Makes our democracy the kind of democracy it should be. And theres a reason to have Political Parties. But to give them the control they have over our political system is just wrong. Announcer funding is provided by Carnegie Corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. The kohlberg foundation. Independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. The clements foundation. Park foundation, dedicated to heightening Public Awareness of critical issues. The herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations Whose Mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. The bernard and audre rapoport foundation. The john d. And catherine t. Macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at macfound. Org. Anne gumowitz. The betsy and jesse fink foundation. The hkh foundation. Barbara g. Fleischman. And by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and Group Retirement products. Thats why were your retirement company. Welcome. Sometimes we can see the universe in a grain of sand, as the old saying goes, but nowadays a graphic chart more vividly reveals the world we live in. Take a look at this statistical snapshot of the media ecology that largely determines what you and i see, read, and hear. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled a majority of media in america. In 1990 the number had dropped to 23. In 1997, 10. And today, six. There you have it the fistful of multinational conglomerates that own the majority of media in america. What do we call it when a few firms dominate the market . Oligopoly. Doesnt quite rhyme with democracy. But today, believe it or not, big media is about to get even bigger, unless the public stands up and says no heres the story. The chairman of the federal Communications Commission the fcc, the agency of government created by congress to protect the publics rightful ownership of the airwaves is reportedly asking the other four commissioners to suspend the rule preventing a company from owning a newspaper and radio and tv stations in the same big city. Thus he would give the Massive MediaCompanies Free rein to devour more of the competition. The chairman is julius genachowski, appointed to the job by president barack obama. Now, the fcc tried to pull this same stunt under a republica chairman back in the second term of george w. Bush, but at hearings held around the country an angry public fought back. We told you a year ago when you came to seattle that media consolidation is a patently bad idea. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. So with all due respect i ask you, what part of that didnt you understand . Im a republican and im a capitalist, but some areas of our private sector must be regulated. Freedom of information is too important, we must be oactive in protecting that fundamental freedom. If the fcc is here wanting to know if chicagos residents are being wewell served, the answers no. If local talent is being covered, the answer is no. If Community Issues are being treated sensitively, the answer is no. If minority groups are getting the coverage and input that they need, the answer is no. The answer is no. If you will not stand up for we the people, then i have news for you. We the people are standing up for ourselves. This is our media, and we are taking it back. An estimated 3 million americans wrote the fcc and congress to protest giving big media more power, and the Senate Passed a resolution against the proposal. When the fcc tried again, a federal court of appeals blocked it, demanding the Commission Report on how the new rule would impact media ownership by minorities and women. Back then, senator barack obama opposed the fccs proposal. So did senators joe biden and hillary clinton. But now, president obamas man at the fcc they were friends in law school apparently wants to do what the republicans couldnt do under president bush, and to do it behind the scenes, out of sight, with no public hearings. Several Public Interest groups, civil rights organizations and labor unions opposed the move, and last week, senator Bernie Sanders and several of his colleagues called on chairman genachowski to hold off. Bernie sanders is an outspoken opponent of media consolidation. He sees it as a threat to democracy. Once the mayor of burlington, vermont, he served 16 years in the house of representatives and was recently reelected to his second term in the senate. Hes the longest serving independent in the history of congress. He was in new york earlier this week and we met for this interview. Welcome. Good to see you again. Good to be with you, bill. This is a strong letter, inspired one of your colleagues in the senate says, by you. Whats the beef . What the chairmanf the fcc is now talking about is making a bad situation much worse by loosening up the crossownwnersp rules, which means now that a media giant, one of the big companies, whether its murdochs news corp. Or anyone else, will be able to own Major Television stations, a newspaper, and Radio Stations within a given community. And that means people are jujus not going to be hearing different points of view. I brought with me a story from the New York Times that drives home the point youre making. It begins with a dateline out of san angelo, texas. Call a reporter at the Cbs Television station here, and it might be an anchor for the nbc station who calls back. Or it might be the news director who runs both stations news operations. The stations here compete for viewers, but they cooperate in gathering the news maintaining technically separate ownership, and sharing office space, news video, and even the scripts written for their nightly news anchors. And heres this, the same kind of sharing takes place in dozens of other cities, from burlington, vermont, your home state, where the fox and abc stations sometimes share anchors, to honolulu, where the nbc and cbs stations broadcast the same morning news. Is that what youre talking about . Thats exactly what im talking about. I can tell you that when i was mayor of that same city, burlington, vermont, we used to hold press conferences. You would have four or five or six different Radio Stations showing up. You know, wed be talking about the school board or the city Council Local issues. Now if were lucky well have one Radio Station showing up. And thats true all over the United States of america. And