tv In Depth Kathleen Hall Jamieson CSPAN August 31, 2019 6:00am-8:01am EDT
to the extent journalists talk about that they are discrediting their own enterprise because they are suggesting they don't honor the norm, in the face of evidence they have been wrong about something. i like the ds and vacuum. i want people to think venereal disease. i don't want to catch or transmit it. bible deception focuses on the virality of it, and factor on the ground and focuses on reception. we are not talking about news but deception. when something comes into our news feed we need to be critical about those things we
are supposed to agree with so if someone is a supporter of a candidate of one party one is more likely to be uncritical about anything about that candidate, so instead of attacking we defend even if the attackers are journalists. we are also wanting about the opposing candidate to believe anything said about the person even if it is not legitimate. even if it is inaccurate and not likely to hear the positive. if you want to test say to someone who is a democrat and whether hillary clinton supporter for president tell me 3 positive things donald trump has done and note the amount of time it takes to give an answer. you can do the same with president obama. ask yourself when someone is confronted with information about a candidate they did not vote for how difficult it is for them to process and report back positive information. what that is telling you is inside like-minded communities
you have to reinforce the loop in which it is harder to hear those things. how should we deal with viral deception? listen carefully to what the available evidence says about what is good about the candidate we don't like or the party we don't like. instead of thinking of candidates and parties we don't like, we would like them to work together on things we do like but we need to ask ourselves how critical am i about things consistent with what i believe? before sharing something with our like-minded community we should take a careful look and ask do i know the source of it? do i know it is my friend? do i know my friend got it someplace reliable? by sharing material with others we are putting our credibility behind that material. if we put the brakes on about sharing problematic political content we could do our part in minimizing the likelihood that it spreads.
>> host: next call for lashonta jackson comes from ray in arizona. you are on booktv. >> caller: professor lashonta jackson, i would like to know what the modern excuse for the electoral college is and how do you become an elector? >> host: why do you ask that question? do you think it's outdated? >> caller: i'm pretty sure trump didn't get the majority of the vote in the election from the people. what do you think people think of the electoral college? >> host: lashonta jackson wants to address that. >> guest: difficult to explain the electoral college to high school students. it is handed down by the founders for a reason, trying to balance out all state interest and there is a compromise involved in all
that. the problem is, given that it is inside our structure, the process of getting rid of it is all but overwhelming. i would like us to start looking at the process of getting rid of it even though it is overwhelming. i think the advantage in having a popular vote system in the country is great regardless of the outcome, in part because when you are working in any electoral college structure there's an advantage in ignoring a lot of states. people should be able to see the candidate. the candidate should address the interests of states that are solidly red or blue, but they don't have to because for practical matters the electoral votes are already baked in and cast. if you think the electoral process is trying to get the electorate as a whole about how it wants to governance also to make a decision that says
regardless who wins or loses i am committed to that outcome because we collectively voted. it is not very functional. for practical purposes the battleground so-called states get an entirely different election than the rest of the country because all the communication is flooding those places and they have a disproportionate impact but are also disproportionately likely to have a lot of time on television affected by political ads. i would like to see states that don't have all the electoral intent share the burden in the last month of the campaign of watching that stuff. >> host: i read that 30,000 commercials in ohio in this one city -- at the same time if i were a candidate i would hang out in la is new york city because even though they are
very democratic there are more republicans in those cities than the whole state of iowa. >> guest: there is a secret to micro-targeting. you can swing states by finding your vote in the state and mobilizing in a blue state or red state based on the electorate that has been voting but in a country in which more than 40% don't cast the vote variable you can reconfigure the electorate to be more red or blue if you give it more attention. donald trump demonstrated that has a candidate. his campaign very smartly moved to wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania largely ignored by hillary clinton until it was too late and some of those states and one of the reasons i thought this election was up for grabs with the trump campaign went to minnesota it turned out to be closer than people expected.
