Transcripts For CSPAN2 Steven Levitsky And Daniel Ziblatt How Democracies Die 20180211

Please check out more programming and looking about their event series and visit us online at harvard. Com. The communities that show philosophy and disciplines to enhance and improve civic life for the people of massachusetts. Tonights talk talk will conclude the time for your questions this is being recorded by cspan and q a questions will be recorded. There will be a book citing following here on stage off to my right the line will extend into the hallway and onto the stage. Books can be purchased outside thank you for making purchases from harvard books or to help support the independent bookstore. Please silage her cell phone. I am pleased to introduce tonight speakers, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt professors at harvard the author of competitive interior and temporary. And Daniel Ziblatt is the author of the author of democracy. In the recent New York Times review how democracies die it shows how democracies have collapsed elsewhere not just through a violent coup but through a gradual slide and praises how democracies die is a guide to what can happen here. Please join me to welcome Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Caller [applause] hello everyone. It is wonderful to be here to see such a big crowd also to Harvard Bookstore in the Cambridge Public Library we can think of a more appropriate place to discuss the state of our democracy that the harvard public library. [applause] so we will tagteam tonight so what we will do is talk about the motivation behind her book and some of the things we learned while working on the book. So i want to begin first by talking about the motivation of the project. We both teach in the Harvard Government Department over 15 years and studied democracy and other parts of the world this is what we spend our careers doing. But we are motivated to write the book because we watched the 2016 president ial election first with a sense of uneasiness and growing disbelief and eventually shock at the tender of debate since he has spent our careers studying democracies in crisis in europe in the 19th and 20th century like latin america there was another layer of trepidation so at first it was small we saw during the president ial election a nominee rail against the media. Accusing his political rivals of being a criminal threatening to lock up his formal rival and condoning violence so many people thought these were just words but we were increasingly nervous because these four things that help happen to the president ial election criticizing rivals these were hallmarks of authoritarian countries and no major Party Candidate in the United States had ever behaved this way. But many candidates we recognize that eventually became authoritarian so we both had this uncanny feeling so to draw upon the knowledge of other countries and experiences to confront a crisis and other places they have confronted these crisis to draw lessons from these experiences to understand our own countrys predicament. So while working on the book we came to some conclusions that differ of the trump presidency. We realize the problems facing us today is not just donald trump alone or his outrageous comments but something to focus on the most outrageous tweet or political gossip that we realized this is a distraction keep your eye on the ball we realized he was not just the cause of the system but a symptom of deeper underlying problems in the political system we realized in short so that tonight what we will talk about is the discoveries we have made in the process of writing the book to lead to the conclusion and then i will first start by the first discovery so discovery number one. The best way to stop authoritarian is to prevent them from coming to power in the first place. What does this mean in the context of United States Pay Attention not just why donald trump was elective at how he became a nominee in the first place so i will elaborate. Three quarters of democratic breakdowns around the world happen at the hands in the form of a military coup. Since the collapse of communism the world has changed most democratic breakdowns breakdown at the ballot box than once in power they inflict serious damage so a great paradox facing democracy today is how does a democracy prevent that autograph dash bring those institutions into power in the first place . Throughout American History we have happily avoided this but not because there were no demagogues or voters may support them in fact we clearly have a tendency to whitewash her own history and forget the continuous strand of American History that has around 30 approval so it runs from henry ford to the Ford Motor Company who considered running for president in the 20s and huey long in the 30s, joe mccarthy, George Wallace in the 60s, gallup polls even going back to the 30s that each figure consistently had Approval Ratings in Public Opinions this is a number that runs with 35 approval for president so i dont think it is too much to say that there is a latent strand of authoritarianism the United States is not unique but here is the point and these ever rated close to the presidency. So how and what changed in 2016 . So to lay this out more schematically what change . First the way we pick our president. For the first three quarters of the 20th century president ial candidates were selected by Party Leaders with the system of what political scientist would call. Review they were close with that candidates and get together and select a few these were politicians who would get together who were criticized as a smokefilled back rooms but they had a say in picking candidates so voters were irrelevant because Party Leaders would pick them and of course voters matter in the general election but Party Leaders pick the candidates now the system certainly had a downside. It was exclusive, not very democratic generated mediocre candidates like harding is a candidate who emerged but also advantages and is it manages one is that it worked perfectly to keep the extremist from ever becoming a viable candidate. There was a screening and filtration system