Skip to main content

tv   Discussion Focuses on President Trump and Future of Political Parties  CSPAN  June 2, 2017 5:17pm-6:48pm EDT

5:17 pm
sunday. >> a panel of academics and political strategists including the director of the speech writing for the hillary clinton presidential campaign discusses the future of the republican and democratic parties. this is the final panel at an all-day conference on president trumps the first 100 days hosted by the university of california unread institute of politics in los angeles. >> their people with radically different views and there was a lot of respectful exchange so far. that will continue. i have one announcement, by the way, someone in the left panel said that the president had met with the entire senate to explain his strategy on north korea. i just got a little message he met for 14 minutes with the entire senate. yes, john, he met for 14 minutes. i don't know what that says about the last panel. our final panel is on the future of the party and let me introduce people briefly.
5:18 pm
on my far left and this is no indication of ideology, steve schmidt,), previously the chief strategist for 2008 john mccain in 2004 george w. bush presidential campaigns and you've all seen him commenting rather wisely and sagely throughout 2016 and beyond. christian growth, a colleague, associate professor of political science here at usc author of the award-winning book congress black and white, race and representation in washington and at home. another friend, adam mccurdy, los angeles chief of the new york times, previously the papers chief national correspondent and another friend who i'm exporting my friendship, ron was the former chief of staff to al gore and import advisor to hillary clinton in 2016. peter man called and professor of humanities, professor of history and anthropology at usc porn site and vanish wherein former director of speech writing for hillary clinton in
5:19 pm
2016, also worked with her and in the senate. i will start with a general question to weigh in on. it seems to me, ron and i were talking about this earlier that donald trump represented a hostile takeover of the republican party. you see democrats engaged in recriminations with each other about 2016 and about the future. are we seeing a collapse of the party system in this country for the way that were seen the collapse of the party system in france? let's start there if you want. >> i do. i think that for all of us in our political careers we have view politics through a ideological prism and american politics have been divided down the middle of the field with an ideological line that separates right from left and we debate
5:20 pm
politics between the 45-yard line in this country. if there's any canadians in this room you would debate between the 48-52 and we do it very hyperbolic way. if you were to listen to the campaign rhetoric, apparently the delta between a just and unjust society is the difference between the 39.6% clinton obama tax rate from the 35% push marginal tax rate. i think we started to see in the selection and you see this playing out in europe, you start with the fact that vote and the french presidential and in poland and hungary and the politics are being redefined by a horizontal line. above that line are the people who benefited from globalization, but benefited from technological revelation and below that line of the people that have been left behind. they haven't seen a real wage increase since the 1990s.
5:21 pm
we talk about on the coast the advent of this age of the driverless trucks and cars, that's three-5 million jobs and the living wage off of a non- college-educated, white male the defining event of this generation was the economic collapse in 2008, trillion dollars in bailouts to the bankers above the line, nobody goes to jail, below line 13 million people lose their homes, 13 million families lose their home, 12 million people lose their jobs and in europe you look at the transference of the vote from the far left parties to far right parties and it makes no sense when you view it through that vertical line but it makes all the sense in the world when you view it through the horizontal line. so, when we look at this direction how does a sanders motor moves to become a trump boater. we all scratch our heads from
5:22 pm
our worldview because were looking at it vertically not horizontally. what unites those voters is the belief that the system is not on the level. it's rigged completely against them. i think that the number one indicator of a switch, and obama county to a trump county is the intensity of, rate of increase in the opioid epidemic. you look at technological dislocation, you know, of jobs and the advent of artificial intelligence i think this will be the fault line that defines our politics. i think that voters essentially hate both of these parties and they think they're a plague on the country and the one they hate the most, in any given hour is the one they perceive to be in charge. i think if you see a trump versus elizabeth warren, you'll see a real legitimate independent candidacy for the presidency. i don't mean a filibuster here
5:23 pm
but the blue county should become bluer, the democrats tribally have become more urban, the republicans tribally have become more rural and i thank you have a totally disaffected suburban population in the country that hasn't spoken to by either party. >> christian. >> yes, i agree with some of that and i think that one key difference is that trump essentially is a third-party candidate who took over the republican party. right part of the fracturing going on in the republican party that is being papered over here and they are but will emerge more is that he doesn't have any base among the elites within the republican party. some of that is changing and some people are trying to decide where they want to be with him
5:24 pm
but among elected officials, they're not used to dealing with him and he doesn't have the experience. on the horizontal versus vertical, i think that's exactly right. this two professors have worked on this theory that shows that polarization left and right in congress, democrats, republicans is whiter today than it's been since the civil war, historically there have been multiple dimensions, not just one left right dimension that explain the divide. so, if you look at the republicans, one of the reasons john wasn't that good at handling his caucus when he was the speaker is because he was not, he was a little bit too high up on a second dimension of political ideology. historically, that has been raised and social issues. when we think about was voting for republican who is on the left and was voting for the democrats use panel right among the populace a lot of that is race. it's not just rural. it's rural white people.
