Pleasure to read. I think is great and important because a lot of attention. And just wanted to start out by kind of pulling back a little bit and asking you why did you want to write about Political Parties visiting your first book was focused on lobbying and in the universe of potential reforms, the electoral college, one of the biggest ones money in politics between your tongue about. The growth of executive power, he chose to focus on parties. Thats really is the linchpin. Can you talk a little bit about the parties. In the process. Matthew is going to be with you again. If an reunion here. Lee on cspan. And so why did i write this book. Another because i was worried about american democracy. I saw hyper partisanship as a serious problem. Affecting a country and i wanted to think about if there was some way to maybe solve the problem. It kind of exploded in a somewhat indirect way for my previous book but the corporate lobbying in that book i had basically concluded that one race white levees were so powerful in washington dc was because they essentially wrote a lot of the bus. There is not a tremendous amount of expertise and knowledge and capitol hill because congressional staffers turnover at such a high rate in congress did not really invested itself. After the book came out, when run talking to folks and run congress and think they should just hire more staff than more expertise in recent well of course you. That makes total sense. And yet, it didnt happen. One of the reasons i think is because the power became decentralized in congress and somewhere i also realize that even adding more staff would not solve this problem of hyper partisan ship in congress. In this way in which nothing is done because theres so much gridlock except for the cable moment which is done adolescent core problem, of our democracy is at this moment was the fact that we have two distinct National Parties and i think this, that is new in american political history, and its just in odds with way of governing institutions work. Currently the console a little crazy. Matthew case a little bit about what you think is new. You mention political history obviously, because more than two centuries back. And talk a little bit about how the framers, envisioned politics working in the framers that the role for factions and parties that they saw and why this is such a departure. Lee puts it with the framers. So the framers, re engaging in this kind of radical active this system of selfgovernance, and they felt Political Parties were very dangerous things. They had read their history of ancient roman greeson early republic. And they thought that civil war was a real threat. And so the worst happened when it got split into and then there were two parties and the Majority Party in a Minority Party often what would happen with the majority of the point they would use his power to oppress Minority Party so they thought that they were going to come up with a system of government make it very hard for parties to form. Cameron legislature they were to have three branches of government on top of federalism. That didnt make it very hard for parties to form. At least, and a coherent way. In fact it is one of the reasons why many parties have always been weak and incoherent up until recent times but because blood parties were state and local, the Coalition Parties separate branches. The several decades, they are really truly nationalized for the first reason for the first time a, weve truly nationalized parties that are genuinely distinct, genuinely different values and different visions of america, and we have the binary partnership was is that very thing that the framers feared. Matthew the twoparty system, even not always democratic and Republican Party this twoparty system has survived for centuries. And why is it endured. And then we will get to the hyper partisan argus and the kind of contemporary piece but historically, it seems to have evolved endured in these parties seem to have responsive. Toot National Crises depressing national concerns. So i like to hear a little bit more about that. Matthew i think endured because of the national oven level, a social we had the bullet parties that wouldve been the twoparty system. The parties themselves were have brought overlapping coalition so that they were more flexible and governing level, and congress you do a different coalition based on different issues across parties. Often the local political identity was more important than the National Political identity that also allowed for a lot of the world politics. It helped grease the wheels. In earlier error, local concerns were more important, that it was just easier to build different governing coalitions at different times. Not because the parties have become so distinct and separated in the both competing for this narrow majority the compromises the coalition have a better system of government depends on, and no longer work. Theres this really fascinating morning in this book. Matthew will be to the Solutions Later in the conversation about the nationalizations of the hyper partisan as you put it. One thing that struck me again, speaking with the kind of Historical Development piece, one thing that struck me is invading iraq, where women were in carol or carol would during earlier eras in the passenger each day during the great depression. When 1960s when of course we had scores of urban riots and insight work. Protests, three political leaders were assassinated and outside of the democratic convention, in chicago. I am wondering if youre looking back, if you saw democracy really under greater threats and say the 30s or the 60s than it is today and how you kind of place the parties in those earlier errors versus now. Lets start with the 60s, and certainly the idea of violence is not something new to american democracy. But the idea that there was some peaceful age of american politics that i think is a total mess. Politics, and at times, a little violence. But what was different about the 1960s, was that the conflicts over civil rights were not hyper partisan. Conflicts were fought more