Transcripts For CSPAN2 Assessment Of The 116th Congress 20240714

And academics are part of this discussion hosted by american Political Science association. Routinely congress pulled very portable people as whether they approved of the job it is doing. This trend is bipartisan whether democrats or Republicans Control Congress most people assign it a failing grade. The trend is also a longstandig peer over the past Decade Congress has not once achieved Approval Rating above 30 . It wasnt always this way. During the 1990s congress Approval Rating typically were in the 40s and 50s. Today they hover in the teens and the 20s. Once thought to be the great repository of americas republican Principles Congress is now referred to as a broken branch. Why exactly has Congress Come to this point . What are the causes of the dysfunction . Has anything changed since trumps election and the democratic takeover of the house . Can this longstanding state of affairs be changed . Can congress be reformed, it is so what do we need to do to reform it . To answer these questions weve assembled a distinguished panel of experts on congress with a variety of perspectives and ill introduce them all briefly in the order they will speak in alphabetical order. I will introduce them all at the beginning so we can launch into the remarks. Our first date is catherine pearson, associate professor f Political Science at the university of minnesota. She worked for several years as a legislative assistant to members of congress and she teaches and writes on congress, Political Parties and women in politics. Shes the author of Party Discipline in the house of representatives which was published by the university of Michigan Press in which i commend to you is a good book. Next well hear from molly reynolds, senior fellow and government studies at the brookings institution. Her research focuses on the role of the congressional rules play in affecting policy outcomes. Shes the author of exceptions to the rule, the politics of filibuster limitations in the u. S. Senate. Dr. Reynolds will be followed by matthew spalding, Vice President of washington operations and a professor of constitutional governance. And dean of the graduate school of government in washington, d. C. He is editor of the heritage guide to the constitution and the author of several books but most recently the bestselling we still hold these truths. Last, not least, be james wallner, senior fellow in governments at the R Street Institute when he writes about congress, especially the senate as well as on legislative procedure and the separation of powers. Hes the other of two books on congress. Most recently, on parliamentary war, conflict and procedural change in the United States senate. We will hear initial remarks of each panelist and then some exchange among the panelists after that, and followed by your questions. First up is catherine pearson. Thank you very much and thank you to the Claremont Institute for organizing this panel. Happy to be on this panel. We could talk all day about whats wrong with congress but we will limit our remarks that its important to note much of what is wrong with congress did not start in 115th or 116th Congress Rather different trends that have been duly for a long time. Its likely most of us will talk about the increase in partisanship and everything has come along with it. We have a heightened partisanship, parson polarization and intense Party Competition in the u. S. Congress and that has made it more difficult for members to work across the aisle through a variety of reasons. There is some real policy disagreement. We know this liberals and conservatives differ on key issues and key values but theres much more to it than that. Theres a little ideological overlap between the parties and the differ on issues that are not related to conservative or liberal core values. Because of the way voters are less likely to split the tickets and incumbency advantage has dropped to nearly zero despite the fact incumbents are routinely reelected, members dont have that many incentive to work with members across the aisle. In 2018, House Democrats voted together and against republicans on average 89 of the time for cows republicans on average 91 of the time. Senate democrats 87 , and Senate Republicans thanked 2 . These are not even 2 . These are not even a High Water Marks. Were looking at a very partisan house and senate. The rise of Party Competition is another dynamic that fuel polarization and the narrowly divided country with few voters splitting the tickets, we know 95 of partisans voted for their parties congressional candidates in the 2018 midterms. Currently there are only 31 house districts, one by democrats in 2018, and trump in 2016, at three districts won by clinton and republicans in 2010. 2010. Not only are we narrowly divided but most members dont have incentives to work with the other party and as this trend of partisanship has been building roads since the 1970s its only been exacerbated. Fewer members are institutionalist than in previous years and that goes for members of both parties. My book on Party Discipline in the house of representatives shows the ways in which Party Leaders reward their members for the Party Loyalty. Not for being institutionalist, not necessary for having good ideas all the back and help, but Party Leaders are more likely to give that but with the party, use partisan rhetoric on house e house floor, support the party in efforts or to block discharge petition efforts we comes to committee transfers, when it comes to getting legislation on the house floor. We know Party Loyalty is very important. Most members have incentives that a constituent base to be loyal and Party Leaders reward that loyalty. This has been combined with a decline of Committee Power and expertise, and the rice of intraparty factions. Well know the story of the reforms of the 1970s which increased the power of Party Leaders in the Democratic Caucus and rankandfile members as well at the expense of Committee Chairs. These trends were magnified in 1995 when republicans took over congress for the first time in 40 years but today we are at an interesting point. Political scientist talked about power as a pendulum, Committee Chairs were very powerful during the textbook error, Party Leaders became powerful beginning in the 1970s intensifying in the 1990s. But today as weve seen with speaker ryan, Speaker Boehner and now to some extent Speaker Pelosi, we see Party Leaders are struggling with their own intraparty factions. Committees dont have the capacity they need the Party Leaders have a hard time as well because many of the incentives have changed. More members of commerce are interested in tweeting out symbolic policy positions than being institutionalist. Accompanying this is of course a decline of regular order. Whereby members a few opportunities to take part in the legislative process with many more close rules whereby if there nepotism it in committee and have fewer opportunities on the house floor, its easy to see how members are incentivized to communicate rather than legislate. Another problem with congress is its lack of responsiveness to Public Opinion and major problems. Thats not to say the one at 15 congress did not pass some important provisions. They did. Extended antiterrorism surveillance authorities. They rolled back doddfrank regulations. They passed a new law fighting opioid abuse and a criminal justice and prison rehabilitation law. But if you look at the most recent pew survey of the most important policy problems facing america that people care about, though matter what the position is on these issues, its clear congress is not responding to these issues. Emigration, healthcare, climate change, or guns, whatever policy direction were talking about. Another thing i want to focus on briefly which is not a new problem and, in fact, congress is doing better on this dimension but still is a problem for congress and that is congress is not representative of u. S. Population when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity and when it comes to class. We know from Political Science research this representation is linked to substantive representation. Not only that, racial minorities, people of color, women who are represented by members of congress who share characteristics within are more likely to be engaged in the process. I can come the 116 congress is a High Water Mark in terms of representation but still falls well short of the population with the house comprised of 24 women, with 36 new women of republican women are dramatically underrepresented. There are 44 latina members of congress and 55 africanamericans. Sort of underrepresentation of really every group except for highly educated older white men. When it comes to staff capacity, its more difficult to retain quality staff and staff are not the first. Along with others on this panel and others in industry i part n american silicide Association Task force on congressional reform. One of the things the task force has been charged with looking at his staff