for the nation and he has written articles in a variety of outlets with magazines, rolling stones and new york times and you may have heard him, someone heard him on mpr. sitting next to him is john nichols, john is -- is coming back to the festival. he was here last year and i was able to be a moderator for his panel too. john is correspondent, reporter, rather, and a writer with many, many publications and the one we will be discussing today, people get ready, you may have heard of the song and this is essential very provocative book about where we are in the democracy. lastly, samara clark. >> you got it. >> she coached me on how to pronounce the name. assistant professor here at the
university of arizona and the college that i graduated back in, you know, some year. [laughter] and it was a time of great excitement and it was particularly exciting because it was like being in vietnam war. she will be one of the three panelists today. so a little bit about the books, people get ready is written not only by john but by robert and it talked about where we are in our democracy or not, where the economy of our country is going, where the big money in politics is taking us and the potential that we'll have unemployment staggering levels if we don't take steps to change the way our system works, our economy works, our political system is driven. and ary's book, gives us the
ballot, modern struggle for voting rights of america. i loved john's book but this one i found particularly personally important. it's about what happened after, before and after the voting rights act was enacted back in 1965 when lbj was president. it's a history i never really heard or learned before. it was my honor to serve in congress with congressman john lewis, one of the most incredible people you could ever meet and john was very modest. he didn't really talk about at least in congress about his history, people knew it. but this book talks not only about john and all of the other members of the civil rights movement, the importance of their work, but also what has been happening to the voter, the act since 1965, the war, if you will t attack on the voting rights act to try to scale it back, diminish it and so forth.
so that's why i take a particular important issue for us us to be considering knowing that we have states across the country where restrictive laws on voting rights are being enacted. arizona, obviously, is no exception. i want to welcome you all and thank you for being here. i want to pose the first question to each of our panelists. >> amary's book. >> i'm sorry, did i not mention it? bad moderator. independent politics. professor here, how americans sustained for parties leads to political inaction and i think what we know about arizona and the country is the fastest growing group of registered voters, are people who are declaring no party. we often call them independents but there's a wide range and what that means for the future of our political discourse and political action in our country
and the embarrassment as you described that people have to be partisan, to be described as partisan and how that plays out in both conversation and ultimately in how people actually vote. thanks for that prompt. so let me start with ary and ask him to give you a brief overview of his book and beyond what i said and i keep panelists in turn to do the same but when they are doing it to talk about implications of their work, of their book for what is going on in our country right now, it's an an extraordinary challenging and different kind of election period, i was telling samara, as a student the politics of my youth, i've never seen anything like it. would you all agree? so i would like each panelists to at least discuss how their theme or perspective, what it says about where we are in the country in the election. let's start with ary.
>> thank you so much for that kind introduction, ron, and it's great to be on this panel, samara and jack nichols, usually when we were together, who knows if i will get a word in. it's really great. >> okay, your time is up. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> thank you all for sticking it out. i think it's the last session of the day, many of you have been in many, many panels, this is my first visit to tucson and i'm enjoy about hiking and tacos, it's been really nice to be here. my book has drawn mention as history of voting rights since 1965, everything that came after the passage of the voting rights act of 1965, which was the most important rights of civil rights in the 1960's, i began covering the issues after the 2010 election when many states flipped from blue to red or became a whole lot redder and we
began to see a wave of new voting restrictions, things like making it harder to register to vote, cutting back on early voting, rerequiring strict forms of id that you never needed in any previous election, disenfranchiseing exfelons. it wasn't really getting any coverage. so i became the first national reporter to cover this, first for rolling stone and then for the nation magazine and i really covered this issue all the way through 2012 election when in florida for example, because that state cut early voting and eliminated early voting when african american churches historically held drives, we saw six-hour lines on election day in florida and president obama when he was reelected, we have to fix that, but what happened after the 2012 election is the supreme court struck down a key part of the voting rights act,
really the center piece of voting rights act that those states with the longest histories of voting had to approve with the federal government. that part of the law blocked 3,000 decrime gnatory changes from taking effect from 1965 to 2013. so it was an extremely important part of the most civil rights law of the 1960's. it was at that point that i decided to write my book. people was fighting for things he had won five decades later and just to talk about where we are in 2016 because this is very relevant to my book, the 2016 election is the first presidential election in 50
years without full protections of the voting rights act. this is the first presidential election since supreme court gutted the voting rights act as a result 16 states now have new voting restrictions in place for the first time, very important swing states like wisconsin, and ohio, and north carolina and virginia. and so i know there's been so much coverage in the media about who people are going to vote for and what the polls are going to say, i've been asking a very different question, would every eligible voter be able to cast a ballot and i'm very concerned that they will not be able to and so when you talk about the direction of our democracy, the theme of this panel, i don't think you can talk about the direction of democracy without talking about what's going on with the voting rights and what's happening, 20 presidential debates and the issue of voting rights has not come up.