the possibility we mobilize more people by campaigning is also an argument for why we shouldn't have an electoral college because what is happening in places that are being ignored you to all those people would like to get some mobilization and get more involved. i am not a fan of the electoral college but we face daunting challenges trying to move to another system. >> host: back in the 80s there were a couple famous ads. i want to show you a video of some ads, let it live lashonta jackson. we will come back and get her reaction. >> governor michael dukakis vetoed mandatory sentences for drug dealers, vetoed the death penalty, his revolving door present policy gave first-degree murder is not eligible for parole. many committed other crimes like kidnapping and rape are many at still at large. michael good caucus once to do for america what he has done
for massachusetts. america can't afford that risk. michael dukakis has opposed every defense system we develop. he oppose new aircraft carriers, he opposed anti-satellite weapons. he opposed four missile systems including purging to. dukakis opposes stealth bomber, emergency warning system against nuclear attack. he even criticized the rescue missions in grenada and our strike on libya. now he wants to be our commander in chief. america can't afford that risk. >> i would like to respond to the suggestion there isn't anything inaccurate about the revolving door at. that is problematic for me and the press as it is in fact literally accurate, it shows people who are actors passing through a turnstile in a prison in utah rather than convict in massachusetts and i can see how you would have trouble getting real convicts in an ad.
he is a is a different question but as the announcer says, number 268 goes up on screen. roger ailes or george bush never said 268 sk but the announcer said many committed violent crimes. in the context of dukakis really governor, not eligible for parole. a statement which is true for which dukakis out to be held accountable. the problem i have consists in the typical person viewing the ad in our focus group says 268 first-degree murderers escaped and went on to commit violent crimes which a reporter is afraid to say that because the reporter doesn't want to look at this inferential judgment appearing to be biased in favor of dukakis. >> i have never seen a reporter appearing to be biased but go ahead. >> i saw plenty of them because i said for three weeks that is in inferential falsehood is the dukakis ad which carefully worded its claim about social
security to draw the inference that bush wanted to cut social security when what he had done was not favor and increase. technically literally that ad was true too and was a false that he. the president is uncomfortable saying dukakis is on social security. to the extent the press saw factual inaccuracies the press moved with a vengeance against the tank ads. the president did a superb job pointing out factual inaccuracies saying dukakis approved the stealth bomber, the press was in with a vengeance because the press knows what a fact is. as a result, if you step out of line the press will never intervene to point it out at all, not even once in the brilliance of roger ailes was to stay in inferential falsity and overstepped in a tank at and i said he thinks he can get away with this because nobody -- how can this media genius make such a dumb mistake you give the press will come after him with a vengeance and i
thought the press did. >> the press may have done that but i considered running the tank and with no copy and no script, would have had almost a more devastating effect. i wish now i had done it with no copy, no script, just a little music. i rest my case. >> host: back to 2019. what does that invoke? >> you need a haircut. that was the point we were beginning to see a very clever move in advertising on both sides were claimants were factually literally accurate, very effective at getting the audience to hear something implicit in a message. we confronted a situation in which the press really was being torn because it thought it was biased, went in and said that is in the ad because people were more comfortable saying factual statements, that
is wrong. and the inference you are drawing is wrong, they can't prove your drawing the end first. that sounds quaint by today's standards because stating things that aren't true is more normal than it was then. >> host: was roger ailes good at what he was trying to accomplish? >> guest: i met roger ailes when i was writing rupatha. the echo chamber talking about fox news and rush limbaugh and the wall street journal editorial page. i was a student of the art of roger ailes. he was extraordinarily effective and had an important role electing richard nixon president. >> host: we have not had a chance to talk about "echo
chamber: rush limbaugh and the conservative media establishment," if rush limbaugh, the editorial pages of the wall street journal, key players on fox news were confronted by a serious republican presidential contender whose path deviated from reagan they would marshall against the candidate. is that true? >> incorrect. in part there's an argument made by a book produced by colleagues at harvard that's just fox moved to the right to respond to breitbart being able to attract part of a natural audience. it is an important, complex and interesting argument. the natural impulse, we were studying this in multiple elections where rush limbaugh was to maintain basically a traditional reagan republican perspective on the field and play an important role in