gatekeeping to keep those demagogues away. So we all know the american political system changes to radically 1968 and so how we selected our candidates the system was opened up smokefilled rooms were opened up voters can now select their candidates the general election was preceded by the nearly continuous primary season that we all know or voters had a say in picking candidates with there were two political scientist in the early 70s said the fall of this system can open the door to demagogues. To be clear we dont advocate going back to that system but at the same time we have to recognize it is more open so for demagogue governments for office the nomination is much more clear. And also with the system of superdelegates were elected officials held extra sway in the selection of candidates creating a more complicated Obstacle Course republicans never adopted the system so the door was much more open. So for demagogue ever decided to run for president in the Republican Party a much more open road to gain the nomination. This is exactly what happened in 2016. Donald trump the modernday demagogue became the nominee. So the second factor that prevents someone in shapes if those authoritarian tendencies can reach the power but this second factor is that we emphasize more and is more crucial that donald trump won the nomination but it did not mean he would become president the second point we emphasize it was absolutely imperative for the Republican Party allies of donald trump because here is the central pivot authoritarians come to power not just through elections but also with the establish part one party so throughout history repeats itself. In the 20s germany and in venezuela when a demagogue comes along to clearly violate democratic norms one of the last offspring that determines with establishment politicians if they break with the demagogues and the autocrats to say beyond this we will not go or do they advocate and overlook the violation with their commitment to the democratic norms allowing their ideological allies in the making of power . The making of the authoritarian because when they come to power it is always because mainstream politicians had a mean miscalculation actually this is not unique it happens remarkably often venezuela 1990s and be given a big boost from a long time mainstream picture of politics who freda chavez from jail gave him a boost of legitimacy and he was hoping to tap into the Energy Around chavez he was an older politician and within several years chavez was president. One even better example of italy in the 20s is a complete outcast in the mainstream along with prominent politicians he left mussolini on the horizon and then passed some of that energy and within a years lady was prime minister. And germany a similar story unfold the leader of the conservative party ahead of the elitist aristocratic party aligns himself in the late 20s issuing joint Party Programs holding rallies together to draw on those grassroots appeal sure of the Elitist Party but the conservatives disintegrated hitler grew in prominence and then gained power and would be chancellor assuring his allies dont worry within two months well have them into a corner. In every instance the mainstream or establishment politicians advocate failing in their gatekeeping function in the mainstream politician makes the same mistake thinking they can contain the outsider but in every instance that backfires so the same thing happened in 2016 the leading republican even after trump won the nomination they could have crossed party lines and endorsed tillery clinton input democracy ahead of party i am sure some of you are thinking how realistic is that . How politicians really done this . If you look at the 2017 french president ial election the Party Candidate did not make it to the second round and then the question was what he support the demagogue or the minister of the former socialist government . Thinking maybe he was ideologically closer to the other but the United States republicans did not do that they let him in the door and donald trump was elected president and once he is in the door it is a change game. [applause] will our constitution save us . The max of either way thank you for coming again i got feedback from my wife at our talk last weekend she said stop pounding repeatedly on the lectern. You are not Nikita Khrushchev left mouth. [laughter] so i get a little worked up. The second discovery is not necessarily. Americans have a lot of faith in the constitutional system of checks and balances for good reason the oldest most successful constitution in the history of the world contained andrew jackson, fdr, nixon why shouldnt it contain trump . Constitutions dont just work automatically because if it did we would have adopted a constitution basically the exact replica of hours love a stable democracy in the 20th century instead had six military coups. Constitutions work best and well when reinforced by the democratic norms or the unwritten rules so focusing on those two norms in particular, one is mutual toleration to accept the legitimacy of the partisan opponents no matter how much we disagree or dislike the opponents we recognize privately in publicly they are loyal citizens who love the country and respect the constitution have an equal and legitimate right to compete for power and govern we do not treat our rivals as enemies. The second norm is institutional forbearance that means refraining from exercising ones legal right in an act of selfrestraint. We dont think of forbearance a lot in politics but it is essential the president can pardon whoever they want when they want any president with a congressional majority can pass the Supreme Court if you dont like the way they are ruling pass a law expand at 11 or 13 it is perfectly legal. Or the president can circumvent to make policy the executive proclamation for executive orders. It does not explicitly prohibit this behavior. The senate can use right of advice and consent for the cabinet picks to prevent the president from filling a vacancy congress can refuse to shut down the government and impeach the president of virtually whatever grounds it chooses. My