i think that's a national tragedy. one of the most fundamental issues in the 2016 election and regardless if you're a democrat or independent or republican, you should see that everyone has the right to vote. [applause] >> let's ask john the same question, a little bit about your book and what it means, what you're saying means for the 2016 presidential and basically racist -- races across the country. >> if you don't have ari's book gets it and samara. i'm never going to get it right but we are going to do samara's book which i read both and they are absolutely fabulous books so get them, you have the money, i know these are tough times but they are really vital books. let me tell you a little bit about mine.
i will modestly suggest that because i didn't anticipate it i'm sort of excited by the fact that my colleague and i wrote about that's all about 2016 election campaign. we just didn't know that we were doing that at the time. about three years ago we were going to write the next book about media and democracy, i can sum it up, both are always in crisis, so we were going to sum the crisis once more and then i was over in europe and i was at a conference because in europe are interested in media and democracy and invite you to come and talk about it. i was at a conference also to ceo's of major companies, big thinkers, people running big tanks and i was struck by the
fact that every one was talking about eliminating jobs, about how we were going to progress, how all of these companies were going to make more money in the stage of our digital and automation advancement by getting rid of immense number of workers and so let me sum it up for you. how many folks saw time magazine this week in the cover story was on the driverless car? and you know what, the driverless car works. we've been to google and we have seen them. there are thousands of driverless cars that have been on the road already. the thing of it is you can be passed by a driverless car in which a blind person is quote, unquote at the wheel and a 95-year-old women are sitting in the front seat talking to each other while the car drives right by you. this is really. the driverless car works, it's
an incredibly effective progression and it's going to go so big in the next ten years, one of the factoids, just a little one. the number one of -- jobs for men are driving. women do too, they used to do things like manufacturing and we pretty much eliminated those jobs. as a result driving is a baseline work, as we started to go through all other industries, we found example after example of automation changes that are going to eliminate massive numbers of jobs and interestingly enough the media in this campaign, you talk about voting rights not coming up, you're talking about an issue that is huge that's not the bells and whistles or any new iphone 17, an issue that is huge
is what everybody with immense wealth and power discusses all of the time that this will be the major issue of the next 25 years of this country, the critical issue. bob and i thought were really bright and we were going to write a book and we will anticipate the future, and our editor was a brilliant woman said, the only thing we are troubled by is you have a view and you think one of the things you suggest when this start stuff to get and people become conscious of it they might go to extreme places politically and some places in the past when moments like this have come, you actually had a fashism. rather than looking at economy and social change. you have politicians starting to blame others, like immigrant or anything like that.
