even our live program. c-span has you covered. download the app for free today. ♪

♪ >> and for the next hour, we are joined by former senator joe lieberman, former democrat and independent senator from connecticut here with us to talk about his brand-new book. senator lieberman, welcome to washington journal. senator lieberman: thanks, bill. good morning and good to be with you. host: by my count the ninth bookings "the centrist solution, how we made government work and can make it work again." why did you write the book and

why now? guest: oh, thanks for asking me and thanks for having me on. so this is a book i've been thinking about writing for a long time and it's a strange thing to say but the pandemic and the fact i was home and working from home not to spend any time on the road gave me time to write the book. somethina little bit, which is to talk about the way in which -- the things that i feel best about that i did in my 24 years in the u.s. senate all -- as i described in the book, a wide range of policy areas, environmental protection, budget balance, national security, human rights. we got some good things done

only because people of goodwill on both parties came to the center, and i make a point in this book which is that being a centrist is not the same thing as being a moderate. centrists can be liberal democrats, conservative republicans. the main point is, are you willing to come to the center and negotiate compromise and settle for less than 100%, but get some really -- something really substantial done. that is the way it was done not just in my 24 years in the senate, but all the way back to the constitutional convention. host: you ground your book in the introduction in the founding fathers, john adams in particular, the nightmares of john adams is your introduction. what was it about the founding father, what was it about john adams in particular that you focus on that makes you think this is the way the country was meant to be? guest: adams and the statement

that i quote and president washington, they are all very worried that what they called at that point political effect which became political parties, it would begin to not unite the people but divide people. that elected officials would have a greater loyalty to their party than to their country and i'm afraid that's too often what we are seeing in washington today. it stops things from getting done. but they have enormous fights between the big population states and the convention. wanted congress to be totally reflective of population. the house of representatives had the smallest states and wanted equal representation, and i'm proud of the state of connecticut representatives,

delegates of the constitutional convention, came up with the great compromise which looked at two chambers, a house and senate, one reflecting population and the other an equal number of senators from all states. that is the most graphic example of how a compromise enabled the creation of the country. there were much more difficult and painful compromises particularly about the issue of slavery and i can talk about that more if you want, the compromise. but i think it was an immoral way, but that's because it acknowledged and accepted slavery. that's where they were at that time. host: in remembering and reading about your own experience and party, you have left parties and had parties leave you. it seems like your political career has been one in search of a comfortable -- not necessarily a comfortable place -- but that

center, if you will come that place of compromise. guest: well, it is true that both from my own study of history and american government, which is a riddle, which is part of what got me interested as a young man, part of what got me interested in going into politics. but i also got into politics in connecticut which was a state where the politics was rough-and-tumble but the plurality, the largest number of voters were independent. it had a real balancing effect. when i got to the legislature, the state legislature, the 1970's, happened to be 1971, i was a very young man of course. i saw pretty quickly that you only get something done if you work across party lines and i formed some really good friendships with republicans

that i trusted, we trusted each other. we were of like mind so we compromised and got a lot done. i write about that. i was a very devoted democrat. i became a democrat after john f. kennedy, my catalyzing hero, as he was for so many of my generation. the democratic party over the years changed and got to be less inclusive and more demanding of 100% loyalty. of course, i ran straight into that when i differed with a majority of members of the democratic party about whether we should defund basically the american military in iraq after things went bad in 2003, 2004, etc. the primary in 2006, i lost, and it was painful, but i had the right to run as an independent.

i ran as an independent and in connecticut, i won. that was one of the most satisfying moments of my career. but i never left democratic party. i still work within it because i think america needs two parties that are open and reflect the widest array of opinions and are willing to negotiate. there are democrats in congress today who clearly are trying to do it now, and the infrastructure bill. host: one thing you point out in your book, you write "the problem now is that centrists in both parties may have trouble getting renominated in their party, and most also have no viable third-party option in the general election. changing both parts of that political reality is one of the great challenges for american politics in the years ahead." guest: i agree.

