs heartburn, and gives the media and all of us something to talk about. morris, you asked the question over whether this is

part of the course and the extent to which we can use previous presidencies as a frame of reference as to how this president is judged. ron'sk i would build on argument or observation about the uniqueness of this particular president, within the context in which we live. all of us think these are amazing times, because these are the only times we are living in. if we have lived in the 1800s, we would have thought those elections were amazing as well. what we have now in the age we exist and is that, as a student said to me, people say things because they want to get noticed. people do things to get attention, rather than wanting to be right, using facts, reasoning, or send something useful, they instead say things to be noticed. , thisk in some respects

particular change in the communications technology and the ways in which parties and the media have changed health to increase -- changed help to increase the extent to which a person and a president can either abuse this element of communication technology or use it to his advantage. the ways in which we are the same as always is that there has always been polarization, partisan polarization. it has always been the case that anybody who is a republican engages in motivated reasoning -- that is a good thing he did. on the other hand, if it is a democrat, it is a bad thing. so motivated reasoning, as well as confirmation bias, have always existed. these are general, long-standing psychological prophecies. the partisan polarization we see, the distinction and differences of approval or disapproval by party, should not

be surprising. these are normal aspects of politics. having said that and turning back to the original point about the extent to which people today who want to be popular, who would like to get a's, say things to be noticed rather than because they might be true or not true. i think it is useful to think about that within the context of a person who is not only the leader of this country but who is the mouthpiece for his political party, and the significance of all of these statements, whether well-founded or not, based in reality, done at 3:00 in the morning, driven by whatever sentiment they are driven by -- are nevertheless things that will continue to follow this president and this party will continue to teach young voters, like our students, new immigrant voters -- 20% of the u.s. population is immigrant or the child of an immigrant -- is introduced to u.s. politics

that this is how a president, a republican president behaves. that is the lesson and one of the consequences of a communication strategy such as this. >> thank you for having me here. i was asked to say a few words. obviously, i come from san luis obispo county and you had to dig deep to find somebody who would talk about good terms of donald trump. it is great to be here. as 20 you to know that years of public service myself, coming from the private sector, i have been watching what has been going on in d.c. area i have had the opportunity to meet president trump. it is not who i see on tv sometimes. when i have one-on-one conversations, he is very locked on the conversation, very smart, understands the issues. when he comes out of the office, it is a different person. why do i say this?

i was lieutenant governor with arnold schwarzenegger, and i see a lot of the same. he is a businessman first. you have to understand where he comes from. we heard earlier there are a lot of positions vacant. putting my businessman had on -- , i wouldan hat on venture to guess he sees that as savings for the federal government. luckily, there has not been a crisis, because that is when the rubber hits the road. if you look at the president today, in his first 100 days, here is a man who was never elected to office. you look at the previous president, president barack obama, did not have executive branch experience, but he was a state and u.s. senator and had experience. you look at president bush -- he was a governor. andy card was also an elected official at one point in time. he was a secretary of transportation, very

knowledgeable. ,hen you have president trump who comes into the oval office -- did not have a transition team in place because they probably didn't think they're going to win. they come in fresh. he hires a chief of staff who does not have government experience either. 45-year-old chairman of a party. you have some advisers who have been around him for a long time who have zero government experience. i am speaking as an outsider today, because i am not in parts, but if i go to the store in my community, they love it. but if i go to los angeles and speak to an institute, there are a lot of questions about, why is this happening? it gives you a flavor of the dynamics we have. if you ask me, what has he accomplished in the first 100 days? well, he has nominated and appointed a 49-year-old judge,

who is going to be there for 30 years or more. that is a huge accomplishment that he can tout for a long time. people want to know about immigration -- one of my biggest issues, my passion. i am sad with some of the things that have been said, but i think there is an opportunity to work on immigration. i think there is a lot of places where people are saying, he is trying to correct himself. if you look at arnold schwarzenegger, there are similarities. maybe you have caught on or maybe you have not. most politicians want to be liked. most movie stars want to be loved. arnold was at when speaking, he would always talk in the third term. switching a girl wants to do this. -- arnoldand nader schwarzenegger wants to do this. you don't hear mitch mcconnell or nancy pelosi say that. you hear trump say, trump wants

to do this. bottom line, they are brands. when a brand takes a hit, there is a correction in who they are. when arnold got his brand hit, there was a correction. i think president trump is going through a correction. joel talked about earlier today, the base is worried, is he going to go left? that is the big question today as to where america is going to go. to the upper east side new yorkers take over, or does he continue to talk to the base, as i think you are talking about. kind of my feeling, where i am coming from -- i want to be the voice of your of the outsider who is not in office, who was a farmer, who is looking back and saying, maybe there is a change. also as the author of proposition 14 in california, because i believe the biggest problem facing america today is partisanship. i think there is a hidden tax on partisanship, because

republicans go into a caucus room and worry about electing republicans and not the economy. democrats do the same exact thing. and we lose, as the people of this great state and country. mr. levy: thanks very much. a couple of the themes that seemed to come out of this were staffing is fairly unorthodox. in some offices, there is nobody home. am a. and communication -- in some offices, there is nobody home period. and communication. to what extent and how specifically have these two idiosyncrasies of the trump administration may be helped or hurt the president in moving some of his signature agenda items forward? anyone who would like to jump in.

