tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 9, 2016 9:21pm-10:12pm EDT
healthup has the strict event and we're waiting for paul ryan to come out and speak. donald trump has focused writing in relation to the transpacific trade deals. c-span after the speeches, it is your turn to andh in your thoughts comments. in the meantime, let's bring you a portion of washington journal looking at these -- the dysfunction.
good morning. host: american politics going in and. what do you mean? we have so many years stripping over eight tools they need, politics in the case of meltdown. one party could not choose a nominee. congress is trying to do basic thegs like keeping government open. it comes away with stripping away tools in order to get the stone.
where did this insanity star? does start here in washington? start on the campaign trail? i traced back to 40 or 50 years ago when many people saidoned politics were too easy. there are too many back room deals. able to choosee nominees direct -- directly. the power ofduce rooms, tomoke-filled make decisions, deals, or straight --or
horsetrades host: you are you the class -- you argue that the political class is a good thing. they are the practice of politics. they have very year after year. they have to worry about not just protesting the winning this election and it will after runng sure the party correctly. they have to do is a business votes.g the meaning people. you need them to group.
interests willy-nilly. started thinking about this from way back in 213. into 13 --2013. they could not keep open because the republican party could not keep self organized to overcome a small faction within itself. leno asked why the government didn't shut down the heat -- shut down the that is a mission he and ryan are in now. they have little ability to influence their own members. they are individual
entrepreneurs. we have taken on so many of the that they have used. like secret negotiations. littlee left with very to organize and lead. host: it seems that there is this big advertisement for outsiders. this distaste for the establishment. it is a vicious cycle. as the establishment gets weaker , and less able to do its job, and even get simple compromises on things like farm bills, but congress gets angry and the outsiders are more in the they are more willing to challenge the leadership and the leadership gets weaker. we are talking with him about his piece on how american but explained in think we have a
more upcoming from erie, giving up on our with can line. -- here he sylvania on our republican line. a lot of it is issue by issue and a lot of seed the debt is insane. continues to pile up and how back down.r get it i just heard hillary and her running mate are going to overturn the high eminence. amendment that was used to kill unborn babies in abortion. i cannot believe that we are not talking about it. to me, rush limbaugh should be
having these topics upfront. these are the petitions of the candidates. this is what they are going to be doing on this issue and this issue i have a charity where i pay women not to abort. by offering them help. why would i want my tax dollars used to have a mother's killer unborn babies? i want to try to focus you on a different issue. thetion is important, but question is not whether congress can do what you wanted to do. which might be a choice life. it is, can congress to anything. the?t pass a debt limit these things were once a routine. up creations that were authorizing programs. it can barely do that anymore.
i don't think you have to worry at this point about a democratic president. with a republican congress it will not happen. important, we should be talking about it. i do not think clinton will do lot ofuse there are a things and platforms that could and still do. with that said, let's all try to step back and focus on the capacity of this to do its job. we have lydia from our independent line. sadly, we had a lot of history to tell us. i want to reference to studies of this. one is the study of history.
the obama reads it, excuse me. had thise reasons we breakdown is because newt wasrich, our current leader part of the process that set in place the current time of troubles that we are now experiencing. the he helped orchestrate objection that took place. that was his -- that was orchestrated when president spirit this -- took place. the young boys -- the young boys who came to an island and at the very end, it evolves -- they evolve and become barbarians.
unless there is research to pass studies on these situations, and and move intoses, the field of challenge and cooperation, we will also demonstrate like these other civilizations that chose to fail . we will have that situation happen to us. i agree with you that newt gingrich played a seminal role. a very pivotal role in the kind talking about. when he became speaker of the house in the 90's, he decided to consolidate power in the house of representatives. he began a process of dismantling a lot of the traditional seniority system. that system was good at discovering whether people were loyal, and getting a lot of
committees and congressional middle-management involved in decision-making. lot more people involved. they were participating. a lot of that machine has been weakened by the tendency to move power up. to the very bottom. every individual doing what he or she wants. i think it is some of what we have to reverse. lord of the five is a novel, not a study. it is about the internal darkness of human beings. it has a message for conservatives. never take the government for granted. work, warics don't and chaos -- war and chaos is what happens. how this's talk about is playing out on the campaign trail.