retention and diversity. We know theres more turnover than that used to be and Staff Members are leaving capitol hill to do things that are more lucrative including but not limited going to the lobbying and mrs. Route community. Interest group committee. Many Intelligence Community bring for a long time and so we cant say the all change with election of President Trump or the most recent of congress. In many ways they have been on display and the weakness of congress as an institution has been on display. We dont just have members of congress communicating via twitter. The president and members of congress are communicating with one another via twitter. It is unusual to have a president who is so unengaged in policymaking and i think particularly under unified Party Control in the last congress we saw how that hurt republican efforts to get a lot not all but to get a lot of the policy priorities that they had actually enacted with some key exceptions. In the 114th congress was a republican Party Leaders really struggle with intraparty factions and i think many observers myself included expected if Speaker Pelosi became speaker again that she would enjoy some of the high party unity she did back in the 110th and 111th. While its true democrats are routinely voted with one another and against the other party, she was struggled with intraparty factions to a much greater degree than she had the last time she was speaker. More reminiscent of the banner and ryan era democrats of her last cycle. I want to turn briefly now to how Congress Might be performed and again theres test Task Force Working on this issue as quickly when the Things Congress needs to do is increase its own capacity. That involves booking of staff, paints and more, training them better, developing expertise, giving power back to committees, restoring to some extent within reason regular order so that more members can be involved in the legislative process, and then legislation on for least in the house of representatives, and increase staff transparency, diversity and training. Theres no clear reform that will necessarily decrease partisanship, the state Party Competition between the parties or the incentives that members have to bolster the party reputation and their own repetition sort of with regard to the other party thinking about the next election. It is also the case there are many partisans who formerly served in congress on both sides of the aisle who are also institutionalist who deeply cared about the institution, about its traditions. As i do think part of reform should be to try to cultivate a sense of loyalty to the institution in addition to party among members of congress, and that could be also through additional training or more sessions with former members of congress to share their own experiences, particularly those who are institutionalist and active and involved policymaker policymakers. Thank you, and thanks to the claremont folks for having me. So i share many of her diagnoses of whats wrong with congress no, i wont dwell as much on some of them. Catherine has talked a little bit about the consequences for congress of the particular combination were currently living with of high polarization and also high macrolevel Party Competition. So the idea that both parties frequently can look at the next election and say, and reasonable expect that the party if theyre in the minority now might find themselves in the majority after the next election. This is profoundly affects the incentives that members have to work across the aisle. It also means that i think theres a greater incentive among the members of the Majority Party in congress to put bills on the floor, that they know will fail simply to be able to say to members of their own party and the electorate to Interest Group allies that these are the kinds of things that our party would do if we had more power, and the ability to legislate after the next election. This is especially to under divided government like we have now, but a can also be true under unified party government. When you think about things like why did republicans before 2017 spin a lot of time in the house taking votes to repeal the Affordable Care act even when the new that was not ultimately going to be a productive legislative endeavor at that moment . I think its in part because the incentive of this combination of polarized parties and high level, macrolevel Party Competition incentivize doing that kind of, spending that floor time of things they know will not pass. Kathryn also touched on increasing nationalization of our politics. This has profound consequences for the electro experience and individual members. Their intellectual fates become much more attached to National Political forces that it once was. Kathryn pointed out that voters split the tickets at far lower rates than they once did. One of my favorite pieces of data on this point is that in 2016 it was the First Time Since the advent of a popular election of senators in the early 20th century where every state in which there was a Senate Election in 2016, the party that won that Senate Election was also the party that one that states electoral votes in the electoral college. There were no states in which that result flipped in 2016. Because voters are splitting the tickets at much lower rates, that gives individual members less of an incentive to cultivate what we might consider an independent branch, to work across the aisle and attract voters who identify with both parties. The nationalization of politics has also meant that our system is increasingly presidency center, centered around the president. As kathryn pointed out many of these trends are not new to the current occupant of the white house, despite the fact, particularly for those of us in washington, does feel like the president is at the center of every new cycle. I think youre a particular, going back to the early 1970s when we saw a number of highprofile pieces of legislation, things like the congressional budget act, some reforms to the oversight of intelligence committee, that sort of thing, we solve the past with large bipartisan majorities in part because members of congress saw a reason to Work Together to increase the legislative branch is power at the expense of the executive branch. As the president has become an increasingly central and polarizing figure in american politics, it can be more difficult to build support for something on institutional grounds in congress. My favorite example of this from recent years comes from 2015 in a slightly different arrow of trade politics and may be the one were living in right now. But in 2015 when president obama was lobbying congress on trade promotion authority, so he was seeking the ability to negotiate what would be the tpp, summit on paul ryans staff, paul hartlis at the time picture of the house ways and means committee, told the white house asked that obama stop asking congress to give him trade promotion authority. Ryan didnt want republicans to think that they were granting obama something special, even if at that point republicans also wanted the trade agreement, this idea merely identifying the issue with the president was making it hard to build a legislative coalition. Kathryn has talked talk about e decline and congressional capacity, particularly the dropoff in staff levels on house middies and in support agencies, starting after the republican takeover the house after the 94 elections. There are various incentives presented to Congressional Staff that leads them to increasingly pursue opportunities off the hill and that does make it more difficult for congress to have expertise it needs it has to do its work well. Which increases the power of special interests and lobbyists. Ill talk about a couple of things that a change since trumps election when democrats took over the house, a couple lessons i would take away from our first two plus years of the Trump Administration and the first eight months or so of the democratic majority. So one, particularly this year, is weve seen the challenges that are presented into the congressional oversight when going to court is an increasingly large part of the oversight strategy. So one thing we expected to see an navsea in this congress is a heavy reliance by the house on legal avenues, things like subpoenas, contempt citations as part of their oversight approach. We knew going in from recent history this is not a particularly expeditious approach to oversight. Thats been borne out. Some of this has to do with, much of it in fact, has to do with the administrations desire to stonewall a lot of requests from congress, but thats not the only part. Democrats also have reasons why pursuing a legally focus strategy beyond the fact that the administration has pushed them into that corner there kathryn talked about intraparty divisions. When your party is divided on some of these oversight questions, and here i think particularly about the question of impeachment, there is an advantage to taking, to the party come to taking some of the fight outside of the congressional arena. So