'94 when the republicans took over the house and the senate, a more confrontational approach by one party and then the other. and you also have had in that period a situation in which the parties have sorted themselves out. >> yeah. >> you used to have liberal republicans and you used to have conservative democrats. and to get things done you had to have a coalition across those lines. >> the center has largely disappeared. >> the center has largely disappeared. the republican party is a very conservative party and the democratic party is a more liberal party than it was. and so you've got that. and the third factor is people don't -- in the way that owe neal and reagan did, people don't socialize. members of congress come in on a monday night or tuesday and they leave on a thursday night or friday morning and they don't interact with one another in the way they used to. they're in the here to do it. they're families don't get to know one another. they're not put into situations where they learn

to like somebody who is on the opposite side. >> so many disincentives to finding common ground. >> correct. >> allowing a personal relationship to drive whatever -- professional issues. let me slide back to this question on whether congress is a reflection of the country and let's pick one issue in the news now and that's guns. on universal background checks, on a ban on high capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons, three topics of conversation right now whether anything happens legislatively on those. the country is overwhelmingly in favor of those things and particularly in universal background checks. 80% or more of the country is for it. so if congress were truly a reflection of the country, would congress not be responsive to the poplar will on an issue like that? >> it would be, but i think you have to sort out again the differences within the parties and the environment in which people in the two parties operate. if you are a republican on the one hand you can see popular opinion on those issues. >> right. >> on the other hand, you know the power of the nra

and gun owners of america. and you know that if you vote against those interests, you might well get a primary. >> right. >> and that's the last thing that most members want to deal with is a primary in their reelection campaign. so that action as a disincentive to operate against public opinion. and there is a part of the base of each party which is more militant about those issues. >> right. >> so your point on guns is absolutely right. i mean, the overwhelming percentage of the american people want to see those things and it's not clear that it's going to get done. i don't know whether there's some possibility that some kind of background check -- >> there's a compromise in the senate. >> may get it through. there's some stuff clicking. >> if you accept the fact that congress can be nonresponsive on an issue like guns or basically take its own set of positions that are counter to what the popular will might be, then you have very little fear of being defeated.

right? the thing here is what used to motivate people in elective office is they were responsive to people that they represent for fear of if they were not responsive they might be pushed out of office. now there seems to be no consequences. this is like the year of no consequences where if we don't do what the public wants, that's okay because the activists will protect us. this is an election situation that is largely a primary rather than general election focused situation anyway as long as we escape the primaries, since my district may not be competitive in november, i've got to go with the activist over my constituents. it's backwards. >> most people are in safe seats, as you say. have the has been wiped out. the center has been wiped out. congressional districts have become more red or more blue, take your pick. >> some march, not november day is the more relevant month in the election cycle. >> it is a different country in that sense in the way it's been sorted out. a lot of people blame redistricting for it. it's only a part of it. >> what else is it? >> i think bill bishop wrote the book the sorting out. it's a geographic sorting

out that's occurred and we can see it in lots of different ways. this wasn't only the presidential election, there were only four states in the country that were decided by five points or less. >> yep. >> and yet the overall national margin was four points. >> right. >> so red states redder, blue states bluer, congressional states moving in opposite directions. once you get elected you're in a safe position unless you get in a primary. >> and what your one time colleague ron brownstein called the coalition of the descendent, probably hardens the reds and the blues in the sense that the city groups are so largely with one side. >> well, i think that's right although i think that running counter to that is that for the republican party the coalition of the ascendent ought to cause them considerable worry because they are on the wrong side of that primarily because of their ability to get more votes in the

hispanic community. >> and what evidence -- there's been a lot of discussion talking about dedicating a certain amount of money. didn't seem like much for 50 states, but a certain amount of money, it's a start, on the party's behalf to talk to these groups in a way that might give them a reason to become republicans. but by and large are you seeing that the result of the election is that the republicans have gotten the message on those issues? >> they've gotten the message that they need to do something. >> but the what that is is not -- >> but what it is -- where we're likely to see some impact on that, excuse me, is on immigration. it does appear as though an immigration bill will pass, but we don't know quite what the terms of that will be and we don't know at this point whether you're going to get a true majority of republicans supporting it. i mean, it's astonishing to me. having been down here in the early '80's when republicans were beginning to pay much closer attention to winning

