(announcer) answer the call of the grill with new friskies grillers, full of meaty tenders and crunchy bites. this morning, my question. what's a little spying among friends? plus, how life for the poor and hungry is about to get a lot harder. and how should we remember tragedies like the massacre at sandy hook elementar school? but first, from ron reagan to ted cruz, how, oh, the gop has changed. just had "hardball" host, chris matthews. good morning. i'm melissa harris-perry. this week, as congress continues to be entangled in the now usual washington gridlock, the junior senator from texas is cruising

right on through. republican senator ted cruz has taken his one-man show on the road with a sold-out performance that killed friday night before an audience of 600 at the republican party of iowa's fall ronald reagan commemorative dinner. it was cruz's first visit to the state since the 21-hour talkathon that propelled him into infamy among his fellow republicans and into the stratosphere among his tea party base. tea party crowds have since devoured cruz's message of the little guy resistance to big government tyranny. and at friday night's dinner, he served them up a hefty slice. >> i'm convinced we're facing a new paradigm in politics. it is a paradigm that is the rise of the grassroots. i have to tell you, it has official washington absolutely terrified. >> now, while senator cruz has consistently avoided the 2016 will he or won't he question in the press, his appearance on friday was his third visit in as many months to the first in the

nation caucus state of iowa. and although cruz may not yet want to go near the question of his white house aspirations, he certainly put himself in close probatiximity to the giant gop elephant in the room. >> the answer we saw in 1980 was a grassroots revolution. it was the reagan revolution. it was millions of americans, many of the men and women in this room who stood up, who got involved, and esaid, we're goin to get back to the principles that made this nation great. >> and in attempting to cover himself in the cape of the gop's conservative crusader, ted cruz is joining in on the republican party's ongoing bromance with our nation's 40th president. ronald reagan rode into the white house on a 44-state landslide victory and was re-elected in 1984 by 49 states. today, he continues to be one of the most popular presidents, more than two decades after he

left office. a 2011 poll gave him the third highest approval ranking among presidents of the last 50 years wnd john f. kennedy and bill clinton. it's the kind of popularity that is but a distant memory for the republican party today and that continues to fuel gop nostalgia for the reagan era. but that's the thing about nostalgia for the past. it tends to obscure some of the facts of history. something republicans longing for the golden days of the gipper might want to remember. because returning to reagan republicanism might require today's gop to make a few adjustments to their party line. like that whole tax cuts thing? yeah, that's got to go. sure, reagan's 1981 tax cut, the single largest in america's history at the time is kind of policy that republicans can only fantasize about today, but president reagan also passed the single largest tax increase since 1968, during his first term. in fact, reagan would ultimately raise taxes 11 times while he was in office and clutch the

republican pearls, because one of those tax hikes. the 1983 payroll tax increase, went to pay for social security and medicare. and that is right, ronald reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care. by the way, how married are you to that small government ideology? because during reagan's eight years in office, federal spending increased by an annual average of 2.5%, adjusted for inflation. and the national debt, that tripled from $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. republicans longing for the '80s might also want to get going on immigration policy. because in 1982, ronald reagan signed a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before that year eligible for amnesty and helped 3 million people become american citizens. oh, your whole conservative christian war on women, might want to call that off too. because ronald reagan may have been more than willing to hop on the southern strategy states rights bandwagon, but he was not one to bring god along for the ride. and although he spoke about his

opposition to abortion, he never introduced a bill to oppose reproductive rights and he actually helped the cause by pointing supreme court justices, sandraday o'connor and anthony kennedy, who joined in the majority opinion in the case upholding roe v. wade. let's be clear, none of this is to suggest that reagan was a champion of using the power of government to help the little guy. though exploding deficits and growing government receipts were caused by bolstering the pentagon and unleashing jaw-dropping defense spending, even as america's chief rival, the soviet union, was becoming less threatening. and reagan was largely indifferent to the problem of cities and the needs of the poor during the golden years that the current republican party yearns for, economic inequality widened, home ownehip declined, and the justice department largely refused to prosecute racial discrimination in housing. and yet despite the painful and

contradictory realities that marked the reagan years, the man did something that current republican leadership has wholly proved incapable of doing. he governed despite having different parties control the white house and the house of representatives. perhaps the most useful truth about reagan for a party republican party, wondering what would ronnie do, can be found in his relationship with his greatest political adversary. democratic speaker of the house, tip o'neil. joining me now is the man who wrote the book on that political partnership, chris matthews, host of msnbc show, "hardball," and author of "tip and the gipper," when politics work. >> well said. i agree with everything you said. people think this is a love story of reagan. this is an adversary story. but it's limited. like limited government, conservatives believe in that.

how about limited politics. you compromise. and reagan, the governor, you point out, was better than reagan the pamphletier. and on taxes, you're right. they saw he cut too much in '81. he came back totally the other way in '82. on social security, he had a progressive solution. tax the rich and make sure the poor had an adequate health care, i mean, adequate retirement pension program for the federal government. i mean, ironically, and even on the defense spending, you could argue, i wouldn't make the argument, but a lot of what he was able to do with gorbachev, he had the heft on his side, because they believed in the bluff. we could do sdi. there are two people on earth who believe that -- >> and gorbachev. the two who needed to believe it. >> that's right. >> there were a couple of things about the book that for me revealed aspects that we don't talk so much about in contemporary politics or in our media moment. you're writing this in part from the perspective of a staffer.

it reveals how important staffers are. we the end to just focus on the principles. is there, at this moment, a set of staffers. a sort of enterprising young man or woman working inside the white house or the speaker's office that we ought to be paying more attention to, because maybe they're the ones who are actually pushing the president or the speaker to behave many particular ways? >> i know we've had problems with boehner and his chief of staff. you hear about the speaker not even clearing the driveway from the white house and finding out his chief of staff says, you can't go that way. i guess go back to the more hierarchy way that baker ran it. a lot of respect there. made sure that tip was the first person to see reagan after he was shot. a lot of protocol there. and getting things done. he was a kick butt kind of guy. you didn't mess up. i keep thinking of this thing with the health care, it's not about ideas, about philosophy, it's about implementation, and would it have been done more efficiently with a stronger team there. but i think what we're lacking is probably a very strong chief of staff, and for whatever ran,

president obama doesn't want to seem to have one. >> he sort of did with emanual initially, but he also had nancy pelosi in the house. it wasn't the chief of staff managing -- >> but pelosi's fabulous. she had 100% when they reopened the government. 100%! nobody can do that anymore! she has the fear factor and the love factor. they love her and they fear her, the perfect combination. >> let me ask you, this story that you tell about the first time that reagan increases the debt ceiling and has to do so in relationship with tip o'neill, and o'neil asks for a personal note from the president, to each and every democratic member of the house, asking for his or her support in the matter of raising the debt ceiling. this was a brilliant piece of sort of political maneuvering. how did we go from that to the type of debt ceiling fights we're having now? >> i think tip didn't try to exploit it. he said, we've got to raise the debt ceiling. it has nothing to do with spending. it's just being honest.

so he didn't see it as an opportunity to kill reagan. he saw it as an opportunity for a truce fire. he says, i don't want my guys hurt. the year before with carter, the democrats said, we're going to provide all the votes for raising the debt ceiling. you raise the debt. now what? didn't raise the debt, paid the bills. so he said, how about this deal? i don't want any of my guys hurt. he said, first of all, reagan -- tip was -- reagan was -- tip was impressed that this guy on the spot could say, deal. that reagan trusted his people. and the next day the letters came. >> and those letters provided cover, right, for those democrats when they're running in that midterm election. if people say, oh, you raised the debt ceiling. oh, no, no, no. i was asked to do so by this massively popular president. >> and fits in this notion that today they disagree because they fight. in the old days, they fought because they disagreed. in the old days, if you didn't have a problem, you didn't fight. we have no problem with raising the debt ceiling. today, another opportunity to

fight and screw the thing up, because there was a respect for the office of the presidency, which we don't have today. the office and the man. i think we have a problem on both fronts. >> let me ask you about exactly that. part of what i love about how you write this, you write it how i feel like i might write if i was writing about the questions of race in the obama presidency and the ways in which sort of, for you, the irish catholic relationship, or that sense of being sort of from a similar cultural background, between tip o'neil and ronald reagan created a -- created a kind of baseline of respect and of shared knowledge, sort of shared cultural moments. is part of what's going on, like, i can't imagine a boehner/obama moment that has the same warmth behind it, even when i've seen them connect, it seems professional, not warmth. >> one of the stories i tell is them praying together after reagan is shot and kissing reagan and holding hands. i can't see boehner --