>> on staffing, this is a man running a multibillion dollar company with 30 people. of those 30 people, probably one third of them were his family. it is where he is coming from and where his trust is and where thatels, not understanding the federal government is a huge, operation with some -- i think i read 550 people that need senate confirmation that have not even been nominated. that is a big thing that he needs to correct, and i think he well. some people on my side of the aisle will say, it is the democrats. no, he has got to nominate them. then you have the democrats saying, he is not nominating them, he does not have anybody qualified. that is just both sides of the aisle trying to come. i think we are going to see movement in the next month. he has been focusing on the 100 days.

to be frank with you, outside this room or the city, i have never heard somebody come to me and say, the 100 days are the most important days of the presidency. i think it could set the tone, but when his four years are up, they are going to judge him on what he did over the four years. but the staffing thing, it is mind-boggling to some, but to some others, goes back to what you said. there has not been a crisis, so there has not been a situation where he needs to ramp up. but it is a challenge. i see him coming back to people that he believes have some kind of business experience, that hopefully will help them. secretary,nt at the and the secretary might have a discretion on who the deputy is. well, that doesn't work. when i was arnold's lieutenant-governor, we worked together. if you don't work together, a

fortune 500 company doesn't work that way. those are the challenges that i see as we move forward, and the staffing being a huge issue. i hope it is corrected soon, and i think it will be. when we left sacramento, arnold told me something i will never forget. jerry brown was sworn in, beautiful ceremony. he said, i really liked this job. but it took him five or six years for him to say that. president trump is going to say the same thing. he is going to love this job. they love these jobs, these folks that are like them, but it is going to take some time. right now, i don't think they are there. >> let me try to put this in perspective for you. there is nothing more unusual than showing up to the white house on day one, because there is no instruction manual.

there is no -- this is how you are the deputy domestic policy advisor. you show up in the office and there is literally nothing instead of a -- literally nothing instead of a band around your computer that says, this is property of the d gao and everything here will be recorded. as you try to sketch out, how can i serve the president, if you don't have the personnel in place, you are in a very, very bad spot. i look at this administration and that the president and say, you have got to stop the inviting. there was a fascinating article on "the washington post" that i largely believe that there are different camps. you have got ivanka and jared, bannon in another corner, some holdovers from the bush administration. they are all signing off on the most minor of appointments. the president needs to have a position in place that allows

the opportunity to get the senior people nominated, as the governor said, and sent to the senate as soon as possible. for most importantly, to have the political personnel in place in the agencies that can take direction from the white house and fulfill the president's agenda. i think he is being ill-served by his staff with the infighting. ron and i work for a very headstrong vice president and president, but you recognize at the end of the day that it is not about you, it is about their agenda. the infighting and stories you hear about that are really undermining and under serving this president. as it relates to communications, this is another area where his staff needs to pick up the ball and recognize it is not about them, it is about the president. we used to have message meetings three times a week. the first one, he talked about what we would do next week, the next month, then the next three months. if you have an integrated communication strategy with a

policy message, then the american people can understand what you are trying to accomplish. when you are doing communications via twitter and the press secretary having to correct or amend or otherwise contradict what the president has just we did, you are in -- what the president has just tweeted, then you are in a bad spot and the news is driving your message. >> i want to pick up with something the president -- the professor said earlier. this does feel like the kardashian presidency. he is desperate for attention, tweets things that are patently untrue. that is why even republicans say he is the most dishonest president in modern times. he lies almost every day. that is not a good thing for president. rallyf some of those lies his supporters and appease his voters and are red meat for his base, ultimately, it erodes his credibility as president. day when heome a

will want that credibility, and it won't be there because he squandered it on ridiculous things like saying barack obama spied on him in 2016. that is one problem with this mode of communication. mr. maldonado: i do think the governor's work tonight or -- the governor arnold schwarzenegger model is interesting. what he did was reach out to democrats and try to govern in a bipartisan way. the understood he could not just do it with republicans and needed bipartisanship. that is what i expected from donald trump, in the model of governor arnold schwarzenegger and bloomberg of new york. the final point i want to make -- the 100 day thing matters because it is a benchmark of sort, and in fairness, donald

trump did tell people in the , i will do things in 100 days, he picked the standard. but it would be a mistake to conclude that because these things haven't happened in 100 days, he can't fix them. anyone who has underestimated donald trump has suffered a bad price for that. i think it is still in his power to change direction and to fix some of these things and to correct the course of his presidency is on. willie do it? -- will he do it? i don't know that anyone knows, even in. to fix what360 days went wrong in the first 100. mr. levy: following up on that for abel and then jane, is trump hurting himself by having damaged his credibility in a variety of ways?

there is the staffing issue, staff infighting, the sometimes bizarre late night or early morning twitter screeds. is this earning trump -- harming drop as he goes forward, or is there maybe a method in the madness? mr. maldonado: it is who he is. it is who he was before the campaign, during the campaign. tweeted at 7:30 in the morning because it was saturday and he did not have his caretakers around them -- around him. he has been doing that for 6-7 years. how can i put this? he is learning on the job. he might not want to say that, but he is learning on the job. soon, he will start -- believe it or not -- he will start doing repetitions of, here is the budget again, the deadline for this, and he will start to get the hang of his job.

