justice, the holocaust museum l.a., the forward, and the pico union project. as it is thanksgiving eve, just a word on that topic. on october 3, 1863, at the height of a bloody war dividing our country, abraham lincoln issued a thanksgiving proclamation which officially established thanksgiving as a national holiday. he proclaimed that though the nation was at war with itself, there were still blessings for which both sides could experts gratitude. he also proclaimed despite the painful and divided times, all americans should be concerned about those suffering as a result of civil strife. he set for the last thursday of november as thanksgiving. he asked everyone to pray to heal the wounds of the nation, and restore it to the full enjoyment of peace, tranquility, and union. president-elect biden spoke today to the american people, he similarly acknowledged the country's deep divide, and he also urged unity. a statement that harkens back to lincoln's thanksgiving day proclamation, president-elect biden said, "looking back over our history, you see that it's been in the most difficult circumstances that our nation has been forged." i am inspired by the optimism and pray we can pick up our pieces in the nation and begin the process of healing. after all, our american forbearers held together in 1865, surely there is hope for us now." in that spirit, i want you to register for the december 15, tuesday night, program. we have gathered together the national leaders of the muslim, jewish, hispanic, black, and asian committees for a discussion entitled "after four years of bigotry, tension, and division, how do we heal?" we will welcome jonathan greene bid, jarrett johnson, cindy of the league of united latin american's, salaam moriarty of the republic -- affairs council, and -- this is an impressive group of national leaders, and the conversation is sure to be far-reaching and important. we hope you will register tonight via the email you will get immediately after the program. and because all of the studies that prove those who feel gratitude enjoy a longer lifespan, i would like to express gratitude to our many incredible speakers and moderators, to our audience members, and my colleagues, especially to david, with whom i work on this series of -- every single day. please welcome david, who will tell you about our upcoming program and introduce our speaker. david: thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i appreciate and share your feelings of thanksgiving. on behalf of the committee advocates, i pleased and welcome you all to another of our american crossroads virtual town hall, this the 32nd in our series. a line of influential speakers continues from tonight until the end of december. next week, we have congressman adam schiff, and madeleine brand talking about plans for the next congress. we will have secretary leon panetta. it will be on the issues surrounding transition in government. on december 23, pulitzer prize winner, bret stephens, will return with henry weinstein of uc irvine. tonight, we will be treated to analysis of what the past tumultuous four years and the head spinning past three weeks port and. our guest is a man that many of us would like to hear from when it comes to events around us and what they mean, george will. he was with us five months ago for a memorable evening, as well. he is a columnist, television personality, and author. the wall street journal has described him as perhaps the most powerful journalist in america. he's is a twice-weekly columnist at the washington post, and contributor to nbc news and and msnbc. he has won a pulitzer prize, and widespread commendations for his books, ranging from politics, diplomacy, baseball. his topic tonight is where do we go from here? the impact of the trump era. only, thetor is worn host and executive producer of the podcast to the point, and the climate change update. he's a recipient of 40 national, regional, local awards for broadcasting. including his lifetime achievement award. i wish you all a happy thanksgiving, and welcome warren to this evening's conversation. >> thank you very much. thank you for the moving comment about thanksgiving. i also adhere to it, as david said he did. it is always great to host these programs. it is a special privilege for me to talk to george will, such a interesting and wonderful writer, a very creative thinker. a man who manages to still be a conservative, even though he is not a republican anymore and has not been for the past four years. we will hear about that. your recent column about the census was sent out to those that registered to listen today, to watch today, and i will get to that. but first, the transition has begun. think i propose we start there. give us a couple of minutes on how you think it is going so far. mr. will: i think it is going well. the institutions work well without much friction. we have heard an awful lot in the last four years about the threat to our institutions and our democracy. i think people lost sight of the fact that this country was not made by fragile people, and it is not a fragile country. so i don't think our institutions have ever been threatened. we had one great constitutional crisis in this country, the civil war. even at watergate, i was just beginning to be a columnist during that. even during watergate, the institutions, congress, the courts, journalists, and others performed well and got through it. so we will get through this, also. >> what about the fact that the president has so far refused to acknowledge the vote and has cast doubt on the integrity of the whole elective process? isn't that a threat to the institutions of the u.s.? mr. will: i don't think so. i think the vast majority of americans are not subscribing to this, even his supporters are skeptical. there comes a point in the life of information where worse is better. worse he behaves, the better it is. people will see now a sore loser. -- the part of his supporters. the most alarming thing about this election is 4 million more people voted for him after watching him for four years then did in 2016. we should try and