tv Donald Trump and the Republican Party CSPAN December 27, 2016 10:57pm-12:26am EST
"in-depth" will feature a program about president obama in take your calls and emails during the program. presidency in"the the authorhite," and of "democracy and black," and bullets are -- prize-winning author, author of "barack obama: the story." 3:00 p.m. onay at c-span two. announcer: now, what donald trump means for the future of the republican party. forberkeley center right-wing studies hosts this 90-minute program.
cracks without further a do, let me introduce today's panelists. first we will hear from a advancingat the ucsf new standards and reproductive health program. that is really a mouthful. she is also a professor of sociology at the university of california davis. she is a foremost scholar on the social standards for health including a recent book, "dispatches from the abortion more." our next speaker today will be paul hears in and he is a fsm for political science and an expert for american politics and .ublic policy here at oakley he is a new york times best-selling author of a number of influential books on american
politics and public policy including most recently a book he co-authored entitled "america process amnesia: how the war on government led us to forget what prosper." a our third panelist is lawrence rosenthal, chair at the berkeley center for right wing studies. he writes widely on the right in and is. in italy currently working on a study of contemporary american rights in the movements and rights in 20th century europe, a topic that has taken on relative importance. is format for today's panel each panelist will talk for approximately 12 minutes or so and then we will have questions and answers. the way it will work is we will pass out cards and people will write questions on them and end
i will read a couple questions and have the panel answer them. we will do that back and forth a couple times. so without further do, let me turn the microphone over. [applause] >> thank you, kim. and thank you to my friends and colleagues at the center for right-wing studies for organizing this. and thank you for coming. so, my assignment today is to
talk to you about how abortion and lgbt issues played out in this campaign. what i will argue to you is they instead play quite an important role and that the religious right play quite an important role, although not in the way we previous elections. much of donald trump's frederick was about immigration, i should say previous elections. much of donald anti-immigratione economic populism. he did not talk about the issues of abortion and lgbt issues that much. when he did, there was a significant gap at times. but i will still argue that these issues were very important in this election. let me start by talking about what did not happen. optimisticuch more point of view from the last election. it shows you the various people,
various republicans, who made outrageous statements about reproductive issues, both abortion and birth control. this was in the 2012 election. and they lost. the first and probably most famous, the first quote there, it is from representative tom bacon, who should have won a senator seat in new jersey. work for him. the next person -- i will not go through all of them. the next most famous was again, a public and who had been predicted to win in indiana and a pregnancy said resulting from rape is a gift
from god. he lost. after the 2012 election, i recall reading that the republicans were told how to talk, or how not to talk about abortion and contraception. they were told, you do not talk about rape, ok? and they didn't. disciplinerkable this from the republican candidates in this last election. with periodic exceptions from donald trump himself. so, what did the candidates, both democrat and republicans, say? hillary said what you would have expected, a strong support for abortion and marriage equality. she talked about the court. for the first time, and this is significant, this is one of the ways that bernie sanders pushed her. for the first time she came out in support for the -- excuse me,
repealing the amendment, that legislation that forbids the use for medicaid patients, for poor women to get abortion services. what did trump say? trump, you might remember, has a very interesting interview with chris matthews at a town hall wase he said -- where he asked, do you believe in punishment? trump finally said, yes. and he did not know what the punishment should be. it is not part of the slide because i did not want to make it too long, but it is part of this back and forth. at one point he was asked, should the guy involved get a punishment? and trump said, no, absolutely not. as,dless to say, this was a g precisely because he is new to the antiabortion movement, he
never got the memo. that is not how the movement talks. you don't talk about punishing the woman who gets an abortion. the person you punish is the abortion provider. so, he walked it back a little while later. the only other notable time that he talked about abortion came in the very last debate. chris wallace asked both of them about abortion. he made a very strongthe very l, a very sensationalized statement that has very little relation to reality, but basically, was a very loud dog shwhitle to antiabortion movement about the partial-birth abortion, when women can get abortions at nine months and the baby is ripped out. i'm not sure i have to tell the audience this, but somewhere between 1% and 2% of abortions
in the u.s. take place in the third trimester. not always, but that is very often because of severe fetal anomalies or serious life-threatening illnesses for the woman. ok, and so, what did trump say about gays? his talk about gays was actually quite different. after the very horrible incident in north carolina, you might nightclub wasgay shot up. his statement was, i am going to protect you. gaysid a nice thing about by taking the opportunity to trash islam, but we won't go there now. but the point is, quite interestingly, a very different tone throughout the campaign about abortion and about gays from trump himself, not
necessarily as people see from both who support him. -- from those who support him. and this worked. was doingampaign was taking very important steps to make clear to the evangelical community, a very important voting block, but never mind what trump says, we, the trump campaign, are taking care of you. the most important aspect of this of course, was the selection of mike pence. mike pence, as he often says, christian first, and that a republican. i forgot what is in the middle. but a christian first. oh, a christian first and then a conservative, and then a republican. nobody in american politics has better, more impeccable,
antiabortion and anti-gay credentials than mike pence. when he was governor in indiana he signed one of the most severe anti-gay bills, which made him quite unpopular. he also signed one of the most stringent antiabortion bills while governor, a bill that is quite unusual rhythm respect to anti--- quite unusual with respect to anti-legislation. it was not just the selection of mike pence. the trump campaign released a list of potential supreme court nominees early on that had been vetted by the heritage foundation. throughout the campaign there was a discussion in evangelical circles, can we really support a guy who has been married three times, who brags about grabbing women's genitals? there was some turbulence.
