Others to be typical americans, somehow, but they are not a majority of the population. They need more in order to win. The Democratic Party has always been a coalition of out groups, people who are supposed sometimes not to be typical americans but who together when they hold together can be a majority. Of course they dont always hold together, and we get fights within the Democratic Party. And that dynamic has continued even as the composition of the republicans core constituency and of the groups in the Democratic Coalition have chang changed. These were very old Political Parties, Democratic Party formed in 1832 to reelect Andrew Jackson. They succeeded in doing hah. The Republican Party formed in 1854 to oppose the kansas nebraska act of slavery and the territories, they succeeded on that, within a decade or so. But they have continued ever since. And you beginning in your introduction basically going back to election day 2016, you write, quote, panic is a poor guy to reality. Then you provide historical perspective. Gold waters loss in 1964. The democratic losses in the 1980s. Well, each Political Party has had its disasters. You will hear predictions from some people that the Republican Party which in 2016 won the presidency, ma swrorties in the house majorities in the house and the senate is about to disappear, permanent minority status. I have heard similar predictions about the Democratic Party from time to time. They persist. They persist through political disaster, much worse than either party has suffered currently. Republicans in 1932, democrats in 1920. They emerge as again competitive within a decade, and they have overcome third Party Challenges of considerably greater significance than we have seen in our time with ross perot in 1990s. I think theres something fundamental. I think ten during character of these i think the enduring character of these two parties has provided an avenue for political expression and choice, from a population which has always been ethnically diverse, economically diverse, racially diverse, religiously diverse, since even when they were british colonies. You say quote both parties have changed their policies adapting to economic and democratic circumstances and the signals in the political marketplace. Both parties in the process have the ended to provide a congenial though sometimes very temporary political home for the large majority of americans over many years. The fact they had been forming those functions for so long under stress and despite massive setbacks provide some basis for thinking that they will pass through the stress test of being administered by donald trump, his republican fans and critics and his democratic opponents as they have passed through others even more stringent times before. Well i continue to believe that. The news gives me challenges every day, every wreak every week because . Because theres a lot of clash. Theres a lot of rhetoric that i happen to find personally unfortunate coming from all sides that i just mentioned. But basically they have gone through tougher times before. Somebody said to me where could you find evidence that there has been more political discord in america . I said how about going to fort sumter, south carolina, where the fighting in the civil war began . So we have gone through our periods of real discord, of literally a civil war, and the parties endured during that, and i think they will continue to endure in the episodes that were seeing now. The title of the book by Michael Barone is how americas Political Parties change. You also write this, whatever the diversion of donald trump from other republican nominees and they dont seem historically unprecedented they dont prevent him from winning near unanimous vote from Republican Voters unanimous support from Republican Voters. You look at polling today, 85 to 90 percent of those who identify themselves as republicans say they prefer donald trump, they prefer him over potential opponents, including the former governor of massachusetts, they continue to be very strong. The composition of the Republican Party has changed somewhat over time. Weve seen even broader divergenc divergences, sudden shifts in support of a Political Party. William jennings brian, nominated at age 36 by the Democratic Party in 1896, repudiated the policies of the incumbent democratic president , cleveland. Cleveland endorsed the republican candidate. Lots of votes changed. Many more votes changed. You know, people going from democratic to republican or republican to democratic than did so in the 2016 election, when you compare it to the elections immediately prior. Weve seen these kind of revolutions before. So if you could then explain what were seeing or maybe not seeing in this republican primary because if you go back to 1980, for example, when senator ted kennedy really put up a formidable challenge against then president jimmy carter or in 92 when buchanan became a formidable opponent at least early on to george h. W. Bush, many attributing that to his loss in november of 1992. Were seeing a number of candidates challenging President Trump, but none of them seem to be making any mark in terms of the polling or traction. Thats right. I mean, were seeing adhesion to the party leaders, and i think we will see adhesion among the democratic voters on the democratic side to opposing donald trump. This is