its still happening but your members on necessarily being forced to go on record regularly in a in a way that highlights divisions within your party. Its also true of the change in the legislative process have made a hearted use other tools to try to rein in with executive branch is doing. Here im thinking particularly about changes in the appropriations process and the way in which the rise of large omnibus spending bill makes it more difficult to use the power of the purse to limit particular actions by the executive. A second trend to note from the Current Congress is, particularly in the three of unified republican control in 20172018, the increasing importance of items that cant e filibustered in the senate. So in 201722 more than half of the votes that Congressional Quarterly rated as he felt innocent or votes that involve either limits on the date on which only majority support for culture was needed. Im thinking about things like certainly nominations, which need only majority support for cloture but also things like the use of the Congressional Review Act, the use of reconciliation in 2017, and increasing importance of these legislative vehicles to try to accomplish things even under unified government. Many of these and the first two years involve the republicans trying to use these tools to advance things when they had a narrow majority in the senate. But we also importantly saw Minority Party senators, either on their own in the case of, for example, a Congressional Review Act resolution on shortterm Health Insurance or with, in cooperation with a Jewelry Party senators, in the case of human, using these procedures to force vote on issues they care about even when the Party Leadership in the senate did not necessarily see those things on the floor. The last trend i will note from the Current Congressional experience is we were startino see some important consequences of previous delegations of power to the executive branch by congress. We have been on a long continued path in which congress has delicate substantial part to the executive branch. Often because it is easier to give a president the response was do something than for congress to do the hard work. Historically, those delegations of power often either included or were later brought under some sort of congressional review process. Here i think you things like the war powers act, the statute giving the president the ability to declare a National Emergency and then subsequent congressional review, the procedures that allow congress to review arms sales, that sort of thing. Many of these review provisions were weakened in the mid80s when the Supreme Court ruled the legislative veto was unconstitutional, requiring congress exercise these review parsed be in the form of a joint resolution that would need to be signed by the president rather than a concurrent resolution. We are also learning in recent years that a highly partisan congress isnt necessarily wellequipped to use these tools that it has, both because of the to get to a twothirds vote to override a veto when they do want to try to use them, and because the procedures have become an attractive way to force issues onto the agenda. So again i think you hear about Something Like the votes the senate took on yemen this year. So kathryn is also covered a number of things i would point out where Congress Might be reformed. I agree wholeheartedly that some of the changes that we would want to see to make the institution work better with quite a big changes in the underlying political system or the set of incentives that members of congress face. And i agree capacity reforms are one perhaps more feasible avenue, and also think we should think about potential procedural changes that encourage the off the four processes in congress that are continuing to work somewhat well, even if they are paired with more restrictive on the floor processes. Here i think particularly about the use over the past several years of what we are called minibus appropriation bills, the process of having a house in Senate Appropriations committee continued to develop spending legislation like they historically have, but in packaging those bills together into small multibuilt packages for congressional consideration which i think is an interesting compromise the that congress ns to have struck between making sure that it continues to work while also recognizing the political incentives that members have. Thank you. I would like to thank the Claremont Institute and i know joe put a lot of work into these panels as well. I would also like to point out that the work of the Claremont Institute is important in many ways. The claremont is one of the best publications and political thought today and also point people to the online journal, the american mind. So here we are once again another a bsa, joy, oh, joy. Congress is still declining. Indeed i think its declining at increasing rate, to put it i think more economic terms. Regardless of who controls it, republicans, democrats, or subdivision thereof. You wonder whether theres something maybe larger afoot. Seemed to me you cant really understand Congress Without understanding the relationship between congress and the modern executive. Indeed, we also need to throw in the Supreme Court for good measure because they are not involved in lawmaking. How the branches interact, the institutional roles as institutions under the constitution, and how that has all changed. It seems to me the decline of congress is a problem, but in more ways it is a symptom of a larger problem, which is what i would like to back up and take a deeper look at, and public that the congress, and thats the rise of modern bureaucratic rule or the Administrative State. Because that seems to be the change that is driving this transformation as selfgovernment is being overwhelmed by this new form, this new bureaucratic way. And congress having created that thing is now suffering from its successes. For the american founders, the idea of a constitution preceded, antecedent, the government. Government is a creature of the constitution. Constitution was created by the people who constituted, the constitution comes from a people who then constituted government. A sovereign people have rights by nature, delicate powers, those powers are separated and structured in constitution, checked and balanced and that will allow majority to roll while protecting minority rights. At the turn of the last century, american progressives begin to reinterpret that relationship in response to new conditions, as they like to say. Rights are not understood to be natural but social and determined by history, and so grow and adapt. There will be a new compact now between the government and the people, and the government would play a role, the key role in actually determining those conditions, thus rights and thus the limits and expansion of the government. And so the replacement of rights granted in nature by history made it possible to replace politics with the rational Administrative State. And here i have to give credit and point out the great work done by john marini, especially on his recent book. He someone who is thought long about this question, and what to think about in terms of congress and especially the political branches in particular. As the law became a tool for social reconstruction, government then can become an instrument for progress. So the founders went to Great Lengths to preserve consent and limit government through public institutions. The progressives held that the barriers erected by the founders had to be removed or circumvented. So government could be unified and expanded through the combination of hours, which would concentrate authority and direct its actions towards achieving more and more progress. Politics would remain in the realm of expressing opinions, hence the continued relevance of congress, but the real decisions and details would be handled by administers, separate from politics. Hence, the separation of administrative politics throughout progressive writings. The constantly changing structure of this Administrative State required to be managed as will come hence their three of leadership. A footnote, hagel and max weber and woodrow wilson. So the United States has been moving down this path which would make reference to in fits and starts for an initial progressives through the new deal expansions, but the Administrative State was not really institutionalized in any permit wait until the Great Society and its progeny. If all that time and until that time, america was centrally governed under the constitution but was administratively decentralized at the state and local level. When administration is nationalized it creates a new source of conflict between executive and legislative branches. So at first progressives like to look at the presidency. Woodrow wilson, teddy roosevelt. And present pushed congress to expand administrative powers. Congress was reluctant to do so. There remained at event of decentralized administration. But congress seeing the writing on the wall adapter. Between 