>> can you imagine boehner kissing president obama on the forehead? >> but there's this cooties idea. i was ten feet from him and already felt sick like an 8-year-old. i said, i can't stand looking at you. >> doesn't that feel racialized? >> that part is. was then there's the state issue. when tip went over and represented reagan to gorbachev the first time and said, we don't disagree on everything and he's our leader. that sense of, when in doubt, back the leader. the president is the only president. he's not just head of the democratic party. he's not just an african-american guy. he's our president. that's why lately, i've been insisting on my show, we're going to call him the president. not even president obama anymore, just, the president. let's get that straight. that state issue. i think there were two things. one, we have annetannetteics th today. but then there's the state issue. do we now respect our president, when in doubt and we don't have the fight with him, do we normally support him? that's gone. and i think the idea of electing a president is so different than

electing a speaker. tip never thought he was a national brand. he knew he was elected by his fellow democrats. sometimes these guys in the house think, oh, i'm only going to represent my district, which is gerrymandered, and all i'm going to represent is some rural district in texas. that's my only job. and there are senators like that, cruz acts like that. you've got to say, i'm a united states senator. and that's lost. >> stay with me. i also want to ask whether or not the book is too romantic and i want to bring some additional voices in. but before we go, i do -- you and i have -- share a common bond. that is, we have a common senior producer. our beloved moshe, who left your program, was on our program for a while, and has now run off to israel, enjoying new adventures. i want to show a message he sent. >> hi, chris, hi, melissa. i'm here at the jerusalem post. it's saturday night. i'm editing today's news for tomorrow's newspaper. i miss you, i hope you have a great show tomorrow. >> and when we come back, we're bringing more folks to the table. [ yodeling plays ]

[ hans ] toaster strudel! [ angelic music plays ] don't overthink it. [ hans ] warm, flakey, gooey. toaster strudel! humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures

living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? cashback concierge, here. what is a cashback concierge? well there's lots of ways you can get cash back. i'm here to help you get the most out of your cash rewards. it's personalized, and it's free. i want that. we have a concierge!

at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with cashback concierge.

ronald reagan. ronald reagan stood up with a smile and he drew a line in the sand. and he said, president carter and i have fundamentally different visions of this country and our future. >> that was senator ted cruz invoking the legacy of president reagan in iowa on friday. still with me to talk about the gipper's ongoing influence on the gop is msnbc's chris matthews. joining us at the table, karen skinner, the director of carnegie mellen university's center. also with us, bob hsht, distinguished fellow at demos.

and karen marine, the political columnist for "the chicago sun-times" and the political editor at nbc 5 news in chicago. thanks to all of you for being here. so i want to start with you, carol. when you see ted cruz sort of invoking reagan, what does this tell you? i mean, do you see cruz as really standing in the legacy of reagan, or is it that reagan has become contentless, so he's just a thing we say. >> he's a person and a persona that we grab, but it doesn't work. i mean, ted cruz is -- i was listening to chris on tip o'neill and thinking of dan rustoncowski. compromise wasn't a dirty word. for the tea party and ted cruz, it is a dirty word. so governing still comes up as the greatest principle that i think he's not willing to embrace. and so he's an image, but i don't think it works. >> and yet, bob, i wonder.

i really enjoyed every moment of the book. like, i was deeply engaged with p it. i also kept wondering, despite the hatred i felt for bush, i was raised to despise this person. i was thinking, is it too much to -- i was looking at this great quo from ron reagan, in which he said his father was tender hearted and sentimental in his personal dealings, but he could nevertheless have difficulty extending his sympathies to abstract classes of people. when we look at the racial inequalities that emerge during the 1980s, we see exactly that. that didn't feel like politics was working for many communities. >> no, politics was definitely not working for many people. and reagan's policies hurt people during the reagan administration. and subsequently, right up until today, with the folks that are following their view of who and what ronald reagan was. i think one of the problems with

the republican party nowadays is that many of them seem not to be part of the real world. i mean, there's no acknowledgement of reality. one of the reasons why reagan was able to govern, even though i was hostile to his policies, he was able to govern because he governed within the context of the real world. he discovered the realities of life in america and republicans are vereally moved away from th. >> what are the lessons that contemporary gop leaders be learning? >> you anticipated it at the top of the program when you said, you talked about reagan and governing. and i think it's a lesson not just for republicans, but for all politicians, including the current administration, is to know that governing is different than campaigning. and reagan understood that fundamentally because he campaigned for office so long. many don't know that he first ran for president in 1968. and he had this kind of stealth

campaign, as governor, it was two years into his time in the statehouse, and he was going all over the country, giving speeches down south, in the midwest. there was no way that he could stop the nixon machine so he announced at the convention, which is unimaginable today, and three days later, of course, he did not get the nomination. but '68 was much more important for him than '76, because he learned how to campaign, how to change his message, so it would broaden the coalition. >> but he ran the coalition by broadening a conservative strategy that brought them out of that democratic party. i was reading back this washington star article about the welfare queen, which emerged in the 1976 campaign, where he writes, there's a woman in chicago who has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 social security cards, is collecting veterans benefits on four nonexistent deceased husbands, collecting social security on they are car,

has medicaid, food stamps, welfare, and her cash income alone is over $150,000. i think on the campaigning, they raised that income as a racial divisiveness breaking apart that fragile coalition that tip o'neil was trying to hold together. >> what i mean by politics -- reagan is not a progressive. you don't like him because you don't like his policy. me neither. every minute of my life was fighting the guy. look what we were able to do in the opposition. we took a guy who really didn't like social security, and we solidified it for history. it was solid and has been solid ever since. tough negotiations. firing at it for two, three, straight years. '81, '82, all we did was hit him on social security. higher taxes on the rich, made it subject to taxes, basically mean tested. reagan signed that damn bill. on tax reform, we got equal rates for equity income, for rich people, coupon clipping, for the guy who goes o out ther

and sweats. but at the end, a lot of pressure on him, and he went to gorbachev and he was the guy that could sign the bill. we took him from being a possibly radical president who wanted to govern social security and medicare to being a reasonable conservative, who ended up winning the cold war. and by the way, on race, he was always terrible. because for whatever reason, black folk i've known never bought him. this is a reality. what i'm trying to point out, when you totally disagree with a person, all you have is opposition. you're not going to fire him or beat ronald reagan. he got 49 states the second time. you can sit at home and hate the guy or try to work with him and make him a better guy. i'm telling you, i think good opposition and good politics works when you temper each side. >> stay right there. we're going to talk about the whacko birds that are currently running this joint and whether they have learned the process of

good cooperation. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] the new twin turbo xts from cadillac. 410 available horses. ♪ room for four. twice the fun. ♪ ♪ [ steam hisses ] actually... guys! [ female announcer ] ...it can. introducing swiffer steamboost powered by bissell. it gets the dirt that mops can leave behind with steam-activated cleaning pads that break down dirt and lock it away. how did you get this floor so clean? ♪ steamboost, sir! [ female announcer ] new swiffer steamboost powered by bissell.

not just clean, steamboost clean. i've got a big date, but my sinuses are acting up. it's time for advil cold and sinus. [ male announcer ] truth is that won't relieve all your symptoms. new alka seltzer plus-d relieves more sinus symptoms than any other behind the counter liquid gel. oh what a relief it is.

getting the right nutrition isn't always easy. first, i want a way to help minimize my blood sugar spikes. then, a way to support heart health. ♪ and let's not forget immune support. ♪ but now i have new glucerna advance with three benefits in one. including carbsteady ultra to help minimize blood sugar spikes. it's the best from glucerna. [ male announcer ] new glucerna advance. from the brand doctors recommend most. advancing nutrition for diabetes. add brand new belongings from nationwide insurance and we'll replace stolen or destroyed items with brand-new versions. we put members first. join the nation.

♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ in a an interview with the "huffington post," senator john mccain was asked whether the new lawmakers from the conservative grassroots were a positive force in the republican party. and he responded, quote, it's always the whacko birds on the right and left that get the media megaphone. i think it can be harmful among the american people that those are the views of the majority of republicans. they're not. mccain name checked one house republicans, republican jus singh amadge. rand paul and ted cruz, who just a couple of months later had this to say in a may speech on the senate floor. >> it's been suggested that those of us who are fighting to defend liberty, fighting to turn around the out-of-control spending and out-of-control debt in this country, fighting to defend the constitution, it has

been suggested that we are whacko birds. well, if that is the case, i will suggest to my friend from arizona, there may be more whacko birds in the senate than is suspected. >> now, the public infigniinfig between republican colleagues, thou shalt not speak ill of another republican. i want to let you all in. >> look at lamar alexander right now, who is running for u.s. senate. and who is doing some pushback on this. he's not calling him a whacko bird, but he is talking about republicans have got to dump this scorecard concept of how they run this party. and so, just as mccain did when he was re-elected orrin hatch did, they took a more centrist approach and pushed back, which i think may be a real lesson for this party in the face of the ted cruzes of this world.

>> i think if we go back to thinking about ronald reagan and how he can inform this debate, within the republican party, actually, this big civil war, is to realize that ronald reagan actually understood how to govern. and that's the theme of chris' book. and when you look at reagan, the core of his governing is that he stayed true to his principles, but he was always concerned about getting his message across in a way that would open the door for a broader coalition. and actually, he was quite a centrist on the major issues facing the country during the day. for example, on the cold war. he was seen as a hawk by many on the left. but he had more summits with his soviet opposite number than any american president. and more than some presidents combined. >> i hear you. like, i really do. it's part of what makes reagan complicated. but i also don't want to miss that income inequality grows massively, that homelessness grows as a result of his public

housing policies. that there's an ending of the civil rights process that, a kind of halt that occurs in the 1980s. that i think we just have to be careful as we think about the centrist reagan, not to miss that. but chris, i really want to ask about tip -- >> can we talk about ted cruz and how different he was? you've got to listen to cruz. what's he advocating? a one-party state. he's not advocating the country that we've lived in and will live in our whole lives, which will always be a two-party state. you think about when one party will dictate roosevelt's first term. lbj in the months after kennedy was killed. that's what he wants. this is not american politics he's talking about. where i can go in there and wave my finger in an evangelical matter and dictate some on the hard right, and that's going to be future in perpetuity. >> and the even homogeneity in the party, part of what was remarkable about the text, was your stories about tip o'neil

holding this democratic party coalition, which includes still a set of dixiecrats, and all of these folks who end up just barely in because of the nature of how districting was looking in 1980. so what is it that boehner could learn from tip o'neill in terms of how to hold together a party with discipline as the speaker of the house? >> it's much harder, because, you know, america is basically run by a swing group of people. the ones i know, because they're called reagan democrats. they tend to be irish, italian, working class, middle class people who have had democratic roots, but are willing to vote for a reagan or a nixon because they can't stand mcgovern. but they swing. most ethnic groups are fairly predictable. but it's that middle group, and that includes or did include some of these southerners. now the dixiecrats have stopped calling themselves republicans and call themselves democrats. but i think it's very hard for

john boehner, a typical republican, to try to move them. because they don't have any coalition partners. those people on the hard tea party right don't really fit with any political party. they can't join the democrats. and there aren't any fascists to join. >> but the swing ethnic group that could have been cultivated that was a swing ethnic group for a moment was latinos, who was divided about a third. there was this whole possibility, and now we see the tea party we see sort of this hard right move, this refusal to move on immigration actually shutting off that, possibly. stick with me. we've got a lot more. but specifically i want to talk about the fact that it's not just the republican who is invoke reagan, but president obama himself. [ mixer whirring ]

my turn daddy, my turn! hold it steady now. i know daddy. [ dad ] oh boy, fasten your seatbelts everybody. [ mixer whirring ] bounty select-a-size. it's the smaller powerful sheet, that acts like a big sheet. look! one select-a-size sheet of bounty is 50% more absorbent than a full size sheet of the leading ordinary brand. [ humming ] [ dad ] use less with the small but powerful picker upper. bounty select-a-size. and try bounty napkins. the 1980 election was different. i mean, i think ronald reagan

changed the trajectory of america in a way that, you know, richard nixon did not. and in a way that bill clinton did not. he put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. >> that was then senator barack obama in a january 2008 interview with the reno gazette journal talking about why he believed ronald reagan to be a singularly game-changing president. what do you think the president is doing when he's invoking reagan? >> i believe he's invoking the myth of reagan. a lot of the things that we're talking about, but people that were hurt as a result of reagan's policies have been forgotten by the mainstream. so i guess, you know, obama considers this to be a political plus. my view has always been, you know, not being a politician, that the democrats never fought hard enough against the policies and the approach that came out

of the reagan era. and that comes right up until now. we have an administration that is still trying to find common ground with the republican party that is like, so far beyond the pale and doesn't make nany sens. >> the republicans are trying to cut food stamps as we speak. >> that's happening november 1 as a result of it dropping back to pre-sequester levels. but does that level instead of celebrating tip o'neill and ronald reagan coming to compromise, that tip o'neill should have behaved more like ted cruz, should have shut -- that's what you're saying, they didn't find hard enough? >> every day, every moment of my life was fought reagan. every minute. it's what he could get done. you have to be as reasonable as you ask the other side to be reasonable. the country wanted reagan, they voted for him. they overwhelmingly for him.

because he represented the america they believed in. he gave optimism back to people that had completely given up. how many presidencies in a row, kennedy was killed, ford was kicked out, carter was kicked out. the country was dying for a leader, a leader. he went in there and kicked butt. >> chris has written about the fact that -- exactly, that the democrats fought against reagan's policies. so reagan cuts taxes and you get the biggest tax cut, i guess in history, up to that point. and then a year or so later, they're fighting and he is forced to raise taxes. that's not what has happened since then. what's happened since then, you have all kinds of democrats abracing the tax cut -- >> that is the legacy of bill clinton. but that's the legacy of bill clinton. >> and my contention is all along, the democrats should have been fighting against those concepts and philosophies that came out of that era. >> but the legacy of bill clinton and that whole notion of moving the democratic party to the right, embracing a sort of reagan moment, right?

and i think actually, president obama stands more in that legacy of that sort of centrist democrat -- >> i agree. >> but that happens in part because of a narrative -- >> you would have loved walter monda mondale. in 1984, i'm standing at the convention in san francisco, and he said, reagan won't tell you we've got to raise taxes, i just did. you know what happened then? they kissed good-bye. >> you don't come out of a campaign and say, i want to raise taxes. what you do is show the harm that's being inflicted on working people, middle class people, and poor people by these policies. you don't just say, hey, i want to raise taxes. you say, hey, look what they're doing to people. >> and it still comes out, i want to raise taxes. ultimately, the message is going to drive that. i don't think there's too much being made of reagan and tip o'neill. i think it is compromise and governing. and that isn't what we're seeing here. and when we talk about the ted cruz mantle of ronald reagan,

he's barely won one election, he's barely in the senate. ronald reagan, by the time he got to government had been turned to tempered see. he understood, he had been a governor, he had negotiated, he'd seen political rallies. he's been across the country in ways that cruz has not been in. cruz is extremely smart and don't discount him. he still is, not unlike rick perry, a guy who's won an election in texas. >> ted cruz, you are no ronald reagan. thank you so much to chris matthews, author of "tip and the gipper: when politics worked." up next, why next week will be a particularly tough one for the poor and hungry. bob was taken up there just a few minutes ago. mike rowe here at a ford dealer with a little q and a for fiona. tell me fiona, who's having a big tire event? your ford dealer. who has 11 major brands to choose from? your ford dealer. who's offering a rebate? your ford dealer. who has the low price tire guarantee,

affording peace of mind to anyone who might be in the market for a new set of tires? your ford dealer. i'm beginning to sense a pattern. get up to $140 in mail-in rebates when you buy four select tires with the ford service credit card. where'd you get that sweater vest? your ford dealer. loses his computer, exposing thousands of patient records to identity theft. data breaches can happen that easily. we don't believe you should be a victim of someone else's mistake. we're lifelock. we constantly monitor the web so if any of your personal information is misused, we're on it. ♪ ow. [ male announcer ] call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today.