the point he is not right wing or even left wing. The point is that the tendency of corpoporate america is not t discuss at length the real issues that impact ordinary people. If you owned a television station, for example, do you think youd be talking about the impact that Citizens United has on the american political system, when youre receiving huge amounts of money because of Citizens United . If you are general electric, which has been a major outsourcer of jobs to china and other countries, do you think youre going to be talking about trade policy in the United States of america or maybe Nuclear Power in the United States of america . But this puzzles me. The fcc tried to do essentially the same thing four years ago, as you know, in the last year of the Bush Administration. And the senate went on record against it. You passed a strong resolution to say, this far and no further. Why would president obamas fcc chairman, try to do now what the republicans couldnt do then . That is a very good question, bill. And i dont have the answer. And its not only that the Senate Passed a strong resolution. There were public hearings. And there was the opportunity for the public to give input into this Decision Making process. And huge numbers of people said, wait a second, we do not need more media consolidation in america. Senate came on record. So why the Obama Administration is doing something that the Bush Administration failed to do is beyond my understanding. And were going to do everything we can to prevent it from happening. You may remember that back in 2007, your then senatorial colleague, barack obama wrote a strong letter to the republican chairman of the fcc who wanted to change the rules, just like genachowski is doing now. And he condemned the very tactics that his own fcc chairman is employing today. Absolutely. And we hope the president will get involved in this issue. So i dont to be honest with you, i dont know the internal dynamics of why what is happening is happening. I know you got a couple of republicans on the board, who are very sympathetic to moving forward toward more consolidation. But why genachowski is taking the position he is, i dont know. But i think it would be very helpful. And we will try to get the president to remember what he said four or five years ago. You said a moment ago that you recall these hearings that were held across the country. There was a lot of people, there were a lot of people attending. There was a lot of anger at those hearings. 3 million of those folks wrote letters to the senate and the fcc. There doesnt seem to be the opposition this time. What has changed . Well, whats changed is theyre moving quickly and quietly and secretly. And i think there has not been the kind of attention that we need to focus on this issue. And i think genachowski is smart enough to know that that is not what he wants. What the bush people learned is that when you open this up to public discussion, very few people in america think its a good idea for fewer and fewer conglomerates to own more and more of the media, especially in a number of cities. So theyre apparently trying to move this under the radar screen. And thats something were going to try to halt. Are you calling for public hearings on this . Absolutely. No, were going to do everything that we can to involve the public in this. The idea, i mean, even, lets give credit to the Bush Administration. They came up with a terrible idea, but at least i think they had about a half a dozen public meetings. They allowed the public to write into the fcc. And the last time the fcc tried to do this, the u. S. Court of appeals for the 3rdrd circui ordered the commission to hold up, that it should first evaluate the impact of any rule changes on the ownership by females and minority. What impact do you think this new rule would have on minority and women in the media . Well, the truth is that right now, in terms of minorities and women, there is relatively, an embarrassing little amount of ownership. No one doubts that if you move to a situation where corporate america, the big guys, own more and more of the media, it will mean that minorities and women and those folks who dont have big bucks are going to be squeezed even further to the periphery. So it will be bad for minorities. It will be bad for women. And most significantly, it will be bad for american democracy. Some people argue that newspapers are failing anyway. That theyre going under, losing advertising, cutting their staffs, losing their readership. And that it would be a good thing for these big, profitable corporations like ge and Murdochs News Corporation to take them over and subsidize them, the same way Rupert Murdoch does the tabloid New York Post here in new york. How do you respond to that . Well, i think the issue that the fcc has got to worry about is not the economics of newspapers but what media means and does for the American People. And if you talk about cost effectiveness, yes, i suppose it is true that if you have one company that owns dozens of television stations and newspapers and Radio Stations, they could do it more, quote unquote, cost effectively. Whats the logical conclusion of that argument . Maybe we should have one entity, maybe Rupert Murdoch should own all media in america. He can do it very, very cost effectively. Is that what we want . The fcc is not dealing with widget production. It is dealing with the issue of how we create a vibrant democracy, where people hear all points of view and can come up with the best decisions that we can as a nation. Would that be your response to the argument that the other side makes that the fcc is strangling, with slow regulations, americas competitiveness in the world . And that if we continue to tighten these regulations, they will not be able to find their place in the world market . Bill, do you know where i heard that exact same explanation, defense . I heard it when wall street wanted deregulation. We have to be competitive in the entire global economy. Lets deregulate wall street so we can compete internationally. I dont believe that for a second. Look, the issue is we live in a country where millions of people really have not had the opportunity to learn about the dynamics of what goes on in american society. Major, major issues literally, get very, very little discussion. So the bottom line for the fcc has got to be, how do we create a situation in which the American People are hearing a diverse range of ideas so that our public world has the kind of debate that it needs . But what about the argument that people make that the internet, the thriving of the internet, let a billion opinions bloom diminishes the tyranny of monopoly . Let me respond to that in two ways. A, the internet is enormously important. It is growing. But the bottom line is that most people today still get their information from television and from radio. 