19681978, passed more regulatory legislation that in all previous history. Delegating the numeral legislative powers in the form of broad Regulatory Authority to bureaucracy and the agencies, all of those things that had created. Since 1970s, congress has been reorganizing itself continuously, committees, subcommittees, leadership roles in a way that could oversee and interact the daily operations of this modern bureaucratic apparatus. Congress sought to develop the powers over the administration. The bestknown example of that which was referred to is the legislative veto. A good and perhaps ironic example of which is a National Emergencies act of 1976 intended to control president s, in particular richard nixon, which originally the congress can override with the majority. The Supreme Court declares that unconstitutional in 1983 but, of course, thats a piece of legislation that donald trump is using to build his wall. Congress having delegated the authority to him. Over time, congress has largely focused less on actual lawmaking and more and more on oversight and bringing regulatory relief from the bureaucracy. Ex post facto legislation, we might call it. When congress does legislate, turns over the power to agencies in various places, who for all intents and purposes do the things that we would associate with law and lawmaking. Indeed, what goes much for law, at least the backandforth of the lawmaking nowadays, isnt in the legislature at all, i which i meet on the floor which is where legislators and deliberate. Its executive and leadership in very closeddoor small meetings but then more interestingly, actually between executive and various courts fighting over administrative application. That along with things like the chevron doctrine show how deeply engaged the courts are in maintaining not the constitution but the administrative process itself. Today the modern congress is almost exclusively a supervisory body exercising limited oversight over administrative policymaking. Congress which used to be called the keystone of the washington establishment is replaced by the bureaucracy, the keystone of the rational state. Now, all of this has changed how the branches operate, think of the founders understanding separation of powers, and contrary to the naive notion that we opposite is neutral and scientific, it turns out to be hard to keep politics out of politics. And as as a result, much of the executive legislative affairs and backandforth historically is actually a fight over the control of bureaucracy. Early progressive president s had grandiose ideas. Fdr did much to legitimize Administrative State, and set up under the new executive office of the president. Nevertheless, during the first part of the bureaucratic history, congress had the upper hand. Indeed, executives, especially since 1968, posed the greatest threat to the administered a state fighting to control and possibly diminish it. But by 1984, exactly when Party Control of Congress Change for the first time in 40 years, about that time president had come to figure out the lure of bureaucratic power, and Source Congress expanded the bureaucracy creating numerous agencies, delegating lawmaking authority, losing control of the details of budgeting, focusing on these ex post facto checks, residents came to realize they could use in the bureaucracy through through a combination of executive discretion, written law, willful neglect, disregard for the own policy, with a without the cooperation of congress. And as the constitutional rule of law centered on legislation gives way to administrative or executive discretion, so the administrative congress of the 1970s and 80s was was replaced by the administrative executive of more recent years as the branch the dominates their politics. This seems to be the case where congress has sold the rope with which they will hang themselves. Having delicate significant legislative power, enough by themselves far removed from the action. They try to sustain the power to committees, oversight, but the distinction between general lawmaking and particular execution has been over, to the advantage of the power closer to the deed, as machiavelli would say. But it turns out bureaucracy is a greater danger to legislative power an executive leadership. This congress, it seems to me, is a reflection of the same problems, though torn by divides within the Democratic Party. On the one hand, its still small, petty, no serious agenda beyond omnibus spending. But on the other hand, are those vocal members who have been driven more by National Ideological debates. That doesnt surprise me given to the imbalance of power and donald trump. Having said that, it seems toe donald trump has been rather restrained in all this. Which is to say, hes not pushing the constitutional edge of executive powers as much as he is simply using powers delegated by congress. Mercy powers act as an example, so are the trade powers he has been using. And the feckless precedence of one branch into another to challenge the third, i. E. Congress running to the courts, that of course was a president started by republicans under the obama administration. So my conclusion to be brief, the rocker c can accommodate the executive and executives are not can accommodate it also use and direct the bureaucracy. Thats quite problematic. Although it suggest to me that might be and probably is the best option for checking the ministry of state and challenging its legitimacy is going to come from the executive and not Congress Even though congress at least in theory should have powers or the administrative branch. Or the fourth branch. The larger pump is that bureaucratic government has failed to Representative Democracy and the rule of law. I hear i mean those oldfashioned things passed by congress. The Administrative State come bureaucratic government, amounts to a new form of rule. Its less democratic, less subject to consent, and makes government less representative, and us as a result less selfgoverning. It is transformed and disfigured core constitutional institutions the separation of powers weakens the practical check on the abuse of power, does that work to create any governing consensus of the American People. And together the Political Institutions no longer pursue the common good. I am tempted to say that congress, seemingly oblivious to the own demise, fiddles while rome burns. It may be excused as as a great scholar said of the new Political Science infancy. It may be excused by the fact that it does not know it fiddles and it does not know that rome is burning. Thank you. Thank you to the Claremont Institute and to joe for organizing this panel. Thank you to my fellow panelists took its always a treat to appear alongside such eminent people. I tried only appear in public next the people or much smarter than me because i hope it will eventually rub off and people will assume that i must be such an imminent person as well, so thank you all for letting me join you. I think it to the audience. Its friday afternoon. What better place to be than washington, d. C. In august talking about congress . I love conquers the another othe senator kind of house. My family probably is a little tired of me talking about congress so much but i love it. So thank you all for being here and let me talk about it a little more. As i approached these questions that weve been asked to consider, i went to share with you briefly how i think about it by posing a question to you all. Which is, is there a place for congress in how we think about Politics Today . And about that. There a place for congress and how we think about Politics Today . Wherever you turn there is frustration. Thats sure. Theres a sense congress is broken, that nothing is working as it should. I sure in that frustration. I worked on capitol hill for over a decade. I have studied capitol hill and congress and how it operates for over a decade. In my nearly 30 years now, its kind of depressing, combined study and experience with this Timeless Institution i love so dearly, the best answer i can come up with is this. Theres not enough conflict inside congress. Its a bit unorthodox theres really not any conflict there. So what do i mean by this . We have political change. Happens for control of house and senate shift. Control of the presidency shifts. The Supreme Court is very important. The judicial the competition composition of the disher is important. Stakes are high. But as all this is playing out, as all this tumultuous churn is happening, theres a backdrop in that how we think about politics has changed, i think. Electoral politics is a privately lidster which we see and understand politics. I dont think many people would disagree with that. Electoral competition at everything. Its the key to achieving ones goals. Part of my job in the senate i would say is that republican luncheon and one thing that majority leader at the time minority leader and i can build this because he said this in public as well, he would say Mitch Mcconnell winners when and losers lose. Winners went and losers lose. I never understood for a