point is that president can exploit the letter of our constitution and ways that seriously undermined the spirit of the constitution and therefore to throw our democracy into question legal scholars call this behavior constitutional hardball using the letter of the law in a way to history the spirit of it look at any failing democracy you will find constitutional hardball in abundance argentina, spain, germany, venezuela, ecuador turkey poland or hungary but this directly it has presented our system of checks and balances from evolving into deadlocks or dysfunction or authoritarianism or forbearance a shared understanding that neither side will deploy the institutional prerogative that the spirit of the law prevails over the letter of the law. We argue in the book norms of mutual toleration and forbearance act as a soft guardrail to prevent healthy political petition from spiraling into that partisan fight to the death in latin america so it has not always had soft progress in the 1790s in extreme intolerance with pretty heavy duty constitutional hardball in the republic and we lost our norms of forbearance in the runup to the civil war and really for about a generation afterwards. The beginning of the late 19th century democrats and republicans largely accepted one another as legitimate with those destabilizing acts of constitutional hardball senators were judicious in the use of filibuster and use of their exercise of the right to advise and constraint basically to defer to the president and outside of fourtime president s refrained from acting unilaterally to circumvent so starting in the late 19th century with those checks and balances they worked because they were reinforced by norms of mutual toleration and forbearance. So what we argue and show in the book we have been unraveling for the last quarter century we saw early signs in the 1990s with the party of impeachment of bill clinton but the process was really in the 2000 when barack obama ran for president in 2008 republicans called him a marxist and anti american Republican Leaders during the Obama Presidency sarah palin and Newt Gingrich said as a democrat they were not real americans and then the Birther Movement went a step further questioning his very right to be president. America always has an extremist that is nothing new. But this was not french politics fees for national Republican Leaders actual candidates republicans nominated a prominent birther candidate and affected him as belonging in jail so by 2000 republicans had begun to deny the legitimacy of their rifle casting democrats as the enemy. The decline of mutual toleration encourages politicians to abandon forbearance when we fuel our partisan rivals as beyond the pale as anti american as a threat to our way of life, we are tempted to use any means necessary to beat them and that is exactly what is beginning to happen politicians are throwing forbearance to the wind filibusters are routine they shut down the government and refuse to raise the debt limit throwing the country nearly into default so of constitutional hardball just like the coup of 2016 and most are medically a fall the senates refusal to allow president obama to fill us up in Court Vacancy in 2016 that was unprecedented since 1866 and all of this is before donald trump was elected. So the problem isnt just that they elected a demagogue but it was at a time when the soft guardrails that once protected our system were coming undone. So why the hell is this happening . Im sorry. [laughter] i wont do that again. So we argue primarily driving erosion is extreme polarization republicans and democrats have grown so far apart that now they realize in 1965 of republicans said they would be unhappy if their child married a democrat. Stated 50 last years survey found found 49 of republicans and 55 democrat said the other party makes them afraid. We have not seen this level of partisan hatred is the end of reconstruction. Not just conservative polarization but todays partisan differences about race and religion and way of life they have changed dramatically over the last 50 years going back to the 60s and 70s when many of us were growing up the two parties were demographically almost unmistakable from one another both parties were overwhelmingly white. They differed on taxes, government spending, Foreign Policy but on fundamental issues of god, race, they were very similar and overlapping. Three changes occurred the last halfcentury. This Civil Rights Movement leading to a massive migration of southern white and African Americans in the south that became overwhelmingly democrat. Second a massive wave of immigration moving those immigrants and it up to the Democratic Party reagan even christians that were once distributed evenly between the two parties are overwhelmingly republican. So by the 2000s in in stark contrast to the 60s, democrats and republicans demographically and culturally very different cant different democrats report to the Rainbow Coalition and republicans by contrast overwhelmingly white and christian. That is important because White Christians are not just any group they were once a goodsized majority of the country and more importantly they used to sit unchallenged on top of the social economic cultural and political hierarchy filling the presidency and congress and Supreme Court and the governors mansions and pillars of local communities and ceos movie stars and College Professors and they were the face of both republican and democratic parties in those days are long gone. But losing ones majority and dominant social status can be deeply deeply threatening. Many Republican Voters healed a country they grew up in is being taken away from them and we think that is what ultimately drives polarization in this country. The problem is extreme polarization can kill democracy this is a major lesson from the failure of democracy of europe in the 30s or south america when politics is so deeply polarized each side views of victory as the other side as intolerable then that democracy is in real trouble when viewed as intolerable you start to justify use extraordinary means violence, oppression and a coup americans have not reached