74 , i believe there you go. So maybe second of all, when you go to the internet, what websites do you think people are going to . Theyre going to the same websites owned by the New York Times or cnn or time warner. Those are the largest websites in the country. And people are getting their information from the same folks. So yes, i think its the internet plays an important role, but that is not a valid reason to allow for more media consolidation. In a practical sense, Rupert Murdoch owns the wall street journal, the New York Post, which he subsidizes, 50 to 60 million a year, we read. What would it mean if he were able, under this rule, to buy the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times . And he owns fox television, of course. Of course. I think, i mean again, its not to just pick on murdoch. I think the idea that one person, who, in this case, happens to be a rightwing billionaire, can have that much influence in media is very dangerous for our democracy. And by the way, of course, in terms of murdoch he owns a lot of media in australia, in the united kingdom. I believe he owns media in eastern europe. I think this is a pretty dangerous trend. You know, the bottom line is that when you have a situation like that, it really influences not just what the American People think and feel, how they vote, but the issues that the United StatesCongress Deal with every day. Let me give you an example, all right . Is deficit reduction a serious issue . It is. Im in the middle of that debate right now. But you know what is a more serious issue according to the American People . The need to create millions and millions of jobs. Now how often are you turning on tv and saying, hey, were in the middle of a terrible recession. It is, we have 15 real unemployment or underemployment in america. Weve got to create millions of jobs. Thats what working people are saying, but the big money interests are saying, oh, weve got to cut Social Security. Weve got to cut medicare. Weve got to cut medicaid. There is no other option. So i give you that just as an example of how Corporate Media throws out one set of ideas, where the American People are thinking that jobs are probably more important. It has probably not escaped your attention that the mantra fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff is played out every night on the evening news and the corporate news. What does that say to you . That youd get fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, but not job crisis, job crisis, job crisis . It tells me, quite frankly, that many of these people, who by the way did not have much to say about the deficit when we went to war in iraq and afghanistan and didnt pay for it, i didnt hear from any people in the media complaining about that. What it tells me is that behind the Corporate Drive for deficit reduction is a significant effort to try to cut Social Security, medicare, and medicaid and other programs that working families need, not so much because of deficiteduction, because this has been the agenda of republicans and right wingers for a very long time. So how do you see this fiscal debate playing out in the next couple of weeks . We have, those of us who say that deficit reduction is a serious issue, i believe it is. But believe very strongly that at a time when we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class is disappearing. That most americans agree with many of us in the senate, who say, yes, we are going to ask the wealthiest people to see an increase in their tax rates. They are going to have to pay more in taxes. We have to end the absurdity of one out of four corporations in america not paying a nickel in taxes. And that we can do deficit reduction in a way that is fair, not on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. That is my view. Thats the view of the vast majority of the American People. Do i think that view is being reflected in the Corporate Media today . No, i dont think it is. Quickly, i have been around even longer than you in numbers of years. And ive never seen even a good program antthat ce made better by careful and intelligent reform. Isnt there something to be done about medicare that would meet the other side and say, yes, were willing to make these changes because we think these changes are justified . The answer is yes if the challenge was, how do you make medicare more efficient and save money for the taxpayers . For example, the Veterans Administration negotiates drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Medicare part d does not. We can save substantial sums of money. There are other ways that you can t. Frankly, im not quite so sure that given a choice of standing up to the Drug Companies to lower the cost of medicare or simply raising the age of medicare eligibili or cutting back on medicare, my guess is the republicans s the Drug Companies and not with the needs of ordinary people. What i hear you saying is that whatever your major concern as a citizen, whether its deficit reduction or medicare diand id and Social Security or the environment, Global Climate change, it all comes back to how we receive information. And that this issue youre addressing in this letter is at the heart of your bill, many of the viewers there are concerned about the growing gap, unequal distribution of wealth and income. Theyre concerned about health care, concerned about Global Warming, concerned about womens rights, health, and many, many other issues. If you are concerned about those issues, you must be concerned about media and the increased concentration of ownership in the media. Because unless we get ordinary people involved in that discussion. Unless we make media relevant to the lives of ordinary people and not use it as a distraction, we are not going to resolve many of these serious crisis, Global Warming being