within the party civil rights bill actually, there was a higher percentage of republican members of Congress Voting for the major civil rights in 1960 so that the Democratic Party named telnet. That set of policies anyway. So would admit is that though these were difficult conflicts and people who lost their lives in these conflicts didnt threaten the fundamental stability of the political system because been created condition in which everything was at stake with every election which is the situation that were in now, which is creating is an credibly, incredibly emotional politics. In this country, into two entirely distinct political coalitions which is undermining the basic sense of legitimacy and fairness in which a system of democracy has to depend on. And that is a fundamental challenge in the in the 30s, in the challenging time and lots of folks who thought the democracy and that fascism was the way of the future. Nano perhaps on the election of 1932, turned out differently, or a different person became president. Thanks, turned out differently. All wishing remind us that democracy is not something we should take for granted. But it is somewhat fragile. Lee matthew you described for party system, two parties within the party. My question was there a bargain made on the issue of race predict and civil rights and that the parties agree for a number of decades essentially push the issue of jim. And racial segregation aside. In order to have these kind of more harmonious and bipartisan potential because once of course they were introduced, certainly, white americans in the south and in the north in particular, this takes were extreme high and that was of course to africanamericans that were left. In the bipartisan consensus of the 50s in the early 60s but of course that consensus was really based on exclusion of civil rights in the National Phase and continuation of the jim crow south. So this is why politics, fundamentally, about conflict and we have to have these talks. Then we have to figure out how to have them in a way that is not so broad and zerosum. And that the Civil Rights Act of 1960, set in motion the long realignment of america in politics own cultural and social and identity lines which we know are experiencing the culmination of, and they would say that from probably the mid 60s through the late 80s and early 90s, we do have Something Like a functioning for party system which liberal republicans and conservative democrats alongside liberal democrats and conservative republicans, and although, the system certainly wasnt perfect, in retrospect, knowing pretty well because it meant that you could build different coalitions along different issues in congress and lots of landmark legislation passed with overwhelming support. In congress think with that strong committees it hadnt had that much power to the executive branch as it has now and for a lot of voters of course it meant that the parties didnt really stand for anything which frustration for a lot of others at a functioning level ultimately, but with actually multiple parties the voters actually make those more clearly. You mentioned some rights and beyond, civil rights. Matthew how do you explain the past several decades i would use them up and especially in the 60s and 70s and 80s, we see the breakdown. Our the broad cultural forces the rise of the cultural wars and things like that fractured me of the landscape so many pundits and scholars talk about and how would you explain forces that are for driving these national. I think you identified a few of them from the rising politics and the cultural war. Speech of they were accelerated in the backlash to civil rights. And just the increase in culture war issues at the national level, and the cold war played a little bit into that as well in the kind of common enemy. And i spent two chapters in the book detailing the trends in internet does not do anything. The complexity of the historian of it. In short, as americans become prosperous and they have expanded interesting Economic Issues of an earlier era, and the rising identity cultural war of politics and the parties took on distinct and separate National Images by the 1990s, when the cultural war issues reached a level of national failures, the democratic parties have become much more liberal in the Republican Party had become more of cultural liberalism in these patterns, and these trends all feed on themselves. Because as these national extract Cultural National the motor start identifying which party with their values better. The parties themselves change liberal republicans in the conservative democrats disappears. In the National Identities of the party changed in the voters mood and shifted. In this what led to where we are today. The house speaker, the leader of socalled republican revolution of 1994, and the memo, the fellow republican policy that had to describe democrats. Importing fundamentals from your book. He recommended the republicans use words to talk about democrats such as betray, bizarre, decay and destroy, and it devoured and graded lies in pathetic radical and selfish shame, and traders. Thats a pretty remarkable set of attributes to fix on ones opponents. That kind of encapsulate a different level of record. Then what even though as we are discussing politics and we will always consider brutal, are we talking about something fundamentally new in the early 90s. Will route you race, dementia things and that 19 inc. And he encouraged his republicans to talk in much more aggressive way about democrats pretty also the first time he really nationalized Congressional Election in the past Congressional Elections had mostly been run on global issues and he noticed something which is that republicans cufflink national elections. They must 1992 but they were losing a thought that the key these national that reagan. So he reall. Matthew i think ingrid is a fingerprint and often he becomes as caricature of everything was fine. And then suddenly it took over and things went to. And essentialist power and is picking up on trends in one reason why he came to power in the