votes, we're reaching out some. there were some bright young republican latino office holders. not many, but a few. for the republicans to have, you know, gotten up the morning after the 2012 election and said we have a problem in the hispanic community, we need to do something -- >> how did they not know this before? >> is almost willful blindness because it has been there and they've not been able -- they have thought that if they simply talked about their conservative values some of which certainly are shared within the hispanic community, that latino voters would come to them. but it takes more. so i think what ranks previous and this taskforce that he did was very good and it was for an internal self-criticism, it was very well done and very tough minded. but as you suggested, what's the next step? what do they need to do and say? and i don't think they've figured that out. >> how much of the problems that republicans have some congress reside with boehner on the house side and mcconnell on the senate

side? that is to say how much is the leadership and how much of this as the old expression goes is the inmates running the asylum. >> i think a lot of it is the fact that boehner is in fact in a shaky position as speaker. it not clear whether anybody will or should challenge him or whether or not they would win. >> he was weirdly close to being -- >> there was some talk about it -- >> not being reelected on the first ballot last time. >> there were protest votes against him on the first ballot. >> yeah. >> but i think it's a function of what happened after 2010. you had 87 new members who came in, the tea party was ascendent at that party. the tea party had a huge impact on the party in 2010 and i think the leadership has been trying to figure out how can we lead these people or how do we follow them? >> or even are they leadable? >> well, that's right. and we'll see on some of these issues this time around. i mean, on the fiscal cliff debate that took place at the end of last year, that passed with a minority of

republicans. there's the old rule postulated by the former speaker that you don't take bills to the floor unless you can get a majority of the majority. ie, a majority of the republicans to vote for them. on the fiscal cliff boehner violated that rule and it's not clear how many times he can do that and still remain speaker. >> but the violence against women act, isn't that how it passed? as another example, there will be votes on which the only way things will get passed is if he goes against that? >> and the question is will he do it on immigration? did he do on it the fiscal issues later this summer. >> let's not leave the democrats out of this. harry reid's leadership has not exactly been history making in the senate and the fact is the democrats for all the talk of the republicans problems in the congress, the democrats haven't exactly been statesman like in the way they've done business. >> no, i think that's exactly right. i think that we collectively in the media have pointed more fingers at the republicans. tom mann and norm osteen,

they did a book last year that said it's worse than you think. and their point was most of the blame goes on the republicans because they have operated in a way that's in a sense kind of outside the traditional rules, but democrats -- democrats are recalcitrant too and they did some things during bush's era. they fillibusterred. republicans now fillibuster. it's a -- >> it's systemic. >> it is. and every time people try to fix it they can't try to come up with a good fix. >> there was some function that a fillibuster form at the beginning of the congress and they declined to pursue it. and they probably wish they had a time machine. >> i don't know that you can do it this in this environment. >> how much does the president own? it's easy to say congress is the congress, but the president is the president. >> that's exactly right. and i think one of the issues that the president ran into in his reelection campaign and this was borne out by a lot of the focus grouping that the obama campaign did, people didn't

dislike president obama, they were unhappy with his leadership. but one of the things they weren't sure of was whether he could figure out a way to fix this. this is obviously a candidate who in 2004 talked about we're not red states or blue states, we're the united states of america. in his 2007, '08 campaign gave hope for a new kind of politics. he hasn't been able to deliver on that. the white house would say and has said, their folks have said repeatedly, it's the republicans who have kept us from doing this. the president has been willing to reach out, he's been willing to compromise, willing to make a deal. >> i remember carl rove saying about why bush couldn't make the democrats come to his side either. i want to be a uniter, not a divider and that didn't work out necessarily any better than obama. >> no, no. and i think what a lot of people think and one of the reasons there was real concern about the president's reelection was people said okay, okay, the republicans have been obstructionist, if you will. but you're the president. presidents are there to figure out how to lead and

how to get around these problems. >> you have tools that are not available to a member of congress right now. >> and in these focus groups people would say, you know, lyndon johnson would know how to do this. lyndon johnson would get around this. i don't know that he could operate in this environment today. >> we do tend to romanticize past presidents and presidents. >> i think as we were talking earlier, we're in a different period. and leading in that situation is much tougher today. >> has the communications revolution impacted the practice of politics, presidency and congress? this is a good transition into the post, which we'll talk about in a second. has the world that you and i live in, the evolution and the revolution in communications that we've witnessed over the last 10 years, changed the dynamic politically in washington? >> yes. i mean, i think every major technological change that we've gone through in our history has had an impact on our politics and our journalism. but what's happened over the last 15 years, 20 years, but

particularly in the last 10, is a revolution in the way everything operates. we've been moving towards a permanent campaign before the internet was invented, but the internet is an ideal vehicle for continuing the permitted campaign. >> and they can bypass and go directly to the people they want to reach by virtue of many of the tools that are available today, but were not available as recently as 10 years ago. >> right. there was a time this would have been 30 years ago, when the three major broadcast networks and a handful of big newspapers, national papers that had national reach, could in a sense set the agenda. and were gate keepers for what got talked about or what didn't. they doesn't exist anymore. >> the president can now tweet directly to his followers without having to touch a newspaper or talk to a reporter, right? >> right. and they're quite happy to do that. and as a result of that when they make the president available for interviews, it's always strategic.