listen, what's happened, this party has changed over time. people ask me all the time and i'm sure they want to talk with you over -- all the time, how did we get here? how did the parties become so divided in washington so unproductive and nasty? we've always had differences of opinion and some of them have been intense, going back to the founding of the country. but when it came to the crisis, people in power put the country first and try more often than not to negotiate a solution and deal with the problem. we are not doing that as much today. i will just tick off the reasons because you could go on. the gerrymandering of districts, which you talked about the house

represents 435 members, most belittle son does political scientists or analysts -- most political scientists or analysts will tell you that 40 or 50 of those are really contested in november, that the big fight is for the nomination. so democrats are constantly and are too often living in fear of a challenge from the left. republicans are doing the same, challenge from the right. it makes them risk-averse and it makes them tow the party line more than they should. -- toe the party line more than they should to make sure they get elected. there is too much money in politics and it is not philanthropy generally speaking. it comes with conditions and sometimes, special interest conditions but also ideological. people give you an amount of money, they want to ask you to vote in a certain way and you are likely to be influenced.

the other thing that has really changed over the course of my political career and i write about it. the way in which the media have become partisan. it began with cable news, certainly not c-span, but the cable news channels, which operated these businesses -- and i'm afraid just to say that it was the business to carve out an ideological market for themselves and they can make more money. but that affects the discourse of our politics and our country and motivates elected officials to play to that -- those moves to get on the tv and social media. it expanded it and exacerbated that all of the devices and rhetoric filling social media platforms. so here we are. i spout that i talk about in my

last chapter -- i talk about in my last chapter about how to turn it around, leadership. leadership wanting to get it done and leaders like president reagan and president clinton. then for the people, who vote, who have the ultimate power but somehow forget about it or don't put it as a priority, who say on poll after poll that they want their elected representatives to work across party lines, compromise, get something done for the country on them personally. i've been working for this organization called no labels to thwart republican and democrat -- gather republican and democrat an independent members.

the house is equally divided in the house. these are people who really wrote the bipartisan infrastructure reform bill. they've got 69 votes in the senate, both chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell. but it has been held up in the house by the progressives and president biden is working hard to break that gridlock i hope you can, because that bill will not only be good for the country and the economy, but it would prove to all of us that congress is still able to work across party lines and get it done. host: let's make sure we open up our phone lines for viewers and listeners. joe lieberman is our guest. we welcome your calls and comments at (202) 748-8001, the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. and for independents and others,

(202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. on your group, you are the cochair of no labels. i want to ask about a report in "the intercept most quote -- rec -- reconciliation bill could be killed. they have been able to dealing the bipartisan infrastructure bill away from the larger infrastructure package that includes the bulk of the biden agenda, with the possibility of killing the billig -- the big bill in play. what's your understanding? guest: well, i haven't seen that note. there's no question we totally support the $1.2 trillion bipartisan reform bill because it is bipartisan and it was written really by people who no labels have supported both with

policy help and politically. there are some people in our -- in the no labels group with points of view about the reconciliation package, can we afford it? do enough -- do we know enough about the programs created? i think of no labels as a group that is primarily focused on a strategy of how the government can best work on the process. that's for people who come to the center, negotiate, compromise, get something done. host: why does it seem that sometimes the focus on compromise, certainly in the discussion on the infrastructure bill, focuses on these two senators and it often seems the case that it focuses on just a couple of members -- right now the democratic side but certainly in the past the republican side -- when compromise discussion is not

more broadly accepted apparently in other parts of the body. other people aren't seemingly participating in the compromise. guest: yeah, that's what it all comes down to, numbers. you have got a very evenly divided congress. it is exactly divided in the senate 50/50 with harris able to break a tie. in the house, it takes about four people to move to get a majority. i remember when i first came into the senate 1989, i got to know john bro, senator from louisiana and a centrist. we got to be close and he said to me one day, you know, everybody says to get anything done in the senate you need 60 votes to break a filibuster and you need 51 to pass the legislation. he said, that's not totally true. sometimes depending on where people are, it just takes two,