Republican Party is that there were a lot of republicans in the house tired of being a minority and to go along to get along and the Democratic Party had been in the majority of the house for 40 years and they have been a big corrupt. An increasingly strong centralized leadership on their speaker jim. Which a lot of publicans rebelled against their public there were being cut out. In the rise in a green preach and i think he is an important player but is a product. Matthew just to be clear, this is not about institutional is pretty is a symptom right. There is a reason the gingrich emerged. And so i dont want to undervalue the actor at the particular time but i think that we often over rate the role in particular actors are transforming institution when they are largely responding to pressures and incentives and brought, pattern. Matthew when the most refreshing things about your book is to read contemporary politics that is not trump centric. Some focus on trip. Which is mentioned a times but its really quite refreshing not to be about trump. And it overfocus on him. In getting back to the 90s and the 2000, trying to bring us up to where we are today. You write the congress has not had a serious bipartisan lot making sense 1990. And when i read that, hardly thought okay i know congress, i used to work in congress. The minority Peter Gephardt and warfare. In the simply by thought will clinton enacted, nafta and welfare reform, the crime and a host of other Bipartisan Legislation and a lot of them we might disagree with. But certainly it was 90s. After 911, both parties seem to come together about security reforms whether good or bad. And then the passage of tarp in response to that 2008 financial crisis so my question is, on the parties in the past, have they been able to reach compromises and find some level ground. Ands special in times of crisis. Where are these examples that i am siding, are they really so exceptional. To this toxic hyper partisan norm. Lee it doesnt happen all at once, there has been a steady decline. There is major immigration law, major budget, and americans with disabilities act which are all really landmark legislation. But there hasnt been major partisan legislation since then but, having four major bills in a year. That doesnt happen anymore. It is been spluttering out really since the 2010 in which i would argue that for the first time we have had a genuine twoparty system. And basically nothing in terms of major Bipartisan Legislation. Billy legislation now the passes is the partisan very some of the passes in criminal justice reform. And in 2018, there was something. But if we are talking about our thinking about the denominator, which is the number of problems that congress is to solve a look at the numerator, the function is getting smaller and smaller. Matthew especially when it seems overwhelming from the american people. Like the commonsense government. Some of the title of the book, its this breaking the twoparty doom loop, you talk a little bit about why it is so dire. Why we cant seemingly escape is because a portion of the politics is never status. But he confides there is a certain space and that we kind of spiral into really a negative. Her era we should really is no state which there is a fundamental productive property reform. Lee we have two distinct National Parties fighting over a zerosum conflict over what is our national identity. One parties democratic, at its core, and the urban cosmic talk potent america. And multi cultural and economy. The other part of the republicans which has its core in rural traditional White Christian america. Increasingly disconnected from the global economy. Twentytwo very different visions for governing america. Lee the challenges in roughly equal power. In any given election, republicans could win control of washington. And weve had no going back to 1992, along pendulum of politics, unified governments, and unified government from the other governments. In the democrats, making unified control. After the 2020 election but it will probably only keep it for two years even if they do. So there is no or the stakes are incredibly high and we are in this era of extended trench warfare with no obvious resolution. And besides desperately fear being in the minority. In both sides think that they can win the majority. But it is a stalemate and neither side has any intention of ever backing down. And to even engage in political compromise, is essential to baptism. So just like youre stuck in a traffic jam. And cannot move because there fundamental barriers ahead. Matthew getting stuck in this endless cycle youre getting getting angrier and angrier is also for, the forces in a political system, it leads to more escalation. People get more emotional about politics, you cant compromise with the other side of people are cutting off friendships. People a more more surrounding themselves with people who share their values. And engaging in information. It reading information and news, that reinforces themselves. So what is even a true fact at this point. Matthew freight example, the 2018 collection, where all of the partisans, the antitrust partisans that was not part of an escape of valve of some sort of let out some of the steam of the democrats won the house. They won a number of state legislatures. This had an atomic effect on some of the toxins. Lee charlottes amount of the seamount, but it is not a longterm solution that the majority is not likely to be a permanent majority and once trump is out of office, a lot of that energy will dissipate in the democrats will disappointed with whomever they elected. And will disengage it at. In the big, and there should be problems. One is that there are a lot of really pressing National Issues that we have to deal with because the climate is probably the most important. And were not dealing with it at all. Into is that it is escalating type of partisanship, where now fighting over basic rules of election of who gets to vote. And habits are counted. Legitimacy. Democracy has always been a conflict. Politics is conflict. Not political issues but the