Authored is called these United States it a nation a nation in the making. He has written countless fantastic books. Is on my right, a professor at princeton university. He has written several books, nation under one god, the development of civil ,eligion in the 50s and 60s and the conservative try for civil religiosity. Kevins right is david greenberg, a professor at rutgers university. He has a new book out called republican spin, and inside history of the american president s. I would highly recommend it as well. Are, and i will start with the most pertinent question over the last few weeks. Especially after last night, which is have we ever seen a time where both parties are this divided at the convention . Anyone can start us off. Candidatesa lot of for partisan Division Going into the conventions and general election in 1948, 1968, 1976, 1980 just to name a few. I do not think the division we are seeing in philadelphia or last week in cleveland is a departure from patterns in american politics. That is exactly right. It has often been much worse. We have seen conventions that floor, andos on the also chaos in the country. 18 68, looking 1860, mr. Toml the ones mentioned. Where the country fell apart. This is been it tumultuous set of conventions, and the democrats might be finding their rhythm over last night. But this is not over. I will say a little contrary to that, it is nonetheless clear that we are at an important Inflection Point for both parties. In a way, that probably has not been true in quite a while. 1992think you could say in bill clinton fundamentally riented a Democratic Party the Democratic Party, shedding some of the investments of 60s paleo liberalism. Reagan say that ronald in 1980 build a new kind of conservative majority and court that brought together the two wings and left the liberal wing a useless appendage. There is a feeling, both what is happening in the world and in the party, that there is a particular sense of ferment. A reasons journalists to hide the unprecedented nature, which is a word i hate. That antorian can claim event is unprecedented . At work andvisions the parties this year that seemed especially fierce and strong. Say,are different from barack obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008, or any other number of contestants in primary fights. There is something profound going on. I would say there is a to see with happening is unique, we have not seen this before. As recently as 1980, gerald ford , in the spring of 1980 would talk about how Ronald Reagan could not win. Simultaneously on the democratic side, we had ted kennedy, who barely raise jimmy carters hand jimmy cartersd hand at the end of the convention. We have these things going over and over again, but as david said, i think it is a good point that this is different than the Traditional Party divide. Inflection point we saw in 1912, where the Republican Party allegedly split into two. It is something that is maybe more significant than the typical primary campaign ferment where there is some ill will at the end, but at the end of the day things will unify quite nicely. These divisions are a little more meeting people wondering if the party is for me, to some extent . We will come back to this, but i want to touch on something that came up michellet, which was obamas universally wellregarded speech. Pantheon of great dimension addresses we have heard over the years. It is, in some ways, unique or unprecedented. [laughter] not, if we think about it, we can find precedent. Olympicsr with the they started deemphasizing the athletics and emphasizing the personal stories of these athletes with up close and personal segments. Somewhere along the line, maybe in the 90s, the convention started doing that to. That, too. The incumbent first lady and the first ladies are speaking now. So there is something about having the family, the other figures who are not great political figures, they get so much of the primetime. I think that is hard to find a precedent. Michelle obama really did, they have a great article in politicos convention issue. You can pick up an issue around town, but also you can get it online. It is that hillary and obama trying to save the Democratic Party, and michelle made a case or the fusion and thinking of between ay of Clinton Presidency and an obama presidency, deemphasizing the differences some have seen between them in favor of a narrative of continuity. I think that is one reason other a personalurse, story of being a black woman in a white house but by slaves. If we think back to the last democratic convention, the most powerful speech was probably in favor of the obama administration. We are probably seeing payback for that. I would say one other thing about Michelle Obamas speech be optimism that imputed the optimism that in butte it. It. Mbued nights on stage last talking about america being great. It was great in parts because of her familys jury trajectory, her two black daughters and their dog playing on a lawn of a house built by slaves. It is an interesting rebuttal, subtle, but an interesting lasttal to donald trump week, who said america was not great, but a disaster. Hand,me back on the other and offered such an opposite to be of the United States in 2016. Speeches ofhe others we heard that night, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. It was one that took that theme of National Unity based on a pride in the countries president , andnt took away from the republicans. It was a very interesting move. Were two veryced striking things. One was the discordant tone with elizabeth worn coming afterward, ause it was so often stake optimist and hopeful and elizabeth worn with saying the whole system is rigged. Another thing that was Elizabeth Warren was saying the system was rigged. She is also talking about the greatness of america. Democrats were always afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic. They were more interested in Foreign Policy kind of things. Reagan captured the sunny, america is the greatest nation kind of tone. Democrats are trying to take that back because donald trump is going in such a different direction with his rhetoric. It was very striking to hear her, especially given her history, share this soaring, proamerica, optimistic case. I think it will go down in the pantheon of great speeches that are usually go down in the that are usually given by politicians, like ted kennedy. It will end up in that pantheon because it was so Pitch Perfect for the moment. One other thing she did in that speech that was very was,tant and effective obama himself in 2008 made the case that patriotism included electing me, because that will demonstrate our progress on africanamerican equality. In a way, he reclaimed patriotism issue. Kansan and a canyon, that whole set of phrases he used. , the holes of the phrases used. Something that hillary has traditionally shied away from , isng on her own behalf because it rubs people the wrong way. Its because it runs people the wrong way rubs people the wrong way, because of sexism, all that. Michelle obama saying that brings in the pride we can all feel of having our first female president. I think it was very thematic. You are absolutely right that ae Democratic Party has series of breakthroughs that go back to saying, america is great , we are proving it now. Trumps rhetoric is all about making America Great again. It is a striking dichotomy that flex these coalitions. These coalitions. Trump is looking backwards and the democrats are looking forward. One subject i wanted to touch on canght, i do not think we talk about any campaign and Bernie Sanders. Should we be surprised that he waged such a successful fight . Have there been other precedents like him in the past 50 to 75 years in american politics . Been, certainly, surprise winners. Probably not