helping to that primary contenders for the nomination but once you got to the general election, to move behind republican candidate. the question becomes when did the transition occur with media outlets? i didn't watch it carefully enough to see how it occurred. there may have been truth to those outlets being behind traditional republican candidates but it was not clear donald trump would do well. >> host: rush limbaugh offered segments as entertainment. >> guest: we did a survey that gave a list of individuals and asked about journalists. a surprising percentage considered rush limbaugh to be a journalist and i understand that on some level because what he does is offer a great deal of accurate factual information that is the basis from which we can get a consensual argument so to that extent he is performing a journalistic function. it and put his interpretation, his perspective, his spin as do
people on the left. what he is doing is something i thought was important when he was doing it across the clinton era. he was providing a coherent ideology for those who were trying to see the opposition to clinton. very valuable to get coherent ideology well-formed out there for people to see the relationship of ideas to each other. it was a coherent ideology to the extent fox and rush limbaugh and the wall street journal were within the boundary and educated, a large constituency to think from that perspective and the question, we made the transition to the trump presidency, is the coherence there to explain in comparable kinds of fashion? the phenomenon of the media establishment in contrast to the more media -- more
traditionally effective is very important which it had a counterbalancing function and we are seeing within those areas people were building up their base of knowledge because the under structure of what rush limbaugh puts together is about the actual unemployment rate, the actual gdp as we lose that in traditional -- it doesn't articulate it and building interpretation on top of it and that is a coherent basis for people who listen and watch regularly to engage in forms of argument that can go to second and third level of arguments from that point of view and whether you agree with that or not that is a valuable function. >> host: next call from kathleen hall jamieson, thanks for holding on booktv. >> caller: can you hear me? listening to you, kathleen hall
jamieson, i have been on the show many times. to refute what you said would have happened if obama had declared sanctions on russia in the month of october. let's not forget everybody held hostage with the supreme court nomination and he said, quote, i've got it political. the sanctions on russia, it would not have mattered. i want your thoughts on one important fact in -- i was listening to a lecture one time estimating 70% of the population in 15 states
represented by 30 senators and 30% of the population. in this context how would you break up the electoral college gridlock we have got so far? >> host: we are going to leave it at those two points and see how kathleen hall jamieson wants to respond. >> guest: it is an important point. we are so polarized that it is completely plausible for president obama to believe had he made a strong statement without the support of senator mcconnell and the republicans it would have been viewed as political and an attempt to tip the balance of the dialogue toward hillary clinton it is a sad state of polarized politics that one would have to be concerned when making an announcement of russian intervention and attempt to stop at one would fear that
doing so might have an effect on the electoral process itself rather than our vigilance about russian intervention. as for issues of the electoral college in one way or another, passing that to those people who spend more time looking at it there have been people who put together alternatives who are worthy of segments in their own right at which point i hope they will engage -- >> host: when you talked about being polarized, political communication cause that? >> guest: we experience politics as a result of communication of politics. we treat each other with respect in a lot of ways, people we don't want goodwill of integrity to. we have a problem.
and beach -- we did process, try to find this. to retreat and -- they took the same type of standard. the standard discourse applied in the house of representatives. we looked for things such as one side thing another person on the other side was identified with hitler. we had a rally in which scott walker was alive with hitler and obama, now we have paired instances, republican and democrat being pictured in hitler ask fashion. when we look at how more liberal cable stations and more conservative cable stations play those things and what they did tells us something important.
instead, this is an instance, not common across all of the rallies by all the democrats and republicans. one isolated instance was made to look typical when being treated on the stations that did not happen on both sides. there is a tendency to say our side is not reaching discourse standards. it is typical they do that to our candidate where you haven't noticed it because it is not featured on your side and it is stressed on your side. we created a communications structure was the tendency of how to communicate in like minded space plays to licensed forms of discourse by virtue of seeing it over there.