5:25 pm
minority voters among democrats are the base of democrats. for democrats will succeed they have a of a race problem and they need to get more white people they don't need to win white people were white suburban people but they need to get a little more support among whites. republican party is the exact inverse. they need to get more support among high income, white voters who used to vote for them and they need to get a little bit better among latino and african-american voters in particular. >> i agree with a lot of what steve said but two things. first, i don't think will the direction of france. the structural obstacles are just too much in favor of having two parties. it's just really hard for an independent candidate to win. i do think racine party restructuring. i think it's a lot more in the public party than the democrat. if you think about the struggles the democrat party is going to right now are really not that surprising or different than what we've seen over the past 30 years. in this case, it's cultural
5:26 pm
verse economic or however you want to describe it. they been resolved or not result in various elections over the years and democrats have the extra incredible motivator for getting together of getting trump out of office. i wouldn't underestimate that. i think the restructuring is more as you said, tense under public insight. basically, trump has taken over their publican party. trump and i'm not been signed here it varies from week to week but i never considered trump a genuine republican. i don't think he really is. i thank you see a lot of republican leaders in congress step aside on a lot of things they believe in, not nafta being one of them. just to accommodate trump. i don't know what happened with after four or eight years when he goes away but i'm not sure the public party will stay like that. i'm not sure. the republican party has a much more difficult tax going forward. >> ron, do you think the democrats are more coherent and in better shape than the republicans?
5:27 pm
>> it is great to be here. i'm glad to be back in a place where i learned most of the things i learned about politics at bob trump's right hand. look, i agree with adam that there are structural reasons why for the foreseeable future our candidates will carry the label democrat and republican and while i do not think there will be a serious third-party threat here but what those labels mean is what is up for grabs. whether or not they mean anything at all i think it's really a paragraph. i think our political parties are like department stores. they are big, gated, aggregations of a lot of products and things and we live in an age where department stores are dying. people want to go shop for just what they want, where they want to buy it. i think our parties are busy not to. much more powerful republican
5:28 pm
parties and. [inaudible] a bunch of other really rich people, coke brothers, all these people and we have the same thing on the left. tom sawyer and george soros and other people in a specific interest groups and issue groups. i do think those are the driving forces of american politics today. those are the things that make candidates win or lose. along with their personality and all these other factors. party labels are an afterthought right now. >> peter. >> historical perspective on this. >> i'll jump in and say that on that try to jump into current day politics. i'm in a historian of early america. i'll put this in the context of frankly, the revolution. i think if you pose the question our political parties coming to an end and the answer was yes, the founders would be delighted. they were terrified of political parties. the whole debate about whether we can live in an extended
5:29 pm
republic with madison try to follow is a fear of what they called factions. it turns out that was a somewhat naïve view, parties to emerge in the 1790s but they're still so uncomfortable with the idea of parties that you see the immediate response to the alien and sedition act and the virginia and kentucky resolve. what did madison and jefferson do perspective they restated the founding peoples of the republic. when the jeppesen is elected president he restates the founding people. we are all federalists and republicans. they had a core aversion to the idea of affections. i think if we could get in that magic time machine which we all want to take our students back to and they would look at this moment they might say, maybe it's not a bad idea to come to the end of the party system. >> ben, are we all clintonites or trumpets? >> i do think -- i would say two things about the realignment.
5:30 pm
one is that if you look at the results of this last election the biggest constituency in the country is built for sort of centerleft technocratic solutions. hillary got 6 million votes. there's a big constituency for angry popular for the left or right. what we found and this is what trump exposes there's very little constituency for chamber of commerce republicanism which we used to think was the big debate for years about the size and role of government in seems to have missed what was really going on which was a lot of people who voted for republican thought i'm fine with the government if it's for me but not for the other guy. trump he set out in a way that should make us reassess some of the debate had for a long time. the other thing i would just say is that while parties do feel very weak which is why i think we saw some of that on both sides, partisanship is very strong. it's an interesting inverse relationship there. lots of republicans who didn't
5:31 pm
like donald trump voted for him anyway because they couldn't stand voting for a democrat and hillary clinton and they had in our next to his name and they came home at the end for a variety of reasons. so, even if the parties themselves as conveners and disciplinarians and whatever else role they played they are weak at institutions, peoples that their power of partisanship is a force of public life is actually quite high. >> anybody want to comment on anything that was said otherwise i will go on to a specific question about the republican party before i turn to the democrats. okay. as we prepared for this conference, the democratic shut down it seemed almost certain. president trump was demanding border force and then under pressure from republican congressional leaders he backed off that. today, the ministration announced they would fund the
5:32 pm
obamacare exchanges which is one of the big concerns for democrats. the administration back down on the health bill after the house leadership said we don't have the votes for it and you can't make us have the votes. steve, who is running the show here? who is likely to become or is trump point becoming more and more conventional republican? >> i think that we are as close as we've ever been to having a three party system in washington dc. there's a trump party, there's a republican party and there's a democratic party which is at its lowest point of political strength nationally since the 1920s. so, there is never a unified republican party at any moment after the election of trump and it's extraordinary to watch him appear before congress and see
5:33 pm
the democrats sitting on their hands when he's talking about clean air and clean water and for the republicans cheering for terrace and protectionist measures. the point that dan made is that partisanship and the danger of action that george washington's farewell address and warnings this notion of that we've become a country of warring tribes. i don't think our politics are partisan as much as their tribal. there disconnected, right there disconnected from ideology and we have an enormous competent gap. if you look at and we been dealing with since the advent of the tea party movement since 2010. democrats are dealing with it now for the first time and it is this: the characters in the jurassic park movie, meandering