with head & shoulders? since before jeans were this skinny... since us three got a haircut. since my first 29th birthday [ female announcer ] head & shoulders. the number one dermatologist recommended dandruff brand.

in the nation, what's precious to you is precious to us. ♪ love is strange so when coverage really counts, count on nationwide insurance. we put members first. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ november is when the holiday season goes into overdrive and americans have so much to worry

between navigating holiday crowds and family drama that figuring out if they have enough money to eat should not be on their list of things to worry about. but for nearly 48 million americans, that issue will grow more complicated starting november 1st. this friday. bauds on that day, the boost provided by the 2009 recovery act for households receiving s.n.a.p. or supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits, ends. that translates to an $11 cut for a household of one, $20 for a household of two, $29 for a household of three, and $36 for a family of four. that might seem like nothing, but that's exactly the point. the individuals and families who receive s.n.a.p. benefits often subsist on barely anything and are still expected to feed themselves. more than 80% of s.n.a.p. beneficiaries leave below the federal poverty line and more than 40% live in what is called deep poverty. their salaries are below half of the poverty line.

$36 less a month for a family of four at today's prices translates into full fewer whole chickens a month and don't even think about a turkey for thanksgiving. these additional cuts mean that in 2014, s.n.a.p. benefits will average less than $1.40 per meal. per meal. not only does this affect families struggling to put food on the table, but also the food banks that are trying to feed them. the combined cuts that take place on november 1st and the proposed farm bill cuts transit late to nearly 3.4 billion meals. for an organization like feeding america, that loss exceeds their annual meal distribution of about 3.3 billion, even with their best efforts, there is no way nonprofits will be able to make up this gap. this is the season of giving, but charity alone is not sufficient. and you can't fit justice into a christmas sock. so this year, think about giving the gift of a phone call or an e-mail to your member of

congress. it is time they hear from us. tell them, don't let our neighbors go hungry. for seeing your business in a whole new way. for seeing what cash is coming in and going out... so you can understand every angle of your cash flow- last week, this month, and even next year. for seeing your business's cash flow like never before, introducing cash flow insight powered by pnc cfo. a suite of online tools that lets you turn insight into action. ♪ ♪ if i was a flower growing wild and free ♪ ♪ all i'd want is you to be my sweet honeybee ♪ ♪ and if was a tree growing tall and green ♪ ♪ all i'd want is you to shade me and be my leaves ♪ grown in america. picked & packed at the peak of ripeness. the same essential nutrients as fresh.

del monte. bursting with life™. [ woman ] the technology in these pads... best creation ever! [ female announcer ] always infinity. the only pad made with foam not fluff so mind-blowingly thin, you'll be surprised it's up to 55% more absorbent. genius. always infinity.

this week, german chancellor angela merkel called president obama and she might have bought a new phone to do it. because she was calling to ask for reassurance that a recent revelation from nsa leaker edward snowden isn't true. that her cell phone wasn't the target of an american intelligence tap. merkel, who expressed her concerns about electronic surveillance when president obama visited her country in the summer apparently gave the president an earful during their phone chat. according to her spokesperson, merkel said she, quote, unequivocally disapproves of such practices and sees them as completely unacceptable, and that any such thing would be a

grave breach of trust. the report says that her phone may have been bugged for ten years, but that president obama says he would have stopped it if he'd known about it. white house press scare jay carney said a couple of days ago that the white house isn't doing this, uh be i can't exactly blame merkel for being skeptical. as it is, we may end up handing over our own secrets through our phones. i recently got the iphone 5s. i love it. one of my favorite things about this new edition is the fingerprint sensor that unlocks the phone. no more swiping the screen and no more pass codes that a thief can decode. your one of a kind fingerprint is your ticket to real security. well, i sort of thought that until i remembered something that i saw my guest today tweet back in september. new iphone wants your fingerprint for security. can't wait to see apple's privacy policy for the dna scan in the iphone 7. rightfully, everyone from world leaders to regular seasons have been bugging about what edward

snowden has revealed. what about the information that we oh, so voluntarily and oh, so casually give up every day. joining me now, senior fellow at the century foundation, barton gellman, one of the journalists for which mr. fellman has been a source. so nice to have you here. >> thank you. >> i have been a bit of a skeptic or not completely sure about how to think about the newfound anxieties around security and privacy. so i wanted to have a bit of a one on one with you, because i want you to convince me. i'm open to being convinced that i should be at least as anxious about nsa that i really am feeling at this moment about apple. >> look, it's a question about power and the power of a relationship between citizens and the state. what's happened over the last decade or so, and especially since 9/11, has been that we have become more and more transparent to our government, and it has become more and more opaque to us. so the more the surveillance has

expanded, the more secretive it's become. intelligence agencies can't function completely in the light. that's not their job. but when the basic fundamental policies of where we'll spy, on whom, how, are secret, when the law is secret, that's a different question. >> so, i think maybe it's the historical narrative that you just told that's part of what's difficult for me. do you really believe that our government is more opaque now than it was in the mid-1960s, or do you think this is a continuation of a set of behaviors that this government has engaged in really from the beginning? just empirically, before we get to the moral outrage around either nsa, do you think it's actually more opaque now? >> well, for sure, there's been lots of secrets, and for much worse behavior. look, you know, secret surveillance was one of the articles of impeachment against nixon, and he used it for sort

of blatantly political and obviously sort of illegitimate purposes pip mean, the paradox here is we now have given them, and they have acquired, powers that would beggar the imagination, was they're not big brother in the sense that they're trying to suppress political debate. there's no evidence that they're using surveillance as an instrument of oppression. but they have accumulated so much latent power that any future government can do whatever it wanted with it. >> so in terms of thinking of personal information as latent power, that's part of why i have more anxiety about google, about apple. in part because, at least presumably, within a democratic governan governance, i can get this president who uses privacy inappropriately. i can actually go for an article of impeachment or vote against this person. there is so level of democratic accountability to the people. but a multi-national corporation that is not even bound by nation

state security concerns, in certain ways, if the information is itself latent power, aren't they the folks we should be most concerned about? >> my feeling is why choose. >> oh, i see. so duck and cover from both? >> i'm writing a book about the whole spectrum of the surveillance industrial state that's been created. there's a whole lot of overlap in the interests between the commercial marketers, the law enforcement people, and the national security people. and all of them have available to them a sort of volume of information that simply never existed before on the planet. and they are all capable now of tracking every movement you make, your entire social grip. what the marketers call your psychographer doesn't have any obligation to keep it private. >> well, in fact, not an obligation, they have a real incentive and interest to sell it. i mean, the thing that makes

these social media sites profitable. twitter is about to go public, right? the thing that makes that profitable isn't us talking to each other in 140 characters, it's the information that we provide, which then makes us targets for, at this point, just marketing, right? but potentially more nefarious things. >> right. this all comes back to me, to the question of transparency. people don't understand what's happening with the information that they're providing, because everybody who's collecting it has a strong incentive to keep it secret. i did a little experiment with a guy in my office at the century foundation, with the ability to kind of get 100 of 1% of what the companies get. just downloaded all the locations of his tweets and uploaded them up on to google maps, said, okay, so here's where you live, here's where your kid goes to school. here's where you were visiting your in-laws, before you were up late that night. here's another space you go to all the time, not even going to ask what that one is. he looked at that, my ability to