they did it and we should be able to do it too at which point respond in kind. we are mirrors as communicators. call me a nasty name i'm more likely to call you a nasty name and it escalates so you escalate up and do something more inappropriate and i do something more inappropriate. it has become appropriate because we have normalized it. it has been there for a while. it is problematic because it is not a good way to have communities. if we can't have the goodwill and integrity people when we disagree politically how are we going to hold together our cities and neighborhoods? is also creating tension inside families, you have situations in which we have republicans saying something awful if a son or daughter merry democrat and democrats think it awful if a son or daughter married republicans was wicked wonderful marriages that are not happening because of partisanship and it is making it difficult to come together to solve problems. >> host: a new book coming out
by amy safer, may to historian richard burr kaiser in title i love you but i hate your politics. we will be talking to her on booktv as well. in potomac, maryland please go ahead. >> caller: >> caller: thank you for the insight on "in depth". i have to get one or more of your books. i have a question relating to micro-targeting and source identity as well as disinformation campaigns. is it a way for us to recognize when trolling is happening and is trolling illegal? and identifying the source of the message as on tv saying
this is sponsored by such and such candidate running for president and so forth and similar identity on micro-targeting messages would be very helpful in at least getting the right message and the right context. >> guest: i agree with you. if you think back to the past history of political advertising, we have to deal with the problem of identity outside social media before social media happened. we had independent expenditure groups i used a the god, mom and apple pie independent expenditure, they were trying to pretend they shared your values because we were trying to find out who they were and often they were using forms of money in which disclosure is not required and you find out they were engaged in special-interest advocacy, sometimes not on the topic of which they had special-interest
and trying to defeat a candidate they didn't like on some grounds but a completely different topic because the candidate is most vulnerable. we had to deal with disguised identities for a while in body politics and it was problematic to use a message when we assess whether we should accept the message or not. what we are trying to do is tell us what else this group has been using for messaging. that helps identify the pattern and in some cases we are able to scroll up and find out why you were targeted and what was the pattern of targeting that makes us more aware we are the objects of influence and that is all positive. to the extent we start to examine everything that one group has done, they don't have to be, trying to subvert our system from abroad. we are better able to determine the motive of the individual and the reason we are the object of their attention.
what i'm talking about is people disguising their identities, working in st. petersburg but the word troll was used differently in the social media context so i'm trying to define it in is the way. >> host: in your book "unspun: finding facts in a world of disinformation" you call it generalities, mom and apple pie. >> guest: when we hear our values being reinforced we like the person reinforcing our values. what that leads us to think is they are like us and we don't know we are being advertised by permissions individual trying to do evil things for unseemly ends, that's my way of getting behind the generalities. let's put the generality back in place on the other end of the spectrum making me more wary. >> host: isn't a case where we are self selecting to read,
watch and agree with because i want to be reinforced? >> guest: we want our biases to be confirmed, it makes us feel good. it doesn't take much energy to have them confirmed. it is hard work to listen to something you oppose and grant it the ability to work on you. open-mindedness is something we have to work toward, not something we naturally have. if you say i am going to wake up in the morning and deliberate at the beginning of the day try to read the editorial points of you that are different from our own and try to monitor how much effort it is taking without counter arguing, you get the sense of why it is difficult to be open to them because everything about you is trying to say it is wrong. to the extent everything in our culture makes it easier to be in that space where we counter
argue and dismiss, we create problems for the system, hard to get the solutions we need to act on in common. >> host: rosemary, high. >> caller: a question about when eric holder was ag he was held in contempt. representative nadler held william barr in contempt if he doesn't comply with the request, what does that mean and how does it affect doing their job? >> guest: we are outside my wheelhouse. i appreciate the sentiment. i'm not qualified to respond. >> host: political communication and those parts of issues. next call is norm in sumner. >> caller: next week you have a day that looks good for lunch
>> host: you are on booktv. are you aware of that? and probably not. i don't know if you are free for lunch to meet with norm. >> guest: washington this time of year can be nice. albuquerque, new mexico, maria. >> caller: i have a question. i think you are brilliant and are your books in public libraries across the nation and also are they in college libraries across the nation and if not how do we get them there? >> guest: thank you for the nice thought. i have been published by very good publishers who have done a good job getting the books out, to the extent we have online capacity to get them in libraries, increasing likelihood libraries don't have to keep them on shelves to keep them accessible.