it's not it's time for the washington post to have an interview -- a press conference or interview. it's very targeted what they're able to do and it's with an idea of reaching an audience that will continue to build coalition. and it's not entirely foolish. i mean, -- >> from their perspective it's probably great. they think it's fantastic. >> the president's power resides largely in his or her ability -- perhaps some day, to mold and shape and keep public opinion on his side. so how do you do that in this environment? you do it by trying to go directly -- >> going around the filter. >> and not just tweeting. it's going right into your inbox or right to get your facebook friends to get you to do something that they want you to do. >> and then, of course, the cable universe is a whole other thing and you have occasionally darkened kris matthew's doors and the doors of other cable hosts. i know it's probably distasteful to do that, but

the cable channels that you self-exile, so if you're a conservative you have fox on all the time and essentially confirmation bias reinforcing your point of view. if you're at cnbc you are listening to rachel mad dough or kris meadows. it could harden the difference. >> it absolutely hardens the difference. that's certainly the case. it's now -- it's now entirely possible and many people do live within a cocoon of information that reinforces your view of the world rather than challenges. >> never have to hear a conflicting opinion of world view if you don't want to. >> right. and you're sometimes exposed to things that reinforce that that you didn't know about because people on either side who are working those be that -- >> and occasionally as much as that will surprise you, something that is not true. occasionally -- >> once in awhile that does happen. >> the washington post i consider still to be, you know, fighting on behalf of truth and fairness and accuracy.

not everybody views newspapers in that way. but your time in the the post these 35 years has corresponded with or run parallel to many of the changes we're talking about. the post is in many respects a completely different paper than it was when you got there. but then at the same time there's the dna of the paper which i think most people associate with the woodward and bernstein let's speak truth to power accountability stuff. there's still a lot of that there. i want you to reflect on if you can where the post is in and of itself and then the universe of the beat? >> i would like to think that the dna of the paper has not changed. there are certain -- there are certain characteristics of any institution, whether it's a newspaper or a tv station or whatever. and the post has hits and obviously the watergate era is part of that. the david brodieer area is part of that. the haynes johnson. all of the people -- >> for that matter the kay graham era.

>> who stood as a symbol of that paper's commitment to the community and legacy and, you know -- >> ben bradley always used to say that the first secret to being a great editor is to have a great owner. >> well, if only it were that easy, right? >> and the post has had extraordinary ownership and people at the post, you know, in the 35 years i've been there, you know, have nothing but respect and relief. >> and if you think about it, what the grahams have been to the post, what the values burgers have been to the times, and the handlers, and look what happens? in some way it reinforces that idea that the ownership is the last line of defense. the fillsteins don't get to invade the castle walls. >> the change, of course, has been one that's been driven by change in technology. and change in readership habits. we are a different news organization today than by far than we were when i came there in 1978. i mean, you would expect that. but much of the creative

energy and the resources now are on the digital side, rightly so. we're all trying to figure it out. nobody has got the exact model for how this is going to work for an old media institution. but we move faster than we've ever moved before. >> yep. >> we move as fast or faster than the wire services. it used to be that when you got to a place like the washington post, you felt like i don't have to pay attention to all the little stuff. i can think big thoughts or at least think big thoughts for three hours. and not anymore. and so -- >> ideally what's in the next day's paper we knew the day before. molds is catch-up. >> adeally what's in the next day's paper is somewhere beyond what you knew the day before because it's deeper, richer, more analytical. it gets you to a slightly different place. >> but the notion of there being, quote, news in the morning paper is sort of pretty much gone. >> the only news in the morning paper is in a sense

a news feature that wasn't something that didn't happen yesterday, but the old definition news is news week, is something that you didn't know. >> the post is still committed to journalism of the sort that you and i have known all our lives. serious, deep, explanatory, investigative, accountability. that's still not gone. that's still there. >> no, that is not gone, but what has happened is we have a diminished number of readers in our circulation like everybody else, it's down. we have more we have more readers because when you put in the number of people clicking on the internet -- >> at least right now some of those are non-paying. we'll see about that. >> we'll see. but as a result of that our budgets have shrunk and our newsroom has shrunk considerably. we have had i don't know how much buyouts, four or five over the last 10 years, plus other people have left. we have to do lots of things with fewer people. so it means the luxury of

