just not a mark of a serious political person. you have to have negotiations. we don't have a one-size-fits-all system. the way you are going to get stuff done is through negotiation. joe biden claimed to be a bipartisan conciliator and negotiator. i think he put himself too far out with his rhetoric leading up to that desolate situation and then with him, the really untenable position. i think mccarthy played it well. i think biden made a mistake. >> looking at the agreement itself, it passes a bipartisan vote and now as you alluded to earlier,vatives in the house. we heard some rumors that some of the republicans --

how does mccarthy bring this party back together? how do we move forward from this? what is this pushback -- how does it speak toward future agreements? what does mccarthy do now when they come back in two weeks? >> let's get straight to the biggest point. all of this was designed so they could push this thing past the election and i think the deal runs through january of 2025. the house is now marking to much lower levels. a lot of the bills are at levels that are even lower than what is -- then what was in the debt ceiling. i think he is trying to address it by trying to talk to his conservatives and those who really really concerned about the spending over the last several years. especially through covid and

since president biden came in and wanted to see deeper cuts. my point would be that a shutdown is possible. i am sure you will probably ask us a question about that. leadership is being honest with its members. i think what they are saying is whatever what wind up leaving the house is not going to be was ultimately signed into law. i think they're trying to be as practical and open with different groupings of the caucus as they possibly can. whether it is problem solvers or even the freedom caucus. he has to connect with all those. i think a meeting with them constantly. you are talking a little bit

about process. process is important. it is as important. i think they have four more bills to get done and through in july. but the process of getting their appropriations bills done on the house side is what i believe leadership and even the caucus sees as the best step to help them with what the ultimate negotiations on spending will be. as we get closer to the end of september. if all of those bills pass marked at levels the house wants, then i think the house and all of the elements of the house will be in a stronger position for those negotiations. and probably better-positioned

so that you would be in a better place to start those negotiations with the senate and white house. if we do not get all of the bills passed by july, then i think the shutdown worries are going to wind up. you're going to start hearing a lot more talk about that. i think right now the biggest focus is, what can we accomplish? get the appropriations bills done. when we come back from this recess period, they are also going to go to the defense bill. for him it is, let you legislate, let's give them the amendment process, let's give them a chance to voice their concerns. all of that creates a dynamic situation for mccarthy, but he's going to have to be speaker and whip counter at the same time because he has no margin. ms. nellenbach: right, tevi, did you want to chime in on the process issues? mr. troy: rick is making some good points, but a couple of points about mccarthy and his caucus and the way they work together.

first of all, i think mccarthy is the first speaker in this modern era, since the gingrich revolution, who really likes his caucus. he spends all of his time in their backyards, and he likes the members. he doesn't have this standoffish position toward them. newt gingrich was a revolutionary speaker, he kind of wanted to be president. he wanted to be more than just speaker. you obviously have dennis hastert who stepped in, then in more recent years you have john boehner, who i think wanted be speaker of the house in the late 1990's. there was a disconnect between him and the membership. obviously paul ryan became speaker and he was kind of roped into it. he was the one who said he didn't want to be at and they had to give him all of these reasons why he did. here we have mccarthy, who actually likes his members. he has been talking to them for years he knows them well. the reason he is on that road 250 days a year is not just for fundraising, it is to know his members in a serious and deep

way. he likes the caucus. at the same time -- and this is equally important -- the caucus recognizes that what was going on in the later obama years we had a republican house but the democratic president, approach did not work when there is no ability to compromise, no ability to stay unified. if you stay unified you can have strong negotiating positions to get stuff done, as mccarthy proved with debt ceiling. you said it was a crisis. it was not a crisis in the sense that, we knew what the two outcomes are going to be. if mccarthy could pass something then he had standing and could get something done like he did, which controls spending a little bit. it doesn't solve all the problems, it moves forward on the path the republicans are trying to move on. if he could not get anything passed from his own caucus then he had no negotiating standing, and then it was going to be biden and mcconnell working out something with mostly democratic