understand what their grievances are, and their anxieties and fears. with that said, we also have to draw a line and say there's no obligation for us to indulge these kind of fantasies. but the fact that his legal team the game that --ldn't shoot straight, it worse is better at times. the worse they look, the better it is for the country overall. grief of his the supporters over the failure of his campaign, but isn't there anger going't their to be something we have to deal with, or at least be a stronger impulse, or more troubling, then grief? mr. will: i don't think the american people as a whole are angry. i think they are exhausted. they want restoration of stability, something like normality. the cable television audience on both sides is kind of angry. they are at a perpetual rolling boil, because i think they enjoy that. 330 million people in this country, and at any given time, about 322 million listen to talk radio, not watching cable television, they are watching the clock, fixing the screen doors, raising children, getting on with life. i think that's what americans voted for with mr. biden. in the primaries, only one third of the primary voters voted for bernie sanders or elizabeth warren, the angry side of the democratic party. that means two thirds didn't. the people who voted for mr. biden voted for his demeanor. just as mr. trump's demeanor was part of his selling point, so, too, was mr. biden's demeanor. with that jack nicholson smile of his, and the contrast of personas was very telling. >> the president-elect has introduced the six potential cabinet members, all involved in national security in one way or another. you thought president trump, i think, was dangerous to the country. do you feel safer already? mr. will: i don't think government is a foreign country or the adversary. i think -- they are experienced people. mr. trump selected some good people early, but he ran through them a mile a minute. i think what mr. biden is trying to do is communicate and produce stability, calm -- adult supervision has come back to washington. >> how do you feel about john kerry being introduced as the -- you are not a climate denier, but you are skeptical about the whole idea, on the change, the havoc that it might wreak. and what your take is on the importance of climate to john kerry's appointment and this cabinet. mr. will: the democratic party is deeply concerned about this, and the president is responding to that. i'm not a climate change denier. the one thing we can all agree on, this is where the tape begins, not ends, it never is not changing. it is a very complicated, dynamic system. and the idea that the carbon-using activities can make a difference. it is hardly controversial. the question then becomes, what do we know for sure? how certain are the scientific predictions? how much should we wager on these predictions in terms of our freedom, trillions of dollars spent? and does it make more sense in terms of economic efficiency to change the dynamic of climate change, or accommodate it, with measures of adaptation to say, rising sea levels? see levels have been rising since the middle of the 19th century. this is not new. this is the sort of thing i think we can all cope with. again, the important thing is for everybody to calm down take , a deep breath and cope. we really have to cope when we are thinking. >> you mentioned the possibility of spending a lot of money with regard to climate change. i know you're concerned about the deficit. you said medicare and social security are not sustainable, partly because when they become unsustainable, the people in charge will not be around anymore. is that same thing true with regard to climate change? is it important to deal with it now so that it does not ruin the lives of our children and grandchildren? mr. will: it is indeed important to do that, but again, we have to understand, we are talking about the rise of sea levels, you are talking about an increase of 1-2 degrees celsius 100 years from now. most predictions from 100 years out are going to be wrong, or certainly, inaccurate. so yes, indeed, prophylactic measures are in order at this point, but again, no more should be invested in science than the science itself has invested. and really good scientists are among the first to say, it's a tentative business, particularly climate science, which is a swirling cyclone of very complicated variables. >> you wrote in june, not only should trump be removed, but that voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger -- [laughter] >> i love that phrase. but it didn't happen. the enablers are still there. how concerned are you about that? mr. will: i think they feel chastened. you need a spine of steel in dealing with the president. teddy roosevelt once said in criticizing someone that that person had a backbone like chocolate eclair. some of these people in the senate are like that i'm afraid. , but understand this, there is zero, and i mean zero affection in the senate for the president. he has no friends, no admirers. when he is gone, as soon he shall be, many are going to snap back into a position of recognizable dignity. some of them deserve to lose, they did not lose, but the american people must like divided government, because they produce it often. my guess is that joe biden will probably be just as happy to have a republican senate, because then he can turn to some of his critics on the left and say -- statehood for puerto rico, abolish the electoral college. you can't do that with the senate. so let's get on with the things the american people are actually worried about. >> you said biden would benefit from republican control of the senate, and that mitch mcconnell could modulate senatorial strife and go down as a consequential conservative. which i assume is high praise. how likely is that to happen? mr. will: i think it is more likely than you might think. to me, the biggest problem in our country, institutionally, is that the presidency has become untethered from constitutional restraint. i'm talking about all presidents. the imperial presidency in the last 80 years has formally