Hes interviewed by tom daschle. This is a weekly Interview Program with relevant guesthouse interviewing top nonfiction authors about the latest work. Welcome. Im thrilled to have an opportunity to talk with you about your book. The books title is in triggering, the broken. Can the senate save itself in the country . What is your conclusion . Guest im thrilled to have a conversation with you, when cspan told me you were going to do it i felt i had won the lottery. To see an old friend and also a great senator and Senate Leader and an author on the subject, you cant much better. The easy answer is that the jury is out on how its going to go. What i try to convey in the book was first that the senate has declined for a long period of time, not a couple of years, more like a couple of decades. The senate has declined in a way goes like that then stevens over the last nine or ten years. What were facing now i believe is a a diminished and we can senate at precisely the time we need a strong one. Were facing the possibility lets say we were facing the possibility of an inexperienced, reckless the responsible authoritarian president. You would want to strong senate. We dont have one. Can the senate save itself and change from the downward spiral its been a and step up to its responsibilities . Thats a question. The book is optimistic in certain ways. Very been criticized by some of said youre too optimistic. Its optimistic because i believe in we seen recent evidence that so many of the senators are disgusted with the institution. They want to be real senators send in a set of the functions. Yeah, theyre not. The chances they can do something about the the potential is still there. Host i have a lot of questions let me go back before we get there and talk about you, we got to know each other long ago. Use or six senators much might be a record from 75 87. Tell me about what that was like and compare what you think it would be like had you had that experience less 12 years. Guest we had the privilege of meeting and becoming friends in the late 70s and we are both staffers and what i call the last great senate in my first book. We were privileged to be there because of the senate that was there. I got hooked on the senate early like many do come in high school and college so starting to think about politics in the world the senate played an Important Role in civil rights, remember the Civil Rights Act and then i got to college and i remember fulbright exposing the follies in vietnam. Jean mccarthy and Robert Kennedy stepping forward to run for president. Got hooked on the senate and had a Senate Internship in 19691 day after college. Convince me to come back and work for the senate and i got back in 75. I had a great time for 12 years doing different things. At that time the senate i would call mansfield senate. Mike mansfield set the tone for that senate. The longestserving majority leader. He built the senate that was premised on trust, mutual respect, good faith engagement and i would say, bipartisanship. It was a healthy place and i found that to be the case while i was working for senators in the majority in the 70s. They carried over into the 80s even though we lost a majority control of the senate. I loved what i was doing. I think everyone loved what they were doing. It was a great place its no accident that people we know now that we didnt know them i cant even begin to fathom what it would be like now all these bright people who want to work in the senate come to the senate. Theyre very busy they do good work, sometimes they produce things in committee and then the leader says, we are not doing that is not part of our agenda. I want to hear your views on this could be thought about it so much that the evolution of the leader driven senate i think it would be awful to be the. I dont think the relationship factors what it was where there is staff members. Relationships are built across the aisle. Social opportunities to engage i think it deteriorated over the years and that has probably been pervasive to the staff level. Thats a troubling aspect of what were experiencing today. You mentioned in your first bo book, i suspect this one will get rave reviews too. What led you to write a volume two . The last great senate came out in 2012. Its basically about the senate ending in 1980. I was persuaded by my publisher at that time to write an epilogue so i wrote an epilogue which described the decline of the senate. In fact, the senate has declined in stages and keeps declining. When i started writing i felt more optimism because were going to have any senate. By the time i finished that hope had vanished. Says the situation progressed things got worse the book that you were, crisis point with trent lott and others book i do try to do try to finish the history next line what happened. The important thing from my standpoint is i made a decision to write the book and accept an author offer from the publisher when i was quite certain Hillary Clinton would be president but i didnt think she could govern unless the senate change. I resent motivated by donald trump anymore than you were motivated by the trump candace to see when trent lott wrote your book. It seemed the need for the senate to go back to play its role what mondale called our National Mediator where things got worked out i thought it was important to revisit it. You make an interesting revelation in your opening pag pages. My things are not counterintuitive. He wrote the entire book without talking to anyone which most writers, myself included just consume themselves with interviews and discussions and anothers perspective and we take notes and then we do conclusion or rewriting. You chose to do it without the input of anybody but your own review of the current published information. What motivated you to use that approach. The way you describe it sounds