before you know it, don't underestimate him. don't underestimate what he is doing. minutes ago out 30 that the freedom caucus is now supporting the obamacare reveal. i'm -- the obamacare repeal. i'm not going to believe that until i see it, because they will say one thing and when the vote comes up, it is a different ball game. they have to check with lobbyists, just like the left and so forth. i don't see it as hurting him. this is how president trump operates and is going to continue to operate. he is going to fix some things here and there, but at the end of the day, he is the nucleus, the one making the decisions. let me just share something. i'm in business, i was in business before politics. i remember, we are going to do this tomorrow? and guess what, we are going to do it tomorrow.

in government, the one thing i think president trump is going to learn soon is that government was designed by our founding fathers to move really slow. it took me eight years to figure it out. you take little bites of the apple every year, and maybe after five or six years you get the whole apple and have some satisfaction on federal and state government issues. i think he will learn that and we'll figure it out real soon, because he is very smart. the question is, how soon and when can we get some relief from some of this twitter stuff? he is not going to stop. he is 70. [laughter] mr. maldonado: he is on twitter, instagram, facebook, and he communicates -- in his mind -- i don't know this for a fact, that in his mind, he knows how many ,eaders "the l.a. times" has and in his mind, when he tweet

something, he is getting out more of his message than "the l.a. times." so he is going to keep going. i'm sure if he sees a tweet from somebody else and things, that make sense, retweet. mr. levy: i would like to bring jane in here. part of what i am driving at with these questions is the difference from being loved, which most people seem to think president trump wants, maybe even being feared, and pressing forward an agenda. is there a method to the madness and which of those aims does it serve and are those aims intentional? ms. junn: i have never met donald trump, have not observed him, so i care not to make inferences about his personality. instead, i will provide a different answer. i am a political scientist, so i'm not that involved in day-to-day politics, as you know if you have taken my courses. what i am involved with and interested in -- not that we are not interested in day-to-day

politics -- but we are looking for broader patterns. we are looking at systematic evidence that helps us understand the significance of those actions. as a person who studies clinical behavior, the thing we are trying to understand -- as a person who studies clinical behavior, we are trying to understand what the team live affect is of this strategy. if he wants to be loved, if he has some other complex because he was raised in a box, who knows, let's leave that to the biographers. the point of what we can do as scholars and students and informed observers of politics is to try to understand what the longer-term implications are of this form of communications strategy, the intensity and tenor of it. asks themorris question of, will he lose credibility, the answer has to be given within the context of who are you talking about. to fervent supporters of drop, i

would argue -- supporters of trump, i would argue it may help him. two informed political observers, the likelihood it will help him is relatively low. this emanates from the question and perspective of, what is the content of those communications? over time, if the president continues to provide commentary such as the former president wiretapped him or other elements equally as derisive, divisive, accusatory, or defensive, and to the extent that the media coverage only follows those, i think there could be a long-term deleterious effect, not only on the image and credibility of the president, but certainly among people who are long-term, consistent voters. those are the voters that are the most important in off-presidential year elections.

i understand we will discuss this later in the last panel of the day. but also to the extent we are talking about a reelection run for this president in 2020, which will start in only about 18 months. one has to think about who it is we are talking about and if and to the extent that the president decides to tweet other things that are potentially less derisive, divisive, accusatory, defensive, it would probably be useful for people to cover that as well. i'm sure he tweets nice things, congratulatory messages. someone is analyzing that, i am sure, at this moment. nevertheless, the inferences we can draw based on systematic data have to be about the long-term consequences. what you feel today might be different by the time 18 months have gone by and you are about ready to vote for the next president or senators who represent the political party of the president. mr. levy: thank you.

i would like to switch gears a little bit to talk about particular agenda items for trump. i will start with matthew khan. going off your comment earlier about the distinct absence of economists surrounding the president. i would like to turn to the topic on everybody's mind, tax reform. the question i would like to ask , beyond what the prospects are for reform and why has trump apparently propose something that seems to have very little chance of making its way through i would on altered -- also like to ask what role would experts ordinarily play in the design of this legislation, and where do you see the impact of those missing voices in the design and strategy of this particular piece of legislation? i should offer as a caveat that trump was going to have a meeting on this today, so if

there are recent developments, i am unaware. mr. kahn: in the new york times, arthur laffer makes a comeback. i don't know if everyone has read it or is focusing on the clippers loss. -- i am forgetting the name for this group of economists -- he proposed that by cutting taxes, we could raise revenue. we are about to get another test of the laffer curve. know is thatts many of our social problems could go way up the economy could grow by 4% a year. ,s the baby boomers age entitlement issues, we could finance these, invest more in , ifpoor and inner cities the economy were growing by 4% year. a fundamental issue that i don't know the answer to -- i apologize for my ignorance, i if there isd phd --

a reform that president bush is pushing for, will we get a macro stimulus? will we get the economic growth and is promised? this is a new age of humility for economists. i know that i don't know the answer to what we would get from a tax cut. i think a very interesting question is, when you know that you don't know -- when the experts know that they don't know what they would get from a policy, how do you proceed? if the goal is greater economic growth, i hope we can achieve that goal, but the tax reform, too many macroeconomists, remains an open question what we will actually gain. mr. levy: a follow-up for the two rons and abel. how do you proceed when you don't know what you don't know, and where does this leave trump politically, to be in the position of not necessarily knowing the full consequences of