with the same kind of ideological message. If you think of jimmy carter coming out of nowhere in 1976. The younger faces in the audience may not know the story. But jimmy carter told his mother he was running for president , and she said it president for what . That this one turned georgia governor was going to win the democratic nomination, he was up against some nationally recognized former senators, and some thought it was impossible. But for a variety of reasons, the field was ruptured, he came this authentic figure saying, i will not lie to you. He didnt really steal that nomination out of nowhere. Did really steal this nomination out of nowhere. In that way, i do not think sanders is unprecedented. There are aat 1972, lot of leftwing candidates that got nods, so that is not unprecedented there either. I think what might be hard to find a precedent for was finding someone who was such a heavy, oddson favorite who came so close but did not get elected. He was never in danger of not getting the nomination. We knew it was going to be an uphill battle for sanders to get all the delegates he needed. More it is more like mondale in 84. The grip on the nomination was never that lose. I would share the mcgovern analogy and even mccarthy in fracturedcampaign was in so many different ways. The perception was that he was a very liberal candidate, and of course Bobby Kennedy in that campaign did very well in primaries as well. I will throw another nominee out there from the other side of the spectrum. That is barry goldwater. I was listening to the speech last night and couldnt help but think there are some parallels between goldwater and sanders, being in the 1960s the conservative Movement Really really wanted really, really wanted goldwater to run. It was more about putting your name into the convention and being willing to run, and he was very ardent. He was very ardent in saying i am supporting nixon, and supporting the party. He was ideologically outside of the mainstream, but because of grassroots support like bernie had, he was able to succeed in the convention. He did not get the nomination, but he wanted to play the intheparty game. Party. To reshape the professional training is hindsight, but what happens to sanders now . What does he do, not him personally, but the people have inspired by him. It is the bernie or bust moment . Did a walkway from the party, or do they double down and do they walk away from the party or double down and decide that they have a chance to change things. In the, like clinton early 90s, they had rested the party away from the other established the establishment. Things have already been changed, the grounds ground is already moving. I think if sanders and his supporters do the hard work of working next to the party in a president ial year, and going all the way down ballot and starting with the grassroots up in getting involved in everything from City Councils and school board races. Fromll remake the party the ground up, and that is how goldwater led to reagan. It took a lot of years of hard work. Is one of the issues that sanders and his supporters have tapped into that could provide a redefinition and a shot of energy into the Democratic Party. The question is, are they going to sink their teeth into it . One of the questions the Sanders Campaign faces as it moves forward is whether or not they will be the momentum to work within existing Party Institutions and nonprofits. There is a bit of an antiinstitutional speak, a more liberal streak in the sanders party. A skepticism about working within existing party structures. One thing you can say about the goldwater supporters is they were happy to capture the township council. There were happy to capture the school board. They were happy to work in the system, building up the infrastructure necessary take to take over a national party. Is committedrs enough, no question. Ryan seems to me the media line right now is that this the future of the party. I do not think it is. I think it will be like occupy wall street, a big flareup and the dissipate. It will leave a residual impact but not a significant one. On thatl argue with you one. I would say to think about sanders in some ways is a pretty strong candidate for the presidency did were markedly well, who did remarkably well given his limitations. He had never gone to a Democratic National convention before. He is an outsider, he is 74. Gine a 40 something with Latino Sanders coming out in 2020 or 2024, whenever there is that contested race again. Comes up with charisma and Political Leadership experience, and i think it could be a different story. I am looking at my crystal ball here, which is story and are reluctant to do. I think there could be a possibility. If we think about the last week and the speeches we saw last night, and all the discussion from the party about tim kaine was to help the party. I think you could see a different difference in pain. He is a real progressive who is speaking to the moment. To some extent it comes down to the question of, how much was bernies support driven by ideology, and how much of it was people who are turned off either clintons or having by the clintons or having another clinton in the white house . , along withk field people with like martin omalley. [laughter] martin omalley, there are not a lot of alternatives up there. It is what percentage of that movement was there, and i think what others have said are right. The goal of the movement, it might take even more than 16 years of work. They mightve started in the late 60s and early 70s, and if you look at the goldwater rise taking over the apparatus from state governors. People were stunned that they had been usurped. Work is slow and the payoff is slow, they did not see the payoff until 1980. If these people are interested in the long haul, they are now saying we might vote for jill sign or not vote. That does not capture the party, it just captures the rank or the party feels for them. Rancor the party feels for them. I do not think any of them would be the ideological heirs to sanders. You have cory booker and 80 colleges are amy covance are ures to Gillibrand Hillary has been so misinterpreted by Younger Voters who do not beinger the younger years from the conservative wing or the moderate wing, and tim kaine from that matter to. Matter, too. He is a white man for virginia from virginia, so he must be a moderate. At the whole record, and the same with clinton, to where the party is going is not to sanders position, it is the look atposition immigration clinton position. Look at immigration. Look at the Koch Brothers proposal. This hurts americans and depresses wages for american workers. That was sanderss line a year ago. He struggled to build a multiracial coalition. The future of the Democratic Party, again, is much more with the Clinton Coalition being multiracial been the sanders one. In a lot of ways, it is Hillary Clintons synthesis. Left weces to the are a few paces to the left of where we are at the 90s. I think this not only recognizes the future of the Democratic Party, it builds more on the nature of the future of politics and multiracial coalitions. Thate things that thing struck me yesterday was i was reading about all these Party Supporters reading about barney frank. The republicans trot him out as someone who touts a lincoln political liberal extremism. We are seeing more that more what we saw on the right through the years, this creeping purity they call them rinos republicans in name only. , i was told look, during that ventingarned my spleen and hating bill clinton was not good for my soul. Now we are seeing this with some folks on the left you are saying , Hillary Clinton is not a liberal. She does not agree with us on this one issue. The question i have for you is a followup. How much of this did bill himself as ao