but this letter he released in september, when hillary was still ahead, we no longer know what that means, if she really was, but anyway -- he released a letter addressed basically to all of the major antiabortion organizations, where he laid out a series of premises which was the antiabortion wishlist. defunding planned parenthood, signing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, even though roe v. wade guarantees a constitutional protection to 24 weeks. and it worked. more evangelical voters than george w. bush. bush, w., and george
only got 78%. this was not only an election promise. we can see some real commitments and some very important things that have happened since the election. right after the election, trump went on "60 minutes." she asked him about roe v. wade. and he made it clear, as he had said earlier, he was still committed to overturning roe. she said, what will happen to the women? he said, they will go to other states. at the very end, you can see les lie -- well, we will be what happens. signaling to everybody that he meant what he said. on marriage equality he was a little more equivocal. do you support marriage equality? well, it is irrelevant because it is already settled. no, one could argue that roe was
settled in 1973. the very wonderful decision on marriage equality was settled in 2015, if i am remembering the year correctly. whether this difference between abortion and gay rights has to trump himself really field, or whether it is his sense, and i am more inclined to think this reason, that the american public is more on board with the marriage equality than abortion, but who knows? anyway, so, we see some difference there, but lgbt activists should not take much comfort, just because he hates abortion, or is more willing to attack abortion. both issues will have serious troubles in the trump presidency. we can see this immediately.
this is from the health care page of the trump transition website. the very first item is a commitment to protect individual conscience and health care. those are very nice words, but what do they mean? they mean something very specific. that means no health care provider will be forced either to participate in any aspect of abortion, not just performing the abortion. it could be scheduling. there is the case of an ambulance dispatcher who refused to send an and he loves to a woman in crisis and needed a life-saving abortion. the same is true with respect to gays and health care. this means you do not have to be involved in transgender care. you do not have to be involved in assisted reproduction for same-sex couples, or single individuals who are lgbt. and the second one is arguably
even more worrisome, protecting human life from conception. this is a statement of personhood, and what a long-term strategy of the antiabortion movement for many years has been, not simply to overturn roe, but to establish the fact that a fetus has the legal status of a person. this would obviously not only wreak havoc -- it would make abortion obviously, illegal. if a fetus is a person, you can't murder a person. it would also make various forms of contraception illegal. it would also make all kinds of stuff more problematic. this will not happen right away, although the person who has campaign, which has up to now failed in the state -- we have
one way of getting there. it would be a constitutional amendment, which is not easy, but we know it would take 2/3 of the state. we now have 33 republican governors. so, this is something to worry about. but the main thing that has happened after the election, and where we can see that trump has taken very seriously his commitment to the religious right and their issues, look at the appointments. besides pence. his chair of domestic policy for the transition is blackwell, not a household word, but a very conservative african-american who is best known for his commitment to "pray the gay away," the believe that homosexuality can be prayed away. jeff sessions, who is best known for not getting a judgeship because of his very troubling racial past, even though he is
best known for that, he is also deeply antiabortion, deeply anti-gay. the head of health and human services, his signature issue is the affordable care act and in particular, he is known for opposing the contraceptive provisions. one of his famous quotes is, "there is not one woman oin america who cannot afford contraceptive on her own." maybe they are some people who cannot afford a condom, though i suspect there are women who can't. the main thing that is responsible for the rate of abortion having dramatically decreased in the last couple years is something called long-acting reversible contraception.
this is the best that is out there and it costs $1000. it is not a bad deal because it lasts for 10 years. but the kind of women who are i mean, let me put it this way. a lot of women in society do not have $1000. since trump's election, planned parenthood has reported a 900% increase in women calling their clinics, wanting to get their l arc before it is taken away. finally, we don't have time at this moment to go through all the things that supporters of gay rights, supporters of abortion rights have to worry about. there is one thing i do want to call to your attention. that washe witchhunt
going on in congress before the election as a result of the 2015 release of very misleading, heavily edited videos from a group that did sting operations on planned parenthood, leading to the accusation that planned parenthood and other abortion facilities "sell baby parts." marsha blackburn has chaired this congressional committee that has been described again and again as mccarthy-esque. they have subpoenaed all kinds of documents from health-care providers, just going on a fishing expedition. i have studied this world for 35 years. none of the hundreds of providers i have interviewed baby parts. what they do with the patient's permission is donate the fetal
tissue for research. research that has by the way, brought us the polio vaccine, which could also bring us the zika vaccine. this is just one letter from a doctor in colorado. ok, let me stop here and say that the social conservative wing of the republican party i don't think we'll ever go away. i do not think the battles over abortion will ever go away. too many people vote on this basis. this is too crucial a resource for the republican party. another thing we can draw from from aection, and partisan point of view it is a little bit dispiriting. conservatives pay a lot more attention to the court and what
will happen to the court than liberals do. this is what we have got. thank you very much. [applause] gonna sit here and thank the organizers and all of you for coming. i am just going to launch right in because 12 minutes is not very long to talk about -- you shouldn't have given me longer, but you know, these are momentous events. i think it is undoubtedly, a turning point in american politics and american society. i am just going to talk about one aspect of it. before i do that, i want to say that i think all of us should be very humble in trying to project what is likely to happen. i think there is enormous uncertainty. certainly, political scientists should be humble. one year ago when trump's
candidacy was taking wing, i think i knew one political who thought there was a reasonable prospect of trump becoming president. all of us should because this about making projections. it is also true because i think there is tremendous uncertainty. we have not been here before. this election will break through some institutional barriers by giving republicans unified control. itselfknow that that by will produce a lot of change. we have also broken through a lot of normative barriers during this campaign. we are seeing things that i think would have been considered unimaginable a handful of years before. and i think there is a lot of room to worry about the extent institutions, that
we see as so stable, themselves turning out to actually rest on normative foundations. shared understandings of what is appropriate and what cannot be done. are a lot less firmly established. cautious all be thinking about what should happen next. there are one million topics worth talking about and i will focus on only one, given the amount of time i have. what i want to focus on is the relationship between president-elect trump and the republican establishment with respect to domestic policy. international affairs is going to be a distinct and milwild west domain, and i have no expertise there.