these sorts of proposals? and is there any chance to get a sort of bipartisan cooperation on tax reform down the line, that people have come to associate with, let's say, the reagan era. >> you start with what you promised voters in the campaign. i am less interested in the court from voters who love his anger. they are for him and will always be for him. he won because there are voters who dislike that stuff but were willing to vote for him because they thought he would deliver change. virtually none of those working-class voters in pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, will say the most important thing they need the next president to do is lower the tax rate for big corporations to the lowest number in the history of the country. i doubt anyone showed up on a cold day in pennsylvania in november to put this man in the oval office to make the centerpiece of his economic plan

a corporate tax-cut. he promised the voters a middle-class tax cut. he promised to fight to pass it in the first 100 days. he has not even put one forward. government does move slowly, but on day 30 of the obama presidency, he signed into law a $300 billion middle-class tax cut. it can be done. i think something like that probably would have bipartisan support, but if his agenda really is corporate tax breaks, i think he is going to find a lot of fighting on capitol hill. the last thing i will say on this -- i think democrats would be wise -- i wrote a column to this effect, so you know i think this because i put it in "the washington post" -- i think democrats would be wise to call his bluff on the link between the corporate tax-cut and job creation. if that is what he is going to put forward, then the role

should be, if you are a corporation and you don't make new jobs, you lose your tax cut. if you make more jobs overseas than you make a home, you should lose your tax cut. there are a lot of ways to hold trump to his own standards about job creation as the tax reform debate plays out, and i hope democrats do. >> i take a different tack. i find it fascinating, everyone focusing on the first 100 days. i look at this in a different perspective and i say, this is the ryan speakership and the mcconnell-led senate. we have a republican congress, republican white house. what in the heck are they doing in congress? paul ryan -- full disclosure, dear friend of mine -- put together a plan called a better way last year. this is what the republicans ran on. you can find it on speaker.gov. they talk about health care reform.

they talk about tax reform. none of those things are and what president trump is talking about. there is a rift that is starting to develop the needs the scenes -- develop beneath the scenes that is not being reported, the rift between congressional republicans and the white house. it is getting more pronounced. i had dinner with a good friend of mine, a member of congress from new york, who said the drop people do not talk to us. they say, you have got to pass the bill within the first 100 days, and they're not as interested in the specifics. the trunk people come to us and say, we have got to get a tax bill. next week. wait a second, we have not gone to ways and means. i think there is anderson dynamic that is at play -- an interesting dynamic with donald trump today. the tax plan is almost like his shot across the bow of congress -- you have not acted, now i'm

going to use my bully pulpit. be on the lookout for how republicans -- like the old republicans, spy versus spy -- republican versus or republican. see how they are able to govern or not govern. mr. levy: would you like to jump in on this? i'm curious about this kind of republican versus republican strategy, shot across the bow. is this a wise strategy? is it something we are likely to see more of going forward? >> the presidential election is not for another three years. the republican congressmen are in about 18 months. i have been a politician. i know what i'm worried about when i'm getting ready to vote on something. i'm worried about, are my voters going to vote for me because i want to keep my job. because it is the best job i have ever had. i think we are going to continue to see that, because they are very concerned. i think the race in georgia woke up a lot of republicans and they

said, if this guy not even living in the district can come close to winning, that means our message might not be great across america, so we're going to change our june. if you listen to donald trump in his campaign -- do we remember -- the first thing out of the box was, we are going to repeal obamacare. yay. that was his message. then he said, we're going to give a tax cut. he did not say how big. yay. then he said, we're going to repeal obamacare, supreme court justice, i'm going to be elected because i'm going to give you a conservative justice. he says, we are to build a wall and mexico is going to pay for it. he says, we are going to have a trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal. that was his message, why he got elected. now he is coming back and saying, yeah, i don't know if the 15% tax cut is going to work. if it doesn't work, it is

because congress has no. because he wants 15% because that is how he operates. he believes that 15% to corporations will allow them to start the generators and create all the jobs, and all of a sudden, we will have all this income and fund all the programs, like we were talking about earlier. and that's what he believes. , is he goingon is to work with congress and is there going to be some bipartisanship? i don't see it for the near future, until there is a big failure. if you go back to arnold, he came in with the same message. he was campaigning with a broom around the state, saying, i'm going to sweep these politicians out of sacramento. he called them girlie men. then he said, we are going to eliminate the vehicle license fee, and he did. until you said, i'm going to take on the whole world.

he did his initiatives and took on fire and police and nurses and every labor organization, and he lost. and that's when the transformation came in to play in california. mr. levy: if i could follow on to that point in little bit, from my extensive reading of "the art of the deal," one of the signature pieces of advice is to come in with a big proposal that goes beyond what you expect to get and be ready to walk away from the table. a couple of times, we have seen trump do what was once unthinkable, to pull the plug on something. we saw that on the repeal and replace obamacare. we recently saw it in the negotiations to avoid a government shutdown, where it seems that trump has backed off somethingat least as he is insisting on immediately.

is this kind of strategy typical of going big and if necessary, going home, on the issue? what does it do to a president's bargaining position vis-a-vis congress? anyone can jump in. >> i'll start. we expected and art of the deal presidency. so far, we have seen very little art and no deals, so that is a big problem for him. be ank he has to get -- to successful president, you have to get things done. it is not much more complicated than that. to get things done in washington with problems with republicans, some difficult democrats, you have to make deals. unable -- has been unwilling or unable -- but in the end, unable. that is something he is going to have to change, or else he is going direct up a

no-accomplishment presidency. supreme court justice is a bigger congressman, particularly for his conservative voters. he has foreign policy and executive orders at his disposable -- at his disposal. but to deliver promises he made, he has to start to get deals done. he can't keep on blustering and walking away. that is not a format for success. >> let me echo and amplify that point. in the presidency, you have such immense power to actually cut the deal and using the power of the presidency to cut those negotiations on a certain point and say, let's get it done. let me give you an example for president bush. his signature compliment was no child left behind. -- his signature accomplishment was no child left behind, bipartisan measure to reform the education system.