date and time stamp his locations around the world and immediately went and deleted all of them. >> he's like, i'm done. >> as soon as you make it concrete for people, it freaks them out. >> i want to talk more about this feeling of feeling freaked out and what we do within the context of the democracy to check the latent power of those who govern us. coming up next, there have been protesters calling to be seen and heard in order to not be seen and heard. more nerdland at the top of the hour. when our little girl was born,

we got a subaru. it's where she said her first word. (little girl) no! saw her first day of school. (little girl) bye bye! made a best friend forever. the back seat of my subaru is where she grew up. what? (announcer) the two-thousand-fourteen subaru forester. (girl) what? (announcer) built to be there for your family. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. i've got a big date, but my sinuses are acting up. it's time for advil cold and sinus. [ male announcer ] truth is that won't relieve all your symptoms. new alka seltzer plus-d relieves more sinus symptoms than any other behind the counter liquid gel.

oh what a relief it is. see, i knew testosterone could affect sex drive, but not energy or even my mood. that's when i talked with my doctor. he gave me some blood tests... showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% testosterone gel. the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breast-feeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions

and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%. with 0-calorie monk fruit in the raw. it's made with the natural, vine-ripened sweetness of fruit, so you can serve up deliciously sweet treats without all the sugar. raw natural sweetness, raw natural success. welcome back. i'm melissa harris-perry. stop watching us! seriously! stop it! no, no, no, no. not you, nerdland viewer. for goodness sake, quiche womaning us. in fact, keep watching so you

can learn about stop watching us. a big rally reportedly drawing thousands of people calling for the government to stop watching us, online, on the phone, and elsewhere. a coalition with that name, stop watching us, helped to organize saturday's rally, demanding that we all pay attention. here's a youtube video published on wednesday. >> revelations that have emerged in the past few months from whistle-blower edward snowden and others. >> have painted a disturbing picture of widespread suspicionless surveillance of american citizens. >> we got a wake up call just recently. >> nsa snooping includes the interception and collection of call detail records and internet traffic. >> including audio, video, photographs, documents, chat logs, and e-mails. >> every american is at risk for getting caught up in the nsa drag net. >> including average citizens not suspected of a crime. >> so as you can tell, this is actually made up of people who

are typically pretty public. actors and politicians, scholars, and yet they're saying, stop watching us, because this coalition delivered a petition to congress on saturday with more than 500,000 petition signatures, demanding reform of the country's surveillance laws. former nsa contractor edward snowden weighed in at the rally himself. not in person. he's still in russia, actually. but with a statement to the aclu that read in part, quote, today no telephone in america makes a call without leaving a record with the nsa. today, no internet transaction leaves america without passing through the nsa hands. now it's time for the government to learn from us. now, if you're like me, you've had some skepticism about snowden and the maelstorm that erupted. it's the revelations beneath snowden's newfound celebrity

that i want to concentrate on here. there may be no better time to do it than right now. because saturday was the 12th birthday of the usa patriot act, signed into law by president george w. bush on october 26th, 2001, just about six week after september 11th terrorist attacks. and what has it done since? it has exploited one of the most vulnerable moments in our history to allow the nsa and the rest of washington's military industrial complex to expand federal tentacles, even deeper into our lives. all in the name of making us safer. but has it? still with me, bart gilman, chyron skinner, bob herbert from demos, and now joining me is noah shackman, executive editor of news, the foreign policy magazine, and a nonresident fellow of the brookings institution. so nice to have you all. so let's dig in a little bit about this idea of stop watching us. it's a very basic sort of claim, but how realistic is it that, in fact, the government will stop watching us? >> it's actually not realistic

at all, because it has always done it and it always will and when we're talking about the firestorm of this past week, the revelations or the alleged stories about france and germany listening in on the cell phone of the chancellor and then millions of french citizens in a 30-day period, that's something that the u.s. has done and all countries do. i think it's the scope of what's happened that's been so shocking for people. and the fact that it's being alleged that u.s. political figures have been asked by the nsa to provide private phone numbers of heads of government and other counterparts that they interact with. i think that's offensive not just to americans but to our core allies upon who we depend. but it makes it difficult, even if the leaders few what was going on, it makes it hard when they have to go back and explain american behavior, which they

don't want to explain. so i think there's not little positive that comes out of all of this. and the sheer scope, i think is just really frightening for a lot of people. >> so this sheer scope point, i read at one point you wrote, i shouldn't have been prepared, given the work that you do, i should have been prepared for the kind of thing that happens when snowden provides you with these incredible documents. but you were, in fact, a bit taken aback by what mr. snowden provided. >> well, that's true. i mean, i paid a lot of attention to surveillance issues when i did a book on dick cheney a few years ago, and i was still kite stunned by some of the things that i've learned from the snowden archive. here's another way to look at what you just said. sure, governments have always been interested in collecting information. and they've been collecting for a long time. but what's different now, is that you don't have the potential obscurity you used to have. it was simply not feasible, even for the stasi in east germany to

watch and listen to every conversation of every person and file those and index -- they literally had index cards, okay? now you have automated systems that can collect, just sitting back and doing nothing, all the records of who you talk to and exactly when, where you travel, you know, what you buy. and machines can correlate that with quite sophisticated tools called contact cheney, for example. and you -- the other difference is, you have no control over that. if you're worried about someone listening to you, you can be quiet. you can choose your words. you cannot do anything to conceal your metadata. the metadata is much more revealing. >> and this is a controversial proposition, even within the u.s. intelligence community, to collect all this information. there's lots of people, very smart people and very senior people in u.s. intelligence community that don't think it's a good idea to be collecting so broadly on basically the entire

world. so even the spies are not so sure this is a great idea. >> let me push on that a little bit more. i think for me reporting the news in a broad sense, it is tough in the same week to report our government in washington is incapable of putting up a decent website, right, and can't collect data for people who are trying to give the government data in order to sign up for obama care. and the next day turning around and doing a story about how the government is like james bond level capable of collecting all of our data. so i guess part of what i wonder is if the sheer sort of fire hose force of data makes us not very good at sorting. or is it that this part of the government is good and this part is bad at this? >> i wouldn't confuse the nsa with the -- >> so they should do the obama

care website? >> no, that is a concern, that they don't have adequate tools to really sort through this information yet. and while they're doing great at collecting, great at collecting, the sorting is still a work in progress. >> because knowing where my kid went to school or when i went to visit my in-laws is not very useful for the protection of american foreign interests. >> you know, the collection of data is going to continue. the technological genie is out of the bottle. i think that one of the things that we need to do is have the american public much more informed about what is going on, and then we need much less governmental secrecy. and, you know, one of the reasons why i favored what edward snowden was doing from the beginning is, and this may go to my background as a journalist, i'm just always in favor of more information for the public to understand what is going on. and i have long thought that the government has classified much too much information.