more than counterintuitive. Actually in my first book which was historical at about 90 interviews. Essentially wrote the book from the public record. The interviews animated a little bit but mostly written on the public record. This was a different situation. I got in some of the research are ready but i knew i couldnt interview enough people, im not a journalist i couldnt interview enough people to have a good sample. I was a senate insider once but im not anymore. I know very few of the senators and i didnt want to just interview the ones i knew. I basically decided theres a lot written about the senate and great journalism going on so take responsibility in the book but i dont think interviews were the right way to go. That has inspired me to do something similar. I think its worked out very well. Its two books that you have written in one. The first one takes us through the decades up until 2016 and a very eloquently written Senate History much like the first book. Anna talk about some of the things the first few months of the Trump Administration how is it that you decided to organize it in that passion. The trump election i think was the most astonishing political event in history. In a sense the book i was writing which described the importance of the senate and the decline of the senate and the dangerous decline of the senate intersected with trump selection. The question of whether the senate could face up to these challenges seem to be very important simply because as part of the reason why its mixed. Seek to find the senate doing things that are hopeful and promising. You can find other evidence where there feeling this completely. Given the times are and you cannot ignore the fact that i was writing a book while donald trump is becoming president. Trump was on my main focus on page 16 winning isnt everything,. Its interesting question. Senator mcconnell has given his view on these as winners make policy losers go home. The problem is from my standpoint that in our system the winners and the losers stay around. They have to Work Together so not a parliamentary system so when the senate worked well it was when the majority of the minority could work well on things the idea that winning is everything so the minorities still there so theres a great deal at stake, winning isnt everything. I think thats what is in danger here at the moment. In the context im sure you would agree that have a broader definition as the political elements is one thing but the context of women in terms of moving the country for a winning for the American People is different. I think thats whats driving so much of the environment today i think part of the revolution has been a more tribal politics. No question thats the case. Part of this he can differ with people politically maybe theyre moving left politics was supposed to be about their overcoming some of those differences through extended discussion in the real legislative process that wasnt supposed to be one party on their own very few, maybe 1933 and 34 fdr dealing with the depression, lbj 64 and 65 when Mitch Mcconnell will probably come back to him a couple of times. Senator mcconnell started doing healthcare and training to get 50 of his 52 votes from his caucus my reaction was that at work and couldnt work is not supposed to work that way. You supposed to look at people from the other side. Of course he would say thats impossible because no one would vote. This notion that one party has to roll by themselves brings us to some bad places. Guest we move from Common Ground to stand your ground. Remove from the view that compromise is a good thing that compromises capitulation. You say that america is Strong Enough to survive a few bad years what are the implications of that the fact that we been in decline this long i think nobody explained it better than you in crisis point. The system is a work in what the consequences are as they face the nations mediator hopefully things will get reconciled. The polarization becomes dysfunction. Thats what we have seen why should they have any faith in the government youre very good leader leaders lets take as assumption that we are a diverse country and its tough out there in terms of partisan differences but you can be a leader to overcome those and bring people together and they drive partisanship and polarization as hard as you can. And we have said that leadership rather than the type of leadership that brings people together or tries to bring people together when you look at the extraordinary achievements dated ninth congress, president johnson wanted 64,000,005 you had tremendous crises in the assassination of three leaders in a short time in the 60s plus a catalytic that environment landscape in the 60s to today where weve had three wave elections and parties changing control weve had a constitutional crisis with the selection of a president 43, weve had enormous turbulence politically. How difficult is it . Is it unfair to compare circumstances today with a golden era given hud different the landscape was then versus now. At a certain level everything is different. But the golden era and lbjs victory they sustain a certain way of doing business throughout the 60s and 70s. They were difficult years. As a Democratic Center for a long time but then of course dealing with Richard Nixon and gerald ford in a new outsider president who is a democrat who had not been in washington, jimmy carter. There are plenty problems throughout that whole time. Yet, the senate kept contributing creative legislation, reconciling differences stepping up to domestic and Foreign Policy crises and issues and stepping up to the biggest crises of our time. , vietnam and watergate. So those are big problems. To some extent you can fastforward any see big problems also. Many of them being handled by the senate. So you cannot have larger problem than