they describe services and give them access to large numbers of these things as a result. the other thing that is important to note is a lot of really good material we can have access to that you don't have to pay for all the public libraries ari national resource we should be reporting and be grateful for that to the extent the work we do is available online at no cost. i encourage those who care for the underpinning of policy take a look at that site. we would love to have you describe it. >> host: we have 2 hours left with our guest, but the numbers back on screen, 202-748-8200 and even several times on, 202-748-8201. an amount in the pacific time zone, we scroll through our social media sites in case you cannot get through on the phone. i don't know if you remember
this but back in "packaging the presidency". >> guest: that was 1984. >> host: national conservative political action committee used the phrase make america great again. that is not necessarily a new phrase. >> guest: nor is it a new sentiment. there is a desire always to recover parts of the past we remember as positive and we forget there were things back there that we probably don't want to recover. what that sentiment is doing is expressing a nostalgia about the good we remember as a result of a powerful form but there are many things about the america of the past we have moved past. we've gotten better than that as a country. we don't want to lose that in
the process of trying to restore something good and valuable. >> host: i you still in the classroom? >> guest: i am. >> host: what are you teaching? >> guest: i am grading my papers on rhetorical criticism which is focused on working with doctoral students and studying texts. they are looking at things like how are narratives constructed, what does it mean to look carefully at languages forms of metaphoric expression, how to identify who is speaking to us and who is being spoken to in a text and looking at an extended piece of discourse and make better sense of it. in the fall i taught an undergraduate course called introduction to political communication which i have been teaching since 1970 when i first started at the university of maryland. that is a history course, i wrote the book "packaging the presidency" to teach that course. i wrote it thinking i do speak
too rapidly and they could read more effectively than listening to me speak at too many words per minute but that course starts with a 1952 campaign and walks through the history of advertising and looks at how the debate, speeches and the news and advertising intersects to create a sense of how a person will govern when a person becomes president and psychological literature how audiences make sense of messages from candidate and asks across time about the likelihood that we are voting on things that actually matter, by virtue of casting a vote on this basis, forecasting governance, to help us ensure people will lead well. a fun course to teach. >> host: is your class at the
university of pennsylvania, ivy league school? >> guest: i try to make sure i don't know the answer to that question. my course is not about what side you are on. i try to make sure by the end of the semester if they think i'm a vegetarian anarchist, that is intended as a joke. i'm not a vegetarian anarchist. i don't think it is appropriate in the kind of teaching i do to determine where your ideology is or isn't but rather an attempt to understand how this process works and what scholars have learned across time. these students go into a political system that many will try to affect. try to increase the likelihood they are doing it in a way that increases the capacity of audiences to act well when they cast votes and engage intelligently and engage rather
than check out. there is a real problem in their community they need to resolve. >> host: how many times have you heard congress is awful, i like my congressman or woman. >> guest: that is a phenomenon that is general and goes beyond congress. people say the public school system is a total catastrophe, i love my public school teachers. interestingly, before the off year election of 2014, polls suggest that the public was turning to say they would all of the incumbents out. we took that seriously enough that we feel that a study. that would be a change. ordinarily we reelect incumbents overwhelmingly. a major study, the incumbents were reelected. the sentiment is pretty strong even as people say -- they are doing a good job serving my needs well. what that speaks to is at least at the congressional level the
capacity of candidates to get to know the people in their district, to believe there is competence there and integrity. it is hard to deceive people about a person you actually know and i'm confident when we look at our neighborhoods and cities, getting to the narrow level in smaller cities we have good governance, we talk as if everything is broken but some things are doing well. >> host: christian in oakland gardens, new york. >> how are you doing? i am in upstate new york in rural areas that seem to vote for trump and they seem to be democrat.