5:34 pm
through the park as the democratic elected officials and they just learned the velociraptor is out of the cage and that's the voters. even if there's a demand and the democratic side we'd like a trillion dollars of interest exert there's an enormous penalty to be paid for any democratic elected official who goes down to the white house and is sitting there seen as transacting and doing business with donald trump. for the previous panel. it's not the opposition, it's the resistance. resistance means no collaboration which is, you know, not what i would argue is pernicious in a democratic society but there's an enormous competent gap. we've achieved 240 odd years in and we have across the board achieved in confidence amongst our elected class at a federal level at a state level and so
5:35 pm
the reality is on an obamacare will it be repealed, of course not. give a six figure tax cuts to millionaires sample 24 million people off entitlement they been given, once the entitlement is had its never take it back. there will be a reduction in 15% tax rates for $2020 in debt and you'll spend $60 billion on the public relations trump wall. none of this stuff will happen. by orders of magnitude there is a greater likelihood that absolutely nothing gets done then anything gets done. is donald trump going to become more normal? no. he's donald trump. this isn't day 98 of the administration, it's episode 90. last friday, i was in canada, there was maybe some canadian government officials and i said episode 98. the dairy war. i didn't know you were the north korea of milk but what donald
5:36 pm
trump is doing is he'll bend toward the applause. his northstar is being popular. it's been successful. will he modulate his behavior towards what he's perceives to be the applause, right death his incentive is to do things that are popular and we talked about the bannon and the globalists versus the conservatives. the globalists, we got on a plane on lax, which we've done before and fly to abu dhabi and landed 16 hours. it's not that steve bannon has a point of view that you would disagree on a spectrum of conservative liberal, i'm not a liberal but intellectually i understand the point of view and i understand where that philosophy is coming from. the steve bannon's of the world are crackpots. what trump is learned in the first 100 days is that when i listen to the crackpots it's the equivalent of giving the car keys to juniors who then takes the buick and drive it into the wall at 15 miles an hour. when i listen to people who are
5:37 pm
steeped in reality, whether henry mcmaster, james mattis, a couple of these others then from an incentive basis, people give him a cookie and say good job on the news. the intensity starts wearing off and that's how i think you'll see trump comport himself over the next four years. >> i think steve asked a race of something that gives us a good question. ron, service you. do you agree that nothing major that requires legislation is likely to get done and what we'll see in terms of changes and it'll be done by unilateral power to do it? >> well, i hope so. i'm less confident in my system than steve is. i think that ronald reagan got a lot of votes for tax cuts and tax cuts are popular. if trump really put forward the infrastructure plan that he sometimes talks about on odd-numbered days he would get
5:38 pm
democratic votes. but that's not the place he put forward in the campaign and not the plane his economic advisers want and he wanted to really invest in buildings that our water system in flint michigan people would vote for that. i think it's hard to know which of these donald trump are going to emerge from this process and where he winds up and where the cookies are in was giving him the cookies and which cookies really matter. some cookies may be chocolate chip and some may be asparagus cookies. the point is it's hard to know where he's going to navigate this turf. we do know is that and i disagree with steve a little bit on this. i'll pick up what adam said. trump is in the process of remaking the republican party in his image. the party is going to become more trump -ish. steve, as a good man he'll hold
5:39 pm
out to the middle and here but if you look at polls, for example, republicans have changed their mind on trade. this used to be age appropriate party and it is now an anti- trade party. donald trump told republicans you know what traders, it's doing trade with foreigners and you people hate foreigners so you should hate trade. his party is starting to get that message. he's moved his party on russia. republicans used to be vehemently opposed russia and out even rank-and-file republicans have a better relationship with russia. with real question here is does the traditional republic party survive trump or does trump provides the public a party over the next four years. >> adam, i'll try it on you. is the republican party now the party of trump and, by the way, if it is, does it have to meet the rising democratic challenges of the new electorate that will over time proved decisive and presidential campaigns? >> i'm not sure how it becomes
5:40 pm
the party of trump. he'll be here for years, eight years stop. i don't think a lot of the people who were part of the party until now are very supportive of trump i'm not sure the people that trump brought into the party to the selection are going to necessarily stick around. as i said before, it's going 3d crisis and discover events where it is. will the traditional republicans base, constitute come back for sure it doesn't matter anymore? i'm not sure. i don't think it's the party of trump. i don't think we'll be talking about anyway eight years. >> it's the party of trump in that sense that the president when there's unified government is identified by voters as the leader of the party. one thing to me that's really interesting about trump is his low approval rating, that's one of the cookies that it's not
5:41 pm
doing so well other than amongst his supporters and republicans. usually you get a democrat who is a president replaced by republican and you have a flurry of legislative activity if the congress is controlled by your party that's the honeymoon. we don't have that right now. even though there is a republican-controlled congress and republican in the white house and i think part of that is due to the lack of experience that trump has but also part is this big divide in the party where the leaders of congress they want tax cuts, they want standard republican policy but they have to fit in all these other issues that trump is going for and in some ways it is the party of trump at least for the next couple of years and certainly into 2018 midterm election. we don't really. >> we don't really have a consensus on the future party in its upper grabs, in one way or the other.
5:42 pm
peter, how do they remake themselves. >> some of this is not a surprise if you look at historically. you'd have to say the party of trump is not the party of lincoln. there's been some radical changes since the party four. the interesting sort of moment that we are in is for in this time of deep partisanship, of tribal politics i think that's a good way of raising this where people just sort of identify and some deep level with one of these party labels and it seems that were sold stock in this binary where we walk into an election booth are, d and the change agent here some people will say our indy don't work and this will evolve, hijack the republican party and he'll take it back. but the long-term that it's logically what would happen it's not that shocking.