long time. They sound like a schoolyard bracket issue, you think like a boulder would say. But its very insightful comment. When its a win elections when policy and losers lose elections lose policy. That some members see Politics Today. This is not new. David mayhew told us for very long time that members care about elections. Of course, thats common sense. Members care about elections. But now i think they conceive of election, they think about elections in terms of the party. In terms of the party, not just themselves. Not their individual persona and their own individual constituency. Again, not much different than what a lot of other people and scholars would say. But despite the constant activity thats generated by this kind of tumultuous nature of electoral politics, the legislative data scope or sister isnt that funny . Nothing changes. The status quo persists i think because theres no action inside congress to change it. You cant, since tells us change something unless you act to change it. Theres no action. Theres not like to the opposing actions cancel each other at the if youre on capitol hill today you are struck by the complete and utter absence of action. Its remarkable. Members dont want in my opinion conflict because the legislative process, they dont want the conflict the legislative process generates because it divides their parties. When you think of election in terms of parties, the last thing you want to do is the bite your party. You believe that winners when, losers lose when you are united and the other site is divided. So the result is, my colleagues have mentioned it, use the bipartisan agreement to kind of shift decisions to administer agencies to the court because thats where were going to handle tough and controversial decision. We will talk about them all day long, tweets about them, do all kinds of stuff but we will act. We will not act inside congress on the floor, and committee, behind closed doors, anywhere. We are not going to act. You see this with former speaker ryan telling his moderate republicans are pushing a discharge petition to get a a l to codify daca out of committee. The court will handle it. Chuck schumer, the minority leader in the senate the head of the Senate Democrats tells his members and issues press releases after the trump Ministry Says it will put a question on census to ask about citizenship, the court should solve this issue. The court should solve this issue. The Republican Party emphasizes in the senate that they confirm judges to why . Because judges will act. Most voters dont care who i judges on in relation to what . The policy. The implicit understanding is this is good for us, but for us because the people we are confirming act while we dont. I guess the confirming the judges. This reinforces the importance of those elections which creates this cycle, and it creates, theres a paradox of an action that is working everywhere. Weve missed this and its intention with how we think about Congress Today and why it is broken. Polarized parties to what . The act. There polarized. They have a problem acting. Parties who are locked in competition and what to do everything in their power to win do what . The act. Payfors votes. Parties dont force votes in congress anymore. Polarized parties are not trying to achieve their ideology. Theyre trying to life and issues that divide their parties. When i consider whats changed in 2016 or 2018, i think this process has solidified. You see this new norm of inaction in both parties. If you recall i believe it was in 2018, this isnt a malicious thing. I believe the members on both sides of the aisle in the house and senate are good people. There doing the best they can. This is how they see the world today. In the summer of 2018, former president ial candidate kirsten gillibrand, senator from new york, gave an outstanding, very emotional speech on the senate floor about the administrations policy of separating mothers and children of migrants. It was a very controversial issue. She gives this very, very heartfelt speech. She is tearing up. She sang her fist on her desk. She thought about japanese internment, detriment of japaneseamericans during world war ii. She saying things like darkness is a sin and she says the president will not act, we will. At the end of her speech she says, please cosponsor this legislation ive introduced with my colleague diane feinstein, and she leaves before. Not once after that to this day they show that the finger inside the senate to force action. Not once did she force about not once did she reject unanimous consent request. Not once did she do anything to imagine candidate would do it have done throughout history to force issues that they care about, to force action on those issues, either because she wants to it and shes cynical and democrats all agree with her position, or because she believes truly and it is of the truth, that neither is happening. Why . Because the place where you solve that issue is that the administration. Its the presidency. You dont become present we have divided party. In the same way senator jeff merkley from oregon issued a press release and said were going to the border, going to the board to solve this problem. The place where you solve the problem is in the senate, right . Now i get it, you can go to the border to generate a lot of attention and use it as leverage and it outside game to brush up your colleagues to pass your amendment or bill, but he didnt force any action on the issue either. Not once. You see this with a reaction to aoc. Who has not been socialized into this thing. So she comes in with this kind of naivete, which is if you want to do something, you act. You dont need to be some fancy political operative to know this. You dont need a phd. What does she do . She starts looking around for 11 and she sees it and she uses it. The party dont like this. You saw this at the reaction to ted cruz in 2015 when he came in and said, im going to act. The people are not acting. And the reason why is because action is uncertain. It cant be controlled. Its unpredictable and reveals the visions because of deals information. How can we fix Congress Amidst this . This is really interesting because i think today, its not the government is unlimited. Yes, government has grown beyond its limits but its also pretty weak if you think about it. Its a weird paradox. How do we appreciate this . First, we need to record thats how talk about legislators, we see them in this passive sense. We see them as victims of some impersonal force. They have no agency anymore. And i think we need understand how political scientist, interested observers, a membes and voters understand politics has changed. The conventional approach, a lot of this data region in the academy, one of the few times what they political scientist can say we had a really major impact. The conventional approach is that we have today, and you see this on the news, you read in the newspaper, in any journal. We treat legislators as interchangeable. We interpret incorrectly how legislate procedures and rules operate in practice. We theorized the legislate process in terms of both static, right, static and never change, just constant, and also spatial. Think of your left and right, your scores is the line. All those people over there and were over here and its just not good with the there is no overlap. And we assume implicitly that conflict between legislators, that arises and will always arise in any legislative process, makes legislative harder. In viewing the congress in these terms changes how we think about the practice in which its members are engaged. It transforms the lips of process into a production process, the purpose of which is to manufacture or fabricate legislative widgets. In fact, if you go to grad school one of the articles im sure you read in one of the leading articles is called the Industrial Organization of congress which models the legislative process as a production process. It treats congress as a firm, a factory. And viewed in these terms, legislators become craftsmen, factory workers who apply Technical Knowledge to make a specific product that is been made according to a blueprint that is been designed elsewhere. I think of the former majority leader of the democratic majority in the 60s even a credible speech on this. He submitted for the record. He was going to give it the day president jimmy was assaulted so we held the back and gave it the following week. We forget no would like mansfield when he came in. No one like mansfield because he made them work. He felt all senders were equal and it predict printed chaos ad uncertainty and do stuff eating a senator coming from johnsons welltraveled machine. So he was defending his record. I highly recommend this speech if you look at that. He says basically senators are not active workers. They are not coming every morning clocking in at timecard and assembling, assuming the place on the floor awaiting instructions. No, they are senators. Thats not their job. Politics is not production. And so this i think is really being facilitated