but the idea that the government or that business, for that matter, are going to stop monitoring everything that's sort of going on in our lives, i think that idea is -- >> i want to ask a little bit -- so i want to ask a little bit about the political coalition here, which is a strange set of bedfellows and in part has been part of my challenge in really sort of getting fully engaged with this. when i think about government surveillance, that makes me nervous, it is much more grand level. it is the surveillance of local welfare offices over the bodies of poor women, who are using, you know, tanf and food stamps to feed their families. it is just so much more likely that the nopd is going to have a negative influence in my life. and the problem is that when i look at the political coalition that is here around the stop watching us, they're not the same political coalition interested in those aspects of surveillance that seem more

imminent to me. >> the kinds of things you're talking about can be stopped. that sort of thing can be changed. it would require campaigns and citizens involvement to have it done, but it definitely can be controlled. >> but i think, melissa, you're speaking about an interesting national coalition in the period when we're so divided that's emerging from the very different extremes in the u.s. sking it may be some glimmer of hope. it's is same -- >> dennis kucinich and rand paul hanging out together. >> you think about the drone strike debate earlier and senator rand paul's filibuster last spring. who supported him? the aclu. the chairman of the democratic national committee, making some of the same arguments about the role of privacy, governments and intervention in our privacy. on that issue. and they're saying the same thing here. so there are national security issues that bring democrats, libertarians together and this is one of them. >> so conyers and brenner

being -- the problem is, i'm not taking comfort in it. it doesn't feel like, oh, great, this is the big coalition. i'm thinking, the rand paul was for it, maybe i ought to be against it. stick with us. my favorite story of the week was about flipping the script on the former nsa chief. you just never know who's listening. help the gulf ur commitment recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened

so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

with an innovative showerhead plus wireless speaker, kohler is the proud sponsor of singing in the shower. in the nation, what's precious to you is precious to us. ♪ love is strange so when coverage really counts, count on nationwide insurance. we put members first. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪

you know how on amtrak trains, they'll have a quiet car? a place where you can busy yourself with work or reading or sleeping without the distraction of your fellow travelers' conversations? i'm thinking that's where michael hayden will be riding from now on. hayden served as nsa chief and then a cia director under president george w. bush and

very briefly under president obama. he was on the train giving an interview by phone about the obama administration as an enormous source. he was not in the quiet car. and seemingly he was at high volume. so loud that tom matse, a clean energy entrepreneur, and liberal activist for moveon.org sitting nearby could live tweet it. on acela listening to former nsa spy chief michael hayden give offrecord interview. i feel like i'm in the narkss a, except i'm in public. hash tag awkward. i felt it in a little bit in the stop watching us rally yesterday, which is like, can a revolution for privacy be live tweeted? i mean, there's a way in which like our very being in the 21st century is so connected with revelation that it's, it's at

odds with our notions and desire for privacy. >> i felt that the hayden story really, in some ways, invalidated the snowden story, because it goes to this fundamental issue. in the digital age, it's almost impossible to keep a secret, even if you're the national government, you don't need a contractor going rogue, to unleash the kind of documents that snowden has. it can happen eventually. do we not believe that our friends in german and other keo counterparts around the world don't have technology people that are as sophisticated as we are and will catch up to us? i think we have to fundamentally rethink what we're doing in the espionage arena, given that there's just so much transparency due to the digital age and how fast people are catching up to what we're doing. >> let me offer a counterpoint to that, that took a whole long time. 11 years ago, with the passage of the patriot act, the bush

administration secretly interpreted it to mean that because congress said, you're allowed to get business records that are relevant to a terrorism investigation. they secretly interpreted that to mean that we can get all the records of all phone calls of all americans. and instead the fbi put out -- don't worry, we're not abusing this. we've only used that power two dozen times in the past year. turns out one dozen of them was enough to get 1 trillion phone records. and we have not known -- 11 years went by and we found out because of snowden. >> yeah, he did an important public service, for no other reason, generating this set of conversations, which maybe we haven't been having, in part because we were consciously -- the fact that i was -- i gave my fingerprint, right? i never would have done that if i had been thinking more carefully about it, until that moment i thought, oh, this will be fun. we get so used to that notion of technology. i wanted to -- one of our msnbc

reporters was in the field at the rally yesterday, and spoke with a student from philadelphia named kyle who said this. he said, they're reading my e-mails and they're watching the porn i watch. it's ridiculous, he said, of the nsa. now, as i read that, i laughed about it, because it was a kind of lack of sense of irony about the idea of being a voyeur, of the most private act, was wanting privacy in the context of that voyeurism. and that feels to me like precisely the angst that we have to be able -- in other words, how can we both have our technological developments and feel a sense of safety and security? >> i think that you could, in theory. i think in the real world, it's becoming increasingly difficult. and, you know, when we talk about this governmental intrusion and why we should be concerned about what the nsa or other aspects of the government are doing, this young fella who's talking about, you know, they're watching my porn or

whatever, he actually has a good point. because we don't to a lot of talking about how this information can be misused. it doesn't have to be used for national security purposes, it can be used for political purposes. it can be used to take down a political opponent or it can be used by your employer. that sort of thing. so, you know, we do need to be concerned, and that's why am so much in favor of the public understanding as much as possible about what the government is doing. >> and this is probably where i started to transition a bit in my sort of softening a little bit towards edward snowden. that is this. that it does feel like those concerns of the midcentury, the 1950s and '60s, the great pushback was about the robustness of democracy. the thing that fights back against your government being those kind of political mat machinations of your government is having a robust economy where people have more capacity to engage. are we in a time where that very

technology that allows us to be surveilled is also the technology that might create a more robust engagement with our democracy? >> i think you speak to a fundamental issue that the obama administration should be addressing. the president has a role in all of this. he has to set the moral climate for the intelligence community and for the government at large on these issues. and every time something comes up like this, he says, i learn it on the nightly news. and that's not leadership and that means he could not possibly be setting a climate of openness and responsibility. he keeps learning scandal after scandal in realtime. and so i'm worried about the leadership in washington, coming out of the white house on issues like privacy. >> i think one of the reasons he's learning about it because it became so routine to conduct match surveillance that they actually didn't have to bother

telling the president on a sort of project-by-project basis. and i do think there's a change in the last 48 to 72 hours within the administration, that there's a sense that maybe the nsa has gone too far and maybe there does need to be some rethinking of it. so -- and i appreciate that point, that it doesn't necessarily mean sort of bad presidential behavior, but a set of institutional practices that have emerged, particularly post-patriot act. thanks to all of you for being here and being thoughtful with me. i get trolled for privacy all the time. so it's useful to me to have an engaging conversation as i try to think through these questions. thank you to barton gellman and kiner skinner and noah shackman. when we come back, we are going to talk about the very unusual decision made in newtown, connecticut, and what is happening there, right now.

discover card. i missed a payment. aw, shoot. shoot! this is bad. no! we're good! this is your first time missing a payment. and you've got the it card, so we won't hike up your apr for paying late. that's great! it is great! thank you. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with late payment forgiveness. ♪ don't disguise bad odors in your trash. neutralize them and freshen. with glad odorshield with febreze. this morning, the site of one of the worst school

shootings in american history, sandy hook elementary, is being completely torn down. and it's all happening behind barricades, away from tv news cameras and with as much privacy as newtown can muster. under strict confidentiality agreements and behind concrete barriers, construction crews are destroying every trace of the nearly 60-year-old building where adam lanza killed 60 children last summer. they decided to raze the building and construct an entirely new school on the site, because as one town leader said, we're not a tourist attraction or a large city. we are a small town of 28,000 that just wants to be left alone to heal. we don't want parts of the building showing up as collectors items on ebay. too many other schools have had to make similar decisions, struggling to balance the impulse to honor and preserve the site of a tragedy in memory of what happened there with the need to heal by moving on. especially when the site of the tragedy, the newly sacred

ground, is also the location of a much-needed local amenity, like a school. in pennsylvania, the community tore down the west nichols mine amish school ten days after a gunman opened fire there in october of 2006, killing five girls and injuring five others. a new school opened up yards away. at virginia tech, university officials kept the building where a gunman killed 30 people in april of 2007, but renovated the classrooms into a center for peace, studies, and violence prevention. columbine high school in colorado reopened its doors after 13 students were shot dead in april of 1999, but the library where most of the victims died was eventually removed and replaced with an atri atrium. memory matters. commemoration matters. remembrance matters. but how much does the specific location for remembrance matter and why does it matter? i'm going to discuss all of that with i mamy panel when we come .

yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year, saving an average of $475. [sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!] avo: sales event is "sback.hen drive" which means it's never been easier to get a new passat, awarded j.d. power's most appealing midsize car, two years in a row. and right now you can drive one home for practically just your signature. get zero due at signing, zero down, zero deposit, and zero first month's payment on any new 2014 volkswagen. hurry, this offer ends october 31st. for details, visit vwdealer.com today.