theundamentally disrupted madisonian equilibrium of the three branches of government. so, it is very important that congress re-establish itself , quit vesting presidents with enormous discretion, do its job, and again establish, as it is, article 1 of the constitution, congressional primacy in our democracy. it is very important. joe biden and mitch mcconnell are institutionalists from the senate. joe biden has 36 years of senate experience. he has 54% more congressional experience in any other prior president. and this is the 36 year of the senate for mitch mcconnell. these men respect the senate. everyone wants to have a more dignified, consequential, deliberative congress. i think we are apt to see that. i think, for example, you will see a much less promiscuous use of the filibusters they now have. i think you will see this when mitch mcconnell begins to speak through many of the nominees through joe biden. by the way, mr. schumer has done to the trump nominees sort of civil wars over assistant secretaries of this and that. >> why, though, should mitch mcconnell try to modulate senatorial strife, when he's got all these senators who are running for president in 2024? and all of them are going to want to appeal to those 72 people, or however many there million were that voted for donald trump? they're going to want to maintain or reach out to those voters. art they liable to be doing the same kind of things they have done during the presidency of donald trump? mr. will: there's no question ted cruz, josh hawley, lindsey graham, marco rubio, and all the rest -- every time a senator looks in the mirror to put on her makeup or for him to shave they see a president. transactional cost of being in the senate. remember, mitch mcconnell is not sympathetic to these people. mitch mcconnell has never entertained presidential aspirations. one of the reasons is, mitch this is just a transactional cost of being in the senate. but remember, mitch mcconnell is not sympathetic to these people. mitch mcconnell is what he is because he has never entertained presidential aspirations. one of the reasons is that many years ago mitch mcconnell cannot run for senate because he has the tightlipped owlish demeanor of george will. rather harsh, but not unfair. >> you're not being tightlipped now. congratulations for getting rid of that image, at least for this program. senators who want to run for president -- you have said the party is a cult and has become a cult. that is what you said when you resigned from it, when the nomination of trump occurred. is it still a cult, or do you think it will make an effort, the political leadership, to to try to persuade those 72 million people adherence to it that they have something better to do than the kinds of things that they wanted trump to do? mr. will: it is too soon to say. the truth of the matter is, we don't know. there are some, tom cotton for example, arkansas, two stints in the u.s. military, a very intelligent man, but a man, along with josh hawley, was to -- wants to produce what i guess you would call the thinking person's trumpism. i think they're going to try to do that. i think there will be others in the republican primaries in 2024 saying, look, we want to go back to what we had. we want to go back to what we had with ronald reagan, who said, i don't want to go back to the past, i want to go back to the past way of facing the future. there is going to be a serious argument about free trade. because when this republican party began to dally with protectionism -- what is protectionism? it is government telling people what they can buy, in what quantities, and at what prices. it is managed trade. if that is not the essence of large government, industrial policy, what is? so the republican party has a period of rethinking to do. my hunch is if they say we are simply going to be trump without the messenger, they are going to find out that trump was mostly the messenger, mostly the manner, mostly the demeanor, mostly the pugnacity. 1968 -- you and i are probably old enough to remember this -- george wallace ran for president. got 9.8% of the popular vote, won 46 electoral votes. one of his mantras as he campaign was, he said, hell, there is too much dignity in government. the people liked that, just as mr. trump's lack of dignity was part of his appeal. so the republican has to decide, is it a party of governance or is it a party of theatrics? is it a party of inflammatory gestures? too soon to say. we are going to find out fairly quickly. >> let me ask you this. you are an advocate of libertarianism and individualism, american individualism. what about that concept when it is used as an argument for not wearing a mask in the interest of public health? "no government can tell me what to put on my face." we see that again and again. repeated again and again and people are putting on -- wearing -- using weapons when they are marching in the streets, advocating that they're simply not going to tolerate that kind of thing. when they do that, of course, we are all subject to the spread of disease. what happens -- what do you say to people who have that position? mr. will: i say the following -- i am, as you say, libertarian-ish, which is to say i believe the government interferes with the freedom of the individual, it i do have a good reason and ought to say what it is. well, a commendable disease is a really good reason. i am a lapsed professor of philosophy. i went to oxford to study. i got a ph.d. at princeton. i briefly talked political philosophy. john stuart mill on liberty said there is a distinction between self-regarding acts, acts that don't affect other people, and other regarding acts. carrying covid-19 is obviously an others-regarding act. this such an easy measure to take. this idea, i call it country music manliness, on the part of people that will not wear a mask. you know the country music lyrics, i'm a bass-fishing, beer-drinking, truck-driving good old boy and no one can interfere with my liberty. this is a minor excision from your liberty and it will save your life and perhaps those of your friends. >> well, that