the first thing he did was call up senator kennedy and say, what is it going to take for you to cosponsor my legislation to get it through the senate and send it to the house? sat down with george miller, congressman from california, and said, what is it going to take for you to support my bill and get it through the house? the president was very wise of using the power of the white house. what was one of the earlier things he did? he invited the entire kennedy family to the white house for a screening of the movie "13 days" to get some love. he renamed the department of justice after bobby kennedy. there are certain ways of president can empower people through favors. everybody loves riding on air force one. but the art of the negotiation is finding a way to break bread. i think president trump would be well advised to sit down with nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, and say, what are some principles we can agree on and move from

their? it worked from august, worked for the clinton administration, and i think it could work for the trump administration. >> one brave thing -- senator kennedy's successor -- one brief thing -- senator kennedy's successor is elizabeth warren. when the president invited democrats to the office, he began by saying, i guess the face of your party is pocahontas now. a racial epithet fired at senator kennedy's successor. that is not how he is going to get things done. ms. junn: i wanted to make one last point with respect to expectations, given the structure of government today. the structure of government with respect to party. who is in power. previous presidents have worked under circumstances of divided government and divided supreme court. under republican administrations with a supreme court primarily conservative. this case, one way to think

about the expectations for orpliment, whether 100 days the full 365 times four, would be to consider the circumstances under which the president is operating. he has both houses of congress by good majorities. he has the supreme court. he also has nearly 3/5 of the statehouses. under the circumstances of a structure of government that is relatively unified under the republican party, one could argue that the expectations for legislative compliment done through congress, rather than executive order, should be much higher. trumpvy: is president getting in his own way and coming up short relative to the expectations? >> like i said earlier, i think he is learning the job. he is morning where he is going. -- he is learning where he is going. we were talking about how george w. bush did this in the first 100 days.

he was a former governor. he understood this in texas. i think as time goes on, he will start to get victories. eventually, he will get to the point where he will understand either the hard way, by losing the house, working with democrats, or by a different way, by saying, i got to work with some democrats, get the job done. victories might not be as big as i want them, but america needs to move forward. he is going to get there. he is not there today. obviously, those comments at the white house, those are not productive. i'm sure somebody is telling them that. it is just going to take some time. one of the things he is going through -- look, when i got to sacramento, it was 1998. i don't want you to take this the wrong way, but we had some folks there we called the cavemen. they had been in office for a long time, and they fought like hell on the floor.

but when the floor was over with, we were best friends, democrats and republicans. you look at washington today. everything is a fight. everything is a gotcha. everything is about party, not country. and he is dealing with that. i think once he figures that out , i think maybe he will say, wait a minute, we have got to change course and get the job done. , orer he is going to do it the american people are going to force him to by giving the house to the other party. mr. levy: let me follow up on that and asked the panelists if they think they can identify one area in which president trump has grown into the role on the job, or if they think he has in any way. let's start going from left to right again. oh, excuse me. we have lost a panelist. i forgot to mention that professor kahn was going to have

to leave midway through. ron klain, has he grown at all? mr. klain: it is hard to see it so far. i do think that in the area of national security, where he has the strongest team, obviously putting in someone who is on russia's payroll was not a great move -- but he has corrected that and now has a well respected team. he has certainly been getting up to speed their more quickly. that would be one area where we could say he is listening to advisors, taking that seriously. but i am a little bit torrent about -- a little bit torn about whether or not he is going to change or not. you can't learn if you don't change, and so far, he is not really changing. mr. christie: i agree with ron.

i think the area he has shown a capacity to grow in in his role has been in the national security and diplomatic front. i think it was very important for him to establish a good rapport with the president of china, given how the north koreans have destabilized the region and given their potential influence of not only proliferating weapons of mass destruction, but actually deploying them -- that i'm encouraged that the chinese have been more supportive and open to the united states as a partner. same thing with israel. on the domestic front, i think it is easy to criticize her predecessor about the use of executive power and orders, and then once you get in their yourself, you find, i'm going to issue 32 myself, how about that, in the first 100 days. needs tohe president find a way to cobble together some legislative victories to prove it is not just by legislative fiat, but he can

work with congress to enact legislation. he has got a long way to go, but i want him to be successful. you heard some republicans early on under president obama say, i hope the president fails. if the president fails, the country fails. while mr. trump certainly has a idiosyncratic style -- i think is the polite way to put it -- i want him to find his way and find a way to bring the american people together to get compliments for all of us. compliments for all -- to get accomplishments for all of us. ms. junn: something he has learned. let's start with a comparison between the first order of the -- with the first version of the executive order restricting travel from muslim countries to the second version. you could argue that the recognition of federal

procedures, use of the justice department, use of lawyers, was useful. i would identify a relatively narrow one. as you know, there is an injunction against the second executive order as well, but you could argue there has been some progress, if not the president himself, then those around him understanding federal procedures and what a constitutional question might be. i want to provide a response to what some of the lieutenant weernor has said, that shouldn't have high expectations, he is new, he was a businessman. to the contrary, my position on this is not whether he succeeds or not, whether he gets an a or , but instead, as americans, we should have i expectations. is aould not say, he businessman and has got a wacky temperament. this is the most powerful political person in the united states and potentially the world. the person has a responsibility