that point obviously but we have reached a point according to exit polls one out of four trump voters believe he was unfit for the presidency of the United States unfit for office but still picked over a democrat or according to gallup with a much more favorable view of Vladimir Putin than Hillary Clinton that is due to polarization so donald trump is a challenge most fundamental challenge today driven by a radicalized Republican Party that represents a declining White Christian majority that many perceive themselves as an existential threat and trumps departure from the presidency is likely to end that. So what can we do in two minutes or less . [laughter] fortyone it is absolutely clear the Republican Party has to change and it has to become a more Diverse Party as long as the gop represents the White Christian party it will always be prone to White National appeal and extremism. What can democrats do . There is a lot of talk increasing amounts of talk in progressive circles about learning how to fight like republicans. Seriously if they are going to play constitutional hardball the democrats have to play tit for tat if they dont they will be victims of an endless series of sucker punches with the Supreme Court seats and the like and democrats are learning how to play like republicans they just use the filibuster last week to trigger their first major Government Shutdown straight out of the new gingrich playbook many will run on a platform of impeachment that is a central thing they will campaign on and if democrats lose control of the senate they can deny present trump to fill any Supreme Court vacancy just like the republicans did to obama. We worry about this response as legitimate as that is will inevitably reinforce or accelerate the process of normal erosion weaken the countries democratic barbell so that sort of escalation never ends well. It never ends well. So the opposition should be loud and vigorous and muscular but more defending these days as is seen among democrats as a sign of weakness and backing down or giving in to the other side but i want to suggest reality is great political courage and strength standing up to an angry base to say you will not do what you want but what is best for the country in the countries institution. Republicans have failed to show that leadership over the last decade democrats should not follow in their footsteps. I was told i should close with a note of hope f mack but im out of time. [laughter] [applause] reaction to two of the points. In terms of the election the reason why trump was nominated because none of the other candidates were good enough to oppose him. And the thing that bothers me the most gets very little press as far as the election goes but 23 of the electorate stayed home and this is the scariest thing for me because this is not democracy if people stay home to be Hillary Clinton the queen of the Democratic Party box to mao and people stayed home. So there is that point but my parents and friends and families here they try to pack the courts but for some reason this didnt work but maybe you can comment on why but he tried. Thank you. Good question the first point about voter turnout why it was low in what can be done about this it is a complicated question and it is easy to blame citizens for not turning out but one way i think about this is different that in many ways the parties mobilize voters historically the way this is happened they are members of groups and organizations or labor unions and as Civil Society organizations come together it is harder to mobilize the voter so the one transformation that i read a recent paper with research that shows states that have laws that restrict the ability to organize has lower voter turnout so in a way that transformation of the economy the weakening of the labor unions mean they have to find new parties to mobilize to come up with new techniques as well as dealing with the rise so in some ways it is a technological challenge so they have to develop new ways to reach voters. On the Court Packing that is a story we tell in the book it is a fascinating story of roosevelt after winning the election to decide the new deal agenda was stalling out and all the members of the Supreme Court had these oldfashioned guys and they were blocking his agenda he wanted to expand the court and pushed for this we did research because i had the feeling if i were alive at that time but the other part realizes this is dangerous and exactly what we are talking about where institutions are turned and politicized and had he been successful the Supreme Court would be costly changing so he was defeated but how . Not only republicans that members of the Democratic Party. Conservative democrats who thought this was too far one incredible story of the senator from wyoming who is such a partner in friends of the roosevelt and then came out publicly against this as an attack on the Democratic Institution so this was the case of party allies saying institutions are more important than our agenda so nixon took a while but ultimately succeeded by defection of key members of his own party not those at the end of the day but the question is today if there is a similar reason that is comparable to the fdr Court Packing for nixons many criminal acts would republicans cross the isle to stand up to trump . So far the evidence is probably not. I was impressed by your analysis all of it but yet it focused on polarization and forbearance but i was surprised you didnt mention what i see is the 800pound gorilla of the misinformation on the internet at a time when polarization is so much what is going to kill us we cannot get people to agree that water is wet and living in this alternate universe again maybe lack of hope . I dont see how we have changed that dynamic make the risk their evidence that the rise of social media and partisan media is pushing Public Opinion to the extreme. Our view that is secondary cause the underlining source of polarization is the partisan sorting that i described it is exacerbating the problem to still have a deeply polarized society. I was very impressed with the analysis with the gatekeepers exchanges harder and