one. There are scientists who will come on your show and say, hey, forget everything else. If we dont get a handle on Global Warming, theres not going to be much less of this planet in a hundred years. Do you see that often being portrayed in the Corporate Media . I fear not. But it seems unstoppable, senator. Comcast took over nbcuniversal last year, as you know. And Sinclair Broadcasting just boughteven tv stations, bringing their total to 84 stations in 46 markets. I mean, it seems unstoppable. Well, its part of the trend in america, t only in media but in industry after industry, where fewer and fewer large conglomerates own those industries. It is a very dangerous trend. What do you want the fcc to do next . Well, for a start, open up the process, get some public discussion, and ultimately rule against this crossownership type of approach. And what you want ordinary citizens to do . What are you asking the people in vermont, your home state . You run a lot of town meetings. You do a lot of hearings up there. What do you want ordinary people to do about this . Well, i want vermonters and everyone else around this country is to write to the fcc now and say two things. I mean, voice your opinion, but if you think that this is a bad idea, let them know it. And second of all, tell them that under no circumstances can they pass without public input and giving the public the time to get involved in this debate. Look, it is very hard as a public official to go forward and pass the laugh test, when 99 of the people who are writing in say, hey, youre proposing a dumb idea. And when in public hearings, people are coming out in outrage. So i certainly do believe that had a significant impact. We covered those hearings several years ago. It was amazing the out turning, a thousand people in different cities around the country, at one hearing. Bill, i mean, despite the lack of Media Coverage on this issue of media concentration, in peopsuts, people know that this is a huge issue. That we cant be the democracy we want to be when so few people control what peoe read, see, and hear. So i think viscerally people know how important it is. And weve got to do everything we can to prevent the fcc from moving in the wrong direction. Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you for being with me and well be after this story, in the weeks to come. Thank you. Youve no doubt been following the maneuvers in washington over the countrys finances. Well, theyre headg now toward a showdown. Unless someone blinks, the collision of irresistible forces with immovable objects will be felt around the world. President obama says he wont budge when it cos to ending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. And as rumors mount that some reblicans may be willing to give grod on taxes, conservatives in the party are shouting, remember the alamo and demanding their leaders in congress yield not an inch. Dozens of conservative activists, outraged at the prospect of compromise, have sent an open letter to publicans in the house and senate to stand firm and not surrender your conservative inciples. Their hero, of course, is this man, known around town simply as grover. No, not the muppet, but chief enforcer of the notorious norquist pledge against taxes. Republican candidates for office must sign or risk defeat by rightwiandidas in primaries where a turnout of diehard partisans can decide the outcome. Among republic politicians, fear of grover has been grear even than fear of god, and suc fear has kept republicans in congress from voting to raise taxes for 22 years, althe way back to 1990. Mickey edwards was stilln congress the anter eightreprestive from oklahoma, and a formidable leader among conservatives who nonetheless knew how to work with opponents to get things done. He chaired the republican policy committee, was a founding trustee of the conservative heritage foundation, and served as National Chairman of the american conservative union. After redistricting by democrats cost him his seat in 1993, he taught at harvard and princeton, became Vice President of the aspen institute, and wrote this book reclaiming conservatism how a Great AmericanPolitical Movement got lostand how it can find its way back. Now hes out with another book, one calling for real, even radical, change the parties versus the people how to turn republicans and democrats into americans. Mickey edwards, welcome. Thanks, bill. Its good to see you again. And congratulations on the book, although i cant imagine its made you the most popular visitor to the House Republican caucus. Not at all. But it wouldnt make me popular in the Democratic Caucus either, you know. Its a problem with the entire system, both parties. Because you believe in compromise. You advocate bipartisanship. Which means, in effect, that you are a man without a party. Basically, right. But you know, theres 310 million of us now. And were very diverse people. You can stand up for your principles. You can stand up for what you believe in. You get as far as you can go. But then at the end, you have to compromise or you cant keep the bridges from falling down, you cant pay off your debts, you know, you cant provide the troops with you cant do anything unless, finally, you compromise. And we seem to have lost the ability to do that. Your story, more than anyone i know, epitomizes the change in our politics over the last quarter of a century. Once upon a time, you were considered by political scientists, one of the most conservative members of the Republican Party in the congress. Right. But as you yourself have said, if you were still in congress, if you were still voting exactly the same way you did then on the issues, youd now be considered yeah, one of the most liberal. Absolutely. Without changing at all. You know, with having been a conservative, staying true to those exact same beliefs, voting the same way, today i would be considered one of the more liberal members. The party has completely lost its roots. What about being a conservative then is out of date about being a conservative now . Well, one of the things, and lets use Ronald Reagan as an example. Ronald reagan stood for principles that conservatives have long believed in. But he believed in the country. He believed in solving problems. He believed in government. Even though he would say that in terms of the carter presidency, the