those are the same across the whole spectrum. you cannot tax on economy into prosperity. >> while we wait for today's white house briefing with the principal deputy, a look at this morning's national -- washington journal. joining us now, the author of broken. can the senate save its self. he also serves as the former chief of staff to senator rockefeller. guest: good morning. host: a little more about your background at the senate. the kind of things you involve yourself with. i work in us and it for about 12 years for a number of democratic senators.

i got hooked on initially as an intern for a republican senator nearly 50 years ago. i've had a long love of the senate. i was in the majority and minority. committee staff and personal staff and leadership staff. i worked on things as diverse as the ethics code to the metro funding to the foreign intelligence surveillance act. it was 12 wonderful years. the first five in the majority. next six in the minority. what is it like as far as the process? how does that differ from the house? guest: i talk about what we used to call the great senate in my first book. then i renamed it mansfield senate after mike mansfield. , at itste has always best, work in a bipartisan way.

the general requirement that you needed a super majority, it was the place where the parties came together to reconcile diverse interests. walter mondale once described the senate at its best as the nation's mediator. this was where we bring together of thisrse interests country and find common ground. that is what has been lost. host: does that lead you to your present conclusion we describe this in as broken? -- the senate as broken? >> that is the least controversial opinion you can make. everyone agrees the senate is broken. senators cannot stop talking about how broken it is. the only thing they have not done is fix it. host: how is it broken? guest: what has happened to in

recent years, particularly the last decade, the senate leaders used to work together. it was an obligation to work together. they were a leadership team. over the last 20 years, and accelerating over the last 10, senate leaders became tribal leaders. the democratic leader let the democrats, the republican leader let the republicans. the republicans. that is not the way the senate needs to work. the leaders have an obligation to come together and make it work. mcconnell team failed that test. effect onconnell's the senate has been quite profound in the regard. host: i want to invite people to call in and talk with our guest.

independence, (202) 748-8002. you can tweet us. leader mcconnell, was his role? senator mcconnell, if you define power as the ability to accomplish your objectives and prevent your opponents from a combo thing there is, no one has been more powerful than senator mcconnell. that is as a republican leader. that is different than being a senate leader where you are trying to bring people together and accomplish something for the nation. if you go back to 2009, when coming into was office and we were on the verge of teetering into the second great depression, that was a moment where leaders would usually come together and say we have got to deal with this national economic emergency.

that was not what happened. senator mcconnell read -- lead the republicans in opposing the economic stimulus of necessary to start us back toward some recovery and prevent the depression. strategy ind his doing that, he lays about in his own memoir. that is not was senate leaders are supposed to do. that was a moment you would've seen the president and the leaders in congress come together to work for the country. host: we just saw the passage of this on the this bill. is there a argument that bipartisanship can be done? guest: in certain cases, bipartisanship can be done. in this case, republicans wanted enormous increases in military spending. democrats wanted increase in domestic spending.

it was possible on a transactional basis to do something. if you look at the failure on immigration or back to 2017 at the repeated efforts to repeal the affordable care act without ,earings, with that markups without amendments, that is a failure of the senate. this and it was not supposed to work in that way. mcconnell's case is it easier to focus on strategy when you have the house and white house in republican control? guest: i bring up leader mcconnell because he is a big part of the senate history. he is financing -- vanishing his 12 year as a senate leader and he has made a mark. what mark is it? years, itma role -- was implacable opposition. our system depends on minority cooperation and it was not

there. then he gets into the majority and he becomes a steamroller. so things and start passing like the tax bill with 50 votes or 51 votes rather than the super majority. he has been effective. the cost has been high for the senate. host: the book, broken. can the senate save its self and the country? we have calls lined up for you. our first one is from john, republican line, you are on. good morning. i have to disagree when you late -- lay all the blame at mcconnell's feet. when you look at what harry reid to the -- did to the senate, he but the filibuster rule in play. he was a disaster for the country because he would not pass any budgets. he stonewalled both the democrats and republicans when

the president obama was trying to get things past. he has been an unmitigated disaster. his chickens are now coming home to roost. you are making the point that many republicans do make, and i do not believe senator reid was a successful leader. -mcconnell teamd failed the senate starting in 2005 and then 2007. however, the difference is that senator reid for the obama years, he was the leader trying to enact the program of on elected president and in a reelected president. mr. mcconnell only had to impose -- a pose, and he did the greater effectiveness. if you look at the way other minority leaders have functioned, they functioned to

oppose the president on certain things, and work with him on others. that kindsee any of of working together that would have characterized a howard baker or a robert dole. willingnessere a with the current minority leader chuck schumer? the currentnk minority leader is capable of making bipartisan deals. he has a history of it. 2013rd very effectively in on a comprehensive immigration bill. the current minority leader is dealing with an unusual situation, the trump presidency. which provoked massive resistance from the beginning. it has been a partisan situation in that regard. the thing i should say to you and the viewers is that i started writing the book in the

fall of 2016 when i believed hillary clinton would be president and cannot govern unless the senate changed. my book was not about donald trump. it was not about any particular person, although senator mcconnell does loom large because he has been such a force. the decline of the senate created a situation where people look at washington and said it is not working. i am willing to try an outsider because those people in washington are failing us. host: we will hear from the minority leader back in cap rate. he spoke at the university of louisville mitch mcconnell center. >> we have shown the cynic in me before, and must do so again. the house is fractious. the president is the president.