a period that ive called polarized partisan parity. The two parties about equal size in the elections. You are not seeing no party has won more than 53 of the vote in a president ial election since 1984. Thats, you know, 30 some years ago. You know, we have what are now a clearly liberal and a clearly conservative party. The political scientists of the 1950s, by the way, put on a campaign, really. They had commissions. They had things where they said we need to have a clearly liberal party and a clearly conservative party. We shouldnt have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Well, they got their wish. And now the political scientists of today say gee, this is polarized. These people are attacking each other. We dont like this. Well, its what their predecessors in the 1950s wanted. Let me share with you, this is george wilson, a columnist this morning in the Washington Post and in newspapers across the country. Referring to republicans leading in texas voting badly for the g. O. P. He was at the Texas Tribune festival which we covered for the cspan networks a few weeks ago. He made the point that republicans need to lose in 2020 in order to rebuild. Heres part of what he had to say, part of the cspan video library. Division has been a constant in the Republican Party until now. At the 500day mark of the reagan presidency he had support of 77 of republicans at the 500 day mark of the trump presidency, he had support of 87 . Theres less dissent in the Republican Party than ever before. Yet his party, which is why the those of us who care about the two party system think what should happen in 2020 is the Republican Party gets obliterated so that it will get, you know, the old story about hitting the mule over the forehead with a two by four, it gets its attention, and something needs to be done to get the republicans attention. Michael barone, your reaction to that assessment from george will who clearly has not been a fan of President Trump, but a long time republican, supporter early on of Ronald Reagan. Hes made a comment on my book here on how americas parties change. He has written hes not a republican anymore. He doesnt identify with the Republican Party. Hes free to give advice to people who do count themselves as republicans. He gives many people advice in many directions, but he would like to see a different Republican Coalition. I think the Republican Coalition may change over time, but also looking back over the last 25 years, since the 1990s, since bill clinton broke the democrats the republicans supposed lock on the presidency and Newt Gingrich broke the democrats supposedly eternal lock on the majority of the house of representatives, what we have seen is the Democratic Coalition has become gradually and then suddenly more up scale, higher education, high income people have moved towards the Democratic Party. One of the problems of the Republican Party in texas is that those affluent voters in houston and dallas, which had stayed quite heavily republican decided in 2016 and more so in 2018 house races that they didnt like the donald trump Republican Party, and they started voting more democratic. Youve got the Republican Party has become more down scale. The novelist hemmingway was asked how do people go into bankruptcy . He said they go in gradually and then suddenly. The Republican Party has changed gradually and now with 2016 and 18 more suddenly into a party thats down scaled demographically. The Democratic Party has turned into a party which is more up scale demographically. The wall street journal had a good article this past week delineating how thats happened. But that is the change that weve seen, to the point that hilary clinton, democratic nominee in 2016 is now boasting that the Democratic Party carries most affluent congressional districts and the most affluent counties in the country. When i was growing up in michigan, where at that stage in the 1950s, the republicans had support from affluent voters. They didnt go around bragging that the rich people were supporting them. And therefore, everybody else should defer to the rich people. I found that senator and secretary clintons comments to be a little bizarre for that rchbl for that reason. Hes wrote for u. S. News and world report, the co author of almanac of american politics, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise institute. His work also Available Online at Washington Examiner. Com. This i didnt know about you that you have traveled to all 50 states and all 435 congressional districts . Well, i guess i perhaps rank with the cspan bus in getting around the country, but when i started this almanac of american politics, lead co author in 1970, 71, it occurred to me that i had not ever set foot in most congressional districts, so i set about in my travels to make sure that i did, and eventually when i landed at ted stevens airport in anchorage, alaska, february 1998, that was my 50th state and 435th congressional district. So ive kept up with redistricting, so when they have changed the boundaries, i have made sure i have been in all the districts once again. Our guest is Michael Barone. Before we get to your calls, i want to get your reaction to this editorial this morning, just in terms of where it leaves Senate Republicans and from the Senate Republican leader who is a supporter of the president but said its been a grave