challenges we need to have some system by which we can agree that some set of rules are unfair and substantive procedures affairs we can abide by those outcomes. And when things like elections are fundamentally called into question, when we dont have any way to arbitrate disagreements, we dont have a democracy anymore. Matthew you read the book at one point that you are a democrat. And that you say that the common argument that it is really one party, the Republican Party that is become too extreme is gone off of the rails and is become of captured by the far right forces. That argument is flawed. These are deeper systemic, problems and again this idea of the dume loop, can you talk a little bit about why you think the arguments that it is really that the democrats are really bright with pirates and liberals and people on the far left, where republicans are really quite extreme. Why is that flawed. Lee vault republicans are as well. These flawed, i dont know, personal i should say, i do agree that the Republican Party has become an extreme party invite any historical or comparative standard, the Republican Party has become an extreme party but to just say well, the problems and therefore the democrats seem to win all of the elections, the does not solve the hyper but arson should problems adjustments were so low, i may be a democrat and i meet think that things would be better if democrats were in power, i dont think thats a solution to the underlying structural problem and i think the reason that the Republican Party has become so extreme is really fundamentally a function of the twoparty system. Is there are folks in the Republican Party or something on the board with what trump stood for where he wanted to take party. But he to them, you can be a democrat so theres no other party. So to come along with me. And slowly they have come along with him. So if there were another party, i think there are a lot of republicans who would have joined a different right party. Lee matthew anything but trump support in the election, we have probably 40 percent of the people are republicans of republican meaning. The probably have about 30 percent of them as a primary. In the next 12 percent better. Thats in line with a lot of the far right parties in europe. So it seems reasonable but because we have a twoparty system, you can be the plurality of the plurality and gain total power. So by winning the republican nomination, trump got to redefine the Republican Party and for a lot of voters in the 2016 election, it was a binary choice. I read a lot of columns of folks on the right saying well i dont love trump, but democrats are crazy so i guess i will have to vote for trump. And in that binary system, guess i will have to vote for the republican because there is no other alternative. Matthew phone to the right to the vast majority of them are posted trump, the national review, and a lot of now support him. Speech of these the only game in town if you dont want to be a democrat. If you want to be an independent and no power. Lee the lesser of the two evils is the defining logic and politics. By the way if you do it google on that you wont find it much. It is not phrased that way. You will find theres a martial arts movie that have that. But he didnt do too well. So they changed with the name. [laughter]. Delta research on that. Matthew that might be an appropriate name. Just a warrior. Let me ask you in terms of getting at this damn loop. We will get to your solutions in a moment. But why is it conceivable in 2020, lets say trump that the republicans just south of 2012 autopsy report. The party, ships, it becomes a more moderate party list as a much bigger space for more moderate policies on issues like Climate Change immigration and even as employee taxes, why does that seem so far fetched. In your analysis. Lee the Republican Party has shifted since 2012 when the republicans lost in a mentor leaders, said we have to reach out to immigrants, more young people. That was a faction within the party and that function was defeated. In the Republicans Party is notified itself in opposition to immigration. And a real fighter for traditional values and those of the boxer most active in the Republican Party now. The idea that theres all of these folks active and powerful in the Republican Party, they believe deeply in these values and they probably think that they were cheated and they probably think the reason they did not win because i did not fight hard enough in the values because that is who in charge of the party now and those are the groups in the public coalition. And the idea that they would embrace completely different visions of what the party stands for, just seems to defy logic. That is not the values of the Republican Party. And theyre not going to suddenly transform the values when i think that they can continue to win. Maybe if they lose for president ial elections and a row and become a minority, and a dominant democratic politics, they might think. But thats a ways off and i dont think that will happen anytime soon. Matthew one of these things i like about your book is it is not at all relentlessly week. Its half or two thirds, is focused on the analysis, the problem but, youve really got a very meaty solution section. And recommendations and you clearly thought very deeply about them. Like to spend little time going through your case for reform and of course that is a subtitle. The case for multiparty democracy in america. Multiparty democracy seems very foreign to us. To a lot of americans. But what would be the key advantages to having a multiparty democracy. Lee one, i know it sounds a foreign but i think it actually, may be seen this one for two reasons because one i think we have the multiparty democracy in the u. S. For a long time. Contained within the twoparty system but i think what we had was much more akin to multi party with different factions that we have now. I think the twoparty democracy in 2010 is a truly radical deviation from the american political party. I also think if you look at the framers with they were writing about megan they didnt