thousands of tailgaters realized they needed one thing...and fast. mom, i need a bathroom. [ male announcer ] that's when the charmin tailgating potties rolled in, providing real relief to everyone. it felt like i was at home. that was an awesome experience! [ male announcer ] clutching victory from the seat of defeat, charmin saved the day. we scored a td with this tp. [ male announcer ] tailgating potties. one more way the charmin relief project is helping people enjoy the go.

some of the most visible protests against the government shutdown this month weren't staged at the shuttered offices or the struggling food banks, they were staged at a memorial to world war ii. it was closed because the national parks service had to furlough the 300 people who work at the national park site and the mall because of the republican caused shutdown. now, that didn't stop republicans, tea party aficionados and veterans from gathering there to demand that it be reopened, saying it was an outrage that people could not get into the physical space dedicated to those lost in world war ii. that memorial, of course, like so many other places of remembrance in our nation's history is in washington, d.c., dominated literally and figuratively by a massive 555-foot memorial commemorating our founding father. it's a city whose love of visible, physical monuments is so great that when d.c. launched a study last year to figure out whether to relax the federal height of buildings act of 1910

and allow taller structures, the mayor's office hastened to assure people that, quote, you are not going to have a building that's going to overshadow the washington monument. joining me now are clifford shaynen, vice president for education and public programs, the national september 11th memorial and museum, and author of "the stories they tell." karla holloway, professor of english law and african-american studies at duke university. and still with me are bob herbert and carolyn marin, the political columnist at the "chicago sun-times." let me start with you. i think september 11th is perhaps the moment beyond perhaps world war ii that is most present for us in terms of memorializing. why is memorializing losses like this, why is that so important to us as a people? >> well, one way that the

memorial serves not just the victims and the families is it serves a public purpose for bringing people together in a venue. in the case of 9/11, the venue where a large part of the tragedy actually occurred, and it brings them into a place that's been dedicated to memory and remembrance. and you can see, we've had 10 million plus people visit the memorial in just over two years. you can see the interaction in this public sphere and the way in which that chapter of history is sort of knitted into an american historical narrative and a global narrative as well. because 30, 40% of the visitors come from overseas. >> so on the one hand, you have, i think people, particularly americans, get that. we understand that idea of that great loss, the sort of notion that the whole historic time of notion, sort of pre and post. but then i think about the idea that in newtown, they are pulling down the elementary school, they are asking for

privacy, and at this point they are not planning that kind of a memorialization of their loss. >> grief is not one size fits all. the memorializing is not one size fits all. i think in the newtown experience, in a smaller community, they have spoken about what they need and what they don't want is exploitation, people selling bricks from the school, selling artifacts. so i think what we as a nation have to recognize is some memorials are perfect for that moment or that time or that people, but not all of them. >> and yet, carl, i kept thinking to myself, i am as upset about the memorials that don't exist as the ones that could potentially be foisted on. when you talk about not wanting it to, you know, the little pieces of the elementary school to go around.

we know that happened with nazi memorabilia, that it helped with lynching postcards, this idea of sending out these kind of memorializations of horror. but i also, living in new orleans and like the butt whipping that will be given in the superdome today to the buffalo bills. and yet the superdome is the site of where my neighbors dehydrated and died because their government did not come for them. and there is -- and like, i don't know how to respond to the superdome in that moment. >> that is exactly it. which story do we want to tell? one thing that memorial does, public memorial, is to locate and even attempt to make more coherent what the narrative is going to be around the grief. so the 9/11 memorial is a public way to cohere and tell a certain story. in newtown, taking, reclaiming those bodies back to families,

the privacy of those moments, rather than letting them be available to a body politics, maybe because of not trusting that and knowing what happened to the parents who resiliently presented themselves in washington to rally against gun violence. so when memorial is -- when dieing is incoherent, it's hard to recapture that moment and put the pieces together. >> i really like this distinction. the public can be trusted with the memorialization of 9/11. it's okay to invite people because we behaved, not completely inappropriately, but we behaved with the sense of the enormity of that loss. but for the newtown families, we failed to act to protect their children. so we can't be trusted. >> and one of the things the families might want to do is to take their stories of grief back to their own safekeeping. not trusting a public narrative, because it's been so used and

misused and misappropriated. taking those bodies of children back home, which is what memorial is really about. >> the, you know, there's a difference between a memorial a, in you're going to observe and learn about events that occurred, no matter how terrible. there's a difference between that and being unable to shake painful memories. and i think i'm quite sympathetic with the folks in newtown who are concerned, you know, want having sort of a monument that's always going to remind you of this school. and especially because it's an elementary school and the children were so young. and you don't want to be passing by something like this all the time when you're having, you know, 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds saying, what's that, mommy, and you have to explain, that's where the children died

at school and they become afraid of school and that sort of thing. so i'm sympathetic to the concerns of the residents of newtown. >> and there's time. a memorial doesn't have to be today, because the terrible tragedy was yesterday. but it's time to process and think. and it isn't to say, but there aren't memorials going on in newtown. there aren't moments and observances, but everyone, i think, gets to do it if it's possible, their own way. >> when we come back, i want to talk more about when memorials are erected, who gets to tell the story. so this point about passing by where horrible things happened. we talked about "12 years a slave" last week on the show. and i was reminded that i passed by a slave market every day, but we don't memorialize that in the same way. and having grown up in richmond, virginia, you know, monument avenue is all about confederates and the confederate soldiers. so who gets to build the memorial and tell the story that affects our memory of it, when we come back. ♪

[ male announcer ] staying warm and dry has never been our priority. our priority is, was and always will be serving you, the american people. so we improved priority mail flat rate to give you a more reliable way to ship. now with tracking up to eleven scans, specified delivery dates, and free insurance up to $50 all for the same low rate. [ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man ] we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to usps.com® and try it today. wake it up with olay regenerist. formulated with a skin energizing complex, it penetrates 10 layers of the skin's surface, because energized skin is younger looking skin. ♪

is younger looking skin. stick with innovation. stick with power. stick with technology. get the flexcare platinum. new from philips sonicare.

peace of mind is important when so we provide it services you bucan rely on. with centurylink as your trusted it partner, you'll experience reliable uptime for the network and services you depend on. multi-layered security solutions keep your information safe, and secure. and responsive dedicated support meets your needs, and eases your mind. centurylink. your link to what's next. ♪ (announcer) answer the call of the grill with new friskies grillers, full of meaty tenders and crunchy bites. made gluten-free cereals in a bunch of yummy flavors. like cinnamon chex, honey nut chex, and chocolate chex... we're in cereal heaven.

so thanks. from the mcgregors, 'cause we love chex. wear back and continuing to talk about the issue of memorials and monuments and how we remember and what we remember. so i want to talk a little bit about this idea of writing the story and who gets to remember. in the context of september 11th and ground zero and what was going to happen there, what were the sort of various possibilities for that space and who ultimately held sway in deciding how that space would be used. >> well, it's a long, complicated story, of course. but one of the interest elements of the story is that in terms of the space of a museum, which will open next spring, but which is a huge 110,000 square foot underground space, what held enormous sway was the surviving artifacts of the building. that their presence, they had not collapsed with the building, they had, in fact, held back in

some cases, the slurry wall held back the hudson river from flooding lower manhattan. these elements somehow spo to the process in such a way that they became essential to the whole project of making a museum and making a memorial. you know, what's really interesting about this, and we see this just we the volume of people who visit, by now in this generation, people have been educated to expect a memorial gesture in the aftermath of a large-scale tragedy like this. it's not as if you could not do something. it's not that you know what to do immediately or it takes a specified amount of time, but people have been educated for two or three generations, now. really this whole post-holocaust awareness of memory has created this sense that people want to participate. they share an expectation that something is expected of them, and there's a civic role for them in participating. >> except women served in the military for how long before we