harder. Also my ears. Up when you talked about needing a reorganization in terms of both parties but to the democrats because Hillary Clinton was locked in right away that without invisible primary there that dominated to allow that go for the presidency i was so shocked at 2 00 oclock in the morning when wisconsin one i was as shocked as everybody else but i would like some comments on that but i think that keys into the real need for deep we organization. I understand the point maybe some people didnt like hillary or think she wasnt the best candidate but there is a difference with the mediocre candidate and a candidate who is a threat to democracy. So the most we can hope for is at the very least deliver mediocre candidates. [laughter] oh maybe that process that wasnt the outcome that people wanted but had she become president we would be in a different situation so my view the real core is to think about how they get through this Obstacle Course and at the end of the day is the biggest threat to our democracy we can debate about policy differences or the left side or the right side or somebody like mitt romney but these are the debates we should be having we should not be having debates is this person a threat to democracy so if i have to choose it is a balancing act but also to generate candidates that people dont like. It sounds like we have a lot of good examples of democracy that died but in your research i found examples of democracies that were terminally ill but turned around. [laughter] that is a great question i would not call u. S. Democracy terminally ill. [laughter] but getting back to the last question about gatekeeping it has been a long time since there were numerous extremist floating around. Back to the 20s and 30s this is what he worked on and there were a lot of them. Several important european democracies were destroyed by the rise of extremist candidates almost invariably an alliance with extreme politics but there were where conservative parties said no and refused to strike up even if it was beneficial they kept extremist away one is belgium the other is finland they were kept at bay during this extremely polarizing. In the 20s and 30s but democracy survived until the nazis survived monday arrive arrived. We tell a great story of belgium and finland in the book but also these cases of democracy being rebuilt so we also told the story of rebuilding of the german democracy and 45 it isnt automatic that it would take place but these are cases and experiences where people overcame their differences in the face of trump so the question is, can we learn from those cases without having to undergo the trauma ourselves . The comment about the terminally ill that was a good question not to make light of the issue but again i dont think it is ill but we all have made the mistake of taking the stability of american democracy for granted we are successful and stable so most of us havent worried about it our politicians and pundits and media dont think much about the consequences of reckless and irresponsible behavior and that is a mistake because democracy can type. Even if we are not terminal right now it is clear there are warning signs that our democracy is not functioning the way that it should and there are threats on the horizon so that is why it is really important we take lessons from democratic failures but also from those cases that managed to turn things around. With those two forms of capitalism in new york city and los angeles that is in the rustbelt and is somebody who has to drive around the country a lot maybe 15 or 20 times the last 20 years i go to the backroads and see all the property and the problems with addictions. Then i come back to cambridge and say do you know what is going on in new york state or ohio . They would say no. We have no idea. You will. So i was not surprised at all at Donald Trumps election because of the anger that i saw in the rustbelt. And it is something you are not even mentioning. I always say it is the money stupid they are not making as much money the economy is and well and they are completely ignored. [applause] [applause] you are right we didnt mention that but you are absolutely right another way to put that point is the driving force of rising levels of economic equality in it. That is unmatched in any time the early 20th century. This has made politics much more vulnerable to these upsurge it is a global phenomenon happening everywhere so one extra point and i would add how that ties into the argument so far that it is the combination of this Rising Economic inequality that makes the politics the politics so tempting to take advantage of. Someone particular groups are targeted with those good reasons to be disaffected, but it takes the form of anti immigrants and the mental experiment of had the Voting Rights act with Immigration Reform passing in the 60s, had this happened in the late 20s with 50 years of robust Economic Growth following we would not have experienced the same type of antagonism so in fact the real history is to help democratize america and within several years the Global Economy shifts so the combination of these dynamics have left us in a very vulnerable position. This is something democrats can do they have really dropped the ball over the last quartercentury on inequality they are supposed to be the party of the little guy and redistribution and sincerely 1990s basically they are off the agenda of the Democratic Party so the one thing that democrats can do is seriously push for policies to redistribute wealth. We have had 16 years of democratic administrations in the last quartercentury that have done almost nothing steady by the income inequality. [applause] you may have answered my question but you describe what is now polarization which implies the logic that both pools are equally extreme but yet you just mentioned one of those whose leadership now be described as too extreme with policies that are not popular with the base and mainstream from the 70s even just like living wage or medicare. I was going to ask you to comment on that but maybe you just did. We do right this is an asymmetric polarization being driven by an extremist