5:43 pm
>> i think that the democratic party is the oldest political party in the world and the republican party is the third. i do agree that structural of the third-party and that's different than an independent candidacy for the presidency that very, very quickly, i think depending on who the democratic nominee the party of lincoln and the republican party founded in 1854 by 1858 the majority party in the north and west of the countries in the day that lyndon johnson signed the civil rights act there was reelected republicans south of the mason dixon line. today, it's unmistakably the
5:44 pm
country's southern party and the party are have never been but are today ideologically regionally homogenous. you had liberal republicans in the northeast, ronald reagan used tax reform as a conservative democrat from texas named phil gramm and all of that as out. i do think that when you think about the parties anything about it. tribal lands contempt is a reciprocal emotion. i don't know if those republican voters, right, like trump so much but they said sure as hell hate the people who explain trump's election by attacking his voters and calling them racists and homophobes and misogynists and every other label you can under the book. i will say this, the democrats as a strategic issue, have an
5:45 pm
enormous elitism problem. they have a coastal elitism problem. you go to silicon valley, you couldn't find people more out of touch with the lives of average americans than if they lived on the moon based on jupiter that newt gingrich built in 1996. i'm kidding. i digress. but that's a fact. the truth of it is, right i live in utah and i spent a lot of time in manhattan and a lot of time in the bay area in los angeles. people at the dinner parties, people and the conversations, deplorable is exactly how they feel about these people who do the dirty jobs. right to strike don't have the fancy college degree. ronald reagan, in 1980, when he iran against jimmy carter didn't
5:46 pm
attack the carter voter he created a permissive environment where to cross back over without repudiating their last 12. he asked a simple question. are you better off than you were four years ago? the cultural condescension is like a magnet under the compass. it's skewing the readings. the division in the country along that access has a lot to do with the division in washington dc that is not being driven by ideological differences on policy and i think it's a huge component of what's happening in the country. >> i would think that the content goes both ways. east coast elites, west coast elites don't realize that. around the country you realize -- >> who has the power customer. >> right now? not here, mitch mcconnell.
5:47 pm
>> i get your point and i agree with you. >> who has the power not politically in the elected officials? which group, youngstown, ohio or is it silicone valley. is it new york city, right? or is it someplace in huntington, west virginia. you have a third of the country. >> you think silicon valley has the power. i don't it has a more. >> i don't think their power, they had economic power. you have a third of this country that has falling life expectancy, rising import mentality and the people at the top third of the country are living longer, living better, living more prosperous lead than any human being has ever lived in the history of the world and the geographical power centers of those people, silicon valley, down the coast, that blue tinged on both coasts, both sides of the country the disdain with which they project, whether it's
5:48 pm
the saturday night live skit that shows the trump voters whether it's a cultural reflecting phenomenon, the notion that there is not a disdain in a contempt protected from those people that we talk about that are above the line. >> weight -- >> it's just wrong. >> i'm not saying there's none of that. there is some of that and it shouldn't exist. but i'm also saying there's a hell of a lot of contempt that goes back. >> when he called mexicans rapists and murderers that's contempt. he runs a candidacy that's based on bill and 19 immigrants, that's contempt. when he goes around the country and says the kinds of things he said, he is a string contempt two. ai agree that we need to get ths
5:49 pm
contempt down on both sides and find solutions. the contempt goes both ways. i absolutely agree with adam on that. donald trump as president of the united states because he stirred a lot of anger and a lot of contempt for a lot of changes that have happened in our country that voters find, some of which are economic and that horizontal line and some of it is a social and cultural. trump stirred that part in a way that no prominent national figure had and, by the way, the only other metaphor we have for this is what pete wilson tried to do in the state a long time ago which ultimately, you know, he paid a huge price for. i hope the same thing happened to tr trump. >> you're missing my point. i agree with you that those are all the things prompted. i would put that into just a plain, old-fashioned, nativist race dating that existed in this
5:50 pm
country going back to the know nothing movement. what i am talking about is something different. it is a cultural condescension from the people that are doing well culturally, right? not any candidate level to the people that are anonymous. that are hidden. that they are not seen. they lost their homes in the foreclosure crisis that lost their jobs, right? that lost their capacity to be in the middle class of the country. i think there's a cultural scorn and i don't necessarily attach partisanship to it. though, i think the silicon valley is a democratic in its political orientation, right perspective this contempt that i am talking about any cultural level i really think played a big role in the selection with those hundred thousand voters
5:51 pm
across those three states, my personal view is that joe biden had been the nominee of the democratic party he would have one pretty comfortably. he understands how to talk to that community right to represent of respect. just to be clear, i'm not good to be on any white house christmas card list. i've been pretty direct in my discussed with the manner in which they iran the campaign. it's not that there's contempt. it goes the other way and it's what he did is something else. it's a different thing. >> i want to move on a little bit. i want to ask a question. i do want to make a footnote, if i can, that if you listen which most of the people in this room don't to a lot of cable outlets especially in the religious right there is a huge contempt
5:52 pm
for people in new york, los angeles, san francisco, what the causality is and how it started, was most guilty, i'm not sure but there is a lot of mutual contempt i think. then this whole discussion leads me -- you make your first and then i have a question. >> i just wanted to say two things. one, on that deplorable. >> i wasn't going to mention it because i thought it would be dangerous. >> it's clearly bad a strategy to insult the voters. although, donald trump did win by insulting lots of voters. i don't think anyone would say go out there and insult voters, however, the best way not to be called a racist is not to be a racist. that would be a step in the right direction if people so offended by called out on their deplorable views. it's clearly bad politics and it happens to be true and it may be worth saying. the second point related is often i whitewash the whole
5:53 pm