sell new kind of democrat . Andh on crime, moderate, not what you saw before bernie or ted kennedy. Hillary has always been more liberal than he was. There is a lot of imputing going on, and bill has a long track record of being part of the Democratic Party. We cannot write off the 20 plus agenda. That she had hillary has changed though, and i am not worried about a couple thousand Bernie Sanders supporters essentially calling out clinton and her democrats dinos and name only. I do not think they are organized enough to be a voice that will pull the Democratic Party to a politics impurity. That i do think that the supporters and Sanders Campaign bitled hillary to a little of the left of where she might have been five or 10 years ago. Thecan say that that is role of uncertainties in Political Parties, to pull the party a little bit in their direction. Some people want a revolution to happen tomorrow, but political change usually happens a little more incrementally. It is not turn on a dime, but it turns gradually. I think the sanders people, by cing clinton and cain to show where there allegiances are, it is moving things forward. From nbc hadchell an exchange with senator al fromen Andrea Mitchell nbc had an exchange from with al franken where she asked, how did we get here . How did we get to this environment where we have one of the two Major Party Candidates who goes up there and says things that are blatantly false . We have had the Biggest Convention bounce, postconvention bounce in history. Pointdo we get to this where facts dont mean anything . I wrote an oped for the New York Times on election day 2012. I said what was remarkable out about this election, for me, is that the truth does not seem to matter anymore. I was talking about the fate unemployment numbers faked unemployment numbers, and so on. It seemed like a Stephen Colbert type of truth had taken hold. We have moved so much farther in the last four years. Is even, i do think those i do not think those numbers are right, but from is saying things that are demonstrably monstrously untrue. This would have been one of these things would have been a gaffe, but hundreds of these take cold of the National Line hold of the National Line. Politico, which i write for, asked me to do a piece, and i object to do the headline but they used it anyway. Are clinton and trump the biggest liars ever to run for president . [laughter] i think they are on different planets. Clinton has an authenticity problem, her manner has a laurie lawyerly quality that makes her seem distant and defensive. But trump has a problem of saying anything, whether it is true or not. I think his problem is more lying now. What is different now is that we are so polarized that we are willing to call the other guys than errors,rather mistakes, or disagreements. Because we inhabit these different media versus universes next to talk radio and cable news, especially fox. , people cantia information screens are so different from one another. Peoples information streams are so different from one another. There is a line i found in my. Esearch from bernard peru everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. That is something we can all agree on, but there isnt so much of making a claim in politics there is so much of making a claim in politics that is about clout you give to the facts. Trump, according to cnn possible , he rose 10 point. Why another one, he went by another one, he went down. Good reporters now fire off opinions, it is not be oldfashioned reporter column. A collection of trumps lives, including trump saying be unemploymente real rate is 42 , not 5 . There is actually an argument here if you look at the number of people who left the workforce that are not accurately actively seeking jobs, we do not count them in. To some degree you would say that the employment covers are false. But you would need to say that for every president , and not compare obama to bush or clinton under different standards. But is that a lie, or is that spin . I think we are tempted to label lies nowadays with this ferocity and slap this label on it. It is spin, and we are quite capable of seeing through it. We are of holding up counter facts that disprove it or collect into question. Im call it into question. Calling everything line. I think we should be less polarized so we can have more constructive debates, but it is not about peopless peoples honesty. Going back to 1998, when Rush Limbaugh starts broadcasting nationally. That dayuld mark significant, it he has been fired six times and no one heard of him. He put a highly entertaining product out of there. But that was the rise of new conservative media. What they did was demolished the Mainstream Media and destroyed their credibility with listeners and viewers. The press used to be able to say, no, walter krock right Walter Cronkite is most famous for calling someone out and saying, this is not meeting what my eyes show. No,e people basically say, these mainstream journalists are hopelessly biased, their sources are hopelessly biased. Dont listen to them. R the decades as new bdf new media has expanded, you have People Living in her chambers. They wake up and looked on their local conservative radio hearst host in the car or at work. They might read a conservative blog during the day, they might on at noon put rush and fox on at night. They are getting a very different picture of america, what stories are important, and what facts matter then you are on msnbc, or someone watching csn cnn is getting. Living in different worlds. People are able to see that there are certain truths, and i think david is right that we always have spin. But now it is all from an ideological or partisan spectacle, and it makes it a lot more divisive. People think their heels in. We have evidence that the rise with theanged things knowledge of the listeners of talk radio. Read theirhave papers in the early 80s and 90s, watched the nightly news, and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Now that blogs and social media are here, people are completely cocooning themselves with similar thoughts and ideologies. And that is why outlandish things, like obama is a muslim or other things, it is adorable that they cannot be demolished. Down to thes comes media, and it is something we will have to grapple with going forward. There are no longer any kind of agreedupon facts about anything that we have. I have to disagree on that. There is also a structural problem, the whole industry has changed family in the pat profoundly in the past 10 or 15 years. Local newspapers do not have washington at desks anymore. Big papers like the New York Times are being restructured. Some independent sources are doing really important as investigative investigative work out there, but theyre not doing it for the same incentives that they were doing it for 30 or 40 years ago. Back then you had Washington Bureau and reported that were doing deep stories. There were these minor scandals that cropped up that disgraced his inability and popularity, and our member him himnting i remember lamenting that people used to know the issues, they knew me and the core of me, and that is now gone. Moree moving more and towards what is known as infotainment. What is going to get us the highest ratings in our niche area, it is not so much the pursuit of truth anymore as it ourow we can bring in eyeballs with hyperbolic coverage and teases we put on the screen. You know William Randolph hearst . Partisanng back to the president of 1980. Were going back to the. Ensationalism that made it 20 is that did 20th century. Was the anomaly. We are returning to what we had. Infotainment, the word is relatively new. The phenomenon has been there all along. Edward murrow, everyone romanticizes him as the late speaker of early television. His show is only successful