by efforts in the academy to develop a science of politics. So with all the Sophisticated Research techniques today, and the scholars who are very, very wise, very intelligent, when they develop and they believe they could explain and predict legislative behavior. They could predict legislative outcomes reliably. These scholars produced a body of work that whatever its merits, and are a lot of merits, it affirms implicitly this politics production give what happens when legislators legislate. The result shifts over time how we think about congress. Away from it architectonic view of politics which is, its an activity that you participate in. Its never ending and it occurs in in a place. And the whole point is to make decisions because we are in conflict and discord with one another on a basis of equality thats what Self Government is all about. But congress isnt needed when you see things as production. Congress is its like the worst place to design a car. You did not want to design a buick on the factory floor. Its not going to look very good. You want to design a buick somewhere else with experts are in control and then you bring it to the factory floor and then they assemble the buick. They make it, they fabricate it but thats not politics. Thats how we think about Politics Today. When i think about how to fix congress, im not going to give you any specifics of what id like to give you a way to evaluate the specifics you have heard and you continue to hear. One, we need to know this gap between theory and practice. We need to bridge it. We need to acknowledge the role the conflict plays in politics. A faculty scholar of the 1950s wrote an incredible book i think one of the best books if not the best book on Congress Called the legislate struggle. He says compromise emerges from the legislative struggle. You cant have compromise with our conflict, by definition you have to disagree before you can compromise. When we talk about compromise we think consensus and we think consensus because were thinking production, not politics. We dont need to insulate congress and members of conflict. We need to expose them to conflict because thats the whole point nectar weekend to make things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of us have conflict. Thats why we dont pass big legislation today. You can insulate something from conflict and then passed big change. Lastly we need to design reforms that facilitate action. Not stifle it. Because at the end of the day we need men and women inside Congress Acting. It doesnt matter why you are acting. Doesnt matter what they hope to gain from it. The whole purpose of selfgovernment is acting. Thats the point. What comes out of that is that dessert or the freedom or whatever else you want to call it. I think it would think about politics in these terms, then i think it will take care of itself very quickly. It may be regular order of like the 1960s. It may look like something completely different, but for it to work we have to recognize that it cannot be controlled. It cannot be predicted it is inherently uncertain, and yes, it is shot through with conflict. That conflict is the answer. Thank you. Thank you all for those remarks. Before we turn over to the audience for question and answer i thought maybe i would get each of you an opportunity to bring up any responses you might have to the other panelists and their remarks. If there are none okay . We had one. I would generally say, i agree with james. I think there needs to be more politics. In many ways that is a madisonian solution, right . Its also the way that youre going to get something coming out of the legislative process. It was designed that way so it would force the liberation and would force them to come do something. I guess my point is, is that conflict and more politics in Congress Needs to actually and in Congress Acting as an institution in congress and congress only speaks through, they speak to twitter, but as an institution the only speaks through legislation. What the comfort of like to see more of is the conflict between the branches, which means they need to pull back their authority so they can engage in that kind of conflict with the executive and perhaps a little less running to the courts to solve their problems. I would just add real quick. That threat but we have to recognize the only way congress can act as an institution if its members act. What comes out of that process, that conflict in the house and the senate, they are outcomes. When i worked there if you wanted to stop a piece of legislation can you tried to freeze the process. You can get up whatever he could do to freeze the process. When you did that you halfway there because of been everything, the precious to us build it and it gets harder and harder to get it going again. He covers the legislative process is almost impossible to stop. It always ends in an outcome. We dont like that today because you cant control it. But my point is that congress will act as an institution. I cant tell you how in every given instance but it will act as an institution if its never act. As long as they refuse to act it will never be an institution. But youre not changing around the filibuster . I have seen any filibuster. Another thing we theorize the filibuster is a beta. The filibuster is not a veto. But we do, our academic model the rise illness is a veto. Arno peters inside the senate of the United States unless you ask for them. By that in english as for unanimous consent. But you dont ask unanimous consent. And if you do come , objecting t is not stuck in my book. Its about where but has devoted yesterday to pass. Its not a request if the other person cannot say no. But we think about congress its just completely nonsensical to me. Russians from the audience . I had to back question. First of all, thank you very much for your time. [inaudible] two predictions. I understand what youre saying about the filibuster, but my guess is that if democrats are going to have unified control after 2020, the filibuster is dead. And my guess is that even if its republicans, despite what Mitch Mcconnell is saying now, that it is that as well, the legislative filibuster with everything they said. Im just asking for prediction on that. The other one is basically on theres even more data to support the polarization you talk about such as record numbers of people say that there be bad if their son or daughter married one of their kind, politically speaking. But at the same time we are declining but we still have near record numbers of people registering as independents. Really turned around the parties here. Interesting thoughts, first i will address the polarization. This really shows in 2019, the polarization occurred not only congress but also the most level. For a while, okay, we know at the elite level, they polarized along the lines but if you look at the normal distribution of borders, theres still more people in the middle. Theres a much greater extent than in the past in the middle as well. The independent voters, it depends on the state and law and whether or not we are talking about surveys. We note way back from the independent voter that a lot of the people who respond to polls are independent, they dont get that followup question but if you had to classify yourself for parking for democrat, they dont get that followup question and identify independent, its hard to tell. You know the independent nurse, people who do identify as partisan. Its a little hard to make out of that but i would think about this work, a lot of americans are turned off by politics. They dont like conflict but they also dont like compromise in congress. Transparency is a wonderful thing for congressional scholars for the mass public, it just looks like a mess. I think in 2019, thats more true than ever. While i agree with james that there needs to be more conflict in congress where they are grappling with policy issues and the debates of the day or approach creations and addressing the issues head on, i dont think we need for messaging votes like the one molly rope brought up with daca, but thats further a meeting with the public and that bringsp the statistics about why many people dont like congress. I could pick up on a couple of things i partisan ship question, you may a farmer may not hold me to this but on this question of why do we see your people registering for the parties but also the high levels of polarization in the public and yet, illustrates an important conceptual difference between parties as institutions and how people feel about the parties as institutions and partisanship and how that, as an attitude manifests itself in behavior. I do think we think about how these people register, for example is a perfect or not, how they feel about what a party is and what theyre doing that is different from having organized Politics Around privacy, something that that is functionally the same. Ill be honest and say that im somewhat more skeptical than you are that the filibuster from the demise is coming. For me, the question you have to ask yourself about