mornings with me. now, be honest. two months ago when you were decking the halls and lighting the candles, did you think the republican primary contest would still be competitive in mid-february? did you think rick santorum would be the leading candidate? yeah, me neither. and certainly those of us in cable news appreciate the republican party giving us the rati ratings gift of a long, unpredictable -- no, i don't mean unpredictable. the word i'm looking for is absurd. yes, we appreciate the absurd primary season. but, as an american, i'm not excited about the republican disarray. i'm worried about the strength and identity of the republican party. in fact, i can think of few things more important politically than a healthy gop. now, relax. i am not advocating that president obama serve one term. but i do believe that president obama, the democratic party, and our country need a strong republican party. the recent cover of "the new yorker" showing mitt and newt attack each other with obama watching gleefully have people crowing but not me. the two-party system is necessary for all interests but a one-party system would be a disaster. when the system works, the party out of power spends its time coming up with alternative policies, providing voters with choice. but when the system is broken, they don't really offer a choice. they just say, i'm the opposite. being not obama is not an agenda. i actually want a strong republican party. not only because it will make democrats work harder but because it will make all of us safer. we need a country where it is safe for your pooarty to lose because the reality is both parties lose about half the time. we have to know the people in power will be reasonable and ke tent leaders and our basic rights are not up for grabs every four years. so perhaps you can understand my concern with the current state of things in the gop. the party's base and establishment leaders are clearly at odds. how else can we explain the serious challenge rick santorum has waged against mitt romney? republican primary voters are craving a conservative, be it a true conservative, reagan or severe conservative. but will shorts would be puzzled by the evolution of that word "conservative." so my first question to my first guest this morning is, what is a conservative? joining me now you is edward cox, chairman of the new york republican state committee and incidentally the son-in-law of the late president richard nixon. here he is on his wedding day at the white house. i know! >> a number of years ago. >> i'm sorry -- >> we're celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary. >> congratulations. i feel like i may never get another guest if i always show weddi inding pictures before ou interview. i appreciate you being here. >> good to be here. >> in part, i want to talk carefully about the republican party, where it is right now and what its health is compared to sort of where it's been in the past. so first question -- what is a conservative and what's the state of the party? >> the state of the party is terrific. we are the party in opposition at a time when the economy is really in trouble, the jobless rate in the -- if you take a look at the participation in the labor force is at an all-time low. a lot of people are dropping out. the economy is growing very slowly coming out of the deepest recession since the great depression. so, as the party in opposition that swept into the house with an unprecedented majority, biggest we've had, 241 republicans, since 1920, we are looking forward to taking over the senate and the presidency and getting this economy on the right track. >> all right. i actually can see where that answer comes from, this idea that, we're fine, we had a big win in 2010. but, look, that was a big win that was in part driven by a real internal party division, that big win came at the cost of republicans with more seniority losing in primaries to tea party challengers and it comes i think at the cost of a kind of ideological coherence in the party. so, you know, i just want you to like move off the talking points. seriously -- >> melissa, you're missing the big wave. the big wave, in his first year with his push -- pushing his health care program, obama care, through congress with bye partisan opposition, not one republican voted for it, 34 democrats voted against it, more would have except for big sliceses of pork that were passed out, a stimulus bill that was really more political cronyism than stimulating the economy, dodd/frank that put a wet blanket on the economy. all that, what you got was scott brown winning in massachusetts, then you got -- >> oh, come on, scott brown wins in massachusetts for local reasons. >> you had the rise of the tea party, our wins in 2010, then brooklyn queens, democratic district, hadn't had a republican since 1923. this is a big wave that's going to keep rolling until -- >> all right, let's go back to health care because this is a fair point. >> you're looking at the small things. you want to look at the big picture. >> i want the big picture on health care. the major efforts of the obama administration, in his early years, include the mandated subsidies to get affordable health care through, the cap rate plan on environmental policies, and a discussion about bringing tax breaks for the rich back from the bush lows. all of those things that the republican party in the mid-'90s themselves supported. so when you tell me oh, the party is strong, my sense is, wait a minute, when in fact president obama comes in and is governing on something that would have been in many ways a republican party platform in the early '90s and this party is left with no place to go but to oppose the very things that they suggested 15 years ago, that doesn't look like strength to me. >> the early '90s were 15 years ago. a lot of facts have changed. people are relooking at things. the bottom line is, the american people turned everything in washington over to the democratic party in the '08 elections. >> and 2010. >> and they didn't do what they were supposed to do, address jobs and the economy. >> but that congress is now -- >> that's why they're going to turn everything over to republicans come november in order to address the problems that the democratic party did not address. they tried cap and trade. even with huge democratic majorities -- >> there were no huge democratic majorities. there have been no huge -- >> oh, sure. 60 senators? >> no. as we well know, actually -- >> they can outswallow cap