he has been talking about the favorability ratings of donaldry clinton and trump that is forcing candidates to turn on each other. political analysts say that historically high unfavorable ratings for both clinton and trump, left campaigns with focusing on tearing each other down. voters will decide the lesser of two evils. they will paint a picture of mr. trump as a heartless business liar,n and a pathological a con man who cannot be trusted on domestic and foreign policy. on the foot by, we have seen donald trump referring to the secretary of state as crooked hillary. liar, a con man who cannot be trusted on domestic andif this feeling u are talking about? i suppose.
i am not a political, but in my view, it is a shame that secretary clinton has not done a better job at articulating what she is for. she has done a whole lot. by this point in the campaign she should have given people a better reason to vote for her. that is a problem. it is not the problem. when you are running against a guy like donald trump, who in my withine should not be one had to miles of the nuclear code. it is impossible to run a campaign where you don't think that out when dealing with trump. with incapable of dealing any kind of people. host: we have been calling in in fromben calling indiana. i just wanted to comment
on hillary clinton's lack of articulation. dan: up next, we have calling from montana. good morning. to reiterate feelings from years back, political feelings. for --, the kind of paid for, and we hope agendas would be neutralized. i started to feel that way in the 1990's. but could block to stop president to -- presidential
agendas. by the time we got into the obama administration, all i saw agenda.avy socialist that is when i started to see, we really need to stop this guy. we need to stop these things because they are way out of normal. host: let's let jonathan respond. the founders intended for the system to be slow and hard to move. they were worried about populism . keeping the government open, or being able to pass budgets, that is not radical reform. whether you are a left wing or a
ofht-wing, that is the brand government. the organization on capitol hill has broken down so that you cannot even get that stuff done without a whole a lot of friction and back-and-forth. then, you have a different kind of problem. socialism or right-wing gettingsm is about just yourself organized enough to run a government. talking about the outsider sentiment from some voters that have pushed the candidacies of donald trump and bernie sanders. in your piece, in the atlantic he writes, insurgencies in presidential races and on capitol hill are nothing new and not necessarily bad, as long as the governing process can accommodate them. had in searching candidates who have beat the party at their own game. in 1972, mcgovern for the
democrats. we have had insurgents on capitol hill like senator jesse holmes who was before ted cruz came along. the difference is that those insurgencies brought those new voicess and ideas and into politics, without pointing dysfunctional as him. the system is able to sort those ideas because you have enough infrastructure of nationalism. can we adoptow elements of these agendas and will forward. when you do not have that level of organization, that insurgency becomes disruptive and you wind up not being able to pass a bill. you wind up with the republican nominee who is not a republican. you end up with a democrat is not a democrat. host: we have bill on our independent line. was just going to
bring up limping i have noticed over the years. maybe tell me what you think this might be. you are talking about dysfunction in washington. , itill believe if we were would just throw this out, they are doing way too much. you can call it whatever it is where people's fortunes that are tied to industries and things passed by washington has really taken over. i would think a big part of the solution would be to move more and more responsibility back to the states. a classical,s conservative view, but i think that would alleviate a lot of problems within congress. focus more on an area that would be more of a national scope. as far as donald trump having
his fingers on the keys of the nuclear weapon. iwould tend to think that think a trump administration would be more in tune with the congress. in the way of upholding the constitution. in doing things that would be more on a constitutional level. host: let's let him answer. think donaldt trumpin the constitution. i think if you asked him what article one was about, he would have no idea. he would say higher people know about it. i just have to disagree with anybody who sees him as a constitutional scholar. he would behave widely unpredictable in the most important office in the world. your other point that i agree them there are a lot of
that can try different things and experiment. remember you cannot do that without changing laws. the problem is that it really does not matter what your agenda is. it probably is not going anywhere. libertarian friends say what is wrong with gridlock? the answer is, when congress does not do something it makes things bigger. our government does is automatic spending. if we will get our fiscal house in order, rather to make it work better or reduce its scope, you need functional politics. you writeour piece about outside groups that are influencing what's happening. you write, because they thrive on. outside groups are dividing politics towards polymerization, extremism, and
short-term game -- gain. one of the ideas that we have been pursuing is to get money out of politics. it would make it less corrupt and work better. many in his, mother's milk and politics. in the old days, money was raised and spent by parties, and they used it to oil the machine of the government. a you put it with me on difficult bill, i would make sure to drop money on your campaign. that still goes on, but as a result as clamping down on the money that goes inside of the money comet a lot more money is going outside of the system to more actors. in fact, they do not even know who they are. weakens theit people in government who are trying to get things done. we are talking to the
contributing editor at the atlantic. also, he is the author of six books and the recipient of the national magazine award. it is equivalent to a pulitzer prize. in from nevadang on our democratic line. caller: good morning. i just want to go back a little lady. the republican about theworried republicans coming in and overturning laws. children jobs for 20 years.