is persuasive to me, but it doesn't seem to have been persuasive to a lot of americans and not a lot of members of congress, including members of the senate, who apparently spread the disease in the chambers of the senate. so again, how can you expect that party and members of that party to lead in such a way that millions of people will be willing to deal with the disease the way we ought to deal with it? mr. will: i understand the problem. i think the most instructive teaching that is being done is by the numbers we see every morning on television, as we passed 250,000 deaths. there are some people you just can't reach. it's a darwinian moment. we're going to find out who is fit to survive and who isn't. >> let me get to what i promised earlier, what was promised when your column was sent out to the people who have registered to attend this event. there's a case coming up before the supreme court on monday that has to do with the challenge to the census, which under trump did not include unauthorized immigrants. he calls them illegal aliens. you've said that violates two provisions of the constitution, with both philosophic and practical consequences. so tell us about that. mr. will: the question is, the supreme court is construing the two laws, when talking about it is enumeration. it tells you something about the enlightened nature of the american founders, they wanted a census. they wanted to know things. they thought that information could be the basis of rational improvement. they had to have a census, because they needed to know how to apportion seats in the house of representatives. at issue in the supreme court case is exactly that. should unauthorized immigrants be counted for the purpose of allocating congressional seats? the question is, what did the founders say? this is where republicans who say they are for originalism, they want to construe the terms of the constitution in terms of the original public meaning. when they said the enumeration should count all persons, in the 14th amendment and elsewhere in the constitution, did they mean more than just citizens? the answer is yes, because frequently, in the same constitution, they refer to citizens when they meant citizens and persons when they meant persons. and it is very clear that -- this is how i think it will turn out -- that in fact, counting all people, all residents, all inhabitants of the country, for the purposes of representation, is going to be yet another defeat for the president in the supreme court. >> they also said all persons except untaxed indians. it was specific. might that not refer than two people who are in fact citizens of other countries who just happened to be here, for one reason or another? mr. will: you're quite right, to focus on that. other than indians untaxed in the founding era, another sovereign, that is loyalty to tribes. in that sense, they were not members of the american community. the fact is unauthorized immigrants tribes in this country are members of the american community. that will feature in the supreme court argument, because they are going to say inhabitant means someone who has been here indefinitely. let me give you a number that is kind of interesting. of the 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in this country, 60% have been here 10 years or more. 20% have been here 20 years or more. one in three are home owners. 15% have bachelor degrees or more. the fact is, by the way, 4.1 million children in this country were born here, are under birthright citizenship, they are were born here, therefore american citizens, and they're living with parents that are unauthorized immigrants. the fact is, the american people in their native decency would not tolerate the police measures necessary to wrench these people from our communities, where they are woven into the fabric of our life. and furthermore, anyone who says these people ought to go home should face the simple demographic fact they are home. this is their home and we should understand it is not a matter of welcoming them, they are our neighbors. they work for us. they work with us. they sit next to us in church and synagogues and elsewhere. this is a nonstarter issue. hethis is a nonstarter issue. one of the interesting things surely about this year's campaign, in 2016, immigration was the burning issue from mr. trump from the time he came down that escalator until the election. the issue did not exist this year. and joe biden, to his great credit, has said in the last day or so he is for finding a path not just to legality, but a path to citizenship for these 10.5 million people. something, by the way, a majority of republicans favor. >> that is interesting you should said that, because trump was so opposed to immigration in general, it would appear, from the kinds of things that he said. so what do you think about the appointee that president-elect biden has proposed for the department of homeland security? >> i think it is interesting he is hispanic. he is someone who recognizes this is a big, complicated division. www.c-span.org [indiscernible] >> communism in cuba. mr. will: i think it is a healthy sign. the country is changing so rapidly. an interesting statistic, in 1993, florida became the first state in which deaths of white people outnumbered births of white people. that is now true in 26 states. this is a country changing rapidly. the republican party will either adapt or it will expire. american political parties are extremely sensitive seismographs, trembling to every tremor of public appetite. i expect the republican party will change, but if it doesn't, it is in deep trouble. because mr. trump won in 2016 by getting largely evangelicals in an increasingly secular country, by getting rural people in an increasingly urbanized country. 