dangerous moment coming on and our editor -- i think we got too extreme there. we said, okay, you know, we warned you and we are going to have to throw trump at you. [laughter] >> and the fact of the matter is we did not anticipate donald trump. the truth is if you go to a bernie sanders rally, you're going to meet 18, 19, 20-year-olds who grew up marinated in this technological progression, they know more than some of the ceo's know about it and they also know it's potential, they know it's reality, they look at the future with immense concern, fear, uncertainty, they see a future in which they have a very hard time imagining how they will pay for their student debt, how they will get a job and how they will begin to approximate the existence of their parents and grandparents. i'm trying to organize a little more, seems rather attractive and they're not particularly
scared by the s word. if you go to a trump rally you see a 58-year-old, retrained to work in aware house job and the work is being reduce, reduced because they have a robot that does that. that guy in trump rally doesn't know it but he has that same concerns as that kid. they are politically opposite, don't fantasize it that parallelism here, but there is a parallel in what draws people to very, very unimagined responses from just a couple years ago, and all i will say to close off and we will talk a lot more about this, this is either the last election of the 20th century or the first election of the 21st century, that's the bottom line. we will make choices this year that will either end an era of not dealing with fundamental
issues which would not be avoidable in a jobless future certainly with a citizenless democracy or we will begin to address them this year and potentially get ahead of them enough to have the rational humane and decent response that is are responsible. this is the most important election of your life and i know you're told that every four years, it was a fantasy in the past, it is a reality now. thank you. [applause] >> now, next is samara who comes to us from canada. she loves tucson and i don't know about canadians, you have the audacity to elect with this progressive guy, what's wrong with you up there? race race. >> could you talk a little bit about your book and the
implications of the 2016 election? >> sure, i have lived in tucson for three years now. i'm happy to here in tucson and i want to thank you for hosting this panel. i'm going to give you a brief description of my book and as many of you know, the largest number of people in the electorate are now independents and many of you might identify yourself as an independent, in fact, we have more independents now than either democrats or republicans and we have more independents than we have had before so this is a really big phenomena in politics, the rise of the independent voter so i have a coauthor who has worked with me on the book. yana and i decide today investigate why so many people are calling themselves independent, is there something unique that makes people want to separate from the parties and finally are there broad consequences for the political system. what we found is there's a
negative stigma associated and people are frankly ashamed to be associate with either party and that is because of two things, first the increasing negative coverage that we see of politics in the media when you turn on your television or you look at the internet news every day, partisans yelling at each other, you see fighting, aggression and most important do not want to be associated with that, so instead of associating themselves with this negative organization, a huge number of americans are now calling themselves independent, now the secret, is that they truly support a party. not all independent support a party but about 80 support who vote for the same party year after year, when you asked them if they prefer a party, yes, they either prefer democrats or republicans and they do generally vote for that party, why is it that they're calling themselves independent, it's the negative stigma associated with
partisanship. the problem is this negative stigma also discourages people from participating in a lot of the activities that parties really need to win, things like admitting who you're supporting in public, putting a yard sign on your lawn, encouraging your friends to vote t same motivation that drives people to call themselves independents is discouraging and we see a turn for nonestablishment candidates. what we have seen in 2016 is this monumental turn toward what we think of as outsider candidate, donald trump, bernie sanders and even ben carson and ted cruz, candidates that are not associated with the
establishment. this is because people are sick and tired of washington parties and they don't want to be associated with either of them. >> thank you. [applause] >> let me start with ari. there's so much in there, like john said, i encourage you to read all of the books and for me your book ari was particularly important because of my own involvement with an attempt in congress to change the decision that the supreme court had made about the voting rights act, the bill that was introduced that i was a cosponsor of and one day will be merged. but i wanted to ask you to talk a little bit about the rise of the south after the voting rights act. the rise of the south of had
historically been a democratic region in our country to one that became republican and has continued to send republicans increasing numbers to congress so can you talk about that can be reversed? >> yeah, well, first off when we first met ron told me that he lost his election in 2014 by 157 votes so anyone who thinks that voting doesn't matter, 157 votes, there's three times as many people in the room probably. so you're my new case study. you're my new stays study as to why voting matters. on the one hand, the south did become a lot more republican, on the other hand t voting rights act enabled the election of
moderate white democrats like jimmy carter and bill clinton who have not been elected without the voting rights acts and the first african american president who carried three states where he had not been able to vote in 1965 more than likely. there was a backlash not just because of voting rights act but legislation in general. if you look at american history after the civil war there was a remarkable period of reconstruction, when we had integrated government in the south for the first time and when people who were enslaved became the first black senators and governors of states like louisiana and mississippi and there were 22 african american members of congress from the south during reconstruction in the 1860's and 1870's and that spawn a vicious white
supremacists where we saw grandfather clauses and requirements and gave us jim crow. it was called redemption, redeeming the white south and i think manager similar happened after the passage of the voting rights act. millions of people were registered in a place like selma, alabama where 2% were registered to vote before the passage of the voting rights act and you had 67 counties judges to get on the voting roles. something that judges would not have been able to do themselves. all of a sudden you have thousands of african americans registered to vote because of the voting rights act and the voting rights act shift the power of dynamics, you got people like andrew young and barbara jordan and john lewis
elect today congress but there was a significant backlash against that and the right began organizing and began organizing in a lot of different ways. they began organizing first in the local level. they realized there were more conservative whites still than there were newly registered african american voters and people like george wallace in alabama played that. it started on locally and then moved to presidential candidates. they could swing state that is always voted for democrats by appealing to the conservative, a white backlash vote and made an effort to gut the voting rights act and they failed to gut the voting white's act and failed to get the branch to gut it. they turned to the courts and they made a determined effort to change the complexion of the course over a 50-year period so we moved from 1966 on the first
anniversary of the bloody sunday march, the supreme court overwhelming upheld the constitutionality of the voting rights act in 8 to 1 decision. and three basically 47 years later the supreme court gutted the voting rights act and it wasn't so much the country had changed so dramatically during that period, it had changed very dramatically, what had changed was that presidents like richard nixon and ronald reagan and george w. bush had had appointed the justices on the court and that the strategy that had begun as backlash in 1965 was able to capture a majority of courts and capture the republican party to the point where they could do the things five decades later that they were unable to do after the passage of vra in the 1960's.