this view of the senate has been more productive and regular orders since the republicans took over. what is interesting, i'm not enough an expert to know which leader did enough filling of the amendment tree. both parties have a strategy of -it is natural in politics. -that is what they have always tried to do. in 2014 the republicans do not
lose a single republican an outsideo challenger. it looks like they won't repeat this in 2016. that is how politics works when it works. -- tointeresting to were watch. they are trying to reassert themselves. let's talk more about the rhetoric on the campaign trail. the nominees what said on bill o'reilly about president obama as well as hillary clinton. [video clip] i think he is one of the worst president ever and in the history of this country. hillary clinton has the president to be even worse. she will be terrible.
life she told about the the i director. such a lie. how could anybody even say that? how do you see this messaging coming from the affecting hisinee election season as well as the overall to core desperate form? a way, it is the wrong question. that is the horse race question. we are so far beyond the core with donald trump. we're talking about so and who appears to be an unbalanced sociopaths, incapable of telling the truth or be consistent from one moment to the neck. it is no longer just a -- to the next. if you still longer just a
problem for him. it is a problem with the united states. the guy seems to be unbalanced. host: orlando, democratic line. good morning. all, i wouldof like to make reference to an article i read in the washington post about three years ago. the title of the article was "it is the filibuster, stupid. it was the" of the filibuster pointing out how the republicans during the obama administration theybused the filibuster and actually.
in the process of trying to sue the city, claiming the filibuster is unconstitutional. the constitution does not mention the word filibuster. the only time you need a super to vote anything is like declaring war, etc. that is the grounds of the suit. could beope attention brought to this. maybe the could interview senator udall or the retired senator hawkins. the filibuster has been used much more often in recent years that has in the past. -- doesh of jose s impose a 60 vote that it. i am agnostic on whether the filibuster is part of the
problem for the senate -- part of the problem or solution. my view is trying to look at the need the on filibuster. the kind of deal that is hardly much more difficult because of polarization gets harder when you do not have the tools to try to attract that vote. , it isr the threshold is going to be hard to get over it you do not help tools people over to your site. host: next we have arkansas on our. good morning. good morning. thoughts oners complacency and american policies.