and trade. >> as we know, we were not functioning with a filibuster-proof senate, which became for the first time in american history what one would have to have. >> you did. you had 60 snats senators. not you but the democratic party. >> the democratic party had 59 3/4. >> i'm not sure we can trace -- >> in massachusetts scott brown won. it was quite an election. >> and i think an awful lot of the story of that election is undoubtedly about the local factors in that election as much as they are about anything that was going on nationally. but let me just suggest, though, again on the question of the republican party's central health, the very fact that the tea party, which did not initially understand itself as presumably republican but understood itself as a kind of liberty aryan populist movement, now it found a home within the republican party, in part because we're a two-party system and there's no other place to be. but a tea party revolution is not necessarily we're looking at a strong and identity-based republican party. i think one might claim just the opposite, that part of what the tea party has done is draw the republican party farther to the right. you now have rick santorum as a leading candidate, someone whoa does not look like a very likely candidate for a general election. >> the tea party is about cutting spending and creating jobs. that's what the republican party is about. >> they seem to be these days about religion and contraception. >> if you want to go back historically, that's what the reagan revolution was about. carter had created a terrible economy and as a result republican ronald reagan a conservative was elected along with a republican senate. >> edward cox, stay with us. we'll come back on this. i ta i'd take reagan's tax rates over what we're looking at. we'll bring a few more voices into this conversation. ed cox is giving me a good time this morning. welcome back. we're talking about why it's good to have a healthy, funct n functioning republican party. yes, this is the melissa harris-perry show. let me welcome back ed cox, also corian warren, assistant professor at columbia university and a fill low at the roosevelt institute and peter edelman, georgetown law professor and author of "so rich so poor why it is so hard to end poverty in america." okay, i want to start -- mr. cox and i were having a conversation about the idea that the republican party is strong in part because of the tea party challenge, swept in, saw this big 2010 win. but i have to say, what i've been saying the right drift feels more like 1964. i want to play nelson rockefeller at the 1964 republican national convention giving a speech that was very unpopular because he's actually attack being the far right wing of his party. we'll see the response here. >> these extremists feed on fear, hate, and terror. they encourage disunity. these are people who have nothing in common with americanism. the republican party must repudiate these people. >> i love the last black republican in the party just clapping, yes, please repudiate them, right? >> the republican party was a party of civil rights. >> oh, no, absolutely. which is why you -- >> the majority. >> yes, it was a party of civil rights. it's in part why the democrats were southerners for so long right up until this moment, right up until 1964. >> i'm afraid the governor had it wrong because after that we were the party that did help pass the civil rights law. >> oh, no, no, no. i'm sorry. the republican party -- >> i have to disagree because we are the party that got the economy back on track after the carter disaster and 21% interest rates, 13% -- >> dorian, i want to bring you in here. >> bring in data and evidence. this is nerd land. larry bartell, your former colleague at princeton wrote a book where he shows empirically that over the 20th century under democratic administrations inequality went down, under republican administrations, it increased including policy, increases in the minimum wage, always already democratic administrations. republicans have not cared about the core issues of inequality in this country. >> we care very much. >> you have to go back to taft and roosevelt. >> who's "we"? >> peter? >> the tea party and the republicans in the congress now only know one word -- no. >> that's because you've got a democratic president who's absolutely divisive and doing class warfare. >> so i really do -- i mean, so i started this with what i was hoping would feel like a counterintuitive thesis, you know, for the start of msnbc's sort of liberal african-american girl's show. i actually want a strong republican party. >> only up to a point. >> but up to the point that if it's strong enough to have its own set of ideas that are not just "no 0," then we can govern. if the idea is no, then there can't be collective governing. i mean, the fact is that the pool and rosenthal have this score and when they show is that the polarization in the parties is driven fre dominantly by the republican party. it's gotten farther and farther right and if anything the democrats are chasing them a little bit. but it hasn't been sort of pulling this way. that doesn't feel to me like strength when you're moving to the side of the normal curve, not sort of to where americans are at the middle. >> well, and it skews the entire republican party because anybody who's left -- and there are very few from the nelson rockefeller wing of the party -- people like o olympic area snowe, susan collins, more or less moderate republicans, they're so scared now they're going to be primaried by a tea party person you can't tell the difference between them and the tea party. it's really a terrible situation. >> if you'll let a republican talk here briefly. the situation, this is pat kadell, a poster for carter and doug sharon, a poster for clinton. they wrote an article and the conclusion was the president was so divisive in the way he was conducting his campaign by going far left and campaigning on class warfare and then -- >> but president obama is not -- >> -- if he were to win, he would not be able to govern. >> but president obama is empirically not going far left. that's my point. >> these are two democrats. >> but which democrats are those? >> there are two things important here. the first is that the republican party is deeply divided so when rick santorum says he is not a libertarian and in fact he disagrees with libertarians he means that. in contradiction to ron paul, that's opposite of ron paul. here's the second