Donald Trump and the Republican Party CSPAN January 2, 2017 11:33am-12:59pm EST
more precisely. as i said, it was about one third on each case. richard picked up a couple of more points. they moved up both, but richard picked up a couple of more points, then did chris. richard wins the debate, although indeed there were still considerable number of undecideds who were not the least bit influenced by either guy, so thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> this past september the national highway traffic safety administration announced guidelines for autonomous vehicles. tonight we hear from the occult
technology experts and government consultants about the latest technology and the future of transportation. >> so, today 90% of the accidents on our roadways are due to human error. distracted driving, drunk driving, speeding. theheory if we eliminate humans from the driving equation we will eliminate over 90% of the accidents. that by itself is huge. mentioned it before, additional mobility for elderly and disabled use. that piece is really exciting. another one is a rethinking of land-use. driverless vehicles will create the potential for either reducing the parking requirements needed or even relocating them. if we have more of a shared use society where people are not purchasing as many vehicles but they are sharing them, we could potentially reduce the land-use dedicated for parking and in
cities that could be around 50% to 20% of the land. try to reimagine san francisco streets without that dedicated land. the potentialw for adding bike lanes, more pedestrian spaces, that's my utopian perspective. >> you can watch the rest of that production from the commonwealth club of california tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, generally 20th. c-span will have live coverage of all the days events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app.
>> now, a look at the election of donald trump as president and what it means for the future of the republican party. this was hosted by the university of california berkeley center for right wing studies. it is just under an hour and a half. kim: i had to look at my notes for this. we will be hearing from carolyn joffe first. she's a professor of sociology america at the university of california davis. a scholar of the social dimensions of reproductive health and has written widely about other provisions among other topics, including a recent
book, dispatches from the abortion war. our next speaker today is paul pierson. he's the john gross professor of political science here at berkeley. in american politics and public policy, compared of political economy and social theory. he is a best-selling offer of "the new york times" on a number books, including most recently a book that he co-authored with jacob hacker entitled america amnesia." our third panelist is laurence rosenthal. he is the chair at the center of the berkeley center for right wing studies. he writes widely on the right in the u.s. and italy and is currently working on a study of the contemporary american right.
that has taken on increasing sort of relevance and importance. the format for today's panel is that each panelist will talk or approximately 12 minutes or so and then we will have question and answers in the way that the question and answers will work is that we will pass out cards, people will write questions on them and i will collect a couple of questions and then have the panelists answer and then we will do that back and forth a couple of times. so, without further do, let me turn the microphone over to carole. [applause] carole: um.
ok, great. thank you. thank you, kim. thank you to my friends and colleagues for organizing this. thank you all for coming. schoubt, should it sing -- vitzing as the afternoon goes on. my job is to talk you about how abortion and lgbt issues played out in the campaign and i'm going to argue to the you that they played an important role in that the religious right played an important role. although not in the way that we have seen in previous elections. much of the trump rhetoric, you will remember, was about immigration -- we should say anti-immigration, about economic populism. talk about the issues
of abortion and lgbt issues that much, and when he did there was a significant gap at times. that thesel argue issues were very important in this election. let me start by talking about what didn't happen. more optimistic one from a certain point of view compared to the last election. it showed you the various people who made out great, the various republicans who made outrageous statements about reproductive issues, both abortion and birth control. the 2012 election, it was a loss. the first and probably most there, the first quote from representative todd akin, who should have won a senate seat in missouri but instead said very famously that if it was a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.
that didn't work. he lost his race. i'm not going to go through all of them, but the next most famous was again a republican in had been predicted to win indiana. he basically set of pregnancy came fromfrom rape god. he lost and on and on. after the 2012 elections, i remember that we were all reading that the republicans have been summoned for messaging and told how not to talk about abortion and contraception and they were told you don't talk about rape, ok. and they didn't. remarkable discipline from the republican candidates in this past election. periodic exceptions from trump
himself. candidates, the democrat and republican say? hillary said what you would have expected her to to say. a strong support for abortion and marriage equality. for the first time, and this is significant, it's one of the ways in which bernie sanders pushed her, for the first time she came out in support for the hyde amendment. excuse me, came out in support of repealing the hyde amendment, the legislation that for bids the use of basically, for medicaid patients, for poor women to get abortion services. what did trump say? you might remember that he had that very interesting interview with chris matthews at a town he said -- where he was asked by chris matthews -- do you believe in punishment? trump finally said yes.