is, what is that piece of legislation. Either party could come to an agreement on that they would be willing to eliminate the filibuster two. Here i really think that the experience of the republicans in 2017 failed to attempt to appe appeal. The republicans in 2017 pursuit of a legislative strategy that meant they only needed 51 votes to get back to the senate and were ultimately killed it was the fact that there is not a piece of legislation that they agreed on, that they could move through that process. I think for me, or that before either democrats or republicans . Im not quite sure right now. Until somebody presents me with legislation that i think either party would be willing to make that change to get, or to remain somewhat skeptical. I share my skepticism. Its interesting, the notion is first competition, if we cant identify a piece of legislation that the party can unite on, to act on Something Like this, we all agree that if they could they would, i think that speaks to the fact that the parties are not in agreement as much as we think they are or that they are capable of to the extent that we think they are. I think the filibuster right now is much more valuable to the leaders as a way to keep things under wraps so if schumer and mcconnell have their way, they dont want to get rid of it. Want to get rid of it, theres no way to keep individuals in line because right now, when the sender says im going to offer it even though its full, i can do it under the rule even though the president says i cant. They say if you do that, the filibuster will have to go. So they lose that. The leaders have no capability to control the senate. Unlike the house, the Vice President decides. You cant exert the same level of control even if you have a majority. The senate only gave the President Authority once and they let him pick committees and they took that back quick. I think also the filibuster, as we once knew it, is long gone because we are talking about as a means to an end. Lacking this production rope and you are no longer thinking about it as a lever to achieve your goal. We think about it that way, minority is not powerless. When you trace back to the Vice President , the leverage raised costs for the members of the majority to display temper going. Loosing that time and time again. He forced the senate to reverse itself after they nuked the filibuster in some areas. Then they compromised. As far as voting, voting is high when parties are organized. Progressive reforms undermine a lot of that. Parties can come back in and do that but again, parties are ultimately what will help deliver and drive up the voter participation. Lasting from this idea of conflict, somebody may say its subsidence and some say its not, the important thing is that its action. I dont think of it as static, i think it has it extends forever. Messaging and legislator are the same thing. If your aoc and your confronting the chambers that doesnt want to do it, you have one option and thus to force the outside in. It requires messaging votes and going out and talking to the people and using them as pressure to force your colleagues. As help us about christ act passed ultimately. That has to happen and until it does, congress will remain like it does. Theyre not going to be doing anything. Polarization partisanship, on the one hand i agree and on the other hand, i kind of favor polarization. Both parties seem to be moving between one group that wants to maintain the status quo, the Democratic Party wants to play the old role faith played for some time in the new has an ideological side that wants to fight National Politics all the time. Is not a cause for problem or that something that, because the legislative process is no longer capable of reflecting majority opinion through an active legislative process . Part of why i want to raise that is because i think theres a larger political debate going on in the rest of the country and jump comes and rips the bandaid off and pull the curtain back to show that, there is a growing divide, among those who are political leaders. I think its something thats not going to go away through reform, its going to have to be bought out politically, hopefully within the confines of the institutions and process but right now, congress is not set up in a way that the opinions of the American People divided as they are, actively being reflected to the legislative process in a way that actually affects policy. Instead, they are increasingly, especially the conservatives to a country thats increasingly making policies over which they have very little to say. Thats increasingly frustrating. I think thats part of what is playing out or not playing out and how congress is currently operating. [inaudible question] [inaudible] [inaudible] from what i can tell, these are always kind of happening around us, i think this connection, i saw this happeni happening, i couldnt put my finger on it, i didnt know how to describe it but this is a relatively new thing. Last bill placed on the floor in the senate where you didnt know how it would end, the Affordable Care act. The last one, if you waited until you knew you could pass it, it would never have passed. Sometimes you just have to get going and see how it goes. That doesnt happen anymore. I think it is a new thing, it happened very recently. The willingness to hold the court accountable, a fabulous book called the people themselves into thousand four, he speaking up on this in that book, 15 years ago when all of a sudden you see this hesitance. Right now, you cant say we should impeach a judge that you say made an unconstitutional decision. You cant do it. Jurisdiction, a negative term, exercise your power, they dont do that anymore. You cant control, structure that. The congress removed all its power at the way the both parties talk about is that its a political. When in reality, the whole point was to be political. They engage in the action on the outside and then they pressure people to vote for the judgment they make arguments that they say are political. Its a technique and how we combat our opponents and politics. We try to exclude them from that. As far as the discharge, the dynamics they are talking about, this is where it manifested. Parties will act when they feel like its safe to act. I dont believe all democrats are against this bill, i dont believe all republicans are for. [inaudible question] right now, as far as i can tell, 99 of members of Congress Want to codify, they are frozen and they have no idea what they would have to vote on. They dont want to reveal the division. Now theyre just hoping someone will act. They hope the courts will act because he could ignore the district judge in theory but hes not. I think parties do feel like its safe and theres an explanation for why they are acting that way. My guess is that the democrats who opposed the bill would not talk about the subject of the bill, they will talk about control and all this other stuff. When action actually reveals information about where they stand, they run away. Discharge positions, the signatures have been public since 1993 so we have a pattern of numbers in the current era. They are very much viewed as something to the Majority Party. It essentially takes away the Majority Partys Agenda Setting powers. There are a couple for the signatures were getting closer the leadership but often people with signs or were about to sign so they can work out a compromise and still have control. One of the things interesting about todays patterns were Minority Party members sign them in the top Different Things were from the late 1930s to the 60s. National archives after 30 years makes it public so with eric, i worked on this project for a long time, discharge positions used to be signed primarily by liberal democrats because southern democrats with replicants had a lot of thick agenda control. Thats just one illustration with how congress has changed where the coalition were just a voting block, they also had Agenda Setting power which manifests in the sense that it was northern liberal democrats. The book on Congress Calling it the talisman, from what i hear and you have all presented, the motivations he points out are still very much in place. Theres very little motivation to act in favor of legislation. Theres much more motivation to do services to get reelected and yet, you say congress is no longer or not as much the keystone of the washington, the force is more in the hands of the executive now. Is his analysis still hold true . Has polarization changed the dynamic that you point out in any way . Its not that i think hes been full, i think its been taken with no entered a new phase. I think the point of gravity has shifted. The center of action has shifted. The last question, wheres the real debate over these things . Its in hhs. So the congress is not the keystone anymore in the sense that its not the center of the triangle. So often, congress itself is a lobbyist. They are farming the administration until legislation is written, thats where the deals are made, thats where afterwards you