votes and no spending changes and no reforms and nothing. just clean debt ceiling. that is not what the republicans wanted. they knew they needed to pass something, even if it was not the ideal piece of legislation. they needed something in order to be at that negotiating table. and they did it. i think even though there was an article every week, how mccarthy is losing control of his caucus, he's going to collapse, it hasn't happened yet, and i'm not so sure it is going to happen. i think the members know that if they are not unified, then they will not be able to get anything done, and it is really going to be the democratic white house and the schumer/mcconnell senate leading it. ms. nellenbach: i do want to talk about the shutdown threat, because we had the debt ceiling battle. i think part of whatever one hope was that we had this bipartisan agreement, and it would both extend the debt

ceiling, but also would fund the government. now we are faced with this potential for a shutdown because the house is reporting lower numbers than the senate is. typically in the past, when these have happened the perception has generally been that republicans caused this. i think that certainly is how the administration will spin it, but what happens now. all this is really and said baseball. anna think the vast majority of the public knows or cares about the debt limit. if there is a government shutdown they are going to feel that in these policies are going to be felt at home and become very real. so, can we avoid a shutdown, and if not, how is that going to be seen by the public in terms of political blame, do you think? either one of you. mr. dearborn: i will go real fast. can we avoid a shutdown? i think it is possible. right now i think it is 50-50.

right now i think it is different steps we take. kevin mccarthy is probably the most underrated politician in town, and probably the most underrated politician in a decade. this guy, he knows his members. let's start with that. that is a key foundational point. why is that important? because he knows what makes them tick, he knows the interests they have, he knows what they need to be able to cut the deal. they get these appropriations deals done, they have marked to lower levels. that is going to be their negotiation going into the september discussions, and they're trying to figure out with the senate and white house what the ultimate spending levels are going to be. if we get to september 30, i'm just kinda spitball here, but if we get to september 30 mccarthy has listened to all of his members, has passed all of the appropriations deals, is trying to leverage and negotiate from a

position of strength, i think there is a decent chance that his team will look and say, all right, we are at september 30, leadership is fighting for us, we will go ahead and kick the can for two weeks or a month and give them time to iron it out. the biggest problem we face in d.c. is also the only way anything gets done, which is action-forcing events. the only way anything gets done in washington is there is a deadline. that is the reason you are hearing buzz about a shutdown threat. if they get their approach goes down, if that gives mccarthy the leverage he needs to ask for even more reduced spending, that is going to be a battle and of itself. if he turns to his members, who he continues to talk with and meet with every single day, every single week, they may be willing to give him the extra weeks or month he might need to actually seal the deal that can be brokered between the senate and white house and the house.

i'm pretty bullish on mccarthy. the guy has always been underestimated. tevi's point is the best one. he likes his members, and his members for the most part like him. are there some folks that are not best friends with the guy? probably so, but he still talked with them. he is not ignoring the members of his caucus and he really can't. he has a single-digit margin of error here. i keep going back to that because it is pretty critical. he has to have all of his guys on board. it's going to be a very interesting august. there's going to be a lot of discussions. i have a feeling he is going to be burning up the phones and talking to a lot of his members. ms. nellenbach: tevi, i know you probably have looked at some of this from a historical perspective. anything to add? mr. troy: a couple of points. everybody talks about mccarthy, narrow margin, mccarthy can get stuff done, but mccarthy knows his members, and i'm not saying

all of the members like him, but the other members recognize the need for republican unity to get stuff done. and nobody talks on the other side, you never hear this, oh, chuck schumer, he has a narrow majority, he has only 50 seats. what happens if he loses one of his members. in the senate it is a tougher job. you need those 60 votes, which gives mcconnell more of a say on things. i just don't think that the washington conversation we see in the mainstream media is enough about the challenges that schumer has. if mccarthy does his job and gets 13 appropriations bills passed, i think that put schumer in a tough spot, because he has a lot of members who are not going to want to vote for any kind of spending reductions or anything that is not a major spending increase. i think schumer is facing a real challenge, and i think that the reason we talk about shutdowns and action-forcing events is that nobody in the abstract wants to compromise. you come to washington, you have your principles, say, i want to