like parties but when they really was the twoparty system. But read madison number ten, which is one about factions. And i read is saying look key to a stable democracy includes coalition. He of different factions building different majorities on different issues but you want to have democracy so that it will be a permanent minority and therefore that note group full like a permanent majority and it seems like an opportunity to oppress the minorities. It has fundamentally a vision of multiparty democracy in which different parties filled different coalitions at different times and issues and come in and depending on the a different issues is more responsive. Its more fluid. Parties can come and go in the changing demands and the concerns of the electric. So things should not seem that far out. And we havent not looked in our political history and that way. It has tremendous advantages. One embraces binary politics and builds and the politics fundamentally about confirmation and coalition building. And there are some advantages as well. One is that, the turnouts, viscerally higher in proportional democracies because every vote matters in a proportional democracy or is in the u. S. , if youre not in one of the handful of swing districts or swing states, it is a matter. Moreover for more parties, youre more likely to find a candidate or party you feel like is like you. In one of the things that have perplexed a lot of folks in the u. S. Is why do we have this low voter turnout and despite, who made it much easier to go in the u. S. Over the last 60 years. Some backsliding in some states. But that they remain or go up and down a little bit depending on the election. The reason is, but only two parties, on the voters for life have a party that they really feel excited about. But a lot of voters feel like, what is a point of voting. But most of portly, take original large parts of the country until in their operations there. Where if every vote matters, parties are more likely to go after your vote and also gary is only function of our two parties. Its a uniquely american problem. If you have more parties, and larger districts, which we need to get more parties in proportional voting. Usually because you dont have way to run these conflict algorithms that predict how different lines are going to yield different delegations. Matthew can you talk about some of the reforms that you envision. Multimember house districts. One of these and why would they be better. Lee in order to have proportional representation. Its a system that we have now, and the elections, we are somewhat unique in the world. Theres only a handful of countries that use it still. Most countries have over the course of the 20th century, to proportionally position. There are many types of representation of this. Theres a sort of hyper pr that wrist role uses the generate to any parties and too much fracture. And what i envision from the u. S. Is something more like what i would call modest democracy. Probably generate four to six parties. The system in ireland uses. Similar to australia. And rather than having a Single Member district which is what we are used to coming to mind five districts into one and you have five representatives and their elected proportionally so that you dont have to get morality of the boat but you actually can get 17 percent if you use a system that the irish he was which is right within a multi member district. Matthew can you give us an example to say, what would nebraska or oklahoma or picture place. Lee i think oklahoma has five congressional, five seats. I dont know. Im not sure about oklahoma. So oklahoma is probably 60 percent republican state. I think there is one democrat who one from oklahoma. Just barely. But, the democrats, or liberals should have probably 40 percent of the states for 60 percent at the fair distribution. In one multidistrict. If you had multimember districts, you would probably have more than two parties because now parties can compete without having to win a majority see my calf a party does not obligate social Democratic Party like bernie sanders, but a more modern like joe biden and then at different Republican Party but i think you would have probably, but that moderate republican reform issue party. More traditional Christian Conservative freemarket party and then one that is like the Trump America first. Lee you see the country. Matthew it kind of representing the parties. You might have the other party. I think there are or it depends, he could see more parties. There is nothing sacred about just having two parties. You make a very good point in the book which i really appreciate which is that our electoral rules and system most of them are not set in stone differently motivated right. He took a little bit more about this because it was so refreshing student reading about the ships in our electoral democracy. Cant a little bit more about why, we dont have to be bound up by two parties right. It is not necessarily. Lee we have a Voting System which tends to have two parties that favors they imported that from the british. In 1430 innovation. At the time, it was the only system available. It was a constituent based in a date based system that seems like thats just how we vote and there have been tremendous innovations in electoral rules that have created systems that are fair or more rep. And i think we can certainly benefit from taking advantage of this innovation. And threat history. Matthew we changed the rules of it. There is buried in 30s and 40s but a lot of states move to a single block voting at large. It actually is probably the only thing worse. Because basically of 60 percent of support in a state and it is all one at large and you get say, ten those receipts in the state. Then everybody gets ten votes. This of the democrats have the 60 percent. And then they could win all ten seats with a should probably would about 60 percent. In this what a bunch of the Democratic State started doing the 30s and the way the god power, and then they got rid of it and thats what we have the single winner district mandate. In 1957 trying to