debate when we talk about the divide between the working-class and the elites, there are rich people in both parties. it is true that in this election the divide between those people that had a college degree and those who didn't was a stark and significant. the clinton voters were, on average, lower income than trump voters. two thirds of the minimum-wage workers are women and last of the working-class are people of color, they work in service jobs, they don't wear hard hats and work on factory floors but in our political debates it's like we are stuck in some 1950s picture of the working class where it's all good union jobs that will be shipped overseas. the country doesn't look like that anymore and our politics hasn't caught up. there are people like that and many of them were trump voters but when we talk about the rich
5:54 pm
people voting for the elites, voting for the democrats and this hardscrabble invisible, working-class people voting for trump we whitewash out lots and lots and lots of working-class people who are voted for hillary. >> i want to jump off that to the future of the democratic party. we've been talking a lot about the republicans and -- it is true that the working-class or the working-class voters or blue-collar voters, whatever you want to call them, are much more diverse than the stereotype. it's also true, if you look at the election results, in places like macomb county, with michigan, there were critical blocks of apparently white, blue-collar voters who voted twice for barack obama and it was something that was caught in the unc poll that switched to
5:55 pm
donald trump. there's now a dispute about how democrats should react to this. do they need to make a renewed effort to reach out to these blue-collar voters, can they? or is the challenge simply as a lot of people are suggesting now simply to motivate the base and make sure it turned out? >> it's a bit of a false choice that we've seen posen's election in the democratic party between either we have to have an economic message that appeals to working-class people or we need to have a cultural message that appeals to liberals and people of color. i think that's a false choice because a good economic message should appeal to everyone and i don't know any democrats who -- it would be a disaster to back off of the parties commitments on social justice and i can't believe that is a serious -- >> so economic -- >> i think they go together. my personal view is that in an election where we are seeing
5:56 pm
this realignment where the georgia special reinforce like orange county here who went for clinton for the first time democrats one in orange county since fdr and we are seeing realignment. there are more than enough house district that hillary one in sunbelt states in places like that where the democrats could retake the house. you should try to compete everywhere, you should go for those obama voters went to trump but the future of the party, i think, given trends is more fruitful ground to continue to go after an increasingly diverse better educated electorate in sunbelt states when texas and arizona were closer than iowa, it seems like that's where you should be investing, the georgia special is a good example of that. it's 20 points from the last congressional -- you should compete everywhere, try for all
5:57 pm
those people, find a method that appeals to everyone and i don't think we should be backing off of our core of social justice commitment and i do think the hunt for the docs are there are a lot of docs in the suburbs and this is pointed out who's looking for a non- crazy person whose offer some solutions and democrats can do that. they just can't lose quite so many of the other people. i'm intrigued by tha. >> i'm intrigued by that because when you think about these folks voted for barack obama twice when he was conspicuously for social justice. when in 2012, he came out for marriage equality. are you saying were less likely to get them back then we are to get new voters in arizona, georgia, texas? >> i think we underestimate sometimes that there are two candidates in every race and
5:58 pm
that mitt romney, not appealing to those people may have been a significant about how much obama did appear to them and it was a race about economics on both sides, labor versus capital, progressive economics first and race and not race where is this one was. people came into with a different framework -- researchers talk about rasul priming as a way of it's not as if you are racial consciousness and your identity is static, it does change over time and when trump runs a race baiting campaign for two years then there are voters who are susceptible to that that might not have been earlier but basically, yes, i am saying you should go after those voters but there's a more fruitful ground in these fast-growing suburban places where there's every reason to believe they been moving toward democrats for a while and that's not true in these shrinking states where you might win the back in the next
5:59 pm
election and you might not but if people voted for trump -- voters you won't get back anytime soon. are voters who went for him not in spite of his offenses views and comments but because of them. there are some of those. there are a lot of them. those ones we will not win back. if you liked what you heard about immigrant bashing or race baiting, the democrats will win them and i'm not sure they should try. >> peter, can you put in historical context how parties adapt to what are the constantly changing demographics of the american journey? >> i feel like i need to write a dissertation about that. >> we don't have time. >> think god. i'm going to twist your question slightly and i hope i get to the same point in the end. though i'm in the story and i've spent i've learned at -- i remember being in this room a couple years ago and hearing a thing that i really thought about ever sense.
6:00 pm
it's that voters respond to the candidates think are authentic they may disagree with a lot of the policies and it may be hard with the current president to figure out the policies from day-to-day but there are voters who believe that he doesn't seem to hide anything and comes off as authentic. i don't mean that this was likely to his opponent but there is something to be said for that. i used to live in kansas, right? what is the matter with kansas i'm happy that i moved away, with all due respect to kansas but kansas was a place where you could look at the election results and was constantly people seem to vote against their own economic interests. time and time. it's more recently they came here to california. they do that for voting for people or issues that are somehow core to them and they find ways to sort of, move in a
6:01 pm
direction. that's ultimately sort of how parties, how society moves. they what steve was talking about the yukon valley before it's really been on my mind does trump win without silicon valley perspective does trump win without the brainpower that created twitter christmas that created the entire way we talk to each other now and found a way around the mainstream media, i hate that phrase but whatever. there is the sense that politicians and parties adapt to new technologies to try to reach out to the core. we try to get a sense of authenticity with people respond to. >> there's one man that has named name has not been mentioned he may be the most popular democrat in the democratic party with the possible possibility of joe biden and barack obama who are busy can't run again. that someone who refuses to say he's a democrat, bernie sanders.