get this done. you only compromise when you are faced with some worse alternative. the worse alternative to his government shuts down and certainly the national parks and open and we are not paying interest on the debt, or whatever it is that happens in a shutdown. remember, clinton tried to make the shutdowns as painful as possible by choosing the things where the pain was imposed. it is that fact of the shutdown, is what makes people compromise. on the one hand, i don't want to change my principles or give up anything i don't want to get, at the same time i want the government to shut down and feel the pain from my constituents. it is that dynamic that forces them to have these compromises, and that is why action-forcing events are the only ways to get action. ms. nellenbach: let's hope you are right and they kick the can down the road. and one thing i forgot to mention to our viewers, we will

take questions at the end of the program. you can put your questions in the chat if you are watching us or you can use twitter and we will take some audience questions in a little bit. i want to pivot to broaden this out. as we all know we are heading into what promises to be one more very partisan presidential election. and as conventional wisdom in d.c. is we will pretty much stopped working i on this year as the presidential debates here. but presidents do get some stuff done when they are running for reelection. what can we expect? what does history show in terms of presidents being up to legislate in that last year i perform a collection. -- an election? mr. troy: the safest bet is usually that not a lot gets done. the attitude is, we are going to

go home and not do anything that is too risky or too challenging before an election. but that doesn't mean it cannot happen. there have been numerous instances where we have had a situation where you have a president and congress different parties where you get stuff done in an election year. i like to think back to 1996 when i was first starting out in congress, the bill clinton administration and the newt gingrich-led congress after the republican revolution. they passed hippa and telecom reform. these passed in 1996. that was an eventful year, from a legislative perspective. i think it was because there was a recognition between clinton and gingrich -- because they did not necessarily love each other, and obviously they had some very contentious political fights, but at the same time they recognized he was in both of their political interests to pass something in that election year and throughout the time that they were working together. it was not all antagonistic.

it was, what can i give up to get something i want, and on the other hand, what am i willing to compromise on the road to get more stuff i wanted. look at that 1996 year. a when obama runs for reelection in 2012 it was a different scenario. you are not getting a lot done legislatively that year. david letterman had this funny joke in obama's second term, that he goes to get a physical from the doctor and coming out, letterman jokes, it is the first time he has passed anything in years. because obama did not pass much legislatively after that push. clinton was a different animal. they came to an understanding on what kind of things they wanted to pass in 1996.

ms. nellenbach: does that type of relationship, from what i'm picking up from you all, doesn't really exist right now among mccarthy, schumer, the biden administration? mr. troy: i think it could. why not? mccarthy is by all accounts a nice guy. rick knows him better than i do. i have met him. if biden was around in 1996, he voted for some of those things i talked about earlier, he has a long history of someone willing to work on both sides of the aisle. you also had mitch mcconnell knows how to get a deal done. i'm not saying it is not doable, i'm just saying some people are going to have to make some changes, and i think the fact mccarthy was able to get that debt ceiling package through tells the democrats that, here is a guy who can pass stuff. you cannot wait for him to fail, because he is not going to do it. he is constantly underestimated, and i think that needs to be taken into account has you going to this election year. biden does not want to face the voters on a record of saying, well, once i lost the house i

couldn't get anything done, vote for me. it is not really a good message. i think there is a possibility that happens again. biden is more willing to compromise than his predecessor. he could be more like a clinton than an obama. we'll see what happens. mr. dearborn: there is going to be some opportunities. there were bipartisan votes for the big infrastructure bill. that also created concern among a lot of conservatives because the size of the spending for that bill, one of the largest we ever passed. but it was monumental. it was a consequential peak of legislation. but then turned right back around and past the inflation reduction act, which was passed by one party. that was not something the republicans were keen on. as a matter of fact, most of their legislation when they are looking at their tax cap bills on the house side are paid for