because his segments were only were interspersed with light , it wasy interviews only 15 minutes and a lot of that was interviewing share cher. It is not to say that you are wrong, it does feel harder today to get good, well reported news. But there has always been an element of news that is about entertainment, that is a and about celebrity. Celebrity. These have always been components of the news, and we should not fall into a narrative of decline there, i think. Good point. We have touched on it a little tangentially, but we cannot talk about 2016 without talking about donald trump. He is the elephant in the room. How we seek candidates like that before . Seen candidates like that before . We have seen them all before. I think he combines them all like a demagogue bolt drawn voltron. I have been harping on this for a long time, but i still think it is true. Here might be so much of george moss. George wallace. Europe or the racism, your member the nationalism you remember the racism, you remember the nationalism. Wallace is is not wallace is not what we think about when we heat here about conservatives. New deal, buthe he wanted to make sure that only benefited white folks. Everything was fine with this johnson new deal, but tipped it and now the benefits are going to undeserving minorities. You see a lot of oldschool, small Government Conservatives are reacting to trump and the movement because, in their mind, they do not believe he is a conservative on the issue of the role of government. He wants an active government. He wants the border wall. It is going to be a huge government presence. His substance is a lot like wallace, but the style is not much. We never got to see a George Wallace expectants speech acceptance speech. It would have been as dire and dark as that. The same things are there. But it is not just the way he stirs up the crowd, or the people who are supporting him, but those were there opposing him. When protesters turn up at a trump rally, it plays out exactly like it would add a wallace rally in 64, 68, or 72. They become the physical manifestation of everything that is turninghat against people who are supporting him. To his it works advantage, he looks for it, he craves it. There is a reason he went to the university of chicago. Is not athat conservative part of town. But he was looking for a fight. It is what happened with wallace to , too. Every time someone would interrupt him at a rally, donations would pour in after that. Because wallace was literally hated,ting people they and they could outsource their anger. For me, wallace is the one that really stands out. He went to hartford, he came harvard, he came here and did an ivy league tour. Stir up the Ivy League Students who were going to scream and heckle. This is an alle white guy panel, the racial policies between wallace and trump bear striking similarities. Someone who is tapping into a long american political tradition of racism, of xenophobia, exclusion, the notion of the United States being a fortress against a want a nonwhite presence. For a moment, we delusional he delusional he believed after Barack Obamas election that we had reached a point we could wipe the slate clean. The dreams of mlk junior had been achieved. Racism was gone. Trump is tapping into what i think is as important an american political condition as tradition as those set on the stage at campaign rallies. Freedom, opportunity, you know. We have to believe that racism as american is as american as apple fry high. And trump has been able to tap into those emotions. What is the most striking about trump and what people say makes him different is the sheer vulgarity, the insults, the of noxious notice and boorishness. That is something you see in some degree in wallace, huey long, and joe mccarthy. But that is the least important part. Ofis the politics integration, bullying, and intimidation. But focusing on the stylistic element of how you behave in debate, he talked about xena sighed in debates. Side xenocide. Part of a largely marginalized, but still strong american tradition. The overlay of style has distracted us from the underlying ideas that are at stake. We have to think about conservative restrictive ec ucbn laws, chinese you se the chinese exclusion, it is only in the past year years that we have seen a more open approach to that. Wilkie be in a very different way, he wendell wilkie, and a very different way, his politics were very different than trump. He ran a sixweek campaign to capture the republican nomination because they wanted someone different. Fdrsd democrats lastrats had won the election. Wilkie came out of nowhere. , ands a Business Executive that is the last sign time we had someone who did not have lyrical or military experience as one of the nominees political or lick military experience as one of the nominees. Hey ihas played up the, might not have specific answers look at theues, you substance of his debates compared to george h. W. Bush and clinton, and there is no comparison. Up these full key business men, only i can do this and restore this thing. It a conservative, populist pain that goes back to wallace and even earlier. It is the historic strongman trope, i can go in and fix it. Theyre trying to figure out how this guy can bring his out of the box expertise to help the country. Helped do all the things and got stuff done with the government could not, and one of them was nasa. Earlier types, even going back to the early part of the century, William Randolph hearst had this sway for politics, was congress and frequently flirted with the presidency. Frequently flirted with the presidency at the ofate run, and this streak national populist politics is familiar. The irony of both pro and trump in comparison is that they claim the system perot and trump is that they claim the system is rate, but the difference is that perot made money off of the federal contracts and trump made money off of manipulating bankruptcy law. There is a vein of angry conservative populism, when we tap into that they are not being scrutinized by supporters. That is another parallel there. It was an interesting argument trump made last week. One of the only interesting , which was that the system is rate and i am experienced with it greg gged and ive experienced with it, so i am the only one who can do this. Quoting quote crooked crooked hillary the one who can fix this . There has been grousing on both sides that this is unfair. Primary process was unfair, on democratic, hillary undemocratic. Forgetting that hillary got more votes then sanders, or trump one. Won the nomination. I actually have a lecture i the history of elections, and there have been a series of chapters. Was the democratic republicans in congress who they wanted who were trying to figure out who they wanted to represent their parties. They moved over to boxes and state conventions. Conventions merged emerged in the mid19th century as a way to bring in all these factions of the party from throughout the country, but the convention is where the nominee was chosen. There is nothing really democratic at all. Primaries begin in the early demo 20th century, but they becomee important important and a lot of reforms in 68. Conveniently enough, it wound up nominating mcgovern, who pioneered the system. Year, since 1972 is when we had that expectation that the nominee should be the person who won the most votes in the primaries and caucuses. In the history of our country, that is a pretty short time. And caucuses are not the most democratic either. I want to answer this question a little differently. Not necessarily the ballgame of primaries and caucuses, but more sanders, lauren, trump and , trump and their supporters are talking about the system being rigged. Anger about the supposed unfairness as a standin for a deeper resented that the system is