>> >> so i want to ask a couple of things from your book that are interesting. sold by in large independent voters are confused people in those operatives believe to be persuaded they are wrong. befell last quote is correct what does that mean they're not persuade rebel? certainly from my perspective those of the ones that you go after become as you know, your
base of the party. that is how you win in the races. keg you tell us? >> they are not persuaded will the vast majority of independents have always voted for the party and they know who they will vote for. that 7 percent are independent without a preference well over 90 percent in the reason they will not say that is they don't want to be associated with that party. in to talk about to have them more physically attractive and more likable they don't want to be known as partisan. said to be counterproductive for the media and spends so much time focusing on independence in so many are
scalia made those statements. the at what can you say about this bill vietnamized the penny a which president gets to do that? in that comment from the oral arguments of the voting rights act case and put them behind up teller. new york the voting rights act is so popular. and then to talk about the fact it made the u.s. say
democracy instead of the supporting rights act with the perpetuation of racial entitlement. people have talked about this but he has the only person new york. [laughter] and the court room aghast when he said that in jobless was sitting in the front row. how was john the was reacting to this? i interviewed him the next day and he told me he nearly cried when the justice scalia, this is someone arrested more than 40 times and almost killed in the nearly cried when he heard this and right after that angeles led a march in alabama with members of congress and i was on that trip. and did to be beaten by the alabama state troopers.
he nearly died to get the law passed here you have the justice of the supreme court of entitlements it is so important to tell the story house someone like john lewis made it to congress that is the most important issue. but now its true because i have lived if the conservative supreme court my entire life. with the roberts court. and since the retirement with the biggest impediment to progress and change.
[applause] in it is no coincidence to give us citizens united and the voting rights act with the supreme court that believes the one to make it easier. it is great there was a robust debate but ted cruz or donald trump talk about either having justice scalia or so my your. that is unbelievably dramatic to be so high.
be part of that neo-fascist to use that as a goal. i would suggest we have the media that fosters fully dysfunctional. [applause] so unfortunately there are things happening at the trump rallies better so jarring in so unsettling suffering from groupthink to say this is unreasonable. this is what is going on is unreasonable.
genocidal war against committee in which hundreds of thousands of americans to sit there and say i care about veterans. that is the point of the media system. in you are too cruel and unusual to be the president of the united states. [applause] >> it in your book with the bipartisanship to many people registered as independents they might be
calling for us. in to be more bipartisan. to join a group of 20 people out of 435. tell me about that. what about that move towards independence? >> that is one of the most troubling. we do a lot of surveys and experiments and but we find when americans are asked what they were from the representatives most say compromise they ask there congressperson to achieve compromise to avoid gridlock but when they're congressperson sacrifice principles to reach a compromise they are furious they know what they're all compromised week when
congress and with the other ones to compromise. stowe to pretend they don't support the party in this occurs is in both parties they were equally guilty. with their own representative compromise. in for those to sacrifice their own party principles. [applause] >> if you're interested in these questions get as many people here as possible. >> i appreciate what the panel is talking about.
and with my own reaction to this. politics is my number one hobby around us a kitchen table to grow up a democrat but now because of the media run by multimillionaire's they run the campaign just like a reality show. and i get sucked into them. by first question and a couple months ago that this is the next episode. did i realize i was getting off on that. they could be trivializing the the media.