by eliminating a lot of the tax credits that were in that proposal. but there's going to be some opportunities, i think the debt limit deal, at least shows there is a path for bipartisanship to get these things done. they're going to have some larger bills that are probably must-pass, but this is a tough time. i think you are probably going to see them get through. the national defense authorization act, the defense bill, has passed for 60-plus years in a row. there is a big farm bill coming due this year. there is a lot of discussion about trying to get that moving. the faa has a big authorization issue. i think it has had a couple of hiccups in senate commerce, it is probably on its way to moving once they resolve a couple of issues. there are two more issues i think would be of interest. one is there is a down payment on permitting reform. that is an issue that republicans and democrats agree on and the administration. whether it is oil and gas, or renewables, it has everything to

do with the problems that everybody faces in their states and intra-states, in terms of transmission lines, connectivity to the grid, concerns over getting permits. some of these projects have been languishing for decades. there is a lot of goodwill that is built up. members of the senate especially in the energy committee and environmental and public works committees that are trying to push something in permitting reform. the house team put a down payment on reform. i think there is opportunity. china seems to be everybody's favorite country to take a stick to, and for lots of really great reasons, and understandable, but there is some buzz about trying to stitch back the so-called china bill from last year. as you will remember, it has several provisions in there,

trade, different enforcement mechanisms. our counter to china's belt and road. they pulled out the chips act to juice our semiconductor industry here in the u.s., and a lot of those provisions kind of went by the wayside on the senate. so there has been some buzz about some bipartisanship, to be some agreements that could be reached in pushing a bill that addresses some of the issues we are having with china, in a whole host of issues and in a whole host of areas. i'm not sure how much they can get done this year, but the fact that everybody is talking about a desire to move forward the administration is positive, and i think a lot of us would like to see that done. ms. nellenbach: i completely agree. we had a group of students here, and you always get the question about the future of the country and how things are. there is a lot of really good bipartisan conversations happening on the hill.

i will give a shameless plug for bpc. for those of you who want to learn about regulatory reform, we have been in that space for a long time and have a lot of resources. i think china, competitiveness, those are some real opportunities out there, especially around, you know, the rare earth minerals. it might be an opportunity to do something about reform. i'm actually kind of optimistic. it may not happen before the end of this session, and of this congress, but we can lay the next one. so, pivoting a little bit again, talking a little bit about the future of the republican party, and a quick reminder to our viewers that you can put questions in the chat or over twitter at bpc_live.

some of the republicans who voted for the debt limit are taking a back home. then you have conservatives in the house very upset about the numbers in there. we have had some senators and members censured back home for working across the aisle. as the bipartisan organization, that is a little troubling. we actually believe that we get durable policy when the two parties work together and you bring everyone's viewpoints together, and it just results in policy that is more reflective of the country. i wanted to get your thoughts on the future. where the republicans go from here and how is bipartisanship being perceived? mr. troy: i will jump in here. we were pre-gaming this. rick was not too eager to talk about the censuring issue. look at thom tillis. he is a smart politician. he has won a couple of times when he has been counted out before. maybe he has some problems with the party back home.

that doesn't mean he can't win reelection. look at somebody like brian kemp in georgia. the party apparatus is hostile to him, but he won reelection handily. i think a smart politician knows how to play that. sometimes those party censures can help you win the general election. you can say, look, i'm willing to stand against the people in my party who do not want me to make compromise. look, i was willing to do that, maybe you should vote for me, because maybe my opponent is denying elections. i think brian kemp played it really smart in georgia, and i think that thom tillis can do the same thing. as for the future of the republican party, there are some divisions, as we talked about earlier, but there has always been divisions within the republican party. the reagan coalition was really built on trying to bring together different elements of the coalition, great fusionist

project, as they call it. they took together the foreign policy conservatives and libertarians and the more religious or social conservatives, and they were all united in their fear of communism, for a variety of reasons. they brought that to the table, but that led to an issue set that republicans were on board with in a unified way in the 1980's. it was for lower taxes. all of them were on board for that. they were for taking a tougher stance on crime. it was for conservative supreme court justices and a tough stance on the soviet union. maybe some of those issues have lost their salience, so we get a different issue set today, but there are things that can bring together the disparate elements of the republican party and bring a winning coalition together in 2024 and beyond. mr. dearborn: i was going to jump in. we were joking about the censure thing. i think that is a good job the