i want to say something about the interaction with domestic appearance. there is a very good chance that will be pivotal. i want to start by reading you a couple of quotes from different conservatives. there are two different ways of thinking. the first is from grover orquist, a longtime leader in the tax reform. run up this during the from a for the 2012 primaries and it is a wonderful quote. he captures a lot with no holds barred. "we are not auditioning for fearless leader. we know what direction to go. we want the right budget. we just need a president to sign this stuff.
we do not need somebody to design it. the leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the house and the senate. pick a republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the united states. this is a change for republicans. the house and senate doing the work, with the president signing the bills. his job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared. " it does not matter. mitt romney, newt gingrich, as long as they have the working digits. that was 2012, and it probably sounds like quite a while ago. here is david brooks from this morning's "new york times." reflecting on the intense polarization, he writes "donald trump's fichter he smashes all of that. he is hostile to the republican establishment. his proposals cut across the
next lines. this could be a president with many caucuses. and what follows from there is a column, maybe the 100th he has written about how a flourishing of centuryism is around the corner. comparing those two quotes. many people would say, we did not get the president with the digits, we got the fearless leader. but what i want to suggest is with at least respect to domestic policy, the grover norquist vision is likely to be closer to the truth, at least in the immediate future. there is considerable room i think for a very aggressive, but pretty standard moderate, republican agenda and they argue that for several reasons. first, congress is central to policy formation, especially when gridlock is broken. congress writes the laws.
when i teach my introduction to american politics course, people are always surprised that we spend a lot of time on congress because the media spends all their time talking about the president. there might be a lot of reasons to focus on a trump administration. there certainly are a lot of reasons. but congress, particularly in the situation where they can actually pass laws is going to be a formidable player. the second reason is because congress is organized and ready to go. norquists ago, grover was talking about the budget. well, it is still there. they have been updating it, but it is still there. the conversations surrounding that are the cornerstones for domestic policy thinking within conservative circles and they have been for some time. they are not going away. they are ready to go, unlike the trump administration, where they do not yet even have a secretary of the treasury nominee. congress gets to set the agenda. can get -- the president
give speeches, but in terms of most areas of domestic policy that requires a statute, it has to move through congress. they will be in the situation that grover norquist rightly captured. they will be putting thing on the president's desk. his opportunity will be to sign it or not. and finally, and i think this is very important to recognize. in many areas of domestic policy, and what carol was saying, trump does not disagree with the republican agenda. he does not disagree with the budget. is also trued add for many of the "mavericks" among republican senators. if you look at the list of people who are being trotted out, and i think it is right to focus attention on them because in many issues, the handful of republican votes who are likely to dissent on various issues
from a trumpet ministration, they could play a pivotal role. but most of these folks are mavericky on issues unrelated to coreryan budget or parts of the domestic agenda. what you are likely to see is earlierave called in an book the republican swiss army knife, which has two legs, tax cuts for high income people and deregulation. very quickly, i will rattle off some of the things that are likely to be an extremely expensive domestic policy agenda in the first three months. one, you are going to see the bush tax cuts reduced. he will say tax cuts once again and overwhelmingly, at the highest income groups in the united states.
all the nontrivial progress that was made over the last few years -- and ing inequality do not want to say there was huge progress made, but there was nontrivial progress made through policy. it will be undone pretty quickly through those tax cuts. secondly, you will see a lot of deregulation. you will see deregulation with respect to finance. if you actually look at the stock market -- i have taken the stock market over the period since the election and it is concentrated within financial industry stocks. they are doing very well all of a sudden for reasons that i think are not that difficult to understand. you know,rotection, the consumer finance protection board for example, which was set up under dodd frank, and which has saved tens of billions of dollars for consumers is likely to end up on life support. environmental protection, there
are likely to be dramatic changes, many of which can be pursued just through a trump administration, even without further legislative action. we are likely looking at radical retrenchment of the welfare state. not just whatever will happen to the affordable care act, but medicare is clearly on the chopping block. there is a prospect. this is likely to be contentious and i think actually, this is the place where it is suggested that congressional democrats have decided they are going to plant their flag in trying to defend medicare, but there is a real prospect of moving towards what is essentially a voucher system for medicare, which is where the government promised is going to be to provide you with a check in some set amount, which you can use to purchase private health insurance with the idea being that over time you would save money, the government would save money.