unfair. A lot of people have been struggling with declining income, an economy that is not giving much to them but giving a lot to a small segment. It is not so much about the my new shea of political procedure ae up local pursued her, it is about politicians are not delivering anymore. Procedure, it is about politicians not delivering anymore. It is important to look back at the last 30 or 40 years and see that for most americans, this is not a culmination of a great story of progress, but a lot of insecurity, worry, and concern, and for many people, the decline. Lets take some questions, will start in the back. I am myra, a reporter at time magazine. For reading this is an open forum. Keeping this as an open forum. You spoke a lot about the Sanders Campaign and read the tea leaves about where the congressional could go from here. Mentioned that donald trump brings these groups to the forefront, such as the announcement of david duke. What is the future of that coalition, with or without a Trump Presidency . Reason theyhat one are so ferocious and their allegiance to him is that they know they are losing the game longterm. You look at the democratic changes and the increasing liberalization and lots of altural areas, and you have lot of white men who know they are losing and have been losing. To some extent i think there are longterm factory is not good. Longterm trajectory is not good. I do not think they will be a ofong political force, one the things is that republican politicians and media personalities have been receiving that anger rhetorically. They have not been governing t way, their policy policies have not matched it. But they have been gearing people up for 30 or 40 years. Reagan did it, nixon did it, and at some point people want answers. I think republicans are going to happen all have to grapple with they need to stop you cannot throw political red meat and not back it up. Had enough of the disagreements, but with their but they are good people kind of thing. I heard the question a little differently, which is not about the people who are very conservative, but who inhabit a fringe that we have traditionally considered beyond the pale. I see both leftwing and rightwing elements that used to be considered beyond the pale, they did not get a hearing. They are getting more of a hearing now, be whether it is orause of social media equivalent. I think there are real equivalents on the left. Is theson i think decline of institutions that have served as important gatekeepers. That includes the Mainstream Media, universities, that polarization has afflicted these institutions and the commitment to a nonpartisan center. Had headople who those institutions and their audience. I think the twoparty system is really important. A lot of people say the not servedystem has us well, but it keeps those kind of people out, which is a good thing. Sociologists noticed in the 1950s, that america was spared ideological consequences in europe, you did not get into a communist versus nazis discussion. I think a multiparty system would welcome the fringes into the mainstream. Most of the polarization is on the right. The right has been moving further right than the left has been moving left. Until now. I dont know. Sandersdue respect, politics are new deal politics. Aside from some political for lunches flourishes from the left, eugeneo eugene b does vida i would have said that a few years ago, and i often did. Subscribed, i think we have seen the last of the racing to catch up in the right or in the last five or six years. But what about ted cruz . Is like the equivalent of 10 of paul ryan, who would have been way out of the political mainstream 20 years ago. Im with david in saying that the last couple of years, the data is Crystal Clear that we had some symmetry. Wayleft is rising in some that i think it is heading down the path of the right. I think you are right about bernies policies in the buy and large, with the exception of trade. I think him waiting labeling himself as a social opened himself to a part of the left that wanted to be part of this collision. The rhetoric matters. It may not matter today, but on both sides you are seeing people throw red meat to the bases, and that makes these things more acceptable and in the long term. Beyond the pale are now coming back around, and are becoming more acceptable. ,es people are condemning trump the racist and antisemitic thinks he is tapped into, he is good things tapped into, but i think the path is changing. The left has started to move down the path that the right has, but to go in. Go back to toms point full point, you to toms see that leaders on the republican side of the nation were trying to stay ahead of the tea party curve to harness that anger and reflect it. Realize that they cannot control it. There is no amount of obstruction they can do that will satisfy that sort of rage. It sounds like bernie last night, i cannot control them. Cant subdue that rage to the point with a cannot keep their job. Now that trump has taken the party from them, you are starting to see some chips in the facade of constructionism. Jeff blake and people like that are calling back to an area of comedy an era of comedy. What the left are trying to do, i think theyre trying to make the left the Tea Party Look less and less attractive. Because traditionally, this does not work. Earlier inon about the discussion. You talked about a shift where the democrats are suddenly talking like they are more patriotic and have a sense of optimism and all that america can accomplish, towards the end of the discussion tom talked about a deep sense of unease in the country among people along the ideological set spectrum. I wonder if you see any potential trouble with the Clinton Campaign pushing this aetoric about we do not need president who trashes the United States, america is always great. Im not the only one who has asked this question. Is potential for the Clinton Campaign to get in trouble with voters if they do not project the sense that they get there are a lot of people hurting. I was hoping you could offer some thoughts on that. That is a real problem, and i ught why was the war in speeches warren, whose are usually fantastic, she was bringing out all these negatives. Orwas not the right place sequence of speeches. Most successful president will candidates president ial candidates have found a way, you think of bill clinton in 92, it is hard now but brighter days are ahead. It is a crafted message that brightens things up. Some of the things that trump talked about, while overblown and apocalyptic, are real. Likeemocrats ignore issues terrorism and crime at their own that, that has what hazard them in the past by being has hurt them in the past by being seen as weak on those issues. Thinkt collision do you theyre trying to build. Go i agree with david, the best politicians can thread the needle. Aimed atost of this is republicans and centrist, and i think she is trying to appeal for both camps. The economics have not been good and they are both struggling. Simultaneously, we are going to build this in a way where we are going to feel good about america. Were going to feel good about ourselves. I reread reagans acceptance speech last night, and he said abandoned who have hope, we welcome into a National Crusade to make America Great again. So it sounds like trunk, but then he says to trust that american spirit that knows no ,conomic, cultural, political racial boundaries. But then its this inclusive, positive kind of message, and he was the best at kind of threading that needle rhetorically, so can she play that game and walk the line with that . I think in interesting ways, this campaign, especially on the historical, so what is the role of the historical profession in mediating that debate and how have you done that in the course of this election . Have you tried to maybe push things in what you see is the right direction in terms of . Bate this is a debate. What is our role in providing history. Trump, wasntinst it . There was a dustup in whoever came out and received some pushback from people who basically said historians should not have opinions or make group stands against this. I think we have an obligation to engage with the public. I think the public is thirsty if professional historians abdicate that responsibility, someone will fill that. Just walk to the airport, a bookstore, and you will see the history section filled with books by bill oreilly. [laughter] talkot going to start a show and get on his turf. I think we can reclaim the turf of speaking to the public in a meaningful fashion. It does not have to be solely through our books and articles and, more importantly, our oped s and public appearances like this. I think we have a duty cut is help illuminate, to revive the context as best we can win these issues come up. People of america first, we talked about the troubling history with that back in world war ii and beyond. Precedentsbout the for someone electronic, be it wallace or long or wilkie or ford or whoever. I think there is this instance to be alarmed and say this is unprecedented, and its alarming and we are unrooted here. We do have roots here, so it is important for us to draw lineage. It is not always a perfect connection, but we can illuminate as best we can with what happened in the past as a guide for what should or should the future. N i would agree entirely. Often, the public asks historians to give lessons, as if we can compare one to one something with the past with something from today. I am really wary of that. I like to provide context, but history does not offer very many lessons. Most of the analogies we draw between today and the past are pretty flawed. Rather than think about analogies, i would rather think about context and continuity and discontinuity. I think there is a lot more to be gained that way. Quickly have spent, not just people of here but tons of other professional historians knocking things down. There was a little gambit where people were saying we are in 1968 all over again. Yes, i understand what you are saying, but 1968 was on a whole different scale than what we are experiencing right now. You had assassinations and international tumult that far exceeds what we have today, riots in the streets and also to things and trying to restore the of what happened, it is time said, make sure those analogies are not taken too far. Are the drivers . How did we get here . A lot of these things had deep, complex, socioeconomic or sociopolitical roots, and you ask what we have done. I have written four or five pieces are different publications. I have done a ton of media just rang to get ideas out there and get into the conversation because i think kevin is right if we do not do that, we are at the at educating the floor to someone else who will claim the historical mantle without necessarily the knowledge. I was going to say to quick things. Kevin referred to a piece not by name, and i encourage everyone to read by stanley fish that was in the New York Times a week ago sunday, basically mocking the historians for trump group for purporting to kind of be the history, and in that, he is exactly right. I agree historians should be notlved, but we should report that history teaches us one thing. We have to recognize that people can draw many different and contrasting lessons from history. It is important to be informed about history, but a lot of the time, what were doing im a liberal democrat. We take lessons to history and think we are taking lessons from history, in that we are reading history through our policy rather than the other i just think we have to be very careful wehistorians to know when are offering political opinions that may be valid and persuasive or may not be and when we are bringing historical knowledge, insight, and analysis to bear on this discussion. Both are perfectly valid, but its much easier for the next guy on the barstool with an opinion to dismiss my opinion than say, heres something about history that i did not know that i will reflect on. What is the place of academia, historians in particular im a second year in a history program, so really interested in this what can academia do when we are lamenting this divisiveness and polarization, and theres a world in which facts dont matter and expertise is an enemy . How do you enter conversations as an expert where there are people that do not want to have conversations with experts because they believe the knowledge of an expert is illegitimate . I would answer by saying we have to do it regardless of what people think about our expertise. There are lots of voices out there, many profoundly uninformed. There are lots of people who drop historical lessons who do not know the history, have not read the history, have not thought about it. Maybe i am a sunny optimist on some level to bring that some of us speaking up will live in the public debate, but what is the alternative . Opiningsilent or just offthecuff and not drawing from the work that we and our colleagues have done . I say we have to do it, even if that means howling into the void. Right. Right. But you also do not win arguments by saying im the expert. Any of us who is on twitter can tell you people do not care about our expertise. They are going to tell us why they know the history better than we do repeatedly. He is, repeatedly. You just have to keep trying. That is part of our calling as scholars. It cannot be an argument from authority. I cannot say im a professor of history, you have to listen to me, because they goes nowhere. Nobody wants to be lectured to. Instead, we can use our ability to marshal evidence, make arguments, show linkages between points of the past and present. On twitter, i throw out primary sources all the time. Its similar to when im teaching. When i teach controversial subjects to an audience of variety ofo have a different backgrounds and political persuasions, if i just proclaim something, well, half the room is probably not going to believe it. Here is the evidence. Here is the source. Look at it yourself, ok . Read this. Think historians are uniquely capable to provide. Again, if we dont do it, no one will. Bill oreilly will. I want to go back to the conversation you were having about the tensions within the Republican Party and ask about what you see looking through termsl balls and also in of the historical precedents of Political Parties in this country kind of dissolving or breaking apart and if you think what we are seeing within the Republican Party could lead to that outcome. Crystal balls are so cloudy, but let me say this it all depends on if trump wins or not. Right. A if trump goes down, then lot of the Republican Party , letsem will be efface this unpleasant little chapter from our past and go back to what we were doing before, and seeing a resurgence, or maybe someone is asay that what we need kinder, gentler, less crass trump, and it will be a struggle for that in the party, but it really depends. If trump wins, all bets are off. Winners, at least in political debate, often write the history in the short run. We also make sure we do not just look at the presidency. We have to look at what trump has done and read on. If you look at a Republican Party down ticket in congress, especially at the state level, they are doing quite well. Its a natural product. Anytime the other party is in power for eight years, the party that is on the at out builds up a bench because opposition is easy, and its natural to fill up those state legislature seats, so the Republican Party is Pretty Healthy beyond the president ial level. The president ial level is in chaos, and we do not know quite yet what is to