thing. here's what i don't understand. the republican strategy is basically to be a white party and a white southern party. and the time -- the clock is ticking on that demographic. >> and apparently all-male party. >> right. >> i mean, what i kept feeling this week -- i hear you. when i first heard the discourse of the tea party, you know, as much as i wasn't in agreement with it, i kind of like populist movements asking for jobs and worrying about the effects of big government. but the shift now has moved towards this -- this so-called moral, ethical, racially problematic and now this contraception language, you know, jobs are simply not located in my uterus. like, whenever they are, whenever they might be, you know, created, that's not just where they r. so why so much policy language around that? >> the vast majority of women disagree with the republican party. three out of four women. it's a short-term strategy. the republican party decides to go all in on 2012 in getting as many old and white male voters they can, 2016, 2020, this country looks very different and i'm not sure what the strategy is medium and long term to actually be a viable party, a competitive party. >> how unfair are we being? >> extremely. >> okay. >> look, on the social issues, enact, the hispanics agree with the republicans. >> but they don't vote that way. >> but they will. >> actually, african-americans agree, too, on social issues but they don't vote for republicans. >> the important issue is the economic issues this time around in this election. you have to agree with that. >> but you have to get the candidates to agree with that. >> you don't have a credible position. >> i think if you take a look at the polls, the american people -- >> interestingly enough, i think that's precisely what i expected, that the economic issues would be the central issue here. but if that's true, it is more than a little surprising that rick santorum becomes the leading candidate in a place like michigan. i mean, if it were primarily about jobs, the fact is, even if i don't completely agree with mitt romney, he's got a good line about jobs. >> well, not in michigan. >> yeah, that's right. where he opposed the bailout of -- >> rick santorum is elected twice in pennsylvania and part of the reason 2000 also, not an easy time to win in pennsylvania, in part because he appealed to the trade unions. he is a much deeper than just being on the social issues. >> but his discourse -- >> well, ultimately he lost. >> 2006 was a hard time to be a republican. and i think -- >> especially in pennsylvania. >> the thing is, there's a rick santorum blue collar story to be told, the kind of penn state grad. >> exactly. >> but that isn't in fact the story he seems to be telling. i actually would feel a little more comfortable with the -- >> he's telling it in michigan because mischigan is a blue collaror state. that's why he may do very well there. >> we're going to take a break. i love you guys. this is so much fun. edward cox, thank you for being here and taking the time with my grilling you on the republican party this morning. when we come back, why you don't have to be a card-carrying union member to reap the benefits of unions. i'll explain in a few minutes, a programming note, in our next hour we'll take you to newark, new jersey, and to new hope baptist church where people are gather forge whitney houston's funeral. the funeral starts at noon. we will have live coverage. stay tuned for that. hands that feel soft and silky smooth! ooh...she's got the look. what's her secret? the gloves? dawn? i don't believe it. [ male announcer ] it's a dishwashing sensation... dawn hand renewal with olay beauty. it contains revitalizing proteins to help smooth skin on hands -- improving their look and feel in just five uses. [ sponge ] soft, smooth... fabulous! you're quite the trendsetter. [ male announcer ] dawn does more... [ sponge ] so it's not a chore. diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you want a firm bed you can lie on one of those." we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. wow. that feels really good. it's about support where you find it most comfortable. at the ultimate sleep number event, queen mattresses now start at just $599. and save 50% on the final closeout of our innovative limited edition bed. plus, enjoy special offers through monday only. only at the sleep number store. one golden crown. come on frank how long have we known each other? go to e-trade. they got killer tools man. they'll help you nail a retirement plan that's fierce. two golden crowns. you realize the odds of winning are the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear in the same day? frank! oh wow, you didn't win? i wanna show you something... it's my shocked face. [ gasps ] ♪ [ male announcer ] get a retirement plan that works at e-trade. there's something else that's been very frustrating. i call it crony capitalism. that's the path he's taking. he got hundreds of millions of dollars from labor bosses for his campaign, and so he's paying them back in every way he knows how. one way, of course, was giving general motors and chrysler to the uaw. >> so there was mitt romney in michigan wednesday, still trying to explain his opposition to the government's bailout of the auto industry. and going on the attack against unions. mitt romney who says his focus is on the middle class may want to pay closer attention to unions and to a few important numbers in particular, like 11.8. that's the percentage of all wage and salaried workers who belonged to a union in 2011 according to the bureau of labor statistics. 20.1, the percentage of u.s. workers who belonged to unions in 1983. 40%. that's the rate at which income inequality in the private sector grew during that same period. 15%. that's how much more the typical unionized employee earns versus a worker not in a union. 1 percentage point. according to the analysis, by center for american progress, is all that union membership would need to increase to add $153 per year to middle class household income. 1,532 is how many dollars a year the average middle class household income would increase if union rates in america were 10 percentage points higher. now, pause with me. i want to make sure that's clear. i'm talking about everyone here. when union membership goes up, the average household union and nonunion sees a pay increase. when you wonder what unions do for the middle class, consider this. 47,500 is how many general motors hourly workers repres