negotiate how its being forced which means its gone that much worse. Used to be that i remember hearing stories about when john would send a single gram to somebody in the administration and they were willing to use all the power to get done what they wanted to get done. That doesnt happen anymore. They take their stigma with them. I think thats more than just a subtle change. By shifting it out, theres already a problem. Taking so much out of the legislature into the legislature branch. Where you dont have normal process of consent in election. Congress is now trying to keep up with that and its under the executive and they dont have control over it either. I think we need to recognize that something has shifted. Its a matter of the vast majority of things being commonsensical people concerned with loss are actually passed by people that are not subject to the backboards of legislative debate and election and not subject to the normal process, even. Thats a fundamental shift that we should back up and see where this has gone too. We are missing the force between. We dont see that as a crucial shift and the loss of that i think is close to legislation which are supposed to be the most important of the three branches, the first of three. Its less that he was wrong, its more that we entered a new era, a new time, which he was already perceiving as a form of rule. Are to make one point that has not been made, the fact that congress isnt doing much legislating from is a big indicator of legislatures, the majority of which are now under the unified Party Control of all three branches, legislatures were making a lot more policy in the absence of congressional policy making so that means blue states are producing the rebels and the lack of action, theres results and implications for not just separation of powers but also federalism in a more active state policy making. This is bigger than just left or right. You have to think about legislation, two. The administration results in problems with expertise. If youre wrong, youre just dumb or wrong. They would adjudicate disputes and concerns. So its about persuasion and bargaining and compromise. If you lose, you can come back the next day. In reality, if you lose overwhelmingly and you had your shot, it reconciles you. The most controversial decisions are being made in environments that dont bargain negotiation for good reason, you want it to apply expertise it doesnt legitimize or reconcile the outcome. Its very difficult to make policy in the environment. Thats a bad thing, it doesnt matter if your democrat or republican, the whole building of the federal government to operate is weakened considerably. It does shift it back to the states because of the end of the day, politics wins out. If you have a state Legislature Making decisions, its going to triumph over this thing for people dont know or believe it legitimate. For the same reason we object the ruling by judges, not only because they are unelected but because they can make binary decisions, is not a deliberate process to have compromise in the deliberation. For the same reasons we object to that, we should object congress should object to the fact that regulations are drink more of the lossmaking, not because its binary but because its increasingly arbitrary. Its unpredictable. Its hard to see how the process works. Congress has to lobby them to figure out how its going to be enforced. They have their own courts of judah codification. Thats not a constitutional process. That is kind of a part of the problem. I think we have time for one more question. Ill ask everyone on the panel a broad question so you can speculate a little. What does the future hold for congress . You think this trend toward irrelevance is going to contin continue . What you see in the future for congress . Anybody want to predict or speculate . I try not to think it through the trends because its very hard. In reality, whether the men and women in congress, are they going to act . In the past, its been bad, people have been unhappy but then you have new numbers come in. Im not seeing the new numbers. They come in and get socialized. If we act, we will achieve our goals. The best way to win is to not act so its kind of nonsensical. As long as the people coming into congress think like that, they will continue to not act and we will continue to see this dysfunction we have. Ultimately, at the end of the day, it comes down to the citizens if they think about politics different they want members to act, then they will act. I dont know how but they were. Its hard to imagine the incentives of members of congress changing all that much at least in the short term. The incentive to vote with their Party Leaders and have these mustard votes as opposed to the hard institutional work that it takes to do good legislating. There are signs of hope though. One sign is the bipartisan problem solvers progress, another is the task force on congressional reform. It does seem there are a growing number of members of congress in the institution that recognizes theres a problem. Not a majority willing to act on it but as some of the leaders recently elected maybe feel a little safer. I think it might also take a leadership change in both parties. Its always hard to predict these things. Ill make two observations. Im always optimistic about congress reforming and realizing its actually giving away authority, it ought to act for its own but it doesnt seem to happen. When the current president was elected, i had high hopes because there were republicans in his own party who had real serious differences with him. Paul ryan was serious about things like the project and trying to restore powers but it didnt happen. So im less optimistic about that. I dont think change welcome from congress. I think this trend drives everything increasingly toward debate in a very president ial system that will be increasingly solved it will be focused on National Elections that will in turn then have implications for congress but i dont see how congress in itself, based on democrats, republicans or any combination jones signs that there is light there. Their best bet is that they might be saved by an executive who realizes that we actually need a legislative branch. I will also say i dont particularly like to predict things. If i was better at it, i would see my corporate i agree how difficult the incentives to which members of congress are responding, changing the short term. I do think its important to remember that somewhat inevitably but not entirely, we will seek demographic change coming to congress. We are starting to see it already. The generational differences in the demographics of the country, particularly, democratic side of the aisle, and at the end of the day, the folks who are in Congress Acting or not are individuals who bring a certain set of perspectives to washington so who knows what that will mean in 15 20 years. The set of people who will be in the institution, and we should be rightly concerned about whether they will have knowledge and memory that they will look different and they will have different ideas and approach politics different than some of the folks now. Its hard to know what that will mean, i think a lot about this. Thank you all for coming. Thank you in joining me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] we will have more coverage on this National Security conference taking place, the National Harbor today in maryland. 12 30 p. M. Eastern, cyberspace. Moderated by New York Times reporter david singer, we hear from leader military official leaders. With courage here on cspan2. Saturday on book tv at 9 10 p. M. Eastern, our interview with disability rights attorney and author. In her book, she details becoming the first graduate of harvard possible and how she maneuvers through her cited hearing. I go to school and expect the teachers to teach them. I couldnt do that. I had to think about what i might be missing. How can i find what i need . Have a process of trying to identify and come up with solutions. At 10 00 p. M. On afterwards, hurricane University Professor talks about his book how to be an anti racist. Hes interviewed by author and princeton University Professor. I dont think people who are trying to be part of the movement against racism recognizes that the history when the eugenicist was classified as racist. They said they werent racist when segregationist charged with racism, they said im not racist. Now to me, even white nationalists saying im not racist. No matter in the white house or planning the next mass shooting. 11 00 p. M. , jim mattis recounts his military career and his thoughts on leadership in his book, sign chaos, learning to lead. Watch book tv every weekend on cspan2. What is your vision in 2020 . We are asking students what issues do you most want to see the president ial candidates addressed during the campaign . Cspans nationwide video documentary competition, middle and high school students. 100,000 in cash prizes at stake including a 5000 grand prize. Students are asked to produce a short video documentary