ever memorialized women. i mean, some of this also speaks to what you were saying. what we don't memorialize and what we purposefully look away from. >> that's the difficulty of it. that once people learn to expect the narrative, not only do people compete for a location in that narrative and what that location would be, but also there's a competition amongst, which is more important than the other. i don't think all of this public memorializing is always a good idea. certainly, i do with 9/11, but if i remember one of the controversies is, what will we do? how will we record the perpetrators of this violence, within the museum? so if we're going to tell a story, is it going to be a complete story? are we going to be selective with our histories? so memorials are complicated moments, like you said, carolyn. and i think the idea of giving ourselves some time to process and think it through and let the various archive pieces find their own places and then learn

from them rather than import the story on to them. >> think about the fight over how folks who were in museums are constantly doing memorialization within the context of actually just getting the museum collection. but for each of us, i so appreciate this point about the women who aren't memorialized. the african-americans who don't appear. the fact that the one time there was an attempt to put on the national mall, a memorial to an african-american woman, was that memorial, which thank god was not built, and that notion that sort of who should we remember, not actual black women doing real work, but these fantasies. >> rosa parks sitting down amongst these standing up people. >> which in one sense makes sense, without that kind of competition i was talking about. how shall i be located and what is miss america going to tell. they didn't start thinking about, rosa, can you stand up

please? >> and i remember arthur ash going up on monument avenue in richmond. this is a battle that he would take space there next to the confederate heroes. >> i personally think that memorials should always be in the hands of liberals. >> and government and everything else, yeah. >> i do get pushback on that. one of the concerns, though, is, if you feel that every time a tragedy occurs, it requires a memorial, it takes on a knee-jerk quality. and you don't want that to happen. a memorial, i think, is generally a very special place. not particularly political, although we know there are a lot of political fights behind them. so you don't want to sort of just get to a point where we take them for granted. >> what about commerce on these memorials? when you go to gettysburg and it is the definitive battle of the civil war, but it's also where you can bay a hot dog.

or in the context of september 11th, there is going to be commerce. there is going to be business transacted. yes, there is a museum, but there is extremely valuable real estate if lower manhattan. >> you were kind enough to mention the book that the museum just put out at the beginning of this segment. yes, it's evolved. this is an expectation that people have. they want to have more. they want to walk away with something that reminds them of what it was. obviously, it can be more or less according to the taste each of us, but the idea is that you don't just leave it there, that there's an ongoing interaction. one point about -- memorials somehow capture what's going on in a time. and the emptiness or the missing people from one memorial moment are encapsulated in another. two very quick examples on the 9/11 memorial. we have something we call meaningf fuful adjacentsy. so on flight 175, we have the names of the hanson family, which includes the youngest victim, christine hanson.

but above them are two dwgay me with a son. and that is an adjacentsy which is part of what the memorial is, but perhaps 30, 40 years ago would not have been acknowledged as what it was. at the same time, we have women who are pregnant memorialized and their unborn child and her unborn child, is a phrase that was add eed to this. so within this bronze set eternally, you have that moment of transition within the society. >> and the vietnam memorial stands as a -- because we've all been on that mall where famil s families, some wearing sunglasses, are stenciling out the name, but this is america, and somewhere down the way, there's someone selling a t-shirt, and not necessarily maliciously, but because i support my troops or whatever they do. listen, no memorial is going to be the answer for all of the grief or the proper answer for

some of the grief for some of the people involved. >> cliff and carol and bob, thank you so much . carl, stick around because i want to talk north carolina with you when we come back. comedy central took on north carolina's voting laws, but what is really going on is simply not a joke. raise up, north carolina. ♪ ♪

[ male announcer ] united is rolling out global, satellite-fed wi-fi to connect you even 35,000 feet over the ocean. ♪ that's...wifi friendly. ♪

this week north carolina's republican party experienced an epic fail when a precinct chairman sincerely answered the questio questions of "the daily show's" satirical correspondent regarding the voter i.d. law. you've got to see it to believe it. >> the bottom line is, the law is not racist. >> of course the law is not racist, and you're not racist.

>> well, i've been called a bigot before. let me tell you something. you don't look like me, but i think i've treated you the same as i would anybody else. as a matter of fact, one of my best friends is black. >> so one of your best friends -- >> one of my best friends is black, yes. >> and there's more. >> when i was a young man, you didn't call a black a black. you called them a negro. i had a picture of obama sitting on the stump as a witch doctor. i posted that on facebook. i was making fun of my white half of obama, not the black half. now you have a black person using the term [ bleep ] that, [ bleep ] this and it's okay for them to do it. >> you know we can hear you, right? >> yeah. >> okay. i'm sorry. he resigned this week after his comments were denounced by tarheel republicans, but the headlines about north carolina

remained. i get the hilarity, but it also makes me so sad because i went to college and grad school in north carolina. i cast my first vote there, worked my first campaign there. i cut my teeth as a reproductive rights advocate there. nc is my political home. and i take absolutely no pleasure in seeing the state reduced to a primetime punchline. so i wanted to take advantage of having one of my academic advisers from duke university here to talk about why all is not lost in north carolina. still with me is professor karla holloway. okay. you've been a resident of north carolina for decades. please tell me that the current right-wing explosion there is not indicative of what the state is and where it's going. >> no. partially, i can say that. >> okay. >> because what you have is a group of democrats and progressives energized by the clarity of this kind of nonsense that we just heard. but we also have a republican

legislature that's passing bill after bill after bill that's disenfranchising in so many ways of just people's social lives. so we have the clarity of do you really want this to happen to your state. and this is a state that voted for obama in the first presidency. so i am a hopeful person in this regard, but i also have to be pragmatic that as bad as -- or on the other side of the racism expressed by these comments is that we have clarity about how those laws that disenfranchise voters, the voter i.d. law, the voter suppression in terms of early voting, were conceived of in party leaders' heads. now, will this guy be deposed and can we get him on record and can we get some kind of understanding about the lawsuit that's currently going on around section two of the voting rights action?

perhaps, but i think worse than the racism we know is always entrenched is the clarity of republican party politics that is centrally involved in making sure that as this man said, democrats lose the vote. >> that point about clarity, particularly in a kind of narrative of post-racial america and that everything is okay, and then as soon as you see this without a hint of irony, conversation about, oh, yeah, you know, and sort of easy use of the "n" word. the one thing that is happening in north carolina that gives me such hope is there is a legitimate social movement linking reproductive rights and voting rights and anti-racist activity in the context of moral mondays. >> the moral monday movement has been extraordinary. it's crossed the state. when originally conceived as the center, the capital politic in the legislative area, but is being taken from county to

county and getting thousands of people, hundreds of people involved in clarifying their own relatedness to a constituency. so teachers along with physicians, along with blue-collar workers understanding that they have an equal stake in making sure that the rights around reproductive rights, for example, which effect all of our families, aren't lost. that's why it's a really complicated scenario. i'm just going to, because i have that opportunity to take the optimistic side and think, okay, we get it, does everybody understand what this politic is? but do know that there's a republican party that this isn't new to. his commentary was not a surprise to anybody. he was in the leadership. >> right, or else it wouldn't have emerged. >> with such ease. >> karla, always a pleasure to have an opportunity to ask the tough questions of my actual

advisers. you know, that intellectual relationship -- >> you need no more advice. >> oh, not true. i need it all the time. that's our show for today. thanks for watching. i'll see you next saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. right now, time for a preview of "weekends with alex witt." >> hello, melissa. thanks so much. a new report about the tsa. it's looking at your personal information before you even get to it the airport now. how can that happen, and what's the strategy? moving past the health care website hurdles. we take a look inside the white house on what's the president's strategy in the next three years. "the cycle's" krystal ball predicts the future. really? might the democrats take back the house? doomsday scenarios. the season premier of one program takes a look at people preparing for the worst. those stories over the next two hours. don't go anywhere. i'll be right back.

millions of americans have lost their -- have