the economic crisis that happened after words in 2008 and the effect of that collapse on main street across the country. In 2008 the senate played a commendable role in producing the top program when it was needed was a way leaders are to be then we had barack obama as president the way lost jobs the first year or danger going into a depression. But we no longer had cooperation but there for the public response had changed. That would not have happened in mansfield senate. When you happen with baker bob dole there i think its important observation. You talk about the commitment to make the senate work as a key factor in that time. Now its a difference between a collective agenda and an individual agenda. Talk about that distinction and why its so important. Mansfield would i referred to collectively became Senate Majority leader kennedys request had a view of how you should do business. He was the reaction to Lyndon Johnson into not believe in bullying people. I think you and trent lott said you never twisted an arm in his life. He believed all senators needed to contribute. And he believed in treating everyone well. He led by the golden rule. When they first regret mansfield was trying to do they said it couldnt possibly work in the senate. He commented work although it was an easy they responded to president kennedys assassination and moved ahead that way. Problem but mansfield instilled they represented their states vigorously and were democrats and republicans others an overriding national commitment, john mccains view, theyre there for the national interest. It also meant that mansfield insisted on individuals agendas to make the senate work. You have to subordinate your agendas for the need of collective action. So they took up issues on the had their arguments and took their boats but at the end of the day they knew they had to take collective action. Nobody one all of the time but the notion that they are there to make the senate work was something very important to them. We see the opposite now. Senator mcconnell has shown no interest in making the senate work. He has undermined the way the senate works. He knows how to do it and he knows how to make it work. He has said in his speeches and particularly in 2014 when he laid out how the senate should work. Its a speech, given her mansfield credit given. Except it doesnt work that way. This contradicted and run the senate an entirely different way. Its efforts would use was to be bipartisan. Host you mention another distinction, you talk about the remarkable demonstrations of courage that occurred often times in the 60s and 70s. He said the panama canal treaty both as a classic example of real courage. There are a lot of progressive senators from states that could jeopardize their career. Greatest generation. Some of those people fought in world war ii and were willing to do for. They didnt think casting a vote was the hardest thing they have done but beyond that, that was the ethos. None of them were perfect. He came to the senate in 1968 as an added gun control advocate but he decided he wasnt going to be for gun control anymore so none of them were perfect but the ethos was. When jimmy carter said i want to do a new panda wok and no treaty and something they looked at inn the past, howard baker the new minority leader said why now. Baker says i am the Senate Leader. We remember him as a great senator and leader and public servant. So it was the ethos. Host you talk about the transformation of the senate and certain moments when that devolution what is accelerated. You talk about 78 and 80 and the confirmation battles in 1987. What was it about those moments in the acceleration of the devolution . 78, 80 marked the beginning of a more partisan climate. The whole think about Citizens United but when it was decided, it freed up all kinds of special interest pacs. Things got more partisan and became more of an issue. But even as we ran into the 80s when the senate changed dramatically when the republicans took over, president Ronald Reagans victory there were enough strong senators dared that the senate still functioned basically the way that it would function and howard baker being the leader for four years and you were on the house side at that time but he did a superb job. Sometime in the late 80s there were confrontations and every one tells the story differently its almost like trying to remember who struck the first blow and who went after michael dukakis. There were a series of these things that were quite confrontational and they did take effect over time. I see the site differently than the sum people. The hearings were a disaster. So there were a series of things that went on. You became the leader precisely at that moment. The rise of the harder edge to partisan politics and what i would call the politics of personal destruction and Permanent Campaign for the web and politics not to assign to any one person but lets say Newt Gingrich is decided as quite formidable advocate of these things politics changed around that time and it became difficult for the moderate republicans. They said we are not sure that we want to be here any more. Anymore. A whole lot of them so politics changed right around the 90s. George mitchell got out right on time and left it for you to deal with. You used the term Political Campaign and i think that is an accurate description of what happened. Each of these events trigger for a legislative experience to a political one where the tactics and strategies became preemine preeminent, whats legislative and more political to the point that we have a bold as a Permanent Campaign. It was claimed originally by sidney blumenthal. In the senate that we grew up in, they were governing and it went on all the time. People were running for office and they would be out campaigning. The votes would be cast and somebody could use