this is in europe because of brexit but people wanted to get out of the european union and people in cities seem to not. what are you seeing? is this something you think will get worse in europe and the united states? trump hats, is that a civil rights violation? >> guest: we have two questions, city world divide and political violence. >> host: i grew up in rural minnesota. the community i grew up in is the community that sees minneapolis within commuting distance. i grew up in a rural environment and there is something in a rural
environment where individual interaction with the community is different in some ways than it is in more congested space in closer proximity. the relationship to government is different when you are in a rural environment. i don't think that has played a big part of the explanation why urban voters tend -- you have different kinds of people demographically in different places and different dispositions baked into those life experiences but one of the things we need to ask is to what extent we engage in political campaigning, are we representing the interests of all those people in a way that lets them see themselves as part of a large community is not think of themselves in specific terms that are geographically mounted. we are so interconnected is a country and our economy is so interconnected that what
happened in our farming communities affect all of us. what happens in our cities affects all of us. and gerrymander to create congressional districts tends to create one kind of economy, one kind of voter. would be better off if the thing spread geographically to cross those interests in the same community voting district so the representative would represent all those interests in the broader community. i don't think anybody should be attacked for anything they wear or do or political point of view they represent honorably. i find it problematic, representing one point of view some people assume i can't like that person and don't want to get to know that person and that could work on both sides
as we see people wearing t-shirts on one side. i want to live in a world where you see summary wearing something identified with a political party that is necessarily her own you want to reach out and get to know him better because you would like to know why they identify that way. in the small town i grew up in we had people of both political parties in that small town, a rural environment, but when the democratic officeholders came to visit that small town everybody turned out and asked good questions even though nobody changed their minds how they would vote. it is possible to be civil and learn from each other without necessarily changing our ideology. >> host: how did you get from minnesota to philadelphia, pennsylvania? what sparked your interest in doing what you do? >> guest: licensing as people survived there, a heartier
bunch of people, in some ways just different. we assume the week died off and a stubborn group of people stayed winter after winter. i went to a debate scholarship in minnesota and wisconsin and they had something in common during my childhood and closely engaged communities in which we took for granted people would turn out and it would be a good thing and you wouldn't shun them because they wanted to shake your hand. the specific culture was a rich culture and still is. the amount of civic engagement in the form of a public radio station that airs lectures given by westminster church for example, and interactions on public radio suggest a very
rich culture so that took me to minnesota right next door, made the assumption that is what politics looked like. my husband, more than 50 years worked at the navy department in washington dc. we moved to washington dc. university of maryland so they wanted someone to teach communication. i think i can do that. that is how i got to maryland by the university of texas. i spent three years there and then came back to the university of pennsylvania where i have been ever since. i go back to minnesota on a regular basis. if i tried to find different places in the united states to study how politics is working we go back to places like maine and minnesota to try to find things like townhall's, gatherings where people get together so we can listen to them, deliberated by things
that matter to the community. i wish we could bring back more of that because that community engagement increases the likelihood that communities do good things to preserve the well-being of everybody in their community. >> host: as a youngster were you interested in politics? did you follow it? was there somebody who sparked? >> guest: we had an aunt who watched the sunday talk shows. i member watching sunday talk shows. i would watch the sunday talk shows. from an early age, i would watch precincts with my grandmother who was a precinct captain. it was in it you medical family. one parent a republican and one parent a democrat. in that environment we were exposed to conversations that were respectful across the
aisle. my parents knew they disagreed about politics and had a long and successful marriage with five great kids. they models an environment where was part of your life and those disagreements didn't define you and on big issues they didn't disagree. they agreed about the things the nation needed to do, republicans or democrats depending on the parent. >> host: have we become 100% voters instead of 60? is that a new phenomena in or has it been around forever? >> guest: i worry that we expect such a high level of ideological purity. there is no candidate who is right for an individual and we are providing the kind of tests that require people to take stands on issues they can't actually act on and govern. i come from a conservative county inside minnesota and