way you explained it. that is always tough. if you are a house member you are so close to district, it is reflexive in terms of its politics, it is a shorter-term, for two years. you are always campaigning. right when you win the election you have to start raising money for your next election. there is a sensitivity to what is going on back home. senators are in the same position, but they have six years, it is tough to be a senator, you are representing an entire state. you have pockets of moderates, and pockets of liberal republicans that they have to be responsive to you have conservatives, mcgrath get the same on their side. it is always tough. i'm kind of with tevi, i'm kind of the reagan revolution. that is what got me involved in politics. be principled, you fight for 100% of what you believe. if you get 80%, shake the other person's hand, look them in the eye, say, let's go have some dinner. i'm going to talk to you about

how i'm going to come after the 20% tomorrow. and you keep chipping away at it. public policy is an incremental process. it is rare that we do huge things, and a lot of times they can all be reversed. so, i think what helps us work together is the environment we are in right now. there is probably nothing better for the republican conference, especially in the house, and this seems odd but it is true, but to be to have such a slim margin, which does force leadership and each of the different segments of the caucus to talk to each other. it is a lot easier to know not only what you believe but what the other guy believes if you are talking to each other. how do your arguments work against somebody who has a different viewpoint that might be more moderate in your party or more conservative in your party? being able to provide process everybody is playing by the same set of rules, giving everybody a chance to exercise the right to offer amendments.

for a long time the houses operated with an iron fist and you did not have a chance for amendment, passed a rule, he felt like it was all right. now you have a chance where you can actually have open debate, fight for the opportunity to get your voice heard, have democratic votes, passes or fails, then that is attached to the legislation, so maybe what is happening right now can create some more muscle memory going forward, so that the sides can learn to talk and work together. in some ways that may be the very biggest benefit that comes out of having such a very small margin of in the house for the majority. ms. nellenbach: that is really interesting insights there. i have not really considered it. but that would make sense, and i think the same are probably benefit schumer in the senate, because they are spanning from very progressive, you have elizabeth warren to joe manchin, and the democratic caucus. they are just as divided as the

republican caucus is. mr. dearborn: can i just say on the senate too, schumer probably has an even bigger problem. if you are tester or sharad brown or joe manchin, or rozen or others, you have some states that are going to be highly competitive. we have been spinning a lot of money over the last several years, justifying that money being spent. these spending cuts and votes on those issues are going to be tough for some of those members. so i find it really interesting, because schumer may have a bigger problem with states where senators are up for reelection that may lean a little more right of center, whereas if you are hakeem jeffries you may have a larger group of progressives that are kind of pushing the needle in the opposite direction. the politics on both sides are unique and interesting. mr. troy: i want to add one thing, which is schumer has this

problem. it may very well be a bigger problem, but nobody talks about it. you are reading these articles every week about mccarthy is on death's door. it is not going to happen. mccarthy has been doing a good job of holding his caucus together, and nobody talks about these severe structural problems that schumer faces. i think more attention should be paid to it. ms. nellenbach: good point. both parties have divisions. it is a very interesting time for politics. it makes it hard for organizations like ours to figure out where the fault lines are, because the parties are shifting. i want to talk a little bit about that because the republican party that i grew up with, and was more in -- i will just say it was more of the corporate republican party. the business party. we are now sort of trending more towards the populist end, which had been the democratic side of

things. those are two very different views of the world. i'm just curious if you had any thoughts on how we are going to reconcile that. we have a narrow majority in the house that is going to for some of these conversations where we have to preach those differences, but the economic and seems pretty big. mr. dearborn: i will go real quick on that. u.s. chamber serves a great role for businesses across the country. but for the last couple of years they have been a little bit out of favor with republicans. i think that is probably the nice way to say it. but i think where you are going to see potential reconciliation is at more the state and local level. so i don't know if people saw this. i found it fascinating, but texas and arizona is an example. their state chambers have come up in the last several months and have met directly with house republican leadership. they are trying to meet with the white house and the presidency, and they are talking about issues like immigration, that really impact those states.