it against you but they were not for political reasons that didnt happen very much. Perhaps i overstated it but the senate between them in the 60s and 70s to be almost a Demilitarized Zone in terms of partisan politics and that changed dramatically when you get to the Permanent Campaign, the issues are set up so people can be forced to vote on things that could hurt them. Or the leaders start protecting them from voting. Days and weeks go by and issues dont get taken up because somebody might have the cash to vote. For everything that is seen in the context of the Permanent Campaign or we could keep the majority or are we going to lose it. There is a good book called insecure majorities that makes the argument that the tightness of the majority and the importance of keeping them makes people focus on the politics more than anything else. You make a good case about what happens in the intersection of the campaign and the legislative roles that are so incumbent. As you write so well it is in the impeachment trial and i want to congratulate you on your historical analysis of the experience. It was one of those for the politics and statesmanship and was affected by relationships in the senate. Talk about that whole episode and what if any lesson could be learned from it . Guest first, you are nice to say that but i rely three heavily as you know on the great book about the impeachment trial. So the fact he wrote a wonderful book about it and i relied on it and trand tried to try to analyt accordingly. It was an extraordinarily difficult situation and the leaders were confronted with it. For the most part for everything that could be measured they didnt think that it warranted impeachment. The democrats did extremely well and the republicans did terribly. They didnt make any progress and most people fought impeachment is off the table, but the republican right energized particularly like tom delay was dead set on impeachment so they ran through on a partisan basis in early 1999. How do we measure our responsibilities and balance of the law of impeachment for which there wasnt much in the political situation because essentially, impeachment is a legal issue into a political issue and determination about what the president has done. Its the process of how you work through. First you communicated superbly together and second, you involved all of the senators in a way that they felt either the senate was considering this and all kinds of options. Steering through it and being sensitive to the politics, but always understanding that there had to be enough of a trial. I can recall when it was all over the last vote was taken. The number one had on the floor with republicans and democrats across the aisle it was an emotional experience, and just an extraordinary moment when everybody looked back with some pride and we were able to address our constitutional responsibilities. And we did so with respect for one another and that was catalytic. Host you mentioned after impeachment something that i think was also a factor as we think of this devolution and how broken the senate is. The way that we look at the rules of the senate today, you mentioned especially the circumstances around tax cuts of 2002 and the use of the reconciliation and how relevant the use of reconciliation was with a tax cut passed last year and the irony that is designed to reduce the deficit was used to exacerbate. Talk about that irony and the unfortunate and in my view deportable used to accommodate personal and political agendas. I couldn i couldnt say it much more than that. The reconciliation process created in the act of 1974 was intended for a limited purpose. It was an exception to the notion that he would need a super majority. There was an expedited process put in place the purpose of an overall budget and reduce deficits presumably. From the beginning. When president clinton was in office the first year. African reconciliation has been a. I believe an that i recommend ad pick out the senate rules havent bee looked at since 197. They need to be reexamined perhaps by former senators with public representatives as well and a bipartisan policy commission. This is a question you can ask whether the president should have super majorities for things as opposed to just majorities. But it has to be agreed upon. You cant play that out when democrats are in power, you need 60 vote60 votes but when republs were in power you can do things with 50. That doesnt work worship and worship and or shouldnt. Host i want to talk precisely about for a few moments. We are getting closer to the time we will have to wrap up. You mentioned from 2013 to 2014 there are 187 votes. Compare that with the decade in the 70s when there were only 43. There were a couple of things over the course of the last several decades. One is the need for the filibuster. We now eastward to something called dual tracking. To what extent have these consequences played out with i wouldnt even call them reforms of the way the they operate ando what extent is that the reason that we see this today . I think its not the reason, it is the mechanism into the justification for it. The reason is to largely defeat the democratic initiatives. But the mechanism is the use of filibusters in the way they were not used before, the traditional talking filibuster. Now he filibuster is close to a cold which is basically some senator says im not going to give unanimous consent for this so i basically dont believe that those kind of filibusters or hold should be used. It ought to be real filibusters. This notion of the hold and the idea that one senator would say i care a lot about this, so please dont pick this up while im flying back from somewhere else, that is what the hold used to be, a temporary courtesy. It was and i object to this new kittens that legislation and by the way, you cant move those ten