you and me, joe. and that's the truth, because every vote counts. but i must say that i found joe manchin, sort of the leading centrist democrat in the senate today, i found him to always be willing to do exactly what i'm saying, sit down with people he disagrees with, listen to them, hope they listen to him, negotiate and try to get something done. i think that's the process that president biden is overseeing and really pushing right now, which is good. it is unfortunate it is happening only within the democratic party with no republicans saying they would support either house. said they would support the so-called reconciliation package. that's why we at no labels are really focused on the other bill. the way i think about it, we are

supportive of the $1.2 trillion bipartisan centrist infrastructure reform bill. to get that done is a major accomplishment. and i don't feel myself that i have any particular position on the reconciliation bill as chairman of no labels, except that whatever passes will hopefully be a result of compromise and the rule of reason and affordability. that's up to the members of congress. i want to say i wish there were some republicans at the table negotiating the bigger bill but that's not happening. host: a quick flashback to a piece by david lightman from the mcclatchy newspaper on your retirement -- "senator joe lieberman will retire without a

party." any regrets on how or when you left the party in 2013? guest: yeah, you know, again, i ran as an independent in connecticut for the u.s. senate because i didn't want to end up in a primary. i felt i had a responsibility to the state so i was lucky enough to run as an independent, and i got try partisan support -- tri partisan support to get me reelected. i had one friend who thought he was pretty clever, you remember shifting the democratic party is a little like my appendix, it is there but not doing much for me. it is in my body but not doing much. maybe so, maybe not. i believed in the democratic party and the country needs to

have policy parties that will work with each other and within each other to get something done. i look back, i did things along the way that i hope made sense to me and that were best for my state, my country, and were consistent with my conscience. and unfortunately in my time as it went on, the place got more and more partisan. my party moved to the left. i was quite left on some things but i was also quite right on other things, and moderate on others. but the party at that point was not going to tolerate much dissent. i ended up being challenged in the primary. highways had great friendships with my democratic colleagues in the senate -- i always had great friendships with my democratic colleagues in the senate. host: the new book from former

senator joe lieberman. let's hear from louisville, kentucky, bernie on our democrats line. caller: good morning. a few weeks ago, i leave it was john had andrew yang on the show to talk about the forward party having -- i believe the party is based around having the best things from the republican party and the best things from the democrat party and bringing them together to create this new party. do you see that getting any traction? let me just say one thing, a john kasich-joe lieberman ticket or vice versa is a ticket i would definitely support. guest: thank you. that would be an honor. i think my running days are over, but that's kind of you to say. maybe not surprisingly, i admire andrew yang and generally admire

him. i give him a lot of credit for trying to do what he's doing by creating a new party, a new party, forward party. and doing exactly what i and a lot of other democrats and republicans, but not as many as in the old days, tried to do, which is if you are a member of a political party, you have an obligation to do what is right. if your party is asking you to do something you don't believe is good for the country or your constituents, then you have a responsibility not to go with it. the average voter, and this may be changing, but not long ago the average voter decided their position on every issue, i'm a democrat or a republican, this is the way i got to go. i think andrew yang is doing something that can only be constructed -- here's the thing that makes me -- just realism, i guess. if you look at american history, there's not much of a track

record of success for third-party movements. that is, to actually elect people. the last third party that was created in america nationally that was successful was the republican party in 1856, and then 1860, elected abraham lincoln. still exists -- we are a two party country. incidentally, two parties are not ordained in the constitution or in law and as they developed, they used the law to kind of protect what one harvard economist called their duopoly of the two parties. one thing that has happened when there have been effective third-party movements, probably the most recent was ross perot in 1992, got a vote and had

little effect on trade policy, but really had a big effect on the balanced-budget movement. bill clinton adopted it partly because of ross perot's pressure. perrault got 98% of -- perot got 98% of the vote and clinton and newt gingrich balance the budget. i give perot credit. i think only good can come out of what andrew yang is doing and i wish him luck. history says it will be really hard. can he affect the two party candidates? yes, he can, he can come in a constructive way. host: ithaca, new york, on the republican line, ray. caller: good morning. mr. lieberman, i think you are the best democrat around by far. i just have a quick question.