87% of his vote in 2016 was white. he spent four years making no attempt to broaden his base. the strategy, therefore, was to get an even larger portion of an ever smaller slice of the american electorate. that is not a recipe for sustainable political prosperity on the part of the republicans. >> do you agree then the demographic change you are talking about is in fact one of the things that motivates the anger of some trump voters, and is racism at the base of it? mr. will: i don't think it's racism. obviously, there is some of that. i think it is more understandable -- i'm not saying it is admirable or acceptable, but it is an understandable sense that when a country people are used to is changing rapidly. if you don't like rapid change, you picked the wrong country. this country has been changing rapidly since the founding era. when benjamin franklin proposed the almanac should be printed in german as well as english because so many germans were in the country. when abraham lincoln began his ascent in politics in illinois, where i am from, central illinois, he invested in several german language newspapers in illinois because he said, let's face the fact, we are a big diverse country, differently which is, get over it. >> your ability to call out historical anecdotes this -- >> your ability to call on historical anecdotes is absolutely extraordinary, one of the things that i have always admired about you the most. i just have to say that. back to the census case, it is very important in california. tell us why. mr. will: the question is, who gets counted for the purpose of representation? california has i think 22% of unauthorized immigrants in this country. los angeles county has 10% of all of them. obviously, if they not counted for the enumeration relevant to allocating house seats, some houses are going to go to elsewhere. they will go to texas, florida, to who knows where. but california would be a loser. as i say, i don't expect that to happen, but the stakes are very large. the census is the basis of $1.5 trillion in the allocation of federal funds every year. that is $15 trillion over the decade covered by the 2020 census. this is a very high-stakes matter, politically and economically. >> the census is already officially over. so if the court goes in the way that you would like it to go, what happens then? what is the remedy? do we have to start the census over again? mr. will: no, because the census has counted unauthorized immigrants to the extent that it can. unauthorized immigrants are often reluctant to talk to government officials for good reason. but they will be counted, and they will then swept into the pool of people on the basis of which congressional seats are allocated. so you won't have to have a do-over from the senate. >> back to your devotion to the constitution, what about the power of the presidency, the imperial presidency referred to earlier? when you say that the institutions of the government are safe and the country is not shaky in that regard, does the constitution need to be amended in some way or changed in some way in order to reinforce the separation of powers to give congress more of a real authority than it has now with respect to the presidency? mr. will: congress has all the authority it needs. the engine it needs is the political will to exercise it. the fact is congress has said presidents have usurped our power. if only presidents had to usurp it. the fact is congress has been all too eager to shed power because shedding power sheds responsibility. shedding responsibility sheds political danger. therefore, they have given presidents of both parties and they have gleefully exercised the vast discretion to declare emergencies about this and that and spending allocated for one and repurpose to building a wall, for example. the president did because it is being litigated, but he could at least point to a legislation that says congress is i can do this. president trump imposed steel tariffs and aluminum tariffs on our ally canada in the name of national security. it is preposterous on the face, but he can do it because congress has under both parties given presidents of both parties far too much discretion. we don't need to change the constitution. we need to elect men and women to the congress who take pride in the legislative branch and not think of themselves as members of the president's team, blocking and tackling for the president. but instead, exercising the dignity inherent in the legislative branch. >> i believe you're also an advocate of term limits, but i don't want to get into it, because i think it is time to get to some questions from the audience. we have some and very they are interesting, indeed. john, for example, asks, should trump be prosecuted for his conduct in office? mr. will: not for his conduct in office. there is a way of doing that and that is the impeachment provision. we had that charade of impeachment on party lines, where he was acquitted. congress had the ability to do that. it decided not to. it is very wise to let these things go, let the past be the past. i know gerald ford perhaps lost his attempt to be an elected president in 1976 because of the residue and resentment of his pardoning of richard nixon. but that was statesmanlike. he cauterized the wound on the country and let the country move forward. so i would be very surprised if joe biden, who is a serious, mature veteran in washington, who, by the way, was in the senate in his second year of the senate when ford pardoned nixon -- will want to turn the country away from this. now, whether mr. vance, the district attorney in new york city has criminal and civil cases about mr. trump's taxes and all of this, that can go forward. but that is of no concern to president biden. >> cheryl want to know, what are your thoughts about a new stimulus package? mr. will: well, one is coming. it is very clear. we can argue about the sums, and this is not the time. you're looking at the last deficit hawk in washington. but even i say this is not the time for that kind of economies. we have to keep the american people who are suffering enormously through no fault of their own, millions of small businesses, mom-and-pop restaurants, grocery stores -- through no fault of their own, they are being wiped out. this is where we act as a community and help one another. so another stimulus is coming. sooner or later, however, we have to face the music. in the music is this -- we are now heading into the national add to the national debt by trillions at a time. trillion is a big number. a trillion seconds ago is 31,000 years ago. we invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. trillion is a big number. economists argue, at what point, when the debt becomes relative to gdp, that is, to the size of the economy, at what point does it become dangerous? 