so you get chambers and states themselves taking a more active role. i would not be surprised if you saw the business interests in other specific states start to lean in more and work with their own state delegations to try to focus on those issues that are important to the business community back home. i am not saying they're doing that because it needs to replace something like the u.s. chamber, which we are just using as an example. but i think it probably is something that members can be very responsive to. i always felt, at least as a chief of staff, were a lot of folks on k street that would come around and see me represent various interests, and we always wanted to hear what they had to say. if i had a local chamber come up, or a local group of interested citizens on the issue, that was pretty import that translated into the viewpoint back home, it translated into votes. it was a bellwether of where people were, so maybe states and

locals can start to help out and provide a little bit more of an engine for direction, of where business interests should go, working with members. i think it winds up finding its way back, but i will tell you, a lot of the energy in the republican party on the conservative side tends to be on a lot of these social and cultural issues right now. they seem to be more in the forefront of the minds of not only the voting public back home in each of these different districts and states, but the politicians themselves. i don't think that the republican party is going to not pay attention to business interests. it's kind of in our dna, we believe in lower taxes and greater freedoms and less regulation, so i don't think we will abandon the corporate community or business interests. but i do think that right now some of the hottest topics are more in the social and cultural arena. i think it is important for state chambers and state

businesses to be weighing in, and i would think groups, whether it be the u.s. chamber or others, should be relying on some of their state or local leaders to kind of work with those members kind of put their priorities, you know, back in line and up at the top of the agenda. ms. nellenbach: great. we have one question from twitter. it speaks to you are talking about here, rick. it says, americans support more of a social agenda item such as taxing the wealthy, child care, minimum wage, and so on. conservatives do not seem to want these issues addressed. they want to know why. i would argue we are actually seeing more republicans, more conservatives looking at things like childcare and paid leave in part because they are hearing from businesses that cannot find workers. and of reasons is the lack of

affordable childcare. i think some of these issues are becoming more, that you are finding more republicans and conservatives willing to engage on that. i'm not certain about taxing the wealthy, but i'm wondering if you have thoughts on some of those issues republicans are starting to engage more on. mr. dearborn: i can go real fast. family medical leave something is a bipartisan issue. you're going straight to it, which is it is hard for employers to find workers. i mean, workers have multiple options. you have to appeal to been after the things they are looking for. higher quality of life. we just came out of covid. an article yesterday that employers were having a problem getting their employees in on mondays. a lot of workers are not as interested in coming back on mondays, would prefer to do more telework. it is a reality for the employers.

the more you can be responsive to the needs of that individual or their families, it is going to be better off for you as an employer so you can continue to have a healthy workforce and be responsive to what they are looking for. another issue is the environment. we have lots of differences with progressive and liberals on environmental issues, but the largest and growing population of younger members of our party, the republican party, all one -- one us -- want us to do something about the environment. they want to see us moving towards a renewable energy focus. they would like to see us focus on conservation. it is important to some of the younger voters. that is the reason why you're seeing a lot of senators taking leadership roles, because they are hearing from either their kids or some of the younger supporters back home so i think that there are these opportunities to bipartisanship,

and i think that the party, is not the party is changing, it is just that there are different demands and interests from the folks that are in our party that are either focused on the different benefits that they need in the workplace or things that are like an agenda that would make sense, and at the same time without moving so fast beyond our means to electrify the country and get the country moving, etc. ms. nellenbach: great. tevi, did you want to jump in? mr. troy: there are changes within the party. especially, you are talking about the party when you were growing up. the voter base used to be a much more college-educated voter base, and now it is less likely to be college-educated. when you talk about what the kids are learning in college, and i think that fits into the social issues rick was talking about. that is part of it. in terms of taxing the wealthy, i think republicans recognize

you cannot just impose confiscatory taxes on the wealthiest people. and that will not solve our debt problem. i think we need to have a smarter solution for how to resolve that issue. maybe it is a good talking point for bernie sanders, i don't think it is a workable issue. i think we need to think about what that agenda is. what are the unifying parts of the republican agenda? i know a couple of things. republicans tend to be anti-woke . we could talk about what the definition of that is. they are concerned about bias in the mainstream media. they are concerned about supreme court justices. they tend to be pro-israel. they are increasingly concerned about china. all of these are elements of what could potentially be a unifying vision for what republicans are, i think the person who figures that out is in the best position to win the 2024 republican nomination, and with a vulnerable, aging