>> here is the bottom-line. kin to be all just get along? in the media system appears to be literally incapable of what they're dealing with. but here is the bottom-line to go to those fundamental issues you cannot have debates where the up moderator's to talk about the head size what was he referring to? this is an insult you become stupider by watching that debate. so the bottom line is this that the journalist must understand their duty is to
the people in the fact is there are people like trump rallies to rise to a higher level. i don't expect donald trump will take them there but the media are forcing it to a higher level. but here is the bottom line. we're not discussing the fundamental issues at the core of the campaign because with the tension in end concern i don't care what
that doctor tells you to do that diagnosis to be reasonable in the problem in a realistic ways. to keep us in a place to be knocked off. and we have to believe the media. [applause] >> harvey wasserman said any statement of a republican governor or secretary of state which aids the elections in 60 seconds.
far more concerned about the laws that have been passed and governance. >> how do we get the media to respond? >> and then you invest in them as people. to support democracy now and to into those programs. the other day doing a fantastic interview with orrin hatch with the supreme court you need to start making a lot of noise about those who are doing it right to absolutely object.
[inaudible] on. [inaudible] they're ashamed to be associated with them so they tell her friends and neighbor. these people are not willing to do any activities, this of course hurts the candidate that they secretly support. there is a big problem. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] nota. >> we have more independence than we have ever had in the history.
the parties should come around, i think very soon to realize they are the ones that get in the way. i think the biggest right blake is outside candidates are achieving our precedented success in the selection. >> if you could identify one issue with the democrats and one issue with the republicans? >> i think it is the fact that the democrat and republican's, at least i we see them on television and covered by media are disproportionately negative. it is a lot of aggression. neither democrats nor republicans want to be associated with that. >> here in arizona, what is the situation? >> we have a massive group of independents. it's the second largest group in the population. both candidates are trying to cast themselves as the independent candidate when in fact they were both
well-established in their own parties. arizona is no exception here just like the rest of the country. everyone running away from parties trying to disassociate themselves from the establishment. >> let's hear from our viewers, >> caller: i will not vote for trump under any circumstances. i remember 1933 in germany, 1927 in germany. this is what it is starting to look like, the nazis chasing the the communist, the communist jason the nazis. the other thing i want to suggest about taking large money and perhaps corrupt money out of politics, there is no reelections. expand, re-examine the terms for house of representatives, the
senate and presidency, make them longer. no reelections. it takes all of the money out of politics. even if someone is running for a position, a bank decides to give them a lot of money, there's no guarantee they will live up to their expectations because they know there is no reelection and they can doublecross them. i'm wondering if that is an idea. >> thank you bernie. >> guest: i think the point you're hitting on is there is huge amounts of money in politics. it's actually fueling outsiders in both parties. i have have been asked many times why there are voters out there who have not yet decided between trump and bernie sanders. it is actually a choice people having a hard time making. i think they appeal to both and
the rejection of this massive amount of money a politics. both candidates are doing a good job associating themselves with that. >> host: did the parties in a sense, squander their positions? >> guest: in what sense? spee1 the way that people are feeling about the political parties right now? >> guest: the parties may be taken advantage of their captive audience. in the united states it is incredibly powerful, very stable. people, as the color just mention tend to stick with the entire party their whole life. it's unusual for individuals to switch parties. and parties and parties are taking advantage of that. they know there voters will remain loyal and they don't necessarily need to do anything to keep those voters because they assume they will stay that way. >> host: brad and oklahoma city. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you very much.
before i was in the u.s. army and i went to vietnam it was very much conservative. when when i came back it was very much liberal. >> guest: i completely agree with what you are speculating about the american population. it is what we are finding. the vast majority of independents to prefer one of the two parties. they are ashamed to see and that's why they're ashamed to call themselves independents. people will not do the things parties need to win. >> host: such as? spee2 telling your your friends to vote, putting up a yard sign, telling people why you prefer a candidate over another.
parties want americans to vote for them of course but they want more than that. >> host: how is it a conservative effort on both sides to shame the other side? >> guest: we have problems of both parties. activists do not look a lot like the voters. activists tend to be educated, more interested in politics, and tend to be more extreme ideologically. the words and actions they are taking are not necessarily persuasive for the average american and either party. >> host: professor claire, did the citizens united case contribute to the downfall of the parties opening up money from other sources? >> guest: one of the problems with that case, there's a massive increase in negativity and advertisements for example.