way he saw it, you know, the government was the problem, the next sentence after in his famous remark were that, but, you know, lets make it clear. Were not against government. This is selfgovernment. This is america. Its us. And he believed that. Today, you see so many people in congress who really see government as the enemy, who are unwilling to come together to do even the most basic things like pay our bills. And you cant survive that way. So, the intellectual basis of conservatism seems to have disappeared. The idea that you would, you know, go to war or that you would create a program or whatever else, and not pay for it, was the most anticonservative thing you could imagine. Are there any reasons to be against Big Government . Oh, sure there are. Sure, there are. Government can be too big. It can be too expensive. It can regulate too much. Sure, it can. But at some point, you push as hard as you can, if youre a conservative, to make government smaller, to make taxes lower. But you cant get it all. You cant win everything all in one fight, because were a big country and a lot of different views. And you have people on the left and the right who are so full of certitude and so unwilling to budge on what they think is the only right answer, that we stop functioning as an American People working collectively to solve our problems. Theres a very strong sentence in here, very strong passage in here about how the loyalty of anybody who comes into public service, any officeholder, should be to the constitution, not to some outside independent private Group Bringing pressure to bear on the government. Right. And thats what the Political Parties are. You know, theyre not in the constitution. Theyre private powerseeking organizations. Theres a reason to have Political Parties. But to give them the control they have over our political system is just wrong. Have you become disillusioned with politics . Oh, very much. Very much. You know, you see campaigns today that are so nasty, so uncivil, so that if you and i and i like you a lot, billand if we were both in Politics Today at the same time, you know, youd be an enemy and id be an enemy, and we would not be able to sit and talk together. And i would think because you dont agree with me on a particular issue, you must be a very bad person. Thats nonsense. What do you thinks going to happen in this deadlock on the fiscal crisis . I dont think anything can happen unless both parties back off of their complete intransigence. There has to be new revenue. And on the other side, youve got to look at the entitlement programs, which are, in fact, despite what dick durbin says, they are helping to drive the deficit. Youve got to see, how do you get that under control . What kinds of changes you know, dont eliminate those programs, but is there a way to reform them . There has to be give on both sides. And so far, both parties are saying, you know, compromise means you giving up. You know, and were going to stand firm. You know, even the president the president went on television and he said, we have to work together. We have to compromise. And he then described how the people ought to put pressure on their members of congress to support his plan. And so which was not a compromising way to do it. You know, i wish i were more confident, but, you know, i dont have high hopes for the people that we have in washington today. When you were in congress, did you have to sign the pledge never to raise taxes . The only pledge yeah, i signed a pledge. I signed a pledge to, you know, to follow the constitution. Bill, i thought you mean your oath of office . Yeah i thought that when i was in congress my job was to decide how to vote based on three things listening to my constituents, maybe not always agreeing with them but listening seriously to my constituents, thinking about the issues, you know, getting as much information as i could to decide what i thought was the right thing to do, and make sure that i followed the constitution. That was it. I wasnt supposed to be following party leaders. I wasnt supposed to be following my campaign contributors. I wasnt supposed to be, you know, signing pledges to do this or that before i even heard a circumstances were going to be at the time. You know, anybody who goes to washington having signed a pledge to do anything other than that, you know, is really undercutting, you know, the whole purpose of them being part of the government. Well, thats whats disquieting, mickey. You know, Grover Norquist, who is the wellknown lobbyist behind the pledge never to raise taxes, boasts that no republican has voted to increase taxes in the last 22 years. That takes us all the way back to 1990. But those 22 years, republicans led us into two wars without asking us to pay for them. They called for vast expenditures to fight terrorism. They gave big tax breaks to the top and the richest americans and said, dont worry, your kids will pay for them. Republicans supported huge subsidies for agribusiness and big energy companies. Democrats did, too. They passed fabulous increases in medicare prescription benefits for the elderly. Didnt raise a penny to pay for them. They advocated policies that led to the crash of 2008 so did democrats. Today, were 16 trillion in debt. And they are boasting that they havent raised taxes in 22 years. Whats that about . Its certainly not conservatism. Its not rational. And its not adult. You know, when you create a program, you make a decision. You say, i think we should conduct this war. I think that we should expand our Security Apparatus at home. I think that we should provide this additional benefit. Then you pay for it. You vote to do it. And then you say, heres what its going to cost. And you pay for it. You know, republicans may complain about the federal debt, but theyre as responsible as the democrats for the debt being as large as it is. And once you have already done that, then you have an obligation to pay it down. You know, so the idea that what youre going to do is say you know, were not going to raise taxes, were not going to close loopholes, were not going to do anything that means that were not going to pay off what weve already created. I mean, thats childish. Thats childish. Thats very interesting you say that, because Grover Norquist says he came up with this scheme for the pledge against taxes when he was 12 years