10 years ago, the national debt was 53% of gdp. now it is over 100%. according to the congressional budget office, the current trajectory, it will reach twice the size of the economy in 2050. some people say, well, public are owing to so cheap with interest rates so low, we can do this without risk. that is fine if you know you're going to have low interest rates indefinitely. but remember this also about taxes, about debt. debt is taxation deferred. there are two ways to finance a government and only two. current taxes and future taxes. a third way to pay for it is inflation, to inflate away your debt. that will become an ever more powerful temptation as the debt becomes ever more burdensome. >> will you repeat that explanation you gave on the trillion? mr. will: yes. a trillion seconds ago is 31,000 years ago. >> that is a very helpful image. thank you for the image. joel wants to know, will trump continue to be a force in the republican party? mr. will: joel, i think has asked the $64,000 question. he can be if he wants to be because he has -- again, 74 million people watched him for four years and said we want four more years of this. there is a significant number of people who respond to him. the republican party has behaved as it has done. with what i said canine loyalty, because they are terrified of a large portion of their constituents. the power of him tweeting to arouse these people. so it seems to me, he can, if he wants to be. that will be the drama of the 2024 for republican presidential nomination competition. there will be those who say, the next generation of trumpkins, and others will be out there saying, no, that was a wrong turn for the country and we can do better. it will be fascinating. >> what about the senators you mentioned earlier and if they are eager to run for president, will they be able to do it if trump is still around, indicating that he might want to run for president? mr. will: i'm not sure mr. trump will want to run for president again in the first place. his personal finances are going to be a shamble. they are already a shambles. he's not nearly as rich as he's lying about being. second, he's going to be 78. i am not sure he is a martyr to physical fitness from the looks of him. i think he is not going to be fit to run for president in four more years. >> sharon wants to know, what is your assessment of the role of the news media over the past four years? mr. will: i'm afraid the news media has suffered from trump derangement syndrome. they have decided trump was such a threat to the country that they adopted an adversarial stance. that is understandable. trump's genius was to take up space in the heads of people and not get out. in a way what happened was an american journalism went back to its origins. in the 1790's, when suddenly, political parties, which the founders neither desired nor anticipated, suddenly emerged, the american newspapers and american people were voracious readers of newspapers back then, were aligned with parties and supported by the parties. for example, when thomas jefferson was secretary of state, he gave lucrative printing contracts to sympathetic newspapers. the federalists did the same thing when they had power. then we would into a period, and you may look back as an evanescent episode in our life, where we aspired to objective journalism. we have set aside that aspiration in recent years, particularly under donald trump. i think some newspapers are going to have a moment of reflection and say, maybe we up ought to get back to that. >> jack has a question that is somewhat reflective of what we talked about but i think it is worth asking, and i think it has to do with more than anything else the big-lie technique trump has used by repeating the same thing over and over again. he says, what about the 70% of republicans who believe the election was stolen? mr. will: that's the problem. one of the things we have learned from the last four years -- and this goes back to my anxieties about the modern presidency in general -- is the tone-setting power of the president. armed with communication, the first great technological enhancement of presidential power was radio. we tend to think of radio as something now as of minor importance. when franklin roosevelt sat down for his first fireside chat, the presidency itself changed. it was almost a constitutional moment. then came television. jack kennedy's mastery of that. now we have twitter and facebook and youtube, all of the social media, which has made presidents ubiquitous. presidents are everywhere, all the time. my candidate that i favored for the democratic nomination this year was senator bennett of colorado because he tweeted, "if i'm elected president, will go weeks at a time and you won't have to think about me." wonderful to have a president like that. so again, we're going to have to re-cage the executive lion. we have to get the presidency shrunk back to a normal dimension. americans all over the country are watching "the crown" these days. they are looking at the curious role of the monarchy in britain. britain, like a lot of other countries, separates the head of government from the head of state, which the queen is. we in the united states don't make that distinction, and therefore, the president acquires a kind of derivative dignity that is over time not wholesome. it is infantilism in this country. and so, as the questioner asked, 74 million people who take him at his word because they are not skeptical of presidents in general. a little wholesome down-to-earth doubt about executive power would make us all better off. >> here is carol. exceeds me -- no, it is carol. are you troubled with regards to trump's withdrawal from the open