in the media coverage of candidates. we have found that over time campaign coverage, advertisements have become increasingly negative. this helps to fuel the turn towards independence. in fact independence. in fact we find that americans read about negative issues there are more likely to call themselves independents. >> caller: i enjoy the coverage, what i like the most is when they mentioned that we need to bring the issues to the public and the media. i have turned my tv off and stopped watching even c-span, happen to be watching c-span to tonight and was really pleased to find you had this festival going on with this discussion. i am a democrat and i have volunteered in many, many elections and campaigns. the reason i don't want to sign in my yard, i don't want to
volunteer anymore is because it doesn't do any good. money, you waste your time, but i am more leaning towards independence. the other thing i like is i think more of these discussions on tv rather than debates you seem to get more done. the debate doesn't do anything it's like a reality show. people are sick and tired of it. >> guest: thank you for that comment. one thing we did in our research as we did a content analysis of the language that is used in presidential debates. we did not include this year's presidential debate because the book was published this year. previous to this year we found
that language and presidential debates become increasingly negative. we have participants negative. we have participants in our study read a transcript of presidential debate and even when they read actual transcripts of presidential debate they became even more likely to say they are independent. so the media is to blame on a lot of the discussion and that's not unfounded. the media showing disproportionately negative of the candidates. the candidates are -- >> guest: when did the decline in party leadership begin? we have seen a massive explosion over the last decade. so it has grown quite substantially in recent history. >> host: the next call comes from miguel in california. >> caller: i am an independent. and i generally vote democrat. i am an independent because i don't think you can -- and i
want to be part of a larger political campaign that connects all of my views. do you think it's time for another party? or do we need to come around to the parties that we have on the table right now. >> host: what do you think miguel? >> caller: should we start considering a new party or should we coalesce around the parties that we have? >> host: do you think that should happen? >> caller: i think it might be time to look at an alternative because a lot of independents don't want to be associated with any of the campaigns.
>> host: thank you sir. >> guest: we have a few successful independent campaigns. bernie sanders is one of them, but typically independent candidates to not do as well as one might expect given how many independents there are in the electorate. that is because americans tend to be loyal to their party identification. it's difficult to get people to vote outside the party line. candidates like sanders and trump are allowing them to vote for the same party they always voted for but in no way that makes them file their rejecting the establishment. i don't predict any successful independent run out anytime soon because they independent voters tend to be loyal to the party they always voted for. >> host: what miguel was saying about a third party you don't see that happening? speak.
>> guest: people were independents usually always vote for one party. so it's very difficult to get people to pull away from that. >> host: the next call from doris in california. >> caller: hello, glad to speak with you. i. i want to address what she was saying earlier that people are ashamed of their party or shame to be identify. i think with the type of violence we have seen there is also a freer factor. if you think that you want to go see and hear your candidate, that there may be 200 activists who are only there to keep you from seeing that candidate causing violence then i think you cannot go. how is this person supposed to present what they're supposed to presented people. then they are are afraid to go
in or frayed when leave they may be attacked. i know people are blaming donald trump a lot, donald trump did not cause this 200 people to comment who wanted to make trouble, that was their choice. i also saw a television the black man who grabbed the microphone and do not let it go as the police were trying to get him off the stage. i think our democracy is suffering by some of the things like the black lives matter who are calling for death to police and want to go in a disrupting key people from hearing the candidates. what is your thinking on that? >> host: doors, is danl trump your candidate right now? >> caller: not right now.
>> host: who is your candidate? spee3 i would like to hear candidates and what they have to say. if people want to go hear them. i think it is wrong for people to massively try to keep people from going in and hearing them or who shout them down. if they don't agree, let them protest outside. but to infiltrate and cause it for the people who want to be involved, i i don't think it is a democracy in action. >> host: thank you ma'am. >> guest: most americans actually prefer independents and members of their own party. we found most americans would rather have a colleague at work who is an independent rather than a colleague who is a member of their party who agrees with them on politics. so americans are scared to even associate with members of their party because they fear the aggression and the conflict. i think that's a real concern among a lot of americans who in fact preferred independents over their own party. >> host: the next call is from
sue from iowa. >> caller: okay, my question is, concerned it has somewhat to do with our a two. it. it has to do with independence. women are beginning to want to now go and register. there has to be this identification card. if a man goes in, he can he can immediately get an identification card. if a woman goes said to get a registration card if she is married, which she has to show her birth certificate, her marriage certificate, that is from the state they were married before she can identification card. it is that not stepping the woman down so they can get theirs? this this happened to me in 2012 in california because my
husband got his and i did not know i had to have a car. when i found all this out i could not not get my card in time to vote. >> host: have you heard anything like this? is be to that's really not an issue that i'm not familiar with. >> guest: what you are mentioning is to identify with the party is certainly substantial. that's something that drives people away from parties altogether. there certainly so much effort that has to be put forth in order to register and vote and that can be a barrier. >> host: is there something the parties can do to reverse this? >> guest: ultimately the partners parties are going to have to drop rallying the base.