come, but there is a mass of elected officials and officeholders who give the meaning, and i dont think that will quite change as much. If trump were to win and try to impose his will on them, you might be a fracturing. Again, we do not know. We are kind of in territory we have not been in since the dissolution of the weeks of whigs. I think he may have a longlasting effect on the party trade position. We almost have two electorate america. The people who show up every four years and vote for the presidency and were strong supporters of president obama and elected him twice, and then we have the people who show up in the intervening years who are showing up in the midterms and are electing governors and senators and congressmen, and much morea conservative outlook, so they have done really well down ballot, so they have that kind of robust bench. Depend on it does what happens with this election, but i think that as long as trump does not win, you may see changes on trade policy. You may see sort of recalibrations on a lot of the elected republicans on where they need to be on things, but i dont think the party fractures. But, you know, we have not seen this since the end of the whigs. One other point is vitally important, its not just what officeholders and politicians do, it is who makes of the voting base. What you have seen that has been , really, underreported the strong pushback on Voting Rights in america, and we have seen in the last couple of weeks some of the more restrictive have been struck down, but that is where i think the future of american politics lies. I dont see the Republican Party fracturing, although we are historians. We look upward, not forward. I think a lot of that talk is overblown. I do think trade and immigration those are really the key issues for trump where there has been a split from where the been, and thatas is where the battles will be. I was trying to think of where i first saw this. The other issue i think where you saw the split in the party when bush andarp paulson wanted to push this through and the House Republicans rebelled on these kind of populist it grounds. This was not how republicans normally react, by saying the banks should not get their money. That, to me, was like an early tremor that led us here. I think those conflicts, this populist, elitist conflicts will continue to be a problem for the Republican Party. I just do not see it as falling apart a few weeks. And there is history of the kind of thing where issues come litmus testsange within the party. The best thing i can think of is abortion and the Democratic Party. You look at 1972, board both George Mcgovern us running mates were prolife catholics. Going forward 10 years, that would have been inconceivable. Could see this with trade for integration. Although we do have a proleft democrat as the Vice President ial candidate now. Thats because moke position. Thats the post73 democratic position. He is prochoice. He just chooses personally to be against abortion. Jesse jackson was antiabortion. And republicans were much more prochoice. There was a real flip and party. Osition, and that does happen even with intervention versus isolation. That leads to i think the more likely outcome than a party break. I think it will be a reshuffling. We have seen that time and time again. The democratic and republican buildings stand. People move backandforth between them. Weve seen that a number of times. Its hard to know what issues are going to stick from this year. Immigration could very well be an issue because we have seen a drop in immigration in the United States recently. Who were emigrants going the second and third generation. Immigration went from being one of the most salient issues in america in the 1920s to being an inconsequential issue in the neck in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. We cannot really predict with any certainty if elements of trumpis him cantis tru mpism will survive. Her candidacybout seems unprecedented to me, and that is the link the time she has been on the National Stage and now is running for president and probably has the nomination in hand. 24 years, right . If you go back and look at i just did some math. Fdr from the time he first ran for Vice President to the time he got the nomination, 12 years. To thefrom eisenhower nomination, 16 years. Ronald reagan, from the time of his goldwater speech to the nomination, 16 years. 24 years seems extremely unusual. To of questions i wanted to know if that is indeed unprecedented since were talking above things like that and going back to a question this was a response to something you said. How a lot of young people today they do not know her record because 24 years ago they probably were not alive. Tonight, the whole theme tonight is its called fight of her life, and all these figures are taking the audience and viewers through every phase of her career. It struck me, they are constructing some nice events around the fact that people do not know. 24 years being so long how much of that is just the sheer length of time and how much of that is amnesia, how much of that is just how guarded she is . I know im asking two or three questions in there. I think it is a lot of those things. I think it is hard to think of who henry clay, maybe . You might be able to find some people who had careers spanning that length of time. Bob dole. 1976. 20 years. Yeah, one probably can find but i do think, the portrait of clinton that has emerged in the last year has been sticky because it started on the right with this clinton che documentary stuff, but sanders started running and picked up a lot of that. Some of that was deliberate and some of that was very clever marketing by the right. There was a great piece in the times about a year ago about how the right wing guys were memesng facebook means antihillary to get them picked up by the left. And they were spreading them because they got very worked up antihillary, and they really need to disabuse not so much the diehard benghazi crowd because they will never vote for her, but disabuse, you know, anyone in the Democratic Party who might have qualms about her that she is anything other than what i think she has always been, which is pretty much a mainstream liberal. Sometimes a little more to the right on this issue. Yeah, she supported welfare reform. Sometimes a little more to the left on that issue. But like i said, no different from cory booker or Kristin Gillibrand or Chuck Schumer or. Ick durbin or harry reid she is from the same family of beliefs as most democrats. It is sanders who is the outlier and most of his votes came from social needs to be established herself as someone who believes what all these other people believe and have always believed instead of neocon, war hawk, all that kind of stuff. Her was when i was created in 1993 by a lot of those on the right, and it kind of stuff with her ever since. Part of that is the success they in aggressively pressing that case because she has been in the public eye for so long. She was first lady. She was a visible senator, secretary of state. Of the problem also lies with clinton herself. She is notoriously shy about speaking to the press. The number of press conferences she has had in this campaign has been ridiculously low, and i think that is a little bit being gun shy about being exposed in the media, but it also goes to her own personality. She is not a natural stump campaigner like her husband is, like obama is. She will not give the most electrifying speech of this convention. She might not even be the top five, to be honest with you, but thats not who she is. I think the real for me, one of the real defining moments of this Campaign Came early on with the gowdy benghazi hearing, and republicans set that up in hopes that they could cut campaign ads. Kevin mccarthy, a republican with, was