incessant need for balance. guest:guest: a lot of hard questions about that. has he lie so consistently and frequently and shamelessly that the media cannot keep up? is it time to stop protecting wet he is not lying customer say for pinocchio's and stuff like that. there is a lot going on in the media about this asymmetric warfare that trump is using. it is a very hard question. the way i was brought up in the media is you do your best to be fair to all sides of the question. youkeep yourself out of it do not pass judgment. people are wondering if that is playing into the hands of the
demagogue that will say absolutely anything? that is ongoing debate. host: president obama made some statements which seem pretty unprecedented for a sitting presidency. let's take a look with the president had to say about donald trump the. [video clip] there have been republican presidents were not agreed with. i did not have a doubt that they could function. i think i was right that mitt romney and john mccain were wrong on certain issues but i never thought you could not do the job. one -- they won, i would have been disappointed that i would have said to all americans and i know they are going to abide by certain rules and common
sense. since sense and will observe .asic decency they will have enough knowledge to -- about economic and foreign policies. government work. for years from now to try to win election. that is not the situation here. that is not my opinion. that is the opinion of many prominent republicans. the only way in which you say enough. ast: hillary clinton said in a similar sentiment think donald permanently unfit to the president and commander in chief. for hillary clinton, she is
donald trump's opponent so it is not unusual to see that happen between opponents, but a president to speak that much at the white house with another foreign leader by his side about the presidential race, talk a little bit about that. infinity have to this that you write about? guest: it is an unprecedented thing and unprecedented situation. manyve a system which, for years, with its at a screening political call a sociopaths. a political sociopaths is not a crazy person. as a politician who does not think of a politician think of them. they can do whatever they want. by -- maybe they need very little money for help. no loyalty. no roots.
those people and politics are loose cannons. the time to turn renegades. they do not go anybody anything. nobody owes them anything. american context has done well to screen those people out. the year when the system began screening them in. at the end of the nomination process and the final four, three i would argue would sociopaths who are outsiders who are outsiders to do not know against theything system in which they are running. trump is in some ways the most extreme terms of this personal office. the three of the four people who are running against the existence they are trying to govern. this is new. this is worrisome. starts what we got to
thinking about. >> good morning joe. joe: good morning. it's a beautiful sunny day. i just want to say term limits. this is probably the only thing that will correct the situation that we have today. and there needs to be limits even though any political office should not be anymore than four years. we have so many intelligent people in america. we need to keep it rotating, keep it fresh and that's what i think should happen. any employer would want to have a new employee that would have more skills and if the other employee doesn't want to work, doesn't want to cooperate then they need to be replaced. people can do that every four years. that's what needs to be done. >> i take the opposite view on this. part of my burden in writing about political chaos is trying to push back against the
overwhelming sentiment of a lot of people which is politics is better when it's run by amateurs, you know, because they're going to be less corrupt or whatever. well, why would someone imagine that politics is the only profession in the world where experience and knowledge don't matter? what you do if you have term limits is get rid of people have a long-term view and who have to worry about getting elected year after year so if i pass a budget this year whether it's in effect five years or 10 years from now, they have to worry about that. you replace those with people with a short term time horizon who can vote more politic. you empower staff mex and lobbyist who are there for a long time. while the term members are trying figure that out, they're
still there. i think the mentality behind them that amateur should run politics is what got us into this mess. >> is the seniority system working as well? doesn't that create too much centralized power? >> the seniority system has been gone now. the committee chairmen are elected whether they tow the line or if they raise money. if you work your way up you were and that'sa seneceur gone now. i would argue another four of disorganization. >> we have kathline calling from ohio. --hline, you're on with john jonathan rash.
>> you are saying what most americans whole heartedly believe. in government, you have to have civility. when president obama was elected and the republican party chose to say like they did, we're going to make you a one-term president. the vice president refused to stand at his inauguration an at his first pitch he made in the congress a republican man from south carolina stood up and yelled "you lied." when none of those people were rebuked or censored in any way by their party, it's a snowball effect. there is great resentment for both pears towards each other. we have to get back to saneness. i don't think -- i know donald trump will take us there because
i feel like he is a psycho path. i would hate to think that he has his finger on a nuclear eapon. >> let's let jonathan rash respond. >> there's no question that polarization is higher than it's been for decades and animosity is higher than it's been for decades and that all byist makes it harder to do the routine business of government. it also makes it harder to compromise and that is a self-fulfilling proffer si because the less people compromise the less they're in practice of working together. i may not like this person but we can do business. we can figure it out. you've got a lot going on there. to me, the tragedy is that there are still instances when people do want to work together and when they have incentives to work together. stuff like we've been talking about just the routine business of government, for example.