they have long-term damage and it drives away a lot of people who are not that stream on these people are also identifying attendance. >> host: that said you are not going to win a primary that way. >> guest: well that's true but it could no longer be this race to the extreme. the parties need to realize the long-term damage is not worth it terms of getting out the support of the strongest idea logic. >> host: that said you think you can get all the candidates agree to that? >> guest: it's hard to say what the future will hold. all parties have seen the establishment lose the grip on their voters. clinton was taken by surprise by bernie sanders, the establishment candidate. and the republican party is going to do the same thing with donald trump and all the outsider candidates that received unprecedented support. >> host: the next call, beverly
and alabama. >> caller: thank you very much. thank you for letting me make this call. i also have run across that problem that sue ran across from several women who needed a marriage license that they had to prove. that is discrimination against women. i am surprised you had not heard of it. you have to get around to be around normal people to know. my question is, i went to vote here in alabama, right next to montgomery, the capital. there is no independent party. they looked at me with a sneer and said no, there is no way to
vote for an independent, it is democrat or republican. >> host: that doesn't work for you? >> caller: know, that does not work for me. i want my choice. i do not want a straight ticket line. i want to vote for the person not the party. >> host: so where are these independents going? >> guest: 80% of the independents lean toward a party so then they vote for them. if you look at 2012 about 6% of the republicans voted for obama. about 7%. about 7% of independents who call themselves republican and it's the same on the democratic side. about 4% of democratics voted
for ron minnie, about 4% of the independents voted for romney. so the vast majority are voting for the same party they always did. >> host: they say about the supreme court the arguments toward justice kennedy because he is the swing vote. in a general election are they adjusted for this little bit of independent voters? >> guest: they call them a coveted piece of the electric. but the rhetoric of the campaign is targeted toward the stream ideologue. that is the ones who are actually going to participate in the campaign. go to the phone bikes, make calls, put up yard signs. so in leslie's more moderate and independent voters are willing to participate in activities like that, the candidate is just not good to speak to them. >> host: one is steve in orlando. go ahead with your question. >> caller: hi guys, how are you?
could you tell me the difference -- obviously there's a lot of hate trade towards donald trump but i'm leaning more towards marco rubio. but what i find areas is there so much hatred towards donald trump and what he's saying and part of the reason people do like trump is that he's saying the truth whether you want to hear that or not. why is it their hatred for the other politicians? i hate using the word hate, but for like bernie sanders where you know they are not telling the truth. there's not going to be free college tuition in our country. there is not going to be free healthcare intercountry for everybody. but they say that so it's basically pick your poison. either they are going to lie to you like most politicians do, including, including our current president or you have the guy over here that is telling us what he believes is the truth or whether you like what he's saying or not. so wise wise and their hatred for everybody else?
why is the black lives matter and other organizations lined up outside bernie's rally in hillary's and marco rubio's rally? why always? why always focused on trump because people don't want to hear out loud what people say behind closed doors? what are your thoughts of that? >> caller: i think what you're expressing is very common perspective among voters which is the same for but all parties. we talk about it a lot in the book. so this disbelief that these candidates would do what they say, i think all candidates are receiving a lot of protest and negativity, the media is focusing its efforts on donald trump because i think it's better for the rating. what you're talking about and what is sustained in all parties
and why we are seeing so many people call themselves independent these days. >> host: michael in north carolina, go ahead. >> caller: hi guys. you're very interesting tonight. my question is simple. looking back over the last 20 or 30 years, every time a group has come up to challenge the status quo and challenge the establishment, it appears to me that the establishment demonizes that group. recently the tea party even the republican establishment demonize the tea party and refer to them as racists and radicals, and they are the lower class, they are not educated. how do you see the similarity
between what the establishment it to the tea party and now what they are doing to donald trump? >> host: before we let you go michael, tell tell us about your own political affiliation. >> caller: i wrote a very popular book and amazon called rules for conservatives. i am a conservative. as far as whom i am backing this particular race, originally it was rubio, and now i find myself more backing donald trump. simply because he has been so badly demonized by the establishment i think it is time to kick out the establishment. >> host: thank you sir. >> caller: i'm thinking is drawn on this long-term trend that were seen and when you look at
trump and sanders as the antis establishment candidate, they call it in the 2008 election is the same phenomenon that led to brock obama. he was also the entire establish candidate. senator came was like the slow candidate. what we're say now is just an extension of what we been seen for at least a decade now which is capitalizing on this anti- establishment that most are feeling. >> host: he also talked about the establishment is demonizing the tea party or maybe another group,. >> guest: the fact is the antiestablishment candidates are winning and the have been for a decade now.