6:02 pm
>> >> it was is ignorance we saw evidence but mostly people did not know for whatever reason that they live day different life but it is important for them to understand the pain that is going on. and that other stuff is almost irrelevant.
6:03 pm
ended to understand what was going on and the democrats need to do that and they note -- need to show them that. >> if you look at the election results?. >> i am not as into bernie sanders he just ran against hillary clinton a lot of people did not like her. i think a liberal socialist from vermont is not the future of the democratic party is steadily the future of the technocratic party by moving too far to the left making young voters are very excited about bernie sanders or another candidate is more palatable without having the names soc -- socialist attached.
6:04 pm
but i live in los angeles trump got 11 percent of the vote the two candidates advanced to the runoff and they're both democrats either one were bernie sanders people it was like the mainstream hillary democrat. said talk about mainstream issues and the states of the economy in general so trumbull probably win policy goes off the wall but with the economy. [laughter] >> one thing to understand the republican party is where is that bonding agent? so what bettis is grievance
6:05 pm
so some of those grievances are legitimate in parts of the country so with that analogy by us demigod for candidate but just to disagree one of my favorite moments is usually on the morning shows is when one of the anchors go on safari to youngstown ohio to report on the primitive people from ohio or whenever the swing district may be to be far outside of new york. with that level of out of
6:06 pm
touch to exist in the country in the people below the line and above the line and most importantly what animates politics will live in the era where trust is collapsed for the u.s. military. and then the systems are constrained par university study says 80 percent of people in the 1930's live in a democracy that number is 25% for 1980. and it was lower for people born in the 1990's. so were their racist to voted for donald trump? but did donald trump win because
6:07 pm
all of the sudden people of the races majority in the country? of course not. by definition not if you voted for broccoli, lettuce which - - voted for barack obamacare then switch to donald trump. but then in the county of michigan so talk about the black lives matter movement to take off culturally mainstream there is always new terminology that comes out of the election cycle. but what about the coal miner of huntington west virginia? so where the
6:08 pm
middle-class american dream has gone. they would not be as well-off says they are. talk about immigration is in direct that they like mexicans but with those pope is groups that there is protected class is of people that keep cutting in line in front of them. so what drove the trump candidacy despite the ugliness was in the optimistic candidacy. and with those clinical drug trials you have to believe
6:09 pm
it will work you have to have hope so when you go to these places that they had to believe it. so at a time where trust is collapsed with never a candidate in the history of country that we ever considered making president richard nixon is the only analogous or as famous as hillary clinton but when you look at this we talk about the actors and collapse of trust and the cultural chasm these are all profound factors that weigh in on this.
6:10 pm
so those ideologies that are increasingly empty vessels. >> m1 to get to the consequences. >> i agree democrats have to do a better job of communicating care and compassion. donald trump does not care about them and a lot of these voters are black voters one of those is flint michigan now predominantly african-american. now democrats have been there and donald trump has not to. if you ask why some of these areas it is not about racism they voted for obama event trump part of that is due to
6:11 pm
the great credit of john mccain to not stoke the fires and then to take the microphone away from though woman who said barack obama was really american. sole leadership matters. donald trump lead in one direction and consequence there is is a combination to stay faithful with the social justice issues and doing a better job to articulate these views and to call out the fact donald trump will not deliver with these voters to put enough trust in to him, he will not bring back their jobs or
6:12 pm
enact tax policies so that is a step number one to bring them back. >> i want to talk about the next up. zero democrats are at the disadvantage republicans have nine seats and with gerrymandering but given that the democratic base now seems to be so energized could that mid term pattern of democrats don't show up in the midterms are these people who are marching show up in 2018 and is it conceivable the democrats could take back that house?. >> i think so. there are enough with just enough districts that hillary one to swing the house.