the senate that has the potential to act as a beacon of stable leadership in a political culture. we have a special obligation to this country. when each individual senators in power, where the rates -- rights of minority are not only respected, but cherished. where the rules make bipartisanship practically a necessity. presidentw what washington called it, the cooling saucer of the hot tea of politics. if there was ever a time where our politics needed a cooling is now.it that is what history teaches us. i could not say it any better than senator schumer.

i also cannot say it any better than senator mcconnell has at different times. he made a speech on january 14 on that same theme. the beginning of his memoir in january 16 starts with a special role of the senate. precisely the way schumer has described it. yet, he has not worked at that way as leader. we have seen things ran through on a simple majority basis. we have seen obstruction at times when copper mize was necessary. leaderhe minority mentioned the various rules being changed, the rules for finished -- filibuster. do you think those are too easily changed? what a long-term effects? guest: the long-term effects have been destructive. be senate is supposed to this cooling saucer.

when filibusters were real but the, when you really needed majority and minority to come together to get anything done, senators understood their obligation to do that when one person could not hold up the senate and definitely. used to how the senate work. without those restraints, it has itome a block on the nation, has impaired our progress rather than being what senator schumer said, which is that beacon of hope and common sense we so need at any time, but particularly now. host: here is raiment. -- raymond. thank you for taking my call. on inauguration day, there is a meeting to make barack obama a one term president.

mcconnell refused to allow his supreme court appointee to have a hearing. guest: you are remembering some important examples of what happened during the obama presidency. i would add one other thing. i was surprised as i got to the book at how much power one person, specifically senator mcconnell could have. one example of that is that in 2015, when he reached what he said was his lifetime goal of being majority leader, all of a sudden the senate started to function. after six years of obstruction, he became a constructive player and the senate worked because the democrats and republicans were able to work together. that lasted one year and one month. then, justice scalia died and we were thrown back into a crisis

in the senate because the senator would not allow for the confirmation or the consideration of on obama nominee. host: that was over neil gorsuch? guest: that was the judge garland nomination the senate was not allowed to consider. host: in those situations, how do you get past those things? what is take from the individual senators to make those kinds of things happen? it requires leaders to behave the way leaders always have. this was an unprecedented action that was taken. there's never been a case a senate leader said this was the eighth year of the presidency so we are not considering your nomination. that is unprecedented. here i'm not talking about policy differences. i am talking about unprecedented heart of strike at the

the institution, the damage the institution. the way you avoid them is you avoid them. you do not take those kind of acts. the other is it is not all on the leaders. i fall to other senators for not pushing back more. they are not pitiful helpless victims trapped in the institution. they have power. they can assert what they believe. they can assert the importance of their committees work. host: in national review columnist talks about the importance of the senate when it comes to judge all -- judicial nominations. he says senator mcconnell needs if democrats will not agree to be obstructive. talk about that. every time the senate starts to make progress, if you look back to 2013 or 2015,

whenever the senate starts moving ahead because senators know what they're supposed to do, they bogged down on nominations. executive and judicial. my view is they should have set down long ago and said this is how we are going to handle these nominations. this is going to be our process two or four years from now because we do not know who will be president. a democraticwith president, a republican president, and the country. there've never done that, they just lurched from crisis to crisis. host: florida, republican line. hello. caller: good morning. i have a quick question. feel onpiro, how do you the current stance of the democratic party being anti-israel and pro-pakistan?

my comment is watch out, pedro might ask you about your former sex life. you never know. i do not think the current senate democrat or republican are anti-israel or pro-pakistan. i do think it is important at this time, and as i said before i do not start writing the book because of donald trump. the real question is whether the long decline of the senate has so weakened it that it cannot provide the leadership and the counterweight to the president we sorely need now. diminishedhas been over a long. of time -- long period of time. now we are closer to one man rules and i can remember. aankly, one-man rule on catastrophic course. host: and the diminishing of moderates on republican and democratic sides.

did that play out in the modern working of the senate? no doubt there is a genuine divide between the that-- between the parties is much deeper than it used to be. i take that as a given. i take as a given the fact the political climate is much harsher generally, whether it is the cable news networks or the .nternet, social media all of those things are relevant. i do not excuse the senators. they have an obligation to transcend that. to bring people together. they know they are not doing the job. host: from new york, independent line. good morning. caller: i want to talk about oligarchy for a second. a small group of people have

control over an institution. you have multiple senators who have dual citizenship, and you cannot serve two masters. so i am just wondering -- congress also passes a budget widely want to go to war, when we bombed libya -- it is baffling how institution works now. guest: i agree with you. i think over the long period i described in my book, and the first section reviews the long decline of the senate, what you see is a senate that does not step up to its responsibilities over time and loses its authority. it sacrifices public confidence, and it sacrifices its self-confidence. then, after the long decline, it takes a deep dive and becomes a

partisan and divided institution. you can see, though, when the senate actually steps up to its responsibilities and pushes back, so that last year, by a 98-2 vote, they agreed to put sanctions on russia and to tie the president's hand so he could not take the sanctions off. on trade, you could see them pushing back on the idea of withdrawing from nafta. so they know how to do the job. on certain issues, they do it. on other issues, they sort of stand aside and say it is too partisan, the climate is too difficult. they have to get by it. host: what do you think about that, as a body able to accurately and fully look into this and come up with something as far as a report they will make to the american people?