i've been really disappointed with president biden who seems to be caving into bernie and the squat. why is the disrespect for joe manchin, why do you think president biden is acting more like he was vice president? i don't understand this hard turn to the left. i wish he was more like you, sir. guest: thanks for your kind words. i've known joe biden forever. we met long ago because we had a mutual friend long before i came to the senate. we served together for 24 years. a wonderful person, really honorable and likable and always worked across party lines. on the committees that he chaired, he had conservative republicans, ranking republicans, orrin hatch and strom thurmond, and he worked productively with both of them on major bills that were passed.

think incidentally that it is a big part of the reason why joe biden was elected president last year, because there are a lot of self-described moderates in this country who thought they voted for president trump against hillary clinton because they thought he would be different and all that, and he was quite different than they counted on. they like some of the things he did but they were upset by other things so they thought, biden knows how to work across party lines. let's elect him. i don't minimize the political problem president biden has, but until the last few days, frankly, when we see him trying to negotiate a compromise on this $3.5 trillion package, a big new program -- of big new programs, down to some affordable amount, negotiating with the centrist.

-- centrists. not the centerleft democrats but the left democrats in the senate and the house came to a disproportionate influence on the president. i just think this is leadership. just the way lyndon johnson, bill clinton, and robert -- ronald reagan worked across party lines. it is fine for the president to call democrats together for the sake of the country and also for the sake of the party and him. i hope that's what we are going to see. if not, i fear democrats will suffer next year in the congressional elections and probably also in the presidential election two years later. host: let's go to our democrats line, moses -- sorry, i will get to you next. jim in medford, oregon next up.

guest: i was looking forward to moses, but ok. go ahead, jim, sorry. caller: joe, your centrist idea has not exactly worked for the working class. nor the poor, throughout the time. i think that your ideas are pretty archaic in terms of what is going on in the world today. your opinion during the situation where you think that the left needs to move to the center, it should be the other way around. you people should move to the left because your policies have done nothing for the poor and the working class since you've been in. you allowed ronald reagan's policies to destroy the union continue. and i think that you are one of

the reasons that happened, because you were willing to go and talk to ronald reagan as if he was a good individual, when he was proven to be a liar and a cheat. and against the united states. in fairness, is not involved in that. you allowed that to happen. host: we will hear from senator lieberman. guest: with all respect, i think the facts are awful little bit. as a matter of fact, i was not in when reagan was president. i did not come in until george bush 31 was president. if you look at my record since we are talking about me, i've had a very pro-worker record and support from labor unions over the 24 years and before that in connecticut government. you know, here's the thing i'm

saying. both sides have become to the center -- have to come to the center to negotiate or nothing is going to happen. the left can be indignant, can say things are terrible, we've got to fix them and here's how. people in the center or right can say, that's not going to work. unless they come to the center and treat each other civilly, have good conversation, and then tried to get something done in which they both move. the old business, it takes two to tango. it takes two sides to break the deadlock. each has to move somewhat toward the other. host: on the democrat side, would you agree that at least it appears the progressive caucus, those who represent the progressive point of view, have a much larger share of that view