by essentially not having that voucher increased as much as health care costs will increase. this legislation would be a stunning, huge change following the campaign, in which president-elect trump promised he would not do anything to medicare or social security. it would not only shift the burden of absorbing health care tots from the government hold and sick americans and their families. it would also remove most important source of counter bargaining power within the american health care system, the only formidable source of organized institutional bargaining power vis-a-vis, the private health care sector, which is the main reason it is on the chopping block. this will be a really brutal and really of awakening time for many people who voted for donald trump if it is carried out.
and finally, i would just mention the courts. i agree again with carol that this is an area that conservatives recognize to be tremendously important in shaping domestic policy. we now are going to get likely, several conservative appointments to the supreme court that could have profound effects on wide areas of domestic policy. a lot of those areas are pretty self-evident, but i just want to emphasize one thing i think is not fully recognized. and that is the possibility that you could end up with a supreme court that would, as i think many modern conservatives do, including speaker ryan, a court that views most of the modern domestic edifice of the federal government as illegitimate. in 2011,e four votes
or whenever it was -- there were eliminate the affordable care act entirely as unconstitutional. it is not that far from that to just saying a whole host of federal activities could have been broadly accepted eliminatee affordable care act within the purview of the federal government as also unconstitutional. you could end up with a series effort on the part of the court with justices indebted for a very long period of time who are trying to move back not to a pre-great society or pre-new deal court, but to a late 19th century court where most areas of federal activity are rolled out of bounds by on removable judges. none of this is to say that donald trump is just a guy with a pen who is going to sign everything to the republican
thank you all for being here, and thank you to everyone who organized to this. in some way i should have come before paul. this is a bit more about how the election came to pass as it did. dovetail with paul a bit at the end. in a well known exchange in their first debate, donald trump castigated hillary clinton for retreating from the campaign trail in anticipation of the debate. hilly clinton -- hillary clinton responded that she had been busy preparing for the debate and she added that she had as well been preparing for the presidency, a remark that elicited one of the illicit applauses from the audience. the implication was that donald trump, whose campaigning
included shooting from the hip, found himself not prepared for the presidency. but that was not the case. donald trump had prepared himself in a serious manner for his run for the presidency. his method was to american self in right-wing media. -- his method was to immerse himself in right media. this included talk radio with rush limbaugh and michael savage. monitoring tea party websites and discussions and following right wing news websites, like the drudge report. what trump found there was a collection of games and online news which constituted a universe of taken for granted understandings. like atood these up that would beifts available to him, that he could pull out when he felt the moment right. this was the stuff of his style
of campaigning. all these themes and memes resonated profoundly with crowds at his rallies. to the outside world, liberals and democrats, and established republicans, what he was saying was outrageous, embarrassing and offensive. things like, presidential elections were rigged, that hillary clinton would surely end up under indictment. that clinton and obama had created isis. typeshe second amendment might have solutions when all else fails. all of these were common places in the right wing world of discussion among themselves. liberals and the establishment called for apologies, but donald
trump said time and again, we are saying what is on our minds. for the establishment folks who do not like it, that is just political correctness. let me describe the state of opinion he encountered in the far right media. first, the democrats. the long-standing resentment against the liberal elite, the stuff of right-wing campaigns going back to at least pat buchanan, was not only alive and thriving, it had taken a new dow dimensions since the obama presidency. race became the subtext of projections like the famous accusation that obama hates white people. this created an open season on obama. he was a foreigner and therefore, a illegitimate president. he was a muslim. as late as september of 2015, 30 3% of republicans nationally believed obama was a secret muslim, according to his cnn
survey. and muslims where the new enemy of the u.s., the successors to struggles against nazi-ism and communism. muslims were fighting the u.s. abroad and at home through terrorism. obama was on their side. he and the democrats were betraying america. kind of a -- i am trying to give you a picture of what was being said in a taken for granted way in this world. they wereg was that living under occupation. in the summer of 2015, the jade helm exercises of the u.s. military in the southwest were widely seen as an intent to impose martial law in red states like texas. but, it was opinion on the populist right about the
republican party establishment that was trump's most significant discovery. there, too, resentment had been simmering. 2012, theto candidacies of huckabee, perry, and others who have been d then defeated. the winning establishment candidates wrere rhinos, republicans in name only. they didn't the party to defeat. only a real conservative could lead the party to victory. instead, as the head of the tea party nation put it, the republican establishment forced mccain and romney dummy populist's throat, like the central committee of the communist party. and yet, it was tea party activism they thought with as much justification that got the republican party alive and kicking during the obama years.