Republican Party. There are just as many people passionate about this on the other side there is some blame to share and we emphasize it begin with republicans but at some level that is important to debates the history but now we are in a situation we are in the threat of a spiral with the norms of democracy. One of the things you mentioned is a really hasnt been too many cases of a non homogenous population being successful with moral and racial equality and that shocked me at first is United States too big or too diverse with too much going on to tap into that . You are the ray of hope. [laughter] we actually think the democracy we built in this country began in 1965. It is pretty unique and pretty special for the step toward racial equality which is almost unique in the world. I personally think the culmination of strong Democratic Institutions with a history of assimilation for this country and society is at a time a pretty good case can be made i think the country that has a shot in the decades to come to establish itself truly multiethnic mocker see it is us. With the last election cycle it is clear people both sides felt very disenfranchised other preferences were not taken into account or making a difference at the end of the day. So what you didnt comment on was the money of politics and corporate interest that led to that disenfranchisement may be looked at the two parties or the referendums or other institutions for people to impact at the National Level. Thats a great question. There is evidence not just across the United States but growing disaffection with new parties springing up and also in italy and all around the world showing that democracies are not delivery so there is a more economic equality but also in the United States in particular so to express peoples interest so part of the problem is they have been hollowed out we think of them as being strong but they have lost control of money and the message Opening Campaign finance that means they can shape in a way that normal citizens cant and that transformation of media away that newspapers used to be named after parties. Like the press democrat way they identified with the parties now they have lost control over debate as a result. So this comes back Political Parties need to be invented to make im in your current politics of europe class so you mentioned history that punctuated equilibrium and we have moments to make choices and then those are sticky ending up on the specific path so are we on the set path . Good question. [laughter] one of the things it is easier for historians to identify the period of open but the political system has certain things that are open other things that are not one is the constitution it is very hard to change the constitution so people talk about the Electoral College and also proposals why are 18th century antiquated constitution that is very hard to change. Now they are talking to democrats and thinking things are in flux. This is happen in American History we are parties to meeting 50s and lincoln began the modern Republican Party. There is a way because of all the flux idea of a third party coming along the geology the two main parties. There could be more opportunity and a bigger opening the we might imagine. I dont agree with that. But lets play an imaginary game and point to what might have been a critical injunction. Im worried about the way our party system is today in which the republicans represent a declining White Christian homogeneous what used to be majority its now a minority. As long as that holds eventually this will get them into electoral trouble. Nobody knows when theyll become the california Republican Party. They could do a lot of damage between now and then. Its really problematic that they got on this path. After losing the election the leadership that very seriously about what it could do to become a more Diverse Party. Other thought seriously about making the changes that is critical to reducing polarization in this country. There also become an the 21st century society. Because as they pointed out there is no republican Party Leadership. This completely hollowed out. Theres no establishment that can impose that line. It was a hollowed out party that trump was able to grab and pull in another direction. Had you had Party Leadership to impose that leadership we would not be hurling in the direction we are today. They looked at this issue of democracy going back to the beginning of time. They determined that the biggest threat would be growing equality between have some have sought. But you didnt mention that in your lecture. Youre saying that since the democracy is not help but at the same time the system of checks and balances its possibly not equal to the challenges to the system. Im wondering if you feel the time for the new Constitutional Convention were thus going to far . Good question. I think some of the checks and balances are working better than others. The legal system is working well. The social Institution Media is working the New York Times subscriptions are up and so on. Our congress is not working well. Theyre supposed to the guard dog of our democracy and constrain the power of the president. It has turned into a lapdog. It is not serve in the constitutional role. Some of this is by the polarization of the radical Republican Party. And then its a weapon when its the other party. There is movement for Constitutional Convention. I would want to issue a warning theres a lot of discussion that turns out for proposals of a Constitutional Convention and a different route to which it could be called. What makes me nervous is who would be at the table and what agenda would be pushed. Its possible that things ought to be changed but if you open the door who knows what will. I think its a very dangerous prospect. I think there is an opportunity for institutions at the state level and thats whats happened. I california theres a redesign of the way the Electoral Systems are drawn. Rather than having state legislators do it. A neutral administrative body was set up. So these experiments are taking place in me with changes in the system. So a lot of this maybe thats where this