, certainly in the house of representatives, than they did in the past? guest: i'm sorry share of what? host: share of the democrats that progressives have a larger share of the view than say the moderates or the old blue dog democrat coalition. guest: well, there's no question that the center of the democratic party in the house, and i think generally, is liberal democratic. but the agenda that's being driven and it is the most difficult to find a centrist problem to compromise on, is being driven by the further left, not center, but left left of the democratic party. then you've got to decide, can we afford it all? on this whole business of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill as it is called, human infrastructure, now they are

talking about $2 trillion. basically, most of us know only about the price tag. these bills in their original form were creating big programs, almost as if looking back, you took medicare, medicaid, children's health insurance programs, clean air, and at a couple more, americans for disabilities act, and put them in one bill and say let's pass it. that's not good legislating. that's a process question. but to the caller, i plead not guilty to the charges and the democrats like bill clinton, who i worked very closely with, who was a centrist, created an economic situation in this country that during his eight years as president, created 22 million new jobs. a lot of them filled by lower income or middle income people.

so it is the old john f. kennedy line, the rising tide raises all boats. host: back to our democrats line, this is moses in florida, new york. you are on. guest: good morning, moses. caller: good morning, senator. my name is moses from new york. a democrat and a candidate for u.s. senate. guest: really? caller: so back to the bills, the infrastructure bill, i strongly believe we need those bills to bring the necessary relief to the people, especially poor people. when do we talk about the affordability? i strongly believe we can default. what is lacking is the will in washington. as you realize, not too much gets done for everyday people, the poor people, but a lot gets

done for the rich and the corporations. regarding the politics of the senator, how can we get that man out of politics? he has corrupted our people in washington. they are spending so many years there, do so much for themselves, do so much for the corporations, but down to the ground if you go through communities across the nation. the thing much is happening. affordable housing is a crisis. then they want a bill regarding town limits. do you think that could be something that may reduce the corruption? as more time, members go to washington and get entrenched in the swamp and the dark politics. host: a couple of items, term limits and he talked about getting the money out of

politics. guest: i will respond to both. term limits is something i changed my position on. sometimes you've got to be honest enough to say, your opinion on something has changed. when i first came to the senate, i thought term limits did not make sense because we have term limits. senators six years, members of the house two, and the voters get the opportunity at the end of those terms to vote somebody out. that's why terms are limited. as time went on i began to feel that most incumbents who run again -- lots do not run again but most incumbents who run again get reelected and the place really needs to be shaken up because it has been so unproductive. so over the last 2, 3, four years, supporting term limits. there was never a chance to pass it, but i think it would be helpful.

on the question of money in politics, there are some things that happen in some of the states, -- the states -- in the federal government, we have pretty good disclosure laws so you get a good idea of where candidates are getting their money from, and some limits from the supreme court, mostly disclosure. some of the states, without public financing laws which say that if you limit essentially the amount of money raised from private individuals off the total amount and the size of each contribution, the state government will fund your campaign to some reasonable amount. that's controversial. a lot of people don't want their tax money being used to fund somebody's political campaign, but i think it's a good investment frankly because then it cuts the dependence of elected officials on people

outside -- you have an agenda. that's why they are giving them the money, for the most part. i support both of those, both term limits and the best answer on money in politics is public financing. i think it is worth it. host: "the new york times" writing about money in politics, especially in the recent debate. "more than 4000 lobbyists are working on budget and spending issues and 10 major issues have spent $700 million on lobbying." they write that the chamber of commerce is looking to kill the bill because tax increases and have already spent $30 million a year on lobbyists. george next in jacksonville, florida on our republican line. caller: good morning, senator lieberman. once upon a time, i was a

democrat. then we came from being a country club republican to a centrist and we've done a pretty good job in south carolina, who are much more centrist than we have now. i wanted to point out something i found. i worked in 12 countries and i found in the south china sea that china was using -- frequencies to program elections and other things that were very nasty. it has been pointed out that we need to change infrastructure. when we changed the radio and the fiberoptics so they can't be broken into even by the chinese, democrats need to stop this with china breaking into our

internet. there is a document saying, one of them is the washington state. they told some of these frequencies -- and while you were talking to people in congress about infrastructure, you need to go to fiberoptics systems and cut most of them except one. we need to go ahead and stop this. host: joe lieberman, you served as the former chair of the senate homeland security committee. any responses? guest: had a little trouble -- i got the general topic -- but