that environment we worry about how to pay for things. if you ask what is the influence of my childhood on politics now, i am often asking the question when a candidate says i am going to do this, is it desirable? yes. free college tuition, is it viable, yes. how are you going to pay for? massive tax cuts. is a desirable? i can see argument. how are we going to pay for you are we going to cut spending? if there is a lens that comes out of a conservative environment in which one was more focused on that set of issues, to the extent as one comes into politics and what shaped you, that, coupled with a rigorous environment that says you can always debate any issue, sometimes republicans have good ideas and sometimes democrats have good ideas. i want to know on both sides,
how to pay for it, how to sustain a level of debt and deficit and our conservative culture and environment that respects the fact the country had to have strong defense and asking how to balance social needs and military needs is part of the equation as well. >> philip is calling from new jersey. >> good afternoon, c-span. just two questions. should primaries be on the same date in all states? during the primaries should people be allowed to go through the person regardless of the party like we used to do so many years ago? the third one, your thoughts of paper versus electronic ballots. >> host: let me take your third question first with we need a
paper trail on ballots because of the capacity to hack electronic systems, we need to ensure a way to verify and the paper trail becomes a way to verify so i am hopeful our systems are able to have that in place by 2020. i don't want to see a primary across the whole nation on one day. across the primary system we see different parts of the country addressed. i would like to see primaries grouped by issue categories to say there's a clustering of primaries in which we focus on issues of trade. how do we ensure we have jobs? and these are states that don't have a strong manufacturing core, issues that concern climate, there would be higher levels of learning if we could get those clustered in ways
that make sense. i don't remember your third question. >> host: closed primaries. should primaries the all on the same day? >> guest: i don't think i'll on the same day but in pennsylvania if you are functionally an independent your disenfranchised. for practical purposes, you register with one or the other parties because you want to vote in the primary. i would like a system in which voters are able to vote regardless of party identification in primaries. that makes a great deal of sense and i like having candidates who come down 1-2-3 in order being able to go against that order regardless of party so that we don't have a democrat and republican, why not add voting across and have as many candidates as the field can sustain?
white be two republicans in some cases, you might have three identified as some party that isn't either one of those. they hold onto the elect oral structure. it is harder for third-party ideas to come forward and third parties have important things to say. part of the reason we have much of what we have in the current system when changes occur came out because the third parties were able to clear something on the rest of the system and back to that as a positive. >> host: southern california jungle system, in the center race, and a republican on the ballot but a move to keep donald trump off the ballot in california. would that be legitimate? >> guest: the rules for the presidency, we still have something that provides ideological coherence underlying party but for virtually everything else it makes sense, particularly the
congressional level to use the numeric system. >> host: email from paul, donald trump has used nonfactual statements to get elected and support his agenda. should democrats and his opponent used nonfactual statements to support their own candidacies and goals? thank you, that you breakdown that email. he made two definitive statements. >> guest: we need to step away back in the discussion and ask what is it that matters, white we have to protect facticity? if you think the employment rate is 42% and you make the case for the country and act on the assumption that is a correct statement, you put in place policies that will be highly problematic if the unemployment rate is actually
4% or 5%. the factual underpinnings of policy decisions actually matter. as a result we have to have places we can go to to trust their methodology is sound and to be perfected when challenged and being honestly deployed with no partisan input whatsoever so we have to assume the bureau of labor statistics is telling us something important that lets us track data across time like grossed a mystic product means something and is tracking something important. without that factual underpinnings we can't engage in intelligent policymaking or legislation. some statements that are not factual are more problematic than others because they bear more on policymaking capacity and intrude on our ability to get it right when they get it wrong. in that context, democrat or republican engages in this
statement of something and feels incumbent upon him or herself to act on it it is problematic. >> host: before we run out of time we ask our guests what they are reading and what their favorite books are and we ask the same of kathleen hall jamieson. just want to make sure you get a chance to see this list. favorite books. gary wills, lincoln at gettysburg, elvis walker, the color purple, james joyce, the dead. james joyce, the dead. i want you to comment on that. >> guest: that is a brilliant story that is highly evocative and tells us something very important about human memory and human regret and it is also beautifully written. if i had to pick just one thing that i would want to read and reread when i have doubts about the human condition i would read it.