6:13 pm
we have seen specials in kansas and georgia with a 20.swing in both districts toward democrats if that could be sustained is another question but you are right in the last several midterms they have had problems with churn out but you don't have to go that far the the blast and there was a mid term with a republican president they did well. if current trends continue there is reason to believe it would be a good day for democrats. i think they should make strong gains. >> the other part, i agree is that we don't know where these voters will be 2018. right now we see these 100 day reports but if we are two years in and the economy goes down health care, tax
6:14 pm
reform has not happened, we are at war with canada. [laughter] i'm not saying they will vote for democrats but they may not come out. so if it is really possible for them to take back the house the idea to take back the senate is not totally impossible. >> one day we have not talked about is there is a natural surge so the democrats should be better. so when 2006 there is a scandal 2002 republicans did find in our 1974 so if the
6:15 pm
democrats are focused on the of corruption aspect whether it is perceived not real going into the midterm elections then they are likely to do better. >> something has happened to our politics where we accept the idea people will walk into a voting booth and assuming it is that the national level. we talk about politics being local but to americans go to the voting booth or their name is not on the ballot were they voted against him? is that fielding very strong candidates?. >> but can democrats win without that strong local candidates? because people
6:16 pm
will not just say i hate tromp they will stay home if there is nobody to vote for. >> i think democrats will win the house in 2018. there has been only three times in the last 118 years the incumbent president picked up seats in the first in the interim election so history tells us the democrats will pick up seats. i think trump has energized the of party, they are united casting that oppositional vote and republicans will be disaffected because obamacare and all of that domestic agenda none of those will happen but this gorgeous election is significant and similar to
6:17 pm
1993 with those first mid term efforts with of mississippi river in kentucky that never voted for a republican candidate in the history of the country and both voted for republicans since i you have mitt romney winning this district 66% donald trump barely one at 49 percent with more than enough districts that with hillary clinton could drop in reverse so with a personal point of view you don't want to see either one of these parties take control of government and there will be a reset toward that's. >> but i do have a question
6:18 pm
about the republican party. president trump according to sanford has threatened day primary with members of congress if they do not go along with that so well that never really happen? we'll trompe really do this?. >> tavis struck when you said president trump. [laughter] if you threaten somebody you'd better deliver on the threat to. so typically in politics he is not the first governor north right and if you don't do what i say. for almost every instance they failed to deliver on the threat. very famously on the
6:19 pm
obamacare revealed -- repeal vote they threaten to quit the eisenhower executive office building and it just isn't how politics works. so elected politicians is the distinct species from the rest of us -- with listings for survival they relate to donald trump bought the 42 percent approval different mating and they will relate to him at 32 percent approval. so his trading range will between 35 and 42% and may go as low as 32 or 31 but remember donald trump won by
6:20 pm
100,000 votes across three streets -- states and lost the popular vote but it worked to be reelected requires the democratic party to nominate fundamentally the unelectable candidate so again between to historically and popular candidates and then in the two-person race one of those candidates will win. >> so this is my other question, we talk about the democratic party message of social justice but people say it lacks a messenger in in 2020. who should the party look to?. >> assuming that hillary clinton does not run. >> that is probably a good
6:21 pm
assumption of how they preferred candidate but i do feel having watched the last two democratic primaries that no one will be nominated to cannot appeal to voters of color especially in the south that is why obama beat clinton and clinton beat sanders it to anybody thinks there is a different coalition we have not seen that. so does that help cory booker? i don't know it doesn't mean the candidate has to be a person of color but nobody will bin the democratic nomination by saying we should talk more to white men and less to women and people of color. >> we will not compel you to
6:22 pm
come up with someone. >> but i do think the party needs somebody to master the media of that moment who is? , willing to go toe to toe and authentic burger you could be the smartest person in the room and lose for you could analyze a lot of votes but really they need somebody who will reach out to voters that will be somebody who'd masters of media of the moment frankly that is a problem since the start. >> i will not give a name because i think the leadership struggle of the denver credit party has been
6:23 pm
centered around to questions have a response to the financial collapse and how did you vote with the of four in iraq? i do not think in 2020 those two very backward looking dividing lines is what decides to the party dominates the more food is the boards defective responding to a trump but if you look at the field today and say why are they are round? how anti-wall street or iraq war were they? that has been a test of leadership until now and a dividing line and i think those will change. >> but if you see that interesting election the bar
6:24 pm
has been or to the democratic candidate could be the democrats are freaked out about trump people think he is beatable so we will have a lot of democrats in the race who might not have been normally because they were not ready or fatah of -- thoughts of but there are younger people from a normal year may not have been considered experienced enough but now i think that is a new era. >> the general election in the democrat who is breeding and confident or competent to win the primary in california african americans support females so that is probably enough i think it
6:25 pm
is a lot like 2008 getting that nomination as a lot assuming the economy is going gangbusters if it is he could win but look to the midwest and the state's that's right think the democrats will come through. >> i think true presidential politics the next president will always have those oppositional virtues their character virtues so i am not sure food that is for the democratic party other than sitting on the set of morning joe to challenge nancy policy he is very nice and articulate i city were
6:26 pm
awfully young looking to be the leader of the democratic party and he started laughing for girl --. so if you looked at the obama years so you have old people so the nominee is more likely than not and may not be particularly ready and there are people that were talking before the marine combat veteran i dunno how he says shaking hands but if you king gets
6:27 pm
up on that stage and can perform that triggers fund-raising and none of those traditional entry points like overnight it and i want or the endorsement is a disruptive process for more than machine politics. >> so uber and not the taxicab. >> we have some questions in the back. >> the point about contempt
6:28 pm
brought to an interesting perception to my attention that you beat is shorthand for democrat for the working-class white voters they seem to equate the to which i suspect many that our visible in silicon valley -- silicon valley but the elites less visible support policies back to leverage their interest economic and otherwise so i am wondering to what extent any of you think that the inflation is why they seem to be against some of their interest. >> i don't think it is just
6:29 pm
democrats. with those new york values whenever that was supposed to mean and i do think there is some contempt that has been dieback but i do think that overall though whole thing about the obama voters voting for trump is a weak piece of analysis that there are counties that went for obama that went for trump essentially those are voters but predominantly white counties in pennsylvania and michigan and wisconsin is a ton of people who did not vote showed up to vote in
6:30 pm
2016 so you'll have incredibly high levels of turnout among whites or working-class so to me that democratic strategy is not around elevating bear in the store building more hate but that is more reaching the voters to persuade them is not delivering for them and that it is incumbent upon us what we could do for them to create that economic growth. >> one of the strings -- strength is that it did not throw out people voting in 2012 or 2014 so lot of those people would come to vote for traub.