democrat in the white house, has a chance to win for the republican party. ms. nellenbach: we are coming up on time. i want to end us with a note about the future. so, obviously it's going to be challenging with a presidential election. politics always gets amplified, but people feel like we are more divided than we have ever been. i'm not sure if that bears out but obviously there is a lot of partisanship filtering all the way down to local school boards. but is there a path forward to a more normal, however you want to define normal, system, where people can get back to what you have described, where you are having a disagreement, but then you have a coffee together, or you can learn to live next to your neighbor who might have different political views, rather than moving to a community where everybody agrees

with you? is there a path forward for some of that reconciliation? mr. troy: i'm happy to jump in. i don't think we have been that pessimistic. i think rick and i have some optimism, and i'm going to take the first step and invite him out for coffee. i know we are both in the same party, maybe from different wings. i think polls show there are about 8% of the american people to the far left, and radical and they don't want any compromise. and about 6% of people on the right. that is 14% of people who just want to see fighting and they want the anger you see on cable tv networks. although not this one. thank you, c-span. that means 86% of the american people want congress to get the job done, want the president to not be calling names, and i think want to live their lives and be happy about their lives and

recognize we live in the best country in the world. rick and i were both on the hill in the 1990's. there was a lot of partisanship back then. we had impeachment hearings back then. it is not like there has never been a period in america everybody is in agreement and everything is kumbaya. it is a system that by its nature has people disagreeing on the issues, and is in part faced -- based on where you live. it is in part based on what kind of education you have it is in part based on your background. where are you from? what part of the world where you from before you came here. there are reasons there are disagreements, and some of the disagreements are sharper in the last 30 years because we have better flow of information, and we have had a great demographic sort. people who lived in the north and one northeastern liberal republicans, those people are now basically democrats.

you do not have the mixes within the localities you did, but it is still the same basic issues that people disagree on, and also the same basic issue that most of us, i would say 86% agree on. this is a great system for figuring it out and we need to respect those systems. that is why the bipartisan policy center is all about. let's have a conversation where both sides can recognize that there are ways in which we discuss and challenge and solve problems in this country. they have to be via those institutions. you cannot go extra institutional on us. we cannot tear down the institutions. we need to be part of the american way of deciding things. i'm optimistic that we can get back to a better place, or recognize that people always seem to be pessimistic. in 2040 people might say, those 2020's were pretty good. mr. dearborn: politics has always been salty.

i don't know there is any one decade that has been tougher or nicer than the other. it just kind of goes up and down depending on your perspective. let's use tevi's percentages. the 84% of folks that are not the 16% that seem to be upset, to me the important thing is, folks should not be canceling other people out. everybody has a right to their opinion. whether that is in the classroom, or these types of discussions on the senate floor, on the house floor, everybody is entitled to have an opinion, and everybody should be respectful and listen to what the other person has to say. i only know why i feel the way i do as a conservative if i am talking to a liberal. if i am only talking to other conservatives then i am in my own echo chamber and think i am the brightest guy in the world. i get challenged every time i have a chance to talk to somebody who has a different opinion than i have. i am just hopeful, and i should be respectful for what they say,

and would like to make sure they are doing the same thing with me. so, to me the biggest issue is, i would love that 84% to make a demand on america that the 16% are not going to control our politics. they are not going to control what people have to say. and both sides, on both extremes do this. i think everybody else in the very swath of the metal that -- the middle that includes conservatives to liberals, are willing to listen to each other. that is the only way our politics are going to get better. that is the only way more bipartisan legislation is going to pass. you have to listen to the person across the sea from you. that is critically important, i think, now more than ever in our politics. ms. nellenbach: that is a great note to end on, and i 100% agree with you. i would love to find a way to get that 84%, those viewpoints amplified a little bit. i do think they are, obviously majority of the country and where people want us to be. thank you both. this was a really great conversation. i so appreciate it.