they were living in state legislatures and governorships. they turned the house of representatives republican in 2010, and later the senate. they expected results. they expected obamacare to be taken down. all they got were dozens of futile resolutions. the number two in the republican house was taken down in his primary. the house later, john boehner, removed from office. but still, the republican establishment was lining behind jeb bush. the feeling amongst the populist base was changing. resentment of the establishment was being superseded. resentment had given way to a betrayal.f the 62%x news poll found that
of republicans felt betrayed by their party's office holders. trump made another discovery. a line had been drawn in the sand. there was an issue about which neither side, the republican establishment or populist bays, was willing to give an inch, immigration. on the establishment side, the issue was straightforward. the american population was changing rapidly and the republican party was living under demographic domeni damocles. the eighth knowledge this as to what they had lost the election, a document commonly called the autopsy report. without developing support amongst the new immigrant groups in the u.s. the party was doomed in national elections. candidate for president lindsey graham put it in 2015, but if we
do not pass immigration reform, if we do not get it off the table in a reasonable and practical way, it doesn't matter who you run in 2016. we are in a demographic death spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces is with the hispanic community and in my view, to pass comprehensive immigration reform. if you do not do that, it really does not matter who we run. this announced was an existential threat. if we don't expand the party, it will cease to exist. counter to this, the populist counter was itself an essential threat. the law not of the party, but of the country, of america. that is what was at stake if immigration was not ended and turned around. we could spend a long time here, parsing through the issues and dynamics of
populism. it made any give on the immigration question impossible, but for brevity sake, i quote in anne coulter, an early trump supporter. this is not an election about who can check off the most boxes on a conservative policy list, or who is the nicest person. this is an election about saving the concept of america, an existential election like no other has ever been. anyone who does not grasp this is part of the problem, not part of the solution. perceived what trump was a situation where the republican establishment and the party's populist base had become -- ru here in second
essay, hofstadter's 1964 "the paranoid style of american politics." for him, the issue is crucial. he writes, perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of a post interests which are felt to be totally irreconcilable. and thus, by nature, not susceptible to the normal, political processes of bargain and compromise. and now, we come to what i call the great irony of the 2016 election. we all know where trump came down on the contrasting existential views. he did not merely meet the
populists. he raised them like a gaudy better at a poker table. first, he promised to build a wall. he called in short, for nothing less than ethnic cleansing. then he doubled down on muslims, promising to ban them from entering the country. and he won, both the nomination and general election. why the great irony? because the calculation of the republican establishment was that without expending the party's base there could be no national victory. and the only place left to expand the base was an opening to immigrants, above all latinos. trump did the opposite. he alienated immigrants as much as he possibly could and yet, he expanded the base. that's the great irony.
there were two major areas of expansion. one was the star of the election cycle, the white male working-class male. this consisted of voters migrating from the democratic side and voters who had become indifferent to elections and were now electrified by the campaign. conflict managed to c both democratic and republican establishments into a single corrupt entity and present himself as the opposition to this corrupt political establishment. not had exceptional appeal only to the working class that had been disappointed in the continuing diminishment of its life chances, but it spoke as well to the second new base brought into the trump coalition. this was the most fringe element
of the american electorate, the white supremacist, the white identity, sometimes neo-nazi, sometimes kkk voters who had not played a direct role in american elections in decades. and now, they developed an internet base of identity widely known. it is no stretch of the imagination to think of how t rump's campaign, his no holds barred attacks on people of color galvanized this fringe. sure, there was the occasional in by the kkk for an office louisiana, but now he was talking their language at the level of presidential politics. he not only mobilized them, he institutionalized it. by august he brought in stephen bannon as the head of his campaign.
he has established himself as the hinge of moving news and conspiracy thinking and what he called populist nationalism. one could certainly call it white nationalism. the fringe publications through news,kes of "drudge," fox and finally into the mainstream media. as trump did to the anti-immigrant feeling among the republican right, the connection radicalized and olga riced th -- radicalized and olg vulgarized the trumpian message. multiculturalism became understood as cultural marxism and multiculturalists as globalists. oxservatives, you
can ask me about that later. finally, through the theitutionalization of trump campaign and now in the trump administration, there were introduced troops of conspiracies into the american wees, the likes of which have not heard since the 1930's. trump, in one of his speeches in the latter part of the campaign: we have seen firsthand in the wikileaks documents in which hillary clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the distraction of u.s. sovereignty. they ordered to enrich these global financial powers for special interest friends and d
onors. ok, we believe it -- we will leave it at that. here ist trump talking about an international conspiracy of bankers. ,his is more or less directly zion,tters of lacking the word "jew." the republican party coming into office often resembles the far right parties who have been in power in europe in recent years and who largely have origins with one foot in the era of classical fascism of the 1920's and 30's. with the free market, free trade, anti-welfare state conservatism of the since 1980 party fence 198