old. Seriously. In other words, the party of abraham lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and dwight d. Eisenhower is in the grip of an ideology conceived by a preteenager who apparently remains to this day in a state of arrested adolescence. Well, you know, the fact is, the idea that, you know, no, im not ever going to do this no matter the circumstances, no matter if were at war, whatever, it is a 12yearold kind of thinking. You know, its a childish way of thinking. But you cant just blame grover. There are members of the United States senate and United States house who have signed those pledges. And let me say, i mean, were talking about taxes and thats the norquist pledge. You know, but supporters of other positions on immigration, a lot of different issues, when youre running for office ask you to sign a pledge, sign a pledge that you will support this, sign a pledge that you you know, the right thing for a member of congress to say is, you know the way i think. You know what my values are. I will look at the issues through that lens. You know, but, you know, the oath of office i take says that my job is to serve the country and the constitution. And, you know, im not going to sign any pledges. Im just going to take the oath of office. Nonetheless, for the benefit of our viewers, consider these figures. In the last congress, the congress presently leaving washington, 238 representatives and 41 senators signed the norquist pledge. Thats a total of 279. In the new incoming congress, 219 representatives and 39 senators signed it, a total of 258. Thats a little over half the congress has taken this pledge, which means deadlock in the next three weeks is inevitable if they honor that pledge. Yeah. So, what they need to do is to say, i have two pledges here, two pledges side by side. One is to Grover Norquist. One is to the constitution of the United States. Which one am i going to honor . And thats the choice they have to make. And you have to be honest about the conversation. Because on the tax raising side of it, you know, the argument is, were going to tax the multimillionaires. But actually, the proposal is 250,000. Its not millionaires and its not multimillionaires. And so, theres dishonesty coming from both sides and both sides digging in their heels and saying, you know, were just not going to budge. And you cant operate that way. Thats why i say they should act as americans, not republicans and democrats. This is not about fixing the problems of the country. Its about the elections of 2014. Let me play for you an interview that norquist did with politicos mike allen. This president is not going to extend. He knows that he loses his leverage that way. Okay, well, the republicans also have other leverage continuing resolutions on spending and the debt ceiling increase. They can give him debt ceiling increases once a month. They can have him on a rather short leash, on a small, you know, heres your allowance, come back next month if youve behaved okay, okay, wait. Youre proposing that the debt ceiling be increased month month by month . Monthly. Monthly, if hes good. Weekly, if hes not. It does seem apparent that norquist is prepared to bring the government down if he has to, if he doesnt get his way. Yeah, i dont know why anybodys paying any attention to him. You know, he doesnt hold any public office, hes a selfdeclared leader who goes around saying, you know, this is what i want you to do. But where does he get his strength . Where does he get the force that makes people Pay Attention to him . Good question. Its the fact that the people who are the most ideological will turn out and then even if theyre a small percentage of the electorate, they will decide who can go forward. Thats the weapon hes got is, if you dont go along, i can turn out enough people, not very many, but i can turn out enough people to beat you in a primary and end your career. But he also gets his strength from his money. Would it surprise you to learn that in one given period recently, two billionairebacked groups, one associated with the Koch Brothers, one with karl roves network of mysterious givers, these two groups donated over 60 of Grover Norquists budget. I mean, isnt that whats really going on with the system, that the lobbyists chiefly presenting a more preventing a more equitable tax system is beholden to the plutocrats . Money plays way too big a part in our political system today. You know, from both sides. You know, theres way too much money coming into it that theres no control over it, that what you have well, let me tell you in my book, bill, i probably have the most extreme position on this than anybody, because what i have proposed in terms of political campaigns, that no money should come from any source other than from individual human beings. I would get rid of Political Action committee money, Political Party money, labor union money, corporate money. You know, i would go down to small amounts that are instantly reported, all transparent. I think we have to do that, because it is this money pouring in what comes out at the end is not representative of what the American People want. You know, the system gets skewed by these super influences, you know, whether its the president pacs and the democratics party pacs and the super pacs or the Republican Party super pacs, thats got to change. Well, no ideas can make it as long as were in the grip of an undemocratic process which determines whos going to make those decisions. One of the lines in my book is that all im trying to do here is put democracy back into our democracy. What our founders did that was exceptional was they decided, we are not going to be subjects. Were going to be citizens. So, instead of the government telling us what to do, well tell the government what to do. And that only works if the people themselves have the power to decide whos going to be making the laws and its not just a few, whether theyre plutocrats or ideologues or whatever, who are able to skew the system. You said a moment ago that Ronald Reagan believed in the country. Are you suggesting that or was it just a slip of the tongue that maybe john boehner and that republican leadership, that they dont believe in the country . No. You know, the members of congress who i know in both parties are patriotic. They love the country. But weve created an incentive system