for 300 million americans and others. in that regard, that responsibility should require high expectations, not low, because the office has potential for tremendous good as well as bad. i do think, and i hope, that the learning curve is steep, not only for this president, before his staff. furthermore, that we should not give up and say, he is just learning. he better learn quick, because this is a position for which all of us -- whether we voted for him or not -- he is the president of all americans, not just a republicans. [applause] mr. levy: before i give you a chance to respond, i would like to pylon and point out -- i would like to pile on that trump himself talked about he would not need this learning curve, he alone could fix these things, he knew how the system worked. speaking for: i am

myself, as a person who came off a farm and became a state senator. it took me some time to learn. i came in with the same message, running sacramento like a business. it is a great line. i said it at the time. once i got to sacramento -- government does not run like a business. it took me some time to have a learning curve. what i'm saying when i say give him some time, i'm not saying give him four years. he is getting his ground. he said his biggest mistake has been his messaging. he said, i'm giving myself a c. that right there tells me he is coming around. let's not forget, the american people have a choice not long ago, to choose the most prepared person to take that job, who had all the experience to run that efficiently, and they said no to her. they said yes to this man. , it isam saying is that

not that i'm going to give him all this time -- he has been successful with some things. he is going to repeal obamacare. it might not be how he said it. there is going to be a tax-cut. and if there is not, then guess what? then i don't think he will be there for four years. he is going to make some changes soon. that -- durings the campaign, i was mine boggled as well when trump came on the scene. i had heard a song by bob dylan. a-chang times, they are in. i readily wrecks, and times, they are changing. he is a product of times that are changing. he is going to learn quickly, and we are going to see good things, i believe. they have got to be bipartisan, and if they are not, they are not going to work. mr. levy: thanks.

since we are in california, the heart of the resistance, i want to ask a question about how trump's agenda has run into opposition in the states and in localities. specifically on issues such as immigration and the environment and even marijuana. we see a lot of tension between the administration's objectives and what governors and mayors seem willing to countenance. how is that going to play out? when push comes to shove, who has the upper hand on these issues? i will start with abel. mr. maldonado: i think president trump has a tremendous opportunity to work on immigration. i said earlier that it is my passion. my father came to america in 1963. he crossed the border with a penny in his pocket, looking for a better life. his son became lieutenant governor of california. the system worked.

i know this must be messaging up the wall, that hasn't helped. but i think he is in a tremendous opportunity to work with republicans in the senate and house. we can get an immigration system in place that works. obviously, we are not going to get amnesty, like president reagan gave us. we talked about executive orders. executive orders -- he likes them because they are victories. but that is not the way to govern. so he needs to bring democrats together to get some kind of an immigration system that works. i actually believe that we temporarye a executive order to allow farmworkers who are not criminals the opportunity to stay here on a work permit, to harvest these crops that we all love in our country. and maybe for some hospitality and so forth.

i think he can. we can do it. it is a matter of time. mr. levy: jane, who has the upper hand on immigration when it comes to some of these issues around sanctuary cities and the like? ms. junn: it all depends. we were learning about this in one of my classes. the concept of plenary power, articulated by the united states supreme court and chinese exclusion cages of the 19 century -- chinese exclusion cases of the 19th century, specifies that the supreme court has power over immigration as a function of national sovereignty. questions of policies about how we live when we are here, those are traditionally the realm of the state. do you provide in-state tuition for college? do you provide the ability to get drivers license

-- i think with respect to the would be, and it ironic indeed if a republican president persisted in changing boat.rather then a in my view i think it -- think most people who studied the federal government know it is the purview of the better government. have notng that those been victories but failures and respect to courts. it will remain to be seen whether the supreme court will -- with respect.

with respect to plenary powers, the circumstances of violations with individual rights are a orders. of executive usually the federal government has the power on entry and nationalization so i went -- naturalization so i would expect congress or anyone who observes two bence is -- congress show they put together a policy that is palatable to both parties. 99 -- been since they 1996 law. others have perhaps more skill precisely because it is a difficult issue. >> thank you. any other remarks before we go to q&a? any others? all right. well, sure. we will start taking questions. there we go.

a --nk we're going to have we have a microphone coming around i think. one second. >> i read it as extensively as any human being can. i read the new yorker. left us. i read the wall street journal, right. i read the l.a. times which is completely unbiased and wonderful. i read the christian science monitor which is the most unbiased reporting in the world, i and yet i wait to see who among the politicians or the journalists is going to ask the most important question of all, as far as trump path personality is -- as far as donald trump's

personality is concerned. what causes this intelligent man to make such stupid constant remarks? is it up to a psychiatrist to write a biography telling us what is going on here? >> i am afraid you are the closest we have toy psychologist on this panel. >> uh oh. i do not know. i know there are groups of psychiatrists who have suggested president the evaluated for stability but there have been plenty of other presidents that people during which the time they were serving felt they were unstable. linda johnson, richard nixon, woodrow wilson was right up there in the crazy department. so there are plenty potentially. that as well. if you were to go in that direction, to wonder whether or