having as many people as we might have had on the investigative projects that can take months or years to bring to fruition is a little harder to justify. all of us who might have written once a day or every third day are writing all the time now. and we are on top of anything that happens particularly in the realm of politics and government, which is one of our main wheel houses. if there's something that is breaking on capitol hill or in a political campaign, we don't have just one person chasing it, we have four or five or six. >> and our position, dan, as a veteran, has been to adapt to this new world willingly or have you been dragged kicking and screaming? >> technology fascinates me. i'm not as adept as some of

my younger colleagues, but we started experimenting with the internet on the late '90's and i was always one of those people who said let's go, let's be as robust as we can. and i've done whatever experiment at the moment we thought we could do to get audiences, whether it's videos or live chats or writing pieces specifically for the internet. so i've been a willing adapter about it because i think we have to. and i think that if people of my generation weren't willing to do that, you know, then it's bad for the institution and i think that again, younger people are helping to show the way in a way that i can't because they've grown up with it. >> for them it's first generation. >> it is. but nonetheless, i applaud it and i've tried to do as much of it as i can. >> we have about a minute left. you are hopeful as you sit here about the future of journalism. there are a lot of people that talk about college campuses and the pessimism

they feel and journalism is in a terrible state of flux. do you feel good about it? >> it's in a state of flux. i feel better about it today than i did three or four years ago. i think that it's a different business, but i think that there is a greater demand for information today than there's ever been. >> yeah. >> and the question is how do you package it? and can you do it in a way that's true to the values that are taught in journalism school, that we've learned as young reporters? i think that can be done. there are a lot of places to do it. i think there are places that are doing it that are not traditional. that have cropped up. all of that to me is a hopeful sign. the economic model is still challenging, but the idea -- the idea that journalism in some way or another ie fine. >> so you feel good about it. >> yes. >> so i am okay. because this is about you, you're sure. dan, it's always great to see you and thank you for the work that you do. >> thank you. >> i hope you keep getting to do it.

>> dan balz. [ applause ] >> we'd love to have you join us in the studio. visit our website at klru.org/overheard to find invitations to interviews, q and a's with our audience and guests and an archive of past episodes. >> in the senate there's real work going on across party lines trying to find a way to create a compromise. the president was putting out a budget that for the first time puts down in writing his willingness to cut entitlement, social security, medicare. >> funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by... the mattsson mchale foundation in support of public television. also by mfi foundation, improving the quality of life within our community. and from the texas board of legal specialization, board certified attorneys in your community.

experienced, respected and tested. also by hillco partners, texas government affairs consultancy and its global health care consulting business unit, hillco health. and by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and viewers like you, thank you.

>> hello i'm llewellyn king, the host of "white house chronicle" which is coming right up. but first a few thoughts of my own. i know the exact time, the exact place, everything about when i became old. it was at an amtrak train station and i was buying a ticket. the lady looked directly at me and said you qualify for the senior discount, don't you? so i looked around to see who she was addressing these remarks to and i was the only person there. then a doctor said to me your knees aren't too bad for a man of your age. another one said we don't screen for that in a man of your age. and so it went day after day, doctor after doctor, situation after situation the dread words for a man of your age. but i want to tell you the final

ultimate insult was a dentist who said well you know you could have implants that in a man of your age is it worth it? the answer is yes, for a man of my age i have a lot to offer and i have had it with that awful phrase and with senior everything. from got a letter somebody who said she's 94 years old and she said she refuses to take the discount in the cinema lest she think that she is old. there you have it. man of your age, what a horrible phrase. i will be back with the most extraordinary interesting person who we are talking to about europe. she is one of the gifted come date or thes here in washington. you're going to love her i know. we'll be right back. >> white house chronicle produced in collaboration with whut, howard university television.

>> and now the program host llewellyn king and co-host linda asparello. >> hello again and thank you for coming along. i'd like to remind you guests we stay show and myself in washington at the american guest house. it's like a club, very comfortable. normally it's a bed and breakfast but it's nicer than that. it is a very pleasant environment. it remind me of a club i used to belong to in london where you could just set until. it has all the comforts of a familiar suit of clothes. do look it up if you're coming to washington. you'll find yourself extraordinary well taken care of. now i would like to introduce you to annette heuser who