enforce the one person, the one vote to create equal districts. But the constitution says states can do what they want with her voting rules the congress is like with her saying or doing, article one section four for those of you reading your constitution. Matthew talk a little bit about ranked voting. Thats obviously unfamiliar. And to me and most other people. Lee s assistant is been used in australia for well over a hundred years. Ireland and a few other countries. There now actually been catching on and handful of states. Many minneapolis uses it, near just adopted the main is now using it for its congressional and president ial elections. Its quite simple rather than taking just one candidate, you rank your candidates in order. In the candidates get eliminated from the bottom up. So the first preference choices get eliminated or transferred. Like essentially having a backup. You might not win but you want to register your support and then second or third, it gives more expression to voters and is having disability. And also encourages more coalition building, might not be your first choice but i like to be your second choice in the cities have adopted have seen more less negative campaigning and voters, tend to like that. Since a way to reduce polarization in the multi winter format, it would be multiparty democracy. Lee most of them have unintended consequences. Matthew things that we cant, some democratic reforms have clearly advance democracy. Voting rights act, and 1965. Others though, i think seem quite flawed in retrospect, thinking about california initiative. The initiative system. Designed to put power in peoples hands. Taken out of the hands of the corporations but that lead to things like proposition 13, proposition eight, 187, the anti immigrants proposition. The Republican Party in california, all very controversial. Campaign finance reform in the 1970s, and again in the 2000s. So Frederick Arendt that outpaced the reality of what happened. But they didnt deliver on the promise. The big money in politics, so talk to us a little bit about what you think could go wrong with what you are calling the book, to save american democracy act that would be some of the unintended consequence is that we might worry about. Lee unintended consequences, with status quo, also has unintended consequences when you are status quo. The one is higher when you are at status quo. Lee democracy is something that is not solved. Its always going to be and be messy. Its always good to be a tradeoff among competing values. And for me it is to try to solve the most pressing problems at a particular moment. And also to think about, changes that we have experience with so the idea of multiparty democracy, given that it radical idea, as most advanced democracies in the world. No crazy idea. Certainly some crazy ideas out there maybe is not best. Direct primary, and at the time they were trying to solve a particular problem. So these progressive forms. Speed. Matthew those both parties are ran by the wealthy industrialists. When we do about that. Well i guess we take power away from them. Because they dont seem to be representing the people that will. Lee doing business in the 1980s and 30s, the advocated proportional representation. In fact 24 cities, and did move to the multi franchise voting including new york city. I think it worked pretty well. The communists got elected in one place and let people got elected in another place. The two parties under chinatown. Democracy is not a thing to be solved. There are always unintended consequences but we always have to way, what is worse, letting things continue as they are in a way that seems incredibly destructive and harmful or solving, what is the biggest problem now and maybe generation from now there will be new problems that reformers will need to solve. We have to allow our democracy to continue in order to solve problems in the future. Matthew because your senior fellow, they have an interest in seeing some of their ideas. Some of their ideas come into action can talk about the mechanics of implementing these changes. How these reforms actually get done beyond the book, are steps that you and or new america and again not to link the two things together but it might take to promote your reform ideas. If. Lee where we are sing reform taking off in the states, it will be in the ballot in massachusetts i think well probably be in the ballot, in 2020 in alaska. Theres a lot of energy already out of the country around this reform and i think it will as most political reforms in the history of the u. S. Have happened, it will happen in the states. And that states can change how they elect their legislatures and then eventually it will happen at the national level. Theres even been a bill introduced that theres been representation past rated that would put in place voting for the house. Big reform is never easy. But we are at the moment in which americans are really frustrated with how the political system works and two thirds of americans say they would like more than two parties for americans never choosing not to affiliate with either the democratic or the Republican Party. Any quality is incredibly high and, we are also seeing the breakdown of a lot of things that we sort of thought of as justin challenged. In a free trade. Me to movement, black lives matter, i think really changed a lot of things and theres sort of this changeable social hierarchy. I think i love donald Trump Presidency has done a lot of damage, and also i think, in a way, assumptions that our system works pretty well. Anything is broken up a lot of people, and maybe theres a crisis in american democracy that we had to reform. In thinking that american political history, there is pattern in the kind of crisis and renewal. The revolutionary war, the progressive era, the civil rights. The constitution, and in each era, if at these moments in which it seems like something is broken. And we make our democracy more inclusive, more responsive, and more functional. And we create new problems for a new era but we solve problems of that era. Matthew even