skies treaty? and i might add, i think he is destroying the very airplanes that have been used to conduct surveillance under the open skies treaty. mr. will: yes, i am. i think one of the first things you're going to see is joe biden, who spent a large portion in his 36 years of the senate on the foreign relations committee, has traveled incessantly for 36 years, is going to take national security much more seriously than the current president has. remember, the current president abandon the kurds in the middle of a phone call with the president of turkey. oh, you take care of it. which so appalled some of the military leadership that they resigned. this is the most important thing he can do, mr. biden, is to begin to take national security seriously. what presidents are for we can argue about. but the first responsibility of the president is to uphold the security of the country. we have had a four-year hiatus in that. >> we talked about the case coming up next monday in the supreme court. andrew wants to know, what is your best guess of where the supreme court is heading? mr. will: i think the supreme court is going to surprise a lot of people. i think the supreme court is now full of people who call themselves originalists, who will be tethered to the original public meaning of the text. i think there is not going to be what you would call judicial activism. frankly, i am for more judicial activism rather than less. i think often judicial restraint is dereliction of the judicial duty to restrain importuning and overbearing majorities. i grew up in central illinois, lincoln country, champaign county. local lore has it that lincoln was in the champaign county courthouse when he heard the kansas-nebraska act was passed in 1854. the kansas-nebraska act, the brainstorm of the noise senator stephen douglas, said a problem fracture in the country is what should we do about the expansion of slavery into the territories such as kansas and nebraska? douglas said we will solve that with popular solvency. vote it up, vote it down. the important thing in america's popular sovereignty. lincoln said no. lincoln's recoil that propelled him to greatness was him saying, america is not about a process majority rule. it is about the condition of liberty. and i would like to see a supreme court more active in the defense of liberty. here's my libertarian-ish side coming out. so i am not one of those who says i want the court to be more passive, i want the court to be more vigilant and engaged on behalf of liberty. >> jonathan -- do you think the fairness doctrine should be brought back by the fcc? >> god, no. the fairness doctrine was bad enough when there was at least a tissue-thin technological reason for it, the radio bands were scarce, television bands were scarce. therefore, government was going to tell us what fairness was. if you think the government is good at this, good luck to you, i don't. the technological reason for that is gone. back when we had maybe four, maybe five channels, now we have 500 channels, the internet, there is no scarcity. we now have a cornucopia of information. we hardly need the government to police it. >> john wants to know, what is your best guess as to the reason for president trump's strange relationship with russia? mr. will: well, i think he just responds to come alike an iron filing is drawn to a magnet, key is drawn to it. his obvious affection for erdogan in turkey and putin in russia, it speaks for itself. second, we don't know yet, but by the time vance and those in the southern district of new york are done looking into the president's credentials, we may find after his fourth bankruptcy, this wizard of a businessman, there were not a lot of lenders willing to lend to him. he may have become dependent on some russian oligarchs and others. that is speculation. but it's not entirely uninformed speculation. i think we should wait to see. but that would help explain the affection he has for all things russian. >> i'm trying to find the question that i saw that i clicked away from, because i know the substance of it but i do not know who asked it. the question is, how are the cubs going to do this year? the cubs arere who going to be if they get rid of -- i hate to tell you, people, but we are all going to be chasing the dodgers. they've got the best player in the national league, mookie betts. there's rumors you will get the third baseman from the rockies, nolan arenado. the rich get richer. the dodgers are a dynasty, and a well-run dynasty. >> how did you like the 60-game season with nobody in the stands at least until the world series? >> i hated it. i will tell you why. in 2019, after 50 games in 2019, the washington nationals were 19 wins and 31 losses. they turned around and won the world series. they had 162 games in the season. this year, after 50 games, the nationals again were 19-31. but you didn't have the time. the beauty of baseball is after 162 games, you are what the record says you are. a 60-game season was hard to take seriously, never mind putting a runner on second base in extra innings. well, i'm a conservative. i don't like it. >> what about the pace of baseball? it's so slow by comparison to basketball, etc. mr. will: baseball does not find a way to increase the pace. three hours and six minutes is the average nine-inning game. almost four minutes before the ball is put in play on average now. baseball now is a 3-2 outcome, walks, strikeouts, home runs. it's boring. you have stunning athletes, baz, chapman, arenado. the ball is not put in play. they all want to hit the ball out of the ballpark. there is a reason for that. velocity is overwhelming the game. teams have five, six, seven, eight, nine pitchers who throw 95 miles per hour. that is killing the game right now. i want to make baseball great for rod carew and tony gwynn again. >> what about the umpires? now that the video shows there was really a ball or really a strike. why not require the umpires -- to simply go by that? they have other things they can do, they don't have to call the ball strikes, they have additional activity. >> i think you will see some automation of the strike zone coming fairly soon. you're still going to need a man behind the plate for various calls. there will be that difference. if they don't change the pace of play, young people nowadays want life at the speed of the telephone. they want a 5g existence. and baseball has added in the last 30 years, 45 minutes to the length of the game with less and less action. that's got to change. >> speaking from the home of the world series champion dodgers, i had to ask you something about baseball. oh, you go ahead, you've got some more. >> the most important game of the year was game six of this world series. 