not there was a disconnect between intelligence and capacity to reason and decision making. that is not necessarily a function only have the present occupant. there have been priorities series of pretty level-headed human beings winning the government. having said that, we need to do is look to watergate. look at two in particular john on then get a commentary nature or the conversations in the white house that were unfortunately taped for nixon at that time. might play disconnect between personality and rational reason. it is not uncommon that i know. you probably know a lot of people are capable of flying up the handle or say things it might regret later, they just don't occupy the office of the president. it might be your cousin rocco. i would say it is not an uncommon trait. governor says,nt

the american public did embrace that element of his personality, at least some of them did. david can pose this question to psychologists or intentionally other political observers as to whether or not he is -- the extent to which the personality he has displayed us -- would be useful or not useful to him at the country and governing. to ronick follow up this.and ron christie on to what extent do we get a presentation of the president's personality from the media and to what extent is there a different picture behind the scenes. not necessarily donald trump, but in your experience. >> i think there are presidents who are different in private than public. i would say one example was al

gore. not a president that people who know him know that actually he is funny, warm, likable and personally without his public reputation was for being very stiff and robotic. with donald trump i honestly do not care if he is crazy, crazy like a fox, you know, what it is. i care about the performance. right now, he is not performing as president and that is the bottom line. whether or not that is because of something inside of him or because he wants to be loved or once attention or because he is not consistent, all of those 1000 pop psychology things bring to iraq, and the end but upon performances if you is not meeting and at bottom line standard. meeting it at bottom line standard. >> george bush is the amiable dogs. darth vader.

you get in the oval office and powerful the how president is in his command of cabinet. and staff and one of the funniest stories i love to share is once in an early cabinet meeting everyone thought, colin powell, he did not run against bush, colin powell has ever lied on him. i remember being in the cabinet room and president bush, being early for him was being about 10 minutes early survey meeting was at 8:00, he better get there at 7:45 a.m. because he might let the door. in this instance, this would happen. cabinet meeting, everyone know, president is congress secretary of state? people say, he is not here. presence is not here. present as, locked the door. five minutes later you hear a knock. bush let him not for about another 30 seconds or so and

said, the door. lin, don't evero be late again. so the impression you have to the media and when you work with different thing sometimes. i can't think of a funnier bus with a more wicked sense of humor and him. >> thank you for a illuminating why bush and powell did. always get along. ] aughter >> thank you very much for having this conference. veryirst 100 days are important. thank you very much have wisdom and vision. less than one minute, when ronald reagan campaigned he was opposed by everybody, even ridiculed by his own party

leader. he endured. so i said, wow. so i voted for him. first 100 days, a little disappointing, you know. so i want answers about donald trump. president, of the people, asthe people, or the people, -- as ronald reagan said, no presidency as of the people, by the people, for the people. very disappointing. first 100 days, it is time to start listening to the people. he should have said, i have not said enough. it is time for action. he should upset that. if he does not become president of the people, for the people, by the people, i have to say adios.

thank you. [laughter] el, one question that comes from that, to what extent it is donald trump following in the footsteps of someone like ronald reagan or someone like governor schwarzenegger? to what extent are these hiccups and they learning curve to be expected? you said they are but in many ways how is the experience different hand has donald trump moved too quickly on things when he should be taking stock and learning and trying to work behind me scenes? >> i think he is because of really is and is back on. i think the travel ban was written up in cleveland put out and you know, -- was written up quickly and put out. i would say to this day, it has got to get out. when i was working on initiative

a b-109, i said hurry up it has to be done by the state. it was a mistake. we put folks out were really not -- 109.a b at the end of the day, given some more time, i think you has got -- we have 3.5 more years not, whether we like it or ok? we will start judging him after a year at two to say he is getting in his groove and we are getting action moving forwards arnold.went through i do not remember ronald reagan, was too young but i remember arnold. at the end, he understood the process with you like him or not. accomplished. it was bipartisan at the end. he became a big climate hero. he did not start that way. are somei think there things that are involved in learning the job.

a presidentto have learning on the job at some of this, let's be honest, some of this is not about learning it is hate andore agenda of division that he ran on through the campaign. that he is governing on as president. that has nothing to do with him getting one expertise in learning. the day he launched his campaign he said that mexico was sending rapist and murderer's to this country. that was day one. every day since, he has put a up "not welcome here" sign and it is part of his agenda. if you believe immigration is something that makes his country great, makes his country a world leader, makes our country vibrant and vital, makes great stories like the lieutenant governor's personal story, it is culturaltes our

strength they hand our leadership around the world, then he has been wrong-headed from day one and he is showing no signs of wrecking off that. backin ng off -- that. we have seen doubly down. it is not a question of learning, and is a question of perspective and a lot of what is going on with the trump presidency comes from that. some things can be learned, some command print, but some are just wrong hand he continues to pursue the wrong things. [applause and cheers] >> do you think this is the legacy? is it a "not welcome" sign? owing hatred and division? reince i think i heard someone say one of the positives is that

he is keeping his promise -- >> i think i heard someone say one of the positives is that he is keeping his promises. he is doing what he said he would. some people are not ever going to like that. i am going to go back to the learning curve. i do not want to say would put somebody in who has no clue about government. he worked of the day, with government on certain issues, he just did not govern. getsoverning part of weird tricky. government was designed to move really slow. when you move fast, you make mistakes. i see good stuff coming up on the verizon. i think chuck schumer is going to work with him. they do not want to be sitting there for the next two years doing zero. on the words of division and hate, i am not happy with some of the things he said.

he has actually said, he said it himself "i wish i could explain myself a little bit better sometimes because i say things well." not come across he said that. "and, i am going to give myself a c." i hope there are some great things coming to broadway and i can say this, the people of our country maybe not in los angeles and california, maybe not in new york, but a lot of people in our country voted for change. for him. and they said, we want a new director. so let's give him a little shot at this new direction and guess what? if he does not do a good job, there is an election and 3.5 years and maybe things will change. i do not know. >> thank you.