that paul spoke of, right now it seems to be an open question, which of these entities is going to govern over the next four years? thank you. [applause] ok, for the question and answer period, we are passing around cards -- or picking up cards, as the case may be. >> i am going to read these three questions and then i am going to turn back to the panelists. so, one question is, how would the elimination of medicare, obamacare, and lower medicare
reduced demand for health care and affect the health care industry? didsecond question is, why trump win? [laughter] >> and the third question is, with the recent attention given to the french far right candidate, the brexit in england, the incursion, and now donald trump's election, does this show a trend to super nationalism, which has almost always preceded a world war? ask our panelists to respond to which ever one of those questions they would like to in turn? who would like to start? >> thank you. is, does brexit, does the rise of right parties
doesrope, one might add, the breadth and power of things like putinism, to the indicate a trend in the world? it is the very definition of a trend. the question i wonder about is, what is there that might be a break on that trend? um, withr years, conservativism, we have certainly seen extreme at the , comingw would you say into power. it was always in a funny way reliable that they would overreach themselves. problemsd run into within their own communities and
coalitions that would over time, undo them. i am not as sanguine about that trendism obtaining in the towards trumpism and brexitism and so forth. that is largely because there is i think, in these movements there is more of a tendency to change the rules once they are in power and make it more difficult for the ordinary means or political means of bringing establishment -- they might not be as available as we once had taken them for
granted. trumpill do the why did win question, so you have to do the health care question. it seems necessary at this point to remind people that hillary got 2 million plus more votes. that is the mantra we should hold onto when we wake up at 3:00 a.m., depressed. i have read lots of analysis, how much people liked trump versus how much people did not like hillary. one piece of analysis keeps reemerging. it looks like the comey bombshell, for lack of a better term, really did have an impact. i corresponded earlier today with colleagues saying, do you have any data and how many
people voted on the basis of abortion, either one way or the other? and they did not. but my colleague sent me an analysis showing a considerable number of people who made up their mind in the last week. more went to trump than hillary. think --clearly, i that is a factor and it is too bad it happened. also, i mean, hillary of course, as many of you know, has criticized -- excuse me. was criticized for not campaigning enough in wisconsin and michigan. but she was in pennsylvania all the time and she lost that by more votes -- you lost pennsylvania by 70,000 votes. she lost the others by a
combination of 30,000 votes. so, all of which is to say there is not one clear-cut argument, but james comey is not my favorite person at this point. to answer in a short time. very quickly on health care. the u.s. is a huge outlier on health care. providing not only in less coverage, but basically spending twice as much for the health care that we consume compared to any other country. and i think the cross national evidence is very clear that the reason for that is because other countries have used government to create countervailing power that can negotiate powers effectively with health care producers. medicare is the most effective remaining aspect of the american health care system that does that. so, the idea that individual consumers, or individual
insurance companies will be able to provide that countervailing power, i think there is no evidence for that. i think the cross national evidence is very clear on that. again, people should note it is not that americans consume more health care, but we pay twice as much. how did trump win? i agree, i think comey did make the two percentage point difference probably that cost clinton the election. but i think more broadly, i think the media has enormous amounts to answer for. i think at the end of the campaign americans were divided, who was more dishonest? just check out the fact checker. it really to me is the indication of a deep failure that one should examine on the part of the media and their attempt, i don't know, to prove they are nonpartisan, or tough
on everyone. i do not know what drove that, but i think it was fundamental. i want to quickly say something about two things i think are sort of deep reclamation's as to why -- sort of deeper explanations as to why trump won. the gradual grounding down of many americans who had previously voted democratic. in any believe that democrats were capable of delivering better economic outcomes for them. there were a number of things that fed into that. one is the growth of antigovernment sentiment, a very lopsided argument that has been carried out in american politics over the last 30 years, which is basically leaving most americans, even those who do benefit enormously from usvernment's role in vario places, like medicare or social security or environmental production. they don't believe it.
secondly, democrats are divided internally. they are a party that is largely funded by the wealthy, just like the republicans are funded by the very wealthy. unions are a much weaker force than they were a generation ago. there is no question that has blunted the democrats ability to produce and convey populist economic message. the last one, and i think this is one that really deserves a lot of soul-searching, one reason why democrats have no longer convinced many of these voters that they have economic solutions to offer for the challenges is because it is not clear what those economic solutions are. --hink we really need to not now do i think the democrats are offering a better economic package for working-class americans than the republicans are? yes i do. that is not the same thing as saying they're offering a good package. in that, they share the circumstances that every
affluent democracy shares. technology,nges in changes in the global technology -- in the global economy have been brutal for working-class citizens, especially those without a college education in this new climate. true awaypecially from urban areas. the solutions to it are not obvious. the idea that if the democrats message better or handed control of the party over to one faction or another, they would have some great solution, i am skeptical of that. >> just one more quick thing won, and trump one -- it is a painful one for us here. the gender gap, the euphoria for the first woman president, which many of us in this room i suspect had, was not shared widely.