6:31 pm
any other question?. >> what about the potential of a centrist candidate? is it possible they could run in ohio to capture those voters that secretary clinton clearly lost? were to be an anti-tromp as she wants to even if she does a run for president but that is a risk of losing that seats to play to the middle a little bit so to what extent do those candidates have to be more centrist
6:32 pm
based on the left as much as possible?. >> i have been shocked by how a relatively moderate to conservative democrats have voted against drug in the house and the at -- president from so far he only got three democratic votes including where the most vulnerable democrats for the most modern parts of the country so so far with the approval rating is low is it is with him to be as provocative and divisive as he has been not making an effort i think democrats can oppose them with impunity and they don't feel any push
6:33 pm
back against that even in these close the divided states. >> so the debate of what actually happened if it is about populism then senator brown can be a populist just because it is a read stated it is a populist read state if you think that is a misreading of those who were popular in ohio like john kasich were the results of the senate race in wisconsin how well republicans have won their command then maybe you would say you do need to worry but that is one of the
6:34 pm
questions that the democrats are wrestling with so the answer is to go more left but that is an open question >> the panel may not agree with the premise but could you argue the possibility the west still has a cultural roadblock against electing a woman?. >> the moderator will just say it is tougher and science will say that's. >> there is an author who looked at support for trump of clinton compared to 2008
6:35 pm
verses' mccain and those attitudes of traditional roles so there is a little bit going on there without racial resentment with all the things we have talked about. >> bb people would disagree that there is a barrier for a woman. >> i obviously agree but the one wrinkle is because hillary is the only datapoint we have she brought her own weaknesses our limitations had nothing to do with being a woman battle will set of challenges that did so it is hard with alito one example. one strength with her unique
6:36 pm
ability was national security her exit polls that the voters care about terrorism but lost a foreign policy so those other women running who were not secretary of state or armed services committee do not have the reputation as the iron lady day will see that particular barrier comeback with a vengeance like harris or elizabeth warren or others you will see a whole host of problems on the national security front because of their gender. >> i have a question on the super delegates have
6:37 pm
deerfield or what is of value?. >> i hear that word even from 20 years ago. [laughter] what is the democratic strategist feelings of the value?. >> there never meant to become a poison pill or to overturn the results and if they had the democratic party would have exploded. >> but the republicans had the superdelegates. >> someone mentioned on the panel but don't you think
6:38 pm
the two-party system has offered stability to this country? so moving forward it is hard to see that in my lifetime that it will be dismantled or molded into something else so can you comment on the benefit over this tremendous long period of time?. >> if you want to run that either way you did say the civil war in 1860 that is relative to the two-party system or is there an understanding that pulls together stability? i would
6:39 pm
argue is that and not the two-party system that we have now is terrible to predict in the future battle think that accounts for our stability. >> watching marco rubio do the morning shows what is that possibility of the primary?. >> not by marco rubio because of that risk reward calculus and john kasich seems to be intimating if there is a potential independent candidacy there
6:40 pm
but i think it is primary it is the object weakness ioc any scenarios where this turns out well to say he turned out to be such a great president. i think there is a tremendous chance of a lot of bad things. >> we have one other thing to do it has been a wonderful panel but i want to introduce a few closing remarks the remarkable dean of usc without whom this conference would not have happened and who has given
6:41 pm
such support to political politics, political science science, eddy f. college of arts and sciences. [applause] >> on behalf of usc things to all of these participants as well as the political science department and also a special takes to the director. so stay with a for the next two hours for my closing remarks. [laughter] i suspect a lot of things we don't agree but what we do is the challenges we face today are complex with a more divided nation today's commerce ages have the breath of fresh air to talk
6:42 pm
about the state because the basic creativity and technique this seems to be missing from so much of the debate it is heartening to watch from inside and outside with the wide range of perspectives for what we talked about today. with professors from the politics that kind of the engagement the broader goal and specifically as the new dean is to find creative ways to connect the idea is within the academy to be in a two-way dialogue to expand conversations like those today such as sustainability
6:43 pm
and the environment with global economic disparity. these fundamental questions to sustain community and the planet have a choice but to figure out a multilateral bipartisan approach. research universities are uniquely conducive to the questions we're preparing the next generation of leaders also to engage with our communities to be more relevant facts do matter and so the science. what we saw this morning shows we're not working from a common set of facts and universities need to step
6:44 pm
up. my ambition is to become a national hub for those intent on generating fact based information for the world's most challenging problems academics, operatives journalist in this room can do it i believe if we get a right universities can be some of the most convenient spaces for the most complex problems and serve as brokers to help reestablish to find common ground. conversation based on fact and respect with the breakdown of civility that pervaded the american media so as a nation with a long
6:45 pm
history of coming together to rely on a process that values to quotations come to mind with the political climate still had discourse dwight d. eisenhower said this world must avoid becoming hate with the confederation of mutual trust and a democratic president roosevelt said that democracy cannot succeed unless they are prepared to choose wisely. i hope so and i hope you will continue to join this today's conference was part of our series these public
6:46 pm
forums focus on issues such as millenials voters and climate change we've taken our a longtime supporter with this upcoming series so please stay tune for this yvette's and there are more coming soon. [applause] is backed by shares said the colleges of arts and sciences but i didn't in a do want to thank her because of our her hollywood on be here or able to do this also the institute and the political science department and my colleagues who have worked so hard on this the panel, of my friends that i
6:47 pm
imposed on even those i imposed if i did not know them that well in those who would kick this off thanks. as an audience you have been terrific. [applause] [inaudible conversations]


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on