pretty clear about that, that it was their goal to embarrass Hillary Clinton, and i think they are right. There will be ads drawn out of that testimony, but they will be for clinton. The benghazi hearings showed her at her best. K, she iswalk won boring, but in a good way. She is confident, reliable, has a steady hand and nobody has brought out that more than donald trump. Things have shifted in her favor, but tonight, they got to do a job of bringing out the more human side of her, the way they did successfully we forget about now but in the 2000 president ial conviction convention, al gore came alive who had a lot of the same problems, and that became a speak squeaker race. Her biggest selling point is her onkish steady hand. They cannot make her exciting and lively. I know she has a lot of fans, but thats not how the public sees her. I think they can play to those strings that are clearly there. I think we need to go back to her introduction to the American People, which is the 1992 campaign. Not receivedas particularly well. She was proposing something radically different from what people conceived of in terms of first lady. Two for one, they were selling it as. The American People rejected that and said, we do not really want this, a sharp cry from barbara bush who was everybodys grandmother. Later in the campaign, she was proposing cookie recipe bake offs. Even if you go back to me that her most famous moment in the tammyampaign, she angered wynette and everybody who liked the song stand by your man. When you got her in front of the 60 minutes camera trying to save her husbands campaign is the Gennifer Flowers story was breaking, and i think she gets censored by that, and it helped forge this caution. Rightly or wrongly, even her email scandals dance from this. If you look at the clintons, they feel like they have been persecuted, held to a different entered where every single thing they have done has been pieced apart, and they are sort of waiting for people to jump on things, and they have gotten very cautious in that regard, and it think it has led them to be lawyerly about a lot of ethical things. I have heard people say Hillary Clinton is really great in a small gathering, but she does not give a stemwinder of speech and she does so guarded with press, and it has created a vacancy that has 11 other people to shape her image to some extent. Hillary does have one trump card, you could say, and that is that it is going to be very hard in the 100something days between now and the election in november for trump to win over a significant pregnant of the email electorate. Given that there is already a gender gap, it is likely to grow, and that is going to be a pretty big hurdle for trump. Yes, there are a lot of angry white men in particular who will pull the lever for trump, just as they have the lever for republican candidates for the last decade fewer and fewer every year. You are and fewer every year, and trump have a hard time just right trotting out his daughter and wife at his convention, to persuade women he has their interest in mind despite trying out his daughter and wife at his convention. Thats why women and family issues continue to come up and you can be sure in the hillary speech that that will run to draw distinction. Every time trump speech, he seems to be pushing the gender gap higher. If you look at what he tweeted last night, it was these things that seemed like they were almost predestined to offend women. With that, i think i have to our panel. If you have more questions, come up to us. I thank you all for coming, and hope will he, this was illuminating for people. Thank you very much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the Smithsonian National museum of African American history and culture opens its doors to the public first time on saturday, september 24. American history tv will be live from the National Mall starting at 8 00 a. M. Eastern. The sites and downs leading up to the 10 00 a. M. Opening money, and we will be live the dedication, which includes remarks by president obama and Founding Museum director monte bunch. This is American History tv only cspan3. An this sunday night on q a, author and columnist David Kay Johnson discusses his book the making of donald trump, which takes a critical look at the republican president ial nominee. I met donald, and i immediately recognized pt barnum selling tickets to the fiji mermaid and the amazing to headed woman. Dominante was the force in atlantic city, i started asking about him, and his competitors, including steve wynn, and people who work for him, and some big gamblers all said to me, donald does not know anything about the casino business. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q a. This weekend, we look at 15 years to the september 11 attacks through stories of people who were at the towers, the pentagon, and in the skies above washington, d. C. Here is a preview of an interview with an International Guard pilot scrambled to hostile incoming planes. I realize this is a total hypothetical, but you are in this situation, flying over wasnt in, d. C. , and potentially you have to bring down a plane may be in the nation capital. In light of everything that was happening, did you give any thought as to how you would have done that if it was over the city data are you talking about, like, for the commercial airliner . Any of it, if it commercial airliner or private planes that potentially could have been a target. If it is over washington, d. C. , versus a more rural area, did you give any thought as to how you would do that for flex for the larger aircraft, again, it would only be taking out the tail, which would be i would essentially be a, causey and ram my aircraft into the tale of the aircraft. You know, i gave some thought to what i had time to eject, but i would need to ensure that i mean, you only get one chance. Dont want to eject and then have missed. Youve got to be able to stick with it the whole way. When we came back and continue to do the combat air patrol over the sea there were plenty of other aircraft airborne that we did actually have to turn away, woulde employed was we live in front of them, and put. Ut a flare or two a flare is well, i mean, you know what a flare is. We would pump out a lair a flare from the aircraft and basically turn those other aircraft away. We also would get on the frequency. 121. 5 is a glancing all pilot know about. Its universal. If you get in trouble or need help or, you know, youre not on the infrequent, if you go over to the guard see, you should be able to talk to anybody, so we would also try to get them on guard. You were prepared to take your own life and sincerity to bring down the lane . . That plane of course. Watch the 9 11 oral histories on at her day and hyundai starting at eastern here on history tv. Erican for campaign 2016, cspan continues on the road to the white house. Are going to get things done big things. Thats who we are as americans. Trump we will have one Great American future. Our potential is unlimited. , live coverage of the president ial and vice s. Esidential debate monday, september 26, is the first president ial debate, live from Hofstra University and hips, new york. Then on tuesday, october, Vice President ial candidate governor mike pence and senator tim kaine debate that farmville, virginia, and Washington University in st. Louis host the second president ial debate, leading up to the third and final debate between Hillary Clinton and donald trump, taking place at the university of nevada, lets egg is, on october 19. Live coverage of the president ial and Vice President ial debate on cspan. Listen live on the free cspan radio app or watch live any time at www. Cspan. Org. U. S. Air force Academy Instructor captain jeffrey
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.