the only group of white women that hillary one were college-educated white women. 9%.only one them 51%-40 african american women and latina women voted heavily for hillary. for many of us, that is an extremely painful thing. >> to some extent i hope my talk addressed that. i want to throw in at least one other thing, maybe two. , trumpthat by the end had actually developed an extremely sophisticated computerized system of locating voters. obama and his campaign
set a standard for that kind of thing. they were largely responsible for the turnout and so forth. around, in a way that has not been much discussed, the trump campaign did that. there is a figure called robert mercer who people may be familiar with. robert mercer is probably the largest donor on the republican side in this election cycle. cruz and supporting then moves over to trump. his daughter rebecca is on the transition team. the way he made his money -- and he made a lot of money -- was in hedge funds. he was in the most successful quantitative hedge fund on the
planet. he develops an arm in which he took the technology from that hedge fund, which has stayed ahead of all of its competitors, a political arm of it using that technology, using similar tech knowledge he -- technology. there was an institution he developed called cambridge associates. effective.ery what they did was they brought to bear the kinds of psychological profiles used in advertising. they brought that to bear using data from the internet. trump voters and sending precise messages,
personalized messages. that is the one thing i want to say. the second thing is very brief. i do not underestimate the importance of celebrity. in california, there has been one statewide republican elect since about 1994, and that was schwarzenegger. celebrity is very powerful. people who take politics seriously on a day-to-day way, they may not appreciate the extent to which seeing a familiar face from television speaks to people. already democrats are talking about running tom hanks in 2020. [laughter] >> we have another round of
questions for each of our panelists, and then a more general one. do you see any path to protecting abortion of fighters -- providers? is it anyway to stop the ryan budget? do you think the trump campaign was well thought out, or is he simply being himself? thinkeryone, what do you of the efforts for recounts and the popular vote/electoral votes debate? we will start with carol. >> the question is what is the path to protect providers? when we think about abortion providers and the protection they need, until very recently we are talking literally about physical attacks on them. ofe is where the selection
it becomes problematic. when abortion providers for started being attacked and 1990's, starting in the bill clinton was president. janet reno, who died literally ,he day before the election janet reno immediately established a task force on the protection of providers. some of you might remember 1998, a doctor was killed in buffalo. he was killed on a friday night. that wednesday, the director of that clinic, a colleague of mine, was summoned to washington and met with reno. janet reno said what do need to keep your clinic open? the director said i need federal marshals to protect my doctors. and she did it. throughout her year as that her tenure as attorney general,
she's at federal marshals to providers who are under particular attack. expensive.at that is having three people and ships of eight hours each guarding people is very costly. janet reno made that commitment. it is not at all clear to me that jeff sessions -- and i should say since then, we have had more affirmative protection of providers coming from democratic attorney general's like eric holder. shortly after obama was elected, some of you might recall dr. george tiller was killed in kansas. eric holder's response was immediate. how can we protect abortion providers? i don't know.
their physical protection has a lot to do with what an attorney general and the department of justice is willing to do. now underroviders are -- are now under legal attack, being subpoenaed by marsha blackburn's committee. the democrats on that committee have been flawless. they have repeatedly called for the committee to be disbanded. this committee has consistently leaked the names of the doctors of subpoenas and the fetal tissue researchers putting these people at physical risk. i don't know. there are ways to make them feel much isolated.
just show up at clinics, bringing notes of encouragement. to be honest, i'm not prepared to say this moment, except to acknowledge this is a serious problem. >> i want to sneak in one must comment about why trump one. sorry. i think a factor that is not discussed enough -- though carol made a nice point about the share of the women's vote that he received -- i think in a lot of ways it is not surprising that a lot of working-class rural, especially in areas, non-college-educated voters, especially men, voted for trump that would return -- response to these kinds of appeals. it is said to me, but not surprising. what i think a lot of people by surprise was how little pricey paid among other republican constituencies. at the end of the day, even
though two thirds of americans said he wasn't qualified to be president, almost half of them voted for him. suggests thathat in this is where political science has been pretty good. i understand what is been happening out there. american politics has become more and more tribal. people stick with their tribe. i think the clinton campaign was that ifg on the premise they could just point this out enough times -- and most of the advertisements were just letting trump speak. i think they pointed out enough times that enough republicans would desert him that that would carry the day. i don't think that was a foolish strategy. i think beforehand i believed it would work. it didn't. we need to draw some implications from that. is there any way to stop the ryan budget?
very complicated issue. this short answer is it depends on what parts you are talking about. a lot can be done through reconciliation process, which means that you only need 50 votes plus mike pence to break a tie. figuring out exactly what can be done in reconciliation and what can't is a complicated matter. medicare, the kind of reforms they are talking about, i would be surprised if they are able to do a lot of that through reconciliation. there are going to be different pieces of that agenda that are going to face different kinds of thresholds in the senate. some stuff could be filibustered. it does seem like -- i personally don't like the filibuster, i think it is a pretty anti-democratic institution and makes it more antidemocratic. in this case, i'm not sorry that it is there. that will have an effect on a lot of legislation. there is quite a bit the can be
done through reconciliation. finally come on recounts in the electoral college, i don't like the fact that people are pushing for the recount. at ank it is a distraction time when there are a lot of other things to pay attention to. i think it fuels a downward spiral that we desperately need to resist. this message was exists is on the left as well as the right that all institutions are corrupt, that every thing is rigged. that alienates people from our institutions in ways that i think are likely to be profoundly dangerous and destabilizing. think this is mainly a vehicle for the green party to organize, rather than a serious intervention in electoral college six. -- politics. they're going to get a hell mailing list from doing these efforts.
i think if the green party had been interested in donald trump at bank president, there may have been some things they may have done a little earlier. it is also a distraction from the reality of the electoral college. if we believe in the idea of democracy, that citizens should run a country, it is a profoundly undemocratic institution. it is an 18th-century institution. this will be the second time in recent history when the person who won the most votes was not chosen as resident. this -- as president. this will be the second time with all of these distractions that will limit our abilities to determine what we think in the 21st century, that it is more important to rep sent wyoming's rights in the process than it is making sure that the person who gets the more votes of the citizens with the office.