27 outs for each team, 54 outs, exactly 27 of those outs were strikeouts. that is too many. >> so what do we do about that, what do you mean it is too many? >> if the game is going to be walks, strikeouts, and home runs, walking back to the dugouts, people are going to find more excitement in the nba, premier league soccer, they are going to find action. not this slow as molasses in january action in baseball. >> take a couple of minutes to reflect on what you think is upcoming, as the theme of our program is not just the impact of the trump era, but where do we go from here? just give us a general sense of your feelings about things and a final word on how things are going. final word on how things are going. >> i'm looking on the bright side. looking on the bright side, i think there is a bright side to be looked upon. i think the american people came out to vote, they organized, they registered, through a pandemic, they took advantage of absentee ballots and mail-in -- early voting. the highest percentage turnout in more than a century. the country has experienced something it really did not like, and i think mr. biden's transition will fit perfect for what americans want. i think americans are ready for adult supervision and good manners. a lot of people say your criticism of mr. trump is aesthetic. and i say that's quite right. aesthetics matter in life. it's called manners. it's called civility. it's called habits, and disposition that lubricate life in a continental society. i think the american people are ready to buckle down and turn around. on immigration, protectionism, all these things. we are not bangladesh. we are a country that can get well by choosing to get well. winston churchill, who loved our country as much as he loved his american-born mother, once said the american people will invariably do the right thing after exhausting all the alternatives. i think we are pretty far down the list of alternatives. i think we are about to make difficultble, decent, choices, so smile. >> i said at the outset that it was a privilege to talk to you, and i feel that way even more. thank you very much for this program, and let me say to the audience as well and you, have a good thanksgiving, restrained though it may be, and wear the mask. i want to remind the audience that next week's program will be with adam schiff. happy thanksgiving to everybody, and thanks very much. "the presidentok versus the press." today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government, created by cable companies as a public service and brought to you day -- today by your television provider. >> tonight remarks from former president clinton on affordable housing and the racial wealth gap. he spoke at an event that airs tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. after that, interviews with current members of congress on race and gender member equity issues. this starts at 9:00 10 p.m. eastern, also on c-span. >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. 7:00weekend, saturday, eastern, an interview on leadership with james baker who served as secretary of state under george h.w. bush and as ronald reagan's white house chief of staff and treasury secretary. p.m., eastern connecticut state university professor thomas -- on the close and rumored relationship between two prominent bid 19th-century politicians, james buchanan and rufus king, who served briefly as vice president under franklin pierce. p.m., we export jfk assassination records from the archives, including iconic the eightlike millimolars year film taken by abraham's approved her. 8:00 p.m., a tour of the ronald reagan presidential library located in simi valley, california. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. 2020 a historic year with of theith the election first woman vice president, and it happened when we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the women's rights of a. sunday night, the book "the women's hour," about the ratification of the 19th amendment. >> it has to pass that house with a 2/3 majority. it passes very small. it passes the senate with a two-vote margin. if there are senators sitting on it after the house passes it june 1919n 1918 until before it passes with houses, and then the senate knew they were sending it out for ratification in the states, in an off year when most state legislatures were not going to be in session. and that was sort of purposeful, to make it more difficult. the suffragists had to convince 30 governors to call their legislators back into special session to consider the amendment. weiss.ne of interviews on race and gender equity. current and from incoming embers of congress. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> hello, and welcome. i'm steve comments, editor of the hill. thanks for joining us to a

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , United Kingdom , Texas , Washington , Cuba , Florida , Illinois , California , Russia , Simi Valley , Canada , Puerto Rico , Germany , Champaign , Bangladesh , Los Angeles County , Kansas , Turkey , Britain , Americans , America , Russian , Germans , American , Winston Churchill , Marco Rubio , Salaam Moriarty , Temple Isaiah , Benjamin Franklin , Joe Biden , Ronald Reagan , Caroline Kelly , Jack Nicholson , Jack Kennedy , Adam Schiff , James Buchanan , James Baker , George Wallace , Gerald Ford , Henry Weinstein , Abraham Lincoln , Bret Stephens , Josh Hawley , Mitch Mcconnell , Biden Cheryl , Richard Nixon , Jarrett Johnson ,