nominations either. The system is out of control. Trent lott in 2005 said wouldnt it be more fit to do this. So i found out they morphed quite a bit earlier. Thats one reason i want to look at the rules to consider them on what works but i dont want to lose the point that the manipulation for partisan reasons is the first problem. We have seen an extraordinary manipulation where both parties are invoking the socalled Nuclear Option where just on the simple vote to change a rule in the senate and by the republicans in 2017. How much is the use of the socalled Nuclear Option chain should the character of the senate . Its changed quite a bit, but in my view and i think you may differ it is all part and parcel of the long series of the partisan confrontations and the bitterness that has ensued. Senator mcconnell is fond of saying i told harry reid he would regret the Nuclear Option and im sure sometimes he does regret the Nuclear Option, but these problems arise when you have leaders that cant talk to each other. The senate was facing difficult times even when you were a leader but i believe its very possible that he would have started the year by saying this isnt working well. Lets talk about what we might need to do. That is a conversation that can never happen. That is a problem. We havent talked a lot about the Trump Administration, but you spend the secon spent the sf your book talking about what it was like for the first seven or eight months of 2017 and part of your narrative i think is so appropriately focused on the loss of norms and the lack of civility in politics and dialogue largely emanating but properly in my view you hold them as enablers of this title as well as the policy. To what extent has the loss of norms and respected the process itself how much of that has pervaded this whole environment. Guest this comes back to a point i made in a chilly. We need them to look at its best not at its worst. It was an observation by someone when they were doing healthcare. To undertake and remake the act and change medicaid without hearing, without the committee action, without amendments, without debate, without a super majority, without any participation of the party i was stunned by that. Democrats were shocked by that. Republicans were shocked by that. Every day there was another republican senator saying this isnt how we ought to do this. And yet move forward. It came close to succeeding. Then he said we are done with healthcare. We will move on to attack and he brings it up again and again. That is not the way the Senate Leaders have ever dealt with the senate. It is an abuse of process and what we see here is as i said before, the long decline and end the deep downward spiral. When you think you hit the ball and it just keeps getting worse. Host to a certain extent, the senate and the congress reflects the country. Because the emotions have no reason politically and philosophically in the country to the point where some have argued we havent seen this since all of history but certainly not since the civil war some argue you only have to go back to the 60s to see a country that is divided and polarized as we are but whether it is the 1960s with the 1860s we are deeply polarized as the country. To what extent is that accurate and until we deal with the country as a whole we cant expect to see a change in the environment within the bodies that represent the country. Its the fundamental issue. And i would say two things about it. First, i dont believe that the senate should reflect the differences in the country. They are not bound to simply reflect an and they certainly shouldnt be exacerbating and inflaming them. There are very many fundamental differences. The obligation is to try to overcome those differences but instead blame th by being more purpose and the amplified them and then what happens people lose faith in the government and they were divided further. Its an interesting argument if we had leaders that are producing results in the way that we used to, i think that they would somewhat eased a. I think they can be dealt with. I dont accept the view that the senate has to just reflect those positions and there are a lot of very serious challenges and challenging factors out there. I think they have to rise above it. Host weve talked a lot about the problems in this state of the senate today. If you had to summarize as briefly and succinctly as one can, how do we find solution for an answer to how broken the senate is today a guy would ask the senators to be real senators and not just partisan warriors. They should take back the senate from the leaders. So they can do better. I dont think that they are helpless victims trapped in the institutions. They should do better. That is the kind of activity that i think is positive. I dont think the senate can work well. For too long, hes obligated in a certain wa way to erase any modicum of trust. Trust is the essence of the legislative process and it makes legislating extraordinarily difficult. It becomes impossible in the absence of trust and mcconnell has sacrificed all trust because essentially, he hasnt been trustworthy. So, i was thinking about this and it would seem to be donald trump is certainly in large part present because of the dysfunction of creative anger in the country, so hes somewhat the result. Mitch mcconnell is the cause of the dysfunction and people say to me you are putting too much weight on one person. And i would respond and say how do you think the senate work its Lamar Alexander were the republican leader . I can name ten people who would be the leader. All of these external factors and it still comes down to people who can make a differen difference. The book is entitled broken. I congratulate you on a well written book and i hope our audience will take the time to read it
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.