but they often can't even do that because the system has become so disorganized it's impossible to contain vocal minorities who want to just obstruct things. so we've got problems at every layer. what i'm trying to get people to focus on are problems that are a little bit more immediately able to address like restoring some of the tools that leaders use in order to govern. we could talk for a minute about how to do that. >> ok. up next we have tina calling in from greensboro, north carolina on our independent line. tina, you're on with jonathan rauch. tina: yes, my question is you say that donald trump is a psycho path and i am an independent. but i have a lot of problems with hillary clinton because everything that you say about donald trump i feel that hillary has those problems and more. and what i fear is that donald trump at least is out there and honest about what he's saying while hillary is kind of like
clothing. in sheeps' the f.b.i. has said she's lied. then she went on the sunday morning talk shows and lied again saying the same thing but yet you stood up there and you're ok with that as a journalist but yets you have problems with donald trump and the last lady who called in said we need civil tism and the other person who said no, you lied. we didn't get to keep our doctor he said. ings and they aren't true. i don't get to keep my own doctor. these things that the democrats were going to do for us didn't happen. >> ok. tina. let's let jonathan respond. jonathan: yeah, so is hillary clinton the same kind of thing as donald trump? well, without getting into specifics about what she said in particular instances, this is
one who has been in public life for 30 years. this is one who has been first lady of the united states and then a senator and then a secretary of state. this is someone who does backcheck her speeches. this is one according to the independent monitors who actually count this stuff comes off as not only as more truthful than donald trump by a long shot but the person who stretch things the least compared to all the candidates in the campaign. i'm not making a partisan point about one candidate or another. but for me when you're dealing with a figure like trump who is capable of saying absolutely anything like russians are in ukraine, you are talking about something of a very different kind of animal than a conventional politician. >> in your piece -- your cover niese the atlantic how american politics when insane you talked about some possible solutions.
you write, restrictions inhibiting the party's from coordinating with their own candidates serve to encourage political wildcatting. so repeal them, limits on donations to the parties, drive money to unacceptable outsiders, restoring the earmarks that help grease legislative success requires nothing more than a change in congressional rules. how might these changes specifically bring an end to this insanity. talk about that jonathan: nothing brings an end to it. it took years where we got to. it's going take years to get back. so no magic bullet. with that said, the political cast didn't just happen. this is partly the result of years worth of making these policies and they can bun made. a lot of them mechanicically are not hard to do. you can restore for example earmarking which is more incentives for people to coorp
in congress. -- cooperate in congress. you can remove the restrictions n the political pears can do and then they're ability to regulate political behavior, something very important is to give party professionals and insiders more influence, not sole influence but more influence over the nominating process. if you take a tough vote for me, i can help protect you from a challenge in a district in a primary. that's also very important. we can rethink some of the transparency thrules have made it harder to negotiate, all kinds of things like this. and none of them are technically difficult but they involve changing some of these attitudes that says politics is always evil. >> up next, we have aaron calling in from oak harbor, washington. good morning, aaron. aaron: good morning. been enjoying your conversation,
sir. and i had a couple of questions for you. have how is it that we allowed so much of the rule and law making function to be transferred to bureaucrats who issue bundles and books and tons of rules that have the force of law? is that because congress is unable or unwilling? jonathan: what a great question. thank you. it's both. it's unable and unwilling. over the last -- the same period that we've been talk about the last 50 years or, so congress has answered voluntarily a will of power to bureaucracies partly on the notion that, well, bureaucracies will make merit based not politically based decisions. they thought that was cleaner politics. in my view congress is rolling on the constitution is to make political decisions politically.
but some of it has not been voluntary. article one of the constitution is that the u.s. congress -- congress is meant to be the preeminent policy-making branch. but when congress is no longer able to organize and do its job the way the constitution is set up is the power doesn't disappear, it flows other places. two actors that can move unilaterally without strog reach all these internal compromises. it's actually three places. it's the president, the bureaucracy and the courts. and that's where power has gone. part of my agenda what i'm trying to get people to focus on is by helping politicians organize their world, do what they need to do, you can strengthen congress. >> ok. up next, we have mary who is calling in from indianapolis. mary, you're on with jonathan rauch. mary: well, i think the american political system when awry when the public namely the