mistake to pull out of syria. This is what senator mcconnell wrote today in the Washington Post. Withdrawing u. S. Forces from syria is a grave strategic mistake. It will leave the American People and homeland less safe, embolden enemies weaken important alliances sadly the recently announced pullout risks repeating the obama administrations wreckless withdrawal of iraq which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in first place. He says we need to use sticks and carrots to bring turkey back in line while respecting its own legitimate security concerns in addition to limiting turkeys incursion and encouraging and enduring ceasefire, we should create conditions for the reintroduction of u. S. Troops and move turkey away from russia, back into the nato fold. Finally he says as isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more talk of endless wars but rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end. Wars are won or lost, while the political will to continue this hard work may wax and wane, senator mcconnell saying the threats to our nation are not going anywhere. Published today in the Washington Post. Well, what i hear senator mcconnell doing is expressing in specific terms what a majority of House Republicans expressed by voting for a resolution last week condemning the u. S. Withdrawal from syria, relatively small number of troops we had there and in effect endorsing some of the arguments that hes making there. Its not the first time that congressional members of Political Party have opposed a president s Foreign Policy stance. You had, you know, thinking back to late 1930s, early 40s, when we were debating whether or not to aid britain world war ii, president roosevelt, democratic president supporting aiding britain when it was standing alone against the nazis and some of the Democratic Party senators opposed that move. Up until the morning of december 7, 1941. Our guest is Michael Barone. Book is called how americas Political Parties change and how they dont. Lets go to jane joining us from joshua tree, california, democrats line, good morning. Hi, yeah, ive been following the [inaudible]. His father fought in the revolutionary war. [inaudible]. This fellow lost 15 members of his family, ended up on a sailing ship where they were [inaudible] ended up in San Francisco, and in San Francisco in the 1850s, my understanding it was a bitter bitter war, and we were california after becoming a state, they almost were going to be on the side of the south. Thats really when the Republican Party became strong in california. Jane, thanks for the call. I think janes call highlights the importance of history in american politics and experiences that people had in the revolutionary war, in the civil war, world war ii. Influence political feelings for a long long time. Multiple generations. You know, one of my favorite subjects for a successful bar bets i suspect is what was john f. Kennedys number two state in the percentage of the vote 1960 . John f. Kennedy, massachusetts, democrat, catholic, relatively liberal on the issues. His number two state was georgia. We think of georgia now as a conservative state. It was southern democratic then. Why was Georgia Voting so heavily democratic . Well, one answer is that sherman marched his union troops through georgia only 96 years before that election. People were still voting against shermans march. Marching through georgia, songs commemorating that march brought jimmy carters back the future democrat from south georgia. Those experiences have purchase on peoples minds long after theyve existed because they are so difficult. Why did we have so many conservative democrats after the roosevelt and the new deal sm deal . Well one reason is that southern white voters who were descended from people who had opposed the civil war, who had been supportive of the confederacy in many but not all cases continued to vote democratic off that experience, decades and even a century before. That sounds like a jeopardy question. Lets go to greg. Thank you for joining us from huntsville, alabama, republican line. Good morning. Do you see any similarities when we look back, you saw the parties take a little change, and the voting take a little change back from kennedys assassination to the vietnam war, we saw a lot of protests, a lot of antiamerican sentiment, and we ended up as we come through watergate, we had a huge turnout and vote for jimmy carter. Jimmy carter, you know do you see any similarities between the bernies and the Elizabeth Warren with jimmy carter . We ended up with a bad china trade deal, gave away the panama canal. I think i paid 14. 25 interest at a credit union for a vehicle. We had double digit inflation. With the ideals that we have now, where, you know, it seems to bring Left Progressive as hating america in some of their rhetoric or not proud to be, and were leaning back towards that jimmy carter. Do you see any similarities in that swing . Personally im going to vote for bernie. I think we need to have a change so people who have lived through a good economy could see what a tough time looks like, may bring america back to common sense economics. Thank you for the call. A response from Michael Barone. Some of the examples of carters policies during his term as president 77 to 81 are in line with the Democratic Party being the party tending to favor more go