the fact that we see the establishment reacting so negatively to that illustrates how affected they are by it. >> host: we been talking about the presidential level what about others. >> guest: this is a familiar situation with the local level. in arizona there's there's a gubernatorial race between two partisan candidates who try to run as independents. for example incumbents are not promoting their partisan identity as much as they used to. they're not putting up the local or advertising of logo. >> host: thank you for being our guest here in book tv. that is going to wrap up our coverage here from the tucson festival of b we wathank we want to thank the university of arizona. 400 authors were here this weekend, a two-day festival.
about 100,000 people from the tucson area at the end this festival. they do a wonderful job presenting books and authors and ideas and very accessible and easy to get you down here at the university. we appreciate all their help, and the fact that they let us come here and set up and we also appreciate hearing from you, our collars, so thanks for watching. >> when i tune into it on the weekends, usually it's often sharing their new releases. >> watching the nonfiction authors is the best television for serious readers. >> on c-span they can have a longer conversation and delve into their subject. >> booktv weekends, they bring you author after author after author. >> i love booktv and i may c-span fan.
>> my name is sarah baline, the director of kramerbooks on behalf of the entire staff i'm so pleased to welcome you and i'm pleased to welcome bruce tonight for his book "jfk's forgotten crisis" in the book bruce shares the gripping story of the conflict that really has escaped history's attention to it resonates today, that of the sino indian war. he draws on newly declassified documents and details the decisions made by jfk to stem the tide of it all-out war and explains how this is still influencing the world more than half a century later. we're so glad he is here with us to share his new book. please join me in welcoming bruce riedel to kramerbooks. [applause] >> thank you very much for that introduction. and thank all of you for coming out tonight. i want to begin by taking you back a half a century.
on the morning of october 16, 1962, met george bundy, donna kennedy's national security advisor arrived at his office in the west wing of the white house. on his desk as the was every morning there was a file prepared by the white house situation room of the most important top secret documents that the agency before he saw the president that day. to documents were notably important on the 16th of october. one was a memo from the state department from the bureau of intelligence and research it and in that document the state department warned that the situation between china and india on their board and the himalayan mountains was deteriorating rapidly. and that there was a very good chance that a war was going to break out between china and india. the document also warned the president that if that happened, and it would probably be the loser and the united states
might be called upon by india's prime minister nehru to provide assistance and support to stem the chinese innovation. it also want to defeat did provide support that would alienate our allies and south asia, the stand and could lead to a crisis in u.s.-pakistani relations. the other document that morning was report from the central intelligence agency, and it summarizes the results of a recent u2 overflight of the island of cuba. the cia had discovered just the day before that the soviet union was in the process of putting intermediate range ballistic missiles in cuba which had the capacity to hit almost every american city east of the mississippi river. it was a global game changer why the soviets. in retrospect one of these crises is well-known. we've all seen movies about the
cuban missile crisis. we've seen books about the cuban missile crisis. there's a whole industry of studies about the cuban missile crisis, and there should be. the cuban missile crisis was the closest we came to armageddon in the cold war. john f. kennedy was dealing with an issue which if you don't with the wrong would have meant we would not be here today. the apocalypse would have occurred. in fact, we now know 50 years later it was even more dangerous than people thought it was then. the cia back in 1962 estimated there were six to 8000 soviet soldiers on the island. in fact, there were 50,000 soviet soldiers on the island the the cia thought the soviets had only brought intermediate range ballistic missiles. in fact, the russians had also brought with them tactical nuclear weapons and they surrounded the guantánamo naval base with