he didn't know what the punishment should be. it's not part of the slides because i didn't want to make it too long, but it's part of this back and forth were at one point chris matthews asked him if the man involved should get a punishment and trump said no, absolutely not. needless to say, this was a gaffe. is newly because trump to the antiabortion movement, he never got the memo that's not how the antiabortion movement talks. you don't talk about punishing the woman who gets an abortion. she's a victim. the person that you punish of course 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 third debate, the very last debate, when chris wallace asked him -- asked them both about abortion and he made a very strong statement, a very
sensationalized statement that has very little relation to aality, but basically was very loud dog whistle to the antiabortion movement about the so-called partial-birth abortions, that women can get abortions and in nine months the baby is ripped out, etc., etc.. i'm not sure i need to tell the audience this, but somewhere between 1% and 2% of abortions in the united states take place in the third trimester and that's often, not always but very often because of severe fetal anomalies or serious life-threatening illnesses for the woman. so, what did he say about gays? his tone about gays was quite different. after the very horrible incident in north carolina, you write member that you might remember that since the orlando nightclub was shot up, his statement was
going to protect you. he said a sort of nice thing about them by taking the , buttunity to trash islam we won't go there now. interestinglyuite , a very different tone throughout the campaign about abortion and about gays from trump himself. not necessarily, as we will see, from those that support him. and this worked. the -- what the campaign was doing, meanwhile, was taking some very important steps to make clear to the evangelical community, a very important voting block, the never mind put trump says, that even if he doesn't get the message, the campaign is taking care of you. the most important aspect of
this, of course, was the selection of mike pence. as he often says, christian first, then a republican. i forgot what's in the middle. but a christian first. christian first, then a conservative, than a republican. americannobody in politics has better, more impeccable antiabortion and anti-gay print -- credentials and mike pence. you might remember that when he was governor of indiana he initiated one of the most severe anti-gay bills. quite unpopular in indiana. he also started one of the most fringe antiabortion bills, quite tosual with respect antiabortion legislation, forbidding abortions on the basis of feel anomaly. that was the real push of the envelope. it wasn't just the selection of mike pence.
the trump campaign released a list of potential supreme court nominees quite early on. they had been vetted by the heritage foundation. probably most significantly, because there was -- i mean, throughout the campaign there in evangelicaln circles -- can we really support the guy who was married three times and who talks about wrapping women's genitals, etc., etc.? there was some turbulence, one might say, but the letter that he released in september when hillary was still ahead, although we no longer know what that means. anyway. thatleased a letter addressed basically all the major antiabortion organizations , where he laid out a series of premises that was the antiabortion wishlist. defunding planned parenthood, signing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, even though roe versus
wade guarantees constitutional upper protection for toy for weeks. that he would make this item permanent. and it worked. trump -- got more evangelical voters than george w. bush did. he got 81% of them. at 78.ly this was not only an election promise. 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 -- "60 minutes." she asked him about roe versus wade and she made it clear -- he made it clear at the end of it that he was still committed to overturning it.
she said -- what will happen to the women question mark he said -- well, they will go to other states. he said we will see what happens when asked if it was ok. revealing to everyone that he meant what he said. on marriage equality he was a bit more equivocal. do you support marriage equality? >> well, it's irrelevant, because it's already settled. well, one could argue that roe was settled in 1973. the wonderful decision on marriage equality was settled only in 2015, if i'm remembering the year correctly. so, whether this difference between abortion and gay rights has to do with what trump himself really feels or whether it is his stance? i'm more inclined to think maybe this reason, the american public is more on board with american -- marriage equality than
abortion at this moment. who knows. anyway. we have seen some differences there. takeactivists should not much comfort just because he hates abortion or is more willing to attack abortion more. i believe that both issues will have serious troubles in a trump presidency. we can see this immediately. this is from 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. it means no health care provider tol be forced either participate in any aspect of abortion. not just performing the abortion . it could be scheduling. case of an ambulance dispatcher who refused to send
an ambulance to a woman in crisis or needed a life-saving abortion. is true with respect to gays and health care. this means that 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 theviduals who are lgbt second one is arguably more worrisome, protecting human life from conception. this is really a statement of personhood. theng-term strategy of antiabortion movement for many years has been not simply to overturn roe, but to establish the fact that a fetus has a legal status of a person. this would obviously not only -- make abortions
obviously illegal. if the fetus is a person, you can't murder of person. it would also take various forms of contraception and make them illegal. all kinds of make stuff much more problematic. this will not happen right away. although the personhood campaigns, which have up until now failed, we now have one way of getting there, it would be a constitutional amendment, which is not easy, but we know that it would take two thirds of the states. we now have 33 republican governors. this is something to worry about. happenedthing that has after the election, where we can see that trump has taken very seriously his commitment to the religious right and to their issues is -- look at the appointments. he sides mike pence, his chair of domestic policy for the transition is ken blackwell.
not a household word, but a very , very conservative african-american best known for his commitment to "pray the gay the belief 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. just named the head of health and human services today. issue is the repeal of the affordable care act. in particular he is known for opposing the contraceptive provisions. one of his famous quotes is that there is not one woman in america who can't afford contraception on her own.
maybe there is no one who can't afford a condom, although i suspect that there are some women who literally can't, but nevertheless the most effective forms of contraception, probably the main thing responsible for the rate of abortions having dramatically decreased in the last couple of years is something called long acting reversible contraception. this is out there and it costs $1000. it's not a bad deal because it lasts 10 years. $100 per year isn't so bad for these women. but the kind of women who are dependent on -- let me put it this way, a lot of women in society don't have $1000. since the trump election, planned parenthood has reported a 900% increase in women calling their clinics, wanting to get on their lark before it is taken
away through the aca. finally, we don't have time at this moment to go through