>> he has already gone. >> you asked a question +. >> he did. >> hello. thank you for being them. something that has been coming up is the notion that there are good people advising donald trump at least in the foreign policy sphere and i cannot help but notice that while it seems some of the advisors at the top level are ready top notch there is nonetheless still the fact that there are hundreds of appointed positions unfilled. a lot of work that seems to not being them. mike question in particular to mr. maldonado and everybody else, too, is as the hundred days closes up and as those other spots get filled, can we start to expect a little bit more continuity in the administration messaging and policy administration #can we expect for there to be a return to normalcy of sorts is more experienced professionals get into government in the appointed positions in the administration?

>> the answer is yes. i think everything is going to be a better day for president trump and he is going to get better every day. and, when he feels his when he fills -- his administration every day will be better and in the next or we will see a complete different than what we have today. >> i guess we'll have to want to to that. we will see in a year whether there has been a complete different. one of the most interesting elements to the question of change in the relationship between change in the desire for change and to the idea for then repopulating the federal government with experts, with people are competent, with people or knowledge, that seems to go without saying that we would want experts weather on security are particular locations of the world or whether they are scientists. there seems to be a swell of discontent among voters,

particularly trump voters against those very experts and i think that creates a significant tension not only in the question of whether we are replicating the way the federal government ran before or we're going to change it. that remains an interesting question one year later. >> to answer your question, i think when you're from now will be much better and smoother. you can look no further than the first executive order as it relates to immigration, right? they did not have the right people in the justice department, the white house, they did not have the vetting system that should've been in place for an order of this magnitude particularly given the topic and some the things the president said on the campaign trail. it should have been dented much carefully -- it should have been more carefully. when you get something people in positions, they will guide the country in a much more smooth

manner that what we have seen that's far. >> it is hard to imagine it getting worse. laughter] >> but i suppose in that sense it has to get better. it matters who weep eggs. he was picked some good people and some horrible people. mostly he has not picked people at all. it is hard to know what is going to look like what -- when he sent picking more people. >> thank you. one more question. in the back. >> trunk 2016. >> hello. hello. forously, i support trump 2016. , most people are happy with him. i feel so. people feel he is keeping his promises. i see the other side saying he has not accomplished everything he said he would in the first one hundred days.

what if he accomplishes those things in the first 200 days? when the first year? will be speakers change their torative that they were able -- that he was able to accomplish what he promised? thank you. obviously, my assessment would be very different if you accomplish the things he said he would do. some of those things i would oppose, still. and i would have to give him credit for doing them. the most striking thing is he is not even tried. he said he would past and those of the first 100 days, he did not even said nine of them to, as. if you do not even send them to congress you cannot get the past. that is a big problem will stop some things he promised, you know, he promised not just to repeal one replace obamacare, he promised that everyone in the country would have insurance. that it would be less expensive. that it would be better coverage. if he delivers that, welcome

back your one year from now and become a big bouquet of flowers but i probably shouldn't matter what happens with the freedom caucus he is not going to keep his promise said everyone will have a insurance, it will be less expensive, and it will be better coverage because nothing he is talking about will do that. >> i remember a president who said if you like your health care plan you can keep up, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and we're going and i dosts by $2500 not remember the same kind of media attention. >> there was plenty of media attention, my friend. >> hang on a second. it was fascinating look at the front page of usa today. he interviewed 200 trump 100% think trump has done what exactly what he said he was going to do. ron and i would agree that you are not just playing to the loyalists or the base, you're playing to the president of the united states and you have to govern for all americans and myple are less particularly

beloved california -- very concerned that he is only governing toward trump supporters. there needs to be a recognition by his white house staff that the campaign is over. it is time to govern. the campaign is over. yes, your promises you made it just you have accountability with the american people but let's govern. i want him to succeed and he is got to move beyond promises to promises -- and get to promises to the american people. go back and look at president, barack obama will be known for the affordable care act. he will be known for the bank which was done with bipartisan support. he will be known by his first 150 euros. bush will be known for no child left behind. this president will be known for either big reform and taxes -- he was going to do something in the next year or two that we're

going to identify with. it he going to identify -- do everything he said he would do? no president does. he will get around the edges here and there but he will be a different man and one year and i think, you know, like the polls that, he is keeping his promises. yesterday i was in santa maria, there is a gentleman parked next in anwith two trump flags area that did not vote for trump and i said, how is he doing? and i mean, it is part -- and then you turn -- i was a cnn watcher. guy.till kind of a cnn there is not one second link is by they do not beat this guy up on everything, even when he does ok they are beating him up. so i think people are going to give him a shot. you obviously are going to give him a shot. he will accomplish a lot of things he wants to do either bipartisan because he wants to

our bipartisan because the american people are going to force him and give him a democrat house so i think that is what is going to happen in the next 18 months. >> we have confirmed the political science finding that tensions rise right before lunch. laughter] >> thank you very much to our panel and thank you for your questions. [applause] administration. this is one hour and a half. >> all