one of the reasons i think we read is for function and particularly academics. usually, what are you reading? i am reading what i am writing. that has to be part of our life, the business of that and i use james joyce in general and not to get too enmeshed in which i'm only reading things that are functional for me because they contain information i need to write intelligently. >> host: kathleen hall jamieson is currently reading eliza griswold's book amity and prosperity, one family and the fracturing of america. that is -- this is about fracturing. strike that.
dan egan, the death and life of the great lakes. richard powers, the over story. you mentioned david blight earlier, pulitzer prize winner for president douglas, jeffrey stewart, the new negro, he won the pulitzer. >> guest: one of my secrets how to determine what i'm going to read outside the areas i am writing about, i tried to read the fokker when it and pulitzer winners. why would you not take advantage of all the talent come all the trouble to figure out these are things worth reading. there are few disappointments and following that is a guide into summer reading. >> host: ben bradley junior, how the people of one pennsylvania county elected donald trump. >> guest: we engaged in functional reading. we are doing election study for 2020 and trying to find counties across the united states that will be the most interesting to us trying to understand how communication works. we are looking for counties
that support president obama and donald trump and this is a book that focuses on those counties and got on my reading list because i need to know more about luzern county in pennsylvania. >> host: please go ahead. >> guest: good afternoon, kathleen hall jamieson. i am in my fourth decade of enjoying and learning through your commentary. i have a question about the hillary clinton comment about the basket of deplorable's. can you claim why she made that comment, why she did it in the particular audience, and what was the impact? >> guest: before we hear from professor jamison what do you think the impact was? >> guest: i am from kansas and most people were shocked at the arrogance or insensitivity or tone deafness of that statement.
>> host: you live in lawrence kansas, university town, maybe a little more liberal. were you offended by that comment? >> caller: i was. i am from rural western kansas. i was offended by it. >> host: what do you do in lawrence? >> caller: i work in kansas city as a tax attorney. >> guest: one of the ways a candidates use as our filter, what do they really believe? we try to figure that out. candidates are so scripted much of the time, some candidates are so scripted much of the time, there are exceptions which when we find and extend the rainiest utterance, we treat that as having special evidentiary value. when candidate obama talks about people clinging to the
guns and religion or mitt romney talks about the 47% who wouldn't support a republican anyway. or hillary clinton dismisses half of trump's supporters as basket of deplorables, those are moments that become strong indictments in the hands of those on the other side because of our tendency to think that is what they must believe because they said it. one way to ask what the effect is is how much it is reused in the political dialogue so each of those statements separately reviewed extensively against the candidate. the obama statement was used by hillary clinton against him in the pennsylvania primary very effectively in 2008. romney's was used by the obama campaign effectively against international advertising and the deplorable statement was used across the communication of the trump campaign and social media against hillary clinton. every voter needs to ask, filtered by their own ideology
what do i make of those? and hillary clinton's case what made it problematic was her slogan was stronger to gather. of the slogan a stronger together but you regard half of opposing candidates, constituents, voters as a basket of deplorable's it doesn't sound as if you are living with the expression in your slogan. what i can say is that was problematic for those individuals who at that point didn't like the candidates very much but might have been disposed to cast a democratic vote but were not fond of hillary clinton and not anchored to political party, probably saying they were independent and were undecided. once you decided for him to vote you hold that position. in 2016, more people than is historically usual were undecided on the election which means open to hearing that
statement and interpreting it. yes, i do. >> host: kathleen hall jamieson, thank you for spending two hours on "in depth" on booktv. >> guest: it has been my pleasure. .. >> and today we are live from the 19th annual book festival in washington d.c. you'll hear from authors such as supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, pulitzer prize-winning historians david mccullough and rick atkinson and many others. check your program guide for more information. also this weekend ben howe examines where evangelicals are choosing political power over christian values, and sunday we are live with yale historian and author jo ann freeman. she'll be discussing political violence in congress, the leadup to the civil war and founding