that gets you knocked off in your primaries, you know, unless you are willing to be intransigent and to say, i will never compromise. You know, Richard Murdoch beat dick luger in indiana by saying, i will never compromise. You know, bill, thank goodness he wasnt at the constitutional convention. We wouldnt have a country today. How did we incentivize obstinacy . Well, one of the things thats happened is that the ideologues in both parties have really started focusing on the primaries, because we have a system, you know, 46 of the 50 states, if you lose in your partys primary, your name cannot be on the ballot in november. After joe biden became Vice President and delaware had to elect a new senator, so, mike castle, obviously, was going to be the next senator, everybody knew that, but he lost the primary to a lady named christine odonnell. So, theres a state of a Million People a tea party person in delaware, yeah. Yeah. But with a Million People in delaware, only 30,000 voted for her in the primary. And that was enough to keep mike castle off the ballot. And the Million People in delaware couldnt choose him. And, you know, and thats true in almost every state. So, thats how its happened. The ideologues have focused on using the Party Primaries to elect people who are not representative, maybe not even representative of their own party. But the other candidates now cannot be on the ballot in november. You know, the congress has most of the major power in this country about war, about taxes, about spending. You know, so, when you narrow the choices that the American People have as to whos going to serve in congress, in the house or senate, youre really undermining the whole democratic system. And i dont know if you noticed this example just the other day. Bill bolling, the Lieutenant Governor of virginia, decided not to run, you know, for governor, because he knew that he could not win in a primary against the more conservative attorney general. So, it really happens. Utah, when Robert Bennett was running for reelection, 2,000 of the people who voted in a Republican Convention in a state of 3 Million People were able to keep him off the ballot in november. You know, theres something really seriously wrong with that. So, whats the simplest explanation, the clearest explanation for why the ideologues, the folks who dont want to compromise, the hardliners, can control the primary process . Whats the reason behind that . Part of it is the fact that american citizens dont get as involved as they should in voting early. The American People are exposed, and especially those who are most ideologically motivated to extreme positions, certitude. There have been a lot of things written about the fact that the American People now tend to talk only to people who think the way they do, you know, and not open to a civil conversation with people on a different side. So, all of these things have conspired that the people who are the most hard line, most partisan, dominate the party conventions, dominate the primaries. But those primaries and conventions are not just endorsers. The problem is, they now have the ability to keep other people off the ballot. They should not have that power. So, how do you open the choices to people who didnt win in the primary . In 2006, the people in Washington State finally had, you know, over 40 of americans now call themselves independents. People are fleeing from the parties. And in Washington State they said, you know, were tired of this system. And they passed an open primary, which is, its not a crossover primary, its a truly open primary where every candidate whos a qualified candidate is on the same ballot, regardless of party, and every single registered voter in that state could vote among all those candidates. Its like having a general election with a runoff if you dont get over 50 . That was 2006. California did the same thing in 2010. And both states got rid of partisan control of gerrymandering, drawing district lines. I remember when they when they redrew your district. Suddenly you had a big l. Big upsidedown l, right. Upsidedown l that went all the way from Oklahoma City up to the kansas border. Yeah, and then halfway across to arkansas. Yeah. As you know, bill, i represented Oklahoma City. Im a city guy. You know, to me, food comes from a Grocery Store and not, you know. I dont know anything about farming. But because i was a republican that won in a heavily democratic district, when we had a state legislature that was dominated by the democrats, you know, they redrew my district so that i was now representing wheat farmers and cattle ranchers and small town merchants. And i thought, well, look what they did to me. But they didnt. They did it to those people who were entitled to be represented by somebody who could speak for them. You have to take away the ability of the parties to draw district lines in a way that take away representation from the citizens. You say take away the parties control over redistricting. Thirteen states have now done that. Thirteen states have said, we will put together nonpartisan independent redistricting commissions. How . The independent commissions are the only way to do it. Now, every state does it differently. So, what you have iowa does a good job of this. Iowa does a very good job of it. And other states do, too. But youve got to have the commission be large enough and balance it with people from enough views that what comes out at the end is hopefully going to be fair based on population, based on interests, as opposed to and competitive elections as opposed to allowing a party draw the lines just to help them get more seats. You know, theres kind of a revolution starting, bill, against the concept of Party Control of our choices. So that now we look at whats happening in washington, and, you know, one day its nancy pelosi saying, were not going to compromise, the next day its john boehner saying it. And then mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate says, you know, what my goal is to make barack obama a oneterm president. Theyre supposed to be leaders of the legislative branch of the government, not party hacks. And we have a system now, you know, that is all about looking toward the next election, how we do that. This is a strong indictment of the polarization of the two parties. Yeah. But isnt the country also very polarized . The country is very polarized in some senses. But you also find the American People saying, solve the problem. Dont go over a fiscal cliff. Or, you know, pay our bills, or, do something about the budget. Now, i think even though the people tend to not be open to a lot of different views, they want the people they elect to make government work. So, we have created a political system that rewards intransigence. Weve created a system that says, we reward incivility. We reward refusal to compromise. We punish people who compromise and are civil and get along well with the people on the other side of the aisle. So, why are we surprised that thats what we get in everything in life . You get what you reward. And you dont get what you punish. And thats what weve done to our political system. Whats in store for the fate of a democracy that cannot be flexible enough to compromise between its stronglyheld prejudices . You know, if you have hardening of the arteries, itll kill you as a person and itll kill you as a country. What you have to do is to be able to maintain the health of the democracy by saying, it depends on people of different perspectives to come together, have intellectual discussions, you know, listen to each other, tolerate other ideas, not be so full of how right they are. You know, and then say, where can we come together . you know, thats whats required. And the more we are locked into, you know, this is the only right answer, or, this is their only right certitude will kill this country. Why havent you given up . I will tell you, people ask me, so, it sounds like youre a pessimist. I said, no, im optimistic. I think the revolutions begun. I look at washington. I look at california. I look at the 40 of the people who call themselves independents. I look at the constant attacks by people against this nasty partisanship. You know, so i think congress got down to 13 approval, which only proves theres 13 who are not paying attention. If everybody was just happy with whats happening, i would say, we have really lost, you know, control of our system. But the thing that does concern me, bill, is to have this kind of a system of democracy, you need to have a citizenship, you know, that is capable of operating in this kind of a democracy. So, we need to do a better job of teaching civics. We need to do a better job of teaching critical thinking. You know, we need to do we need to have more citizens who engage, show up in the primaries, show up in the elections. We can start by fixing the political system. I would say that one way to start is to read, the parties versus the people how to turn republicans and democrats into americans. Mickey edwards, thank you very much for being with me. Thank you. I enjoyed it. Dont you wonder just who is this Grover Norquist who has such a maniacal hold on the Republican Party . Mickey edwards isnt the only conservative who would like to see the party free itself from his grip. Writing in the Financial Times last week, the conservative journalist Christopher Caldwell describes the norquist pledge as a partisan document, a ratchet driving taxes down to unsustainable levels, and it symbolizes a political system short on legitimacy. Norquist claims the pledge is something politicians make to their constituents, not to him. But caldwell wonders who authorized him to collect politicians signatures on their constituents behalf. Even this misses the main point. Norquists efforts keep taxes low for his donor base, billionaires like the Koch Brothers and the plutocrats secretly clustered around norquists comrade, karl rove. This past election, norquists group, americans for tax reform, spent nearly 16 million to support his favored candidates thats according to the center for responsive politics. Where did that money come from, and what did it buy . Back in the 1990s it was the Tobacco Industry backing norquists fight against cigarette taxes. Now, its the pharmaceutical companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was using his organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist jack abramoff. How about that for tax reform check it out yourself in the documentary capitol crimes on our website billmoyers. Com. Youll see the story of how the man who has the Republican Party under his thumb came to washington to start a revolution and wound up running a racket. Now hes the proxy for the powerful Interest Groups that finance him. So, not only does the norquist pledge symbolize a political system short on legitimacy, as Christopher Caldwell wrote, it isnt even about principle or ideology. Conservatism my foot, its all about the money. Coming up on moyers and company, poet james autry on living a life of gratitude, no matter what. The world is very much with us. And im no pollyanna, but i choose gratitude as an interior journey, an interior practice that sort of this one that, if i can choose to be grateful for my life, love the life i have in the midst of all this, then i can be grateful for other things. And at our website, billmoyers. Com, you can find out more about fighting back against this current fcc attempt to let big media take over even more of what we watch and read. Our take action page will show you how. Also, take time to look at our group think section, where a lively and diverse collection of contributors gather to discuss whether Corporate Giants should have so much control over how citizens of a democracy get their information. Thats all at billmoyers. Com. Ill see you there, and i see you here, next time. Cerock] jane joyce hillsides, mountains, canyons, and coastlines are under increasing Development Pressure as earths human population grows, and more people move in to these areas known for their scenic beauty. Unfortunately, many of these regions are as dangerous as they are breathtaking; highly susceptible to erosion and collapse from Natural Hazards such as volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, human land alterations, and extreme weather. Along the california coast, winddriven waves, abnormally high sea levels and heavy rains battered fragile sea cliffs and beaches during the el nino events of 1982 and 1997. Many buildings placed directly on exposed beaches, or too close to rapidly retreating cliffs were destroyed, damaged or threatened. Despite the obvious danger, however, people continue to literally live on the edge