guest: i think the senate will serve the american people by making sure that the russia investigation is full and fair. by that, i mean what senators burr and warner are doing, i'm a bipartisan basis, they work ahead. i also think the senate would intervene strongly if the president decided to fire special counsel mueller or rod rosenstein. finally, i believe if the report of mueller is a harsh report, i believe the judgment of individual senators will prove an important part of how the nation reacts. host: our guest formerly has a long career in the senate and is looking at the current workings of it in his assessment of it, the title, "broken: can the

senate save itself and the country?" ira shapiro joining us for this discussion. becky in massachusetts, go ahead. caller: my comment, or question, is about the comment made as far as the justice and it being unprecedented that justice garland was not put forth -- i am sorry, i do not speak that well, and i apologize for that. but at that time, i think that it was very unlikely that anyone figured that trump would get in and that a conservative justice would be put forward. it was more likely that hillary would be the person who would get to choose the justice.

and that would be put forth in the seat. i think mcconnell, it really was taking a chance. and should the person in office, on their last year, be able to make changes that are going to affect long-term. host: thank you. guest: i think you make a good point, that many people thought hillary was going to win the election. nonetheless, president obama, in his last year -- early in his last year -- had the right to nominate and expect the consideration of a supreme court justice. no other president has been denied that right. 30 years ago, ronald reagan nominated anthony kennedy in the eighth year of his presidency to be on the supreme court. ronald reagan's nominee got 97-0

votes, confirmation, because he was a capable, moderate, conservative and has proven to be that kind of jurist. judge garland would have been a supreme addition to the supreme court and should have been considered. host: you deal with clarence thomas, robert bork. what does history tell us about supreme court selections? guest: history teaches us a lot. one thing that democrats and republicans will always debate -- when did the institution start going down? was it bork, thomas, etc.? from my standpoint, what history teaches is what the authors of "how democracies die" really called forbearance. forbearance is important. so you do not nominate the most extreme conservatives you possibly can. you nominate people who can

attract and generate broad support. i think the bork nomination was a mistake, and i think howard baker thought it was a mistake. he was chief of staff for the president then. i think clarence thomas was a mistake, even before the anita hill problem arose because he , was not all that qualified. host: considering what happened with neil gorsuch, what is next? guest: it is interesting. we have heard talk about retirements, and we do not know whether justice kennedy or anyone else will be retiring. but i think this is a place where the senate should push back. advise and consent is what they are supposed to be doing. if a number of senators, who were republicans, went to the president and said we are only

going to confirm a moderate conservative who can get 60 or 70 votes, that would make a difference. the president would say, i do not need 60 votes, there is no more filibuster. those senators would say, actually, you need 60 votes, because we are not going to give you 50 for the wrong nominee. host: from chicago. caller: i have a comment -- an extremist solution given your diagnosis. you mentioned trade and immigration. if the senators came together. that is what drove people who voted for trump nuts, that senators would sell us out on immigration people like tillis , and rubio and durbin would

work together. 34 million new foreign workers this is why people do not like the senate. if the senate would align more with the people who directly voted for them, maybe there would be more functionality. people perceive that senators are bought off by special interests, like the chambers of congress. my question is are you suggesting we should repeal the 17th amendment? guest: well, look, we've obviously, over a long period of time, shown how difficult it is to reach agreement on immigration. some people in the country are disgusted with the senate because they think they are wrong on immigration. others are disgusted because they cannot take action to protect the dreamers, for examples. that goes back to the basic division. i would say a lot of people in the country are disgusted with a government that does not solve

problems. if you look at the plummeting public confidence in the congress, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they see the congress not accomplishing the nation's business. if you had seen congress come together on economic stimulus or seen congress come together on health care reform, you would have a different feeling in the country about the congress. host: can i ask you about the influence of special interests in the senate? one of the things we heard from the march last week is the nra. how much sway do they have over the senate? guest: the nra has had much too much sway over the senate. the nra, the republicans, have become very much indebted to the nra, almost slavishly devoted to the nra. the real question is whether the wonderful and strong action of the students, parkland and

others, what we saw in the march, a commitment to change the debate on guns, the commitment to not only march but to organize and influence the election and have a turnout of people saying enough is enough on guns, whether that can change republicans' attitudes or vote them out of office if they do not change. host: senator rubio is one who spoke to students. we asked about influence. he responded. this is according to the huffington post saying the influence of these groups comes not from money, it comes from -- the millions of people who we express sympathies to those injured in the fire,