process should be. From the philippines and my question is Firm Research yearbook has insights to offer in terms of dealing responding to the context were Political Parties are weaker. Thats a great question. We dont have a lot of solution and how to deal with things were in crisis. If we did we do have a better paying job. The philippines is the parties are relatively weak institutions. So demagogue with a week commitment is not going to be a happy ending. He demagogue with a week commitment to Civil Liberties and constitutional norms can do more damage more quickly than in the United States because of the robust judiciary. Its not extremely weak but its much weaker than here. The president can do more damage more quickly. It takes robust opposition. Really, the only stopping his Civil Society. Trade unions and human rights groups, people power to stop abusive president. This will be the final question of the evening. I was with you last semester. Your glutton for punishment. My question was you talked a lot about the incentives that politicians and parties have with the actions they take. When you talk about how one of the solutions for the polarization would be for the Publican Party to start the group that used to be a majority, what you think people had in the party to do that. Im not able to think of any events that could spark that. You mention the Civil Rights Movement that diversified Party Affiliation across religions and ethnicities and race. Thats a great question. It would take an electro spanking. The problem i know is the Republican Party strategy has got them in control of 30 plus governor mansions when theyre about to have a grip on the Supreme Court as well. Its not working as well as it seems. They have lost the popular vote in two of the last were victories. They know in fact that this electoral strategy, essentially a racially conservative appeal cannot win. This is one of the arguments that theyre making in the book trump accuracy. Republicans are very aware of the fact that if they continue down this path they fine face a tough electoral future. The clearest incentive is to lose badly. Had Hillary Clinton one by ten Percentage Points the 2016 election, there be a lot of soulsearching going on. The promise republicans generally have a party. This is a decentralized party for much of the country many of the congresspeople and senators coming to washington are coming from deep red states or districts. Even if the Republican Party takes a dumping at the National Level theyre still going to do quite well in much of the territory. It will take an electro obedience about that pervades not only North Carolina and virginia but south carolina. We are out of time so ill ask for a very brief question and answer. I just wanted to say that i think everybody ought to read and think about what the points you raise in your book. In particular the congress of the United States needs to read it and think about it. [applause] i dont know the best way to do this but if somebody wants to load up a cargo plane of a few thousand copies of how democracies die, i would be glad to to give a short answer and say we agree. Thank you very much. Thank you to our speakers this evening. Thank you to all of you for being here. We have books available for purchase outside. If you want to get a book signed you can line up down the aisle to my right and the signing will be onstage in a moment thank you for coming. [inaudible] heres a look at some of the current bestselling nonfiction books. Topping the list, fire and fury the expose on the trump white house. Then Jordan Peterson selfhelp book, 12 rules for life. James patterson explores Aaron Hernandez convicted of firstdegree murder and allamerican murder. After that its rhymes and grimes from damon john. Byebye the whole 30 fast and easy cookbook. Look at the research of the universe of astrophysics. Then Leonardo Da Vinci followed by anxious for nothing advice and after that wrapping up our look at some of the books from the nonfiction bestseller list is william a craven, 2014 graduation speech. Many of the authors appear book to be. Wash them on our website. Now, we understand how it is that you are able to get waived into the white house to become a potted plant in the west wing lobby. Most of your meetings at the white house where was steve bannon, or at least you are scheduled to meet with him and then what would happen . I had a lot of meetings with steve and he was one of the pillars of the book, but i met with everybody and everybody was under the impression they were supposed to meet with me. Where did they get this impression from . Does that come from the president or because you are talking to steve bannon. I was introduced by various people the president s personal pr person, kellyanne conway, sean spicer, this is not a ministry here i think on one level nobody quite knew how this came about their little puzzled by things but there is no friction here. Nobody was saying what you doing here . Theyre saying okay yeah. They would see you sitting in the west wing lobby of who youre waiting to see and they would say bannon and they would chuckle and say that wouldnt happen. Come back and talk to me. I became a familiar presence around the white house. Also very much a nonthreatening presence. The press corps was over there, not far away but i was careful not to come in as a member of the press and not think like a member, the press, they want something. I didnt want anything. Pgh so, michael. I didnt want anything im just sitting in the lobby hoping to talk to these people i just wanted someone to talk. And mrs. An important thing because you go in and you get a 10 00 oclock appointment and go in and in the u. S. It there and sometimes for hours the news kind of humiliating. You have the feeling that people regarded me as a creature. Im not important enough for anybody to keep their appointment with me people come out and im still just wait there and the hours are passing. I did feel humiliated. But, then it became this thing that it began to work, people would start and try to take care of me and like im one of the neediest cases. On the other thing, and basically didnt