-- wins the office. >> paul mentioned the word filibuster. that oneed earlier --ng to keep one zion o for this republican domination of washington is to watch whether they change the rules of things. i think that whether the filibuster remains or whether it gets knocked out and if it gets knocked out very early on, this will be a very telling indicator of which direction things will go in. since it is kosher to say -- to throw in an addendum on the loss
, this is a side thing, but it about the discrepancy between the polls and the actual election. this is a hypothesis of mine, at the center for right-wing studies mexican to study this question a bit question of it. i worry about this big a reverse bradley effect. people who did not regard saying i'm going to vote for trump to posters, regarding that is kind upon. will be looked down once the voting came around, they voted for trump. i suspect that is a significant thing come and look forward to trying to develop some data around that.
waslly, the question for me did he think this stuff out, or was it personality. the personality question is a norm us. -- enormous. the way things will turn out going forward. there is a famous playboy interview with trump from the myly 90's, in which he says dealmaking is a lot more improvisational than people think. i think he brought that to the campaign. of it could god
this way or it could go that way at many different stages. to give you an example, one day and has a mexico city lovely meeting with the president of mexico. he flies back to phoenix and offers a red meat anti-mexican speech. that is in the course of one day. hall withsome town sean hannity in which he was asking the audience whether we should build the wall. thingsiability in those is considerable. he seems to carry two sides. when one of the other side it seems to be
dependent on factors beyond my comprehension. [laughter] >> i think we are out of time. before we break up, i would like to thank christine troost, silk the best cynthia alvarez and others for doing some of the detail work here. [applause] >> i would also like to thank our sponsors, and most of all, please applied once again for our panelists. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the presidential library
should know is friday, january 20. c-span has live coverage of all of the days events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org, and also on the c-span radio app. next on c-span, a look at potential changes to u.s. trade policy under the trump administration. then, president obama and japanese prime minister shinzo abe a speak at pearl harbor. after that, or president george w. bush on north korea. that is followed by former first lady laura bush on the plight of korean refugees. journal,'s washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming wednesday, politico congressional reporter and a news reporter will discuss the
records of the men donald trump has tapped to lead his energy and interior departments, as well as the transition taking place at those agencies. guests will also discuss what will happen to obama era policies, such as the clean power plan and drilling restrictions under president-elect trump. an economic policy fellow from the heritage foundation and a league of conservation voters government affairs senior vice president will look ahead at energy and environmental policy during the first 100 days of the trump administration and beyond. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. wednesday, secretary of state john kerry outlines his ideas on how middle east peace can be achieved. live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.
wednesday night on c-span, a look back at some of the notable house and senate hearings of 2016, including testimony by michigan governor rick snyder on the flint water crisis and wells fargo cea john stumpf on illegal accounts. here's a look. what are you doing to make they communicate with you, especially regarding issues of great importance like the people of flint? >> i stood up in front of the entire state of michigan in my state of the state address and madethese people that these terrible decisions, that showed a clear lack of common sense failed us. since they work for me, i am responsible for their actions, and i take that responsibility. i kick myself everyday for what i could have done to do more. i told the people of michigan there is a commitment, a
passionate commitment to say we are going to change the culture in these places. i apologize to the people of flint. a deserve that. i understand why they are angry. it is terrible but they are having to go through. we made a commitment to fix the problem. do to helplot we can the people of flint address so many issues. i am absolutely committed to do that. we are following through in getting that done. i'm going back to flint's tomorrow to roll up my sleeves and keep working at the issue. >> it is not helping customers get what they need. if it was coming you wouldn't have to squeeze your employees so hard to make it happen. up thell about pumping stock price, isn't it? shorthandelling is for deepening relationships. >> let me stop you right there. you say no? here are the transcripts of 12
quarterly earnings calls that you participated in from 2012 to 2014. the three full years in which we know this game was going on -- this scam was going on. youe are calls where personally made your pitch to investors and analysts about why wells fargo is a great investment. , youl 12 of these calls personally cited wells fargo's arsenal success at cross-selling retail accounts as one of the main reasons to buy more stock in the company. >> wednesday, notable house and senate hearings of 2016 on the flint water crisis, the epipen price increases, wells fargo unauthorized accounts and cable and satellite billing problems.
that is 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now we look at how the new congress and the trump administration could change current trade laws and pending agreements. we spoke to bloomberg news reporter on washington journal. this is just under one hour. "washington journal" continues. host: michelle jamrisko joins discussingcontinue trade policy in the incoming trump administration. i want to start by amending our viewers -- fight reminding viewers of the key players with trade issues, starting with president-elect trump's nominee for commerce secretary. guest: wilbur ross has been selected [indiscernible] the top trade guy in the administration, someone the transition team has said believed trade policy.