the parties in power now, even if they see this as being harmful to their interest like husband get, that the two parties now, to basically sign off on support legislation that i guess, abolishes them in some ways. In the race and upgraded. Matthew lee the leadership of these two parties, are going to see the smoke. Matthew did they get attention away. But thats okay. Reform happens when theres folks who demand it and frankly, there are a lot of politicians who i think are really frustrated with being trapped in a system that they feel like theyre just foot soldiers in this was more. And they want to solve big public problems. Lincoln to engage in more partisan problem solving. And theyre prevented from doing so. The prevented from doing so by the party leadership. And by their own voters, the primary voters who are into parts and. So think there are a lot of folks who would actually do a lot better under a new system. In the book and talk about Different Cases of reform, new zealand went from to a proportional system in the 90s when voters demanded it. And they the political system was unresponsive. A lot of western european democracies made the transition in the first two decades of the 20th century. And in all of these instances the law applicable leaders, eventually, so we can actually do fight wealth of this system. Actually it would be better for the country. So i think it is very shortsighted of them to persist in this trench warfare. This only no. But i, and a lot of folks, a Public Service and into the Public Service because they wanted to do some good for the country. I think theres very frustrated right now. Matthew we have just a few minutes left. But i do want to pull back a little bit. A lot of the literature that is popular literature has emerged. So much of a seems to be in response to the election. In 2016. Do you think that anything wouldve been different, the way you wrote it, maybe if Hillary Clinton wouldve one. When you feel like this was earn it. You made a point earlier about crystallizing some of the flaws in the system that people are waking up to free the one we be having the same conversation. Lee i think yeah it would be different. Now we would be in the third or fourth impeachment of Hillary Clinton we would be looking at it 2020 election. I dont know, im sure i wouldve written a different book. And i henneman planning planning a somewhat different book although, broadly the same themes that have forced me to rethink and change the book that i wrote. I dont se i dont think there would be as many people would be so engaged. It would feel like more of an extension of the obama years. And in some ways, i think that we, may be better off as a country for having trump come to power in a way in which he was organized and there was sort of a buffoonery, and aspect to it rather than a more disciplined trump like figure. What you make of these books, and how democracy has died your books seem to fall into that genre. And the conversation with them. Lee i draw quite a bit on how democracy diet in the framework and use that, in the discussion and forbearance breaks down. And this is actually the path that we are on is a path because we are really breakdown fundamental master norms. This was very much in conversation those books are not solution books. Theyre one of the things that i wanted to do in writing this book is to write a solution spoke. Thereve been a lot of books, in the last two years to come out there sort of hair on fire, we have a problem, we have a problem. But then in the end, the people should be nicer to each other. Matthew someone you disagree with politically. It. Lee yes. I wanted to take a step back. One of the deeper structural causes and one annette, can we change. A not going to change how the structure of the many and how it works. Were not going to change human psychology. But we can change the incentives and we can change some of the institutional rules because we done that throughout american political history and democracies around the world and done that. And that is fundamentally, what is guiding our constitution. That institutions matter and welldesigned institutions can channel our best instinct. And minimize our mistakes. This inspiration the take. Matthew i think you really captured the structural problems we have as well as proposing really smart sensible solutions. Spent wonderful to be with you late drop in. Thank you so much. This program is available as a podcast. All afterwards programs can be viewed in a website, booktv. Org at politics and prose bookstores in washington dc, New York Times financial editor david reported on germany. His relationship with president trump. Heres a portion of this. If they ever become public, are not going to show some of the most important things we want to know about trumps finances. Theyre not going to show his sources of income. Youre not going to show his business partners. Theyre not going to give a real view of which assets he have which are valuable especially in countries outside of the united states. Much more valuable are going to be the other financial statements, the income statements of any documents around in my understanding is that the bank has very detailed or charge the most that show the relationship between turf it trump businesses that they have with each other and where all the monies coming from. They have a lot of the documents they also have documents that show was of the concerns that employees raise about suspicious transactions that went on. This is something that is not dennis or god this much attention as i thought it would. The employees, perez repeatedly red flags about what they deem to be suspicious transactions involving trumps. Including the case of money going to russia. In the concerns cars are overruled. And it was never reported to the government in one case, the employee was fired after speaking out about it. To watch the rest of this program, visit booktv. Org. Search for david or the title of the book, dark towers, using the search box at the top of the page. Will
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.