ask questions. So all reporters, we ask questions i dont ask questions. I go in and i sit there and people just start to talk. So one of the reasons why people start to talk from what youre saying and the key is what you said in terms of the initial part of your answer, raised you mentioned hope hicks who is the president s personal pr person. When you fire and fear a you find out that everybody in this book has his or her own pr person. Jared and ivanka, bannon builds up his own pr team in the president who has a press secretary and hes conducting his own freelance operation. So, maybe one of the reasons why people took pity on you as you are humiliated in the west wing lobby realize you are talking to bannon. That happened a little later on they realize that bannon was monopolize. In the beginning everybody was confused about why they were talking but they were talking. It has come on high and nobody actually knew from where they came. There is a general feeling that you are supposed to talk to me did you feel like a therapist . Eventually did. And thats what you saw in this book was really about a plot line in a transformation that took place and people in the beginning we you have the donald trump line and then that began to degrade. Why they were given it to you it became very clear that they wanted someone else to know that all they have to give this line they did not believe it. Then moving further on it fell apart entirely. Then they would say its really a mess. You can watch this and other programs online booktv. Org. The National Book critics circle recently announced its finalist for the outstanding books of 2017. This means that losing people that we love but one thing that i learned is especially the dying writers and even with my parents one thing that theyre telling us is to live, live the best life without regrets. Could do they find that message . Numeral put that in the back of our minds most of us do not really one a look at our mortality but one of the things that he writes in his book, mortality is said he finds the living diary and one thing is that youre constantly aware of the possibility of what lies ahead. But for dying people as every single day again. Ideally it would be great if we all live like that. Watch these programs on booktv. Org. For the list of this years National Book critics finalist had to book critics. Over. That bernie and his supporters because i wanted them to be a part of what was going to happen hillary won the primaries fair and square. She had 4 million more votes, she had more delegates and more unpledged delegates. We need to have these debates within the party, we need to have this conversation. If not now, when. What are some more the reforms youd like to see . While the commission will take on the pledge versus unpledged delegates and also look at the window and what states go before. We penalize people go in early in 2008. And i just want to make sure you know im the same donna. Also think internally the party is making progress. So we had so many victories. First lets start by listing. We have to have a strategy. I love you and the electoral votes. Theres no reason why from florida to new mexico on the side of the line, virginia gets a few dollars in North Carolina but again when no other state weve missed other opportunities to steal Democratic Candidates and all of the states. Tom perez invested that enabled us to have victory after victory by the way we are 450 votes short of winning three marsh in virginia. We put resources across the country. So the dnc get rid of superdelegates. Someone is but a superdelegate for several years can i just say no. The reason why can have a healthy debate i dont want voters to think my vote matters as long as you have that perception that i dont want that. So with that in mind i can understand the people in the future if i can be a delegate in the future need to what . As a former chair i still may have special status, but i dont know. So theres a point in the book why wasnt obama saying something . Where were the Intelligence Agency or this was a national emergency. Support heard a lot of republicans make if this is happening why wasnt obama talking about it. My understanding is that president obama went to the leadership in Congress Mitch Mcconnell said he should not make a big deal out of this. You should not go public. So the president decided to to the scale. I know that flows he went to paul ryan and paul ryan ignored and i know he was ignored. I went to Reince Priebus tonight tell them which was the Vice President ial debate and he looked at me because i said you know this is happening. I tried to reach out to sean spicer but i try to reach out to him throughout the entire time we are being hacked. I wanted him to know what worried me as an american says the dnc went down we would corruption the election system across the country. I need to make sure the system was protected. We had two Political Parties and databases and i was worried. Every time i went out to the republicans you can call me angry and i am a little upset that the republicans ignored it. The reason why obama didnt use it more is because he was told he would tip the scale. Also the Hillary Clinton campaign was convinced they would win. There are so convinced they would win that i think dave and pauls last few weeks. Meanwhile putting cold water main who else would know about i mean on the day of the election and that these are the people they had open because theres no electricity. I looked at me and it wasnt until 7 00 oclock that night was like really no so angry at this point i went over to the socalled Victory Party in the first person and i said what are you doing here and they were not panicking and they thought theyre going to win all they kept saying to me is have you seen the exit polls. You can watch this and other programs online booktv. Org. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. Next on afterwards, black lives matter cofounder patrice discusses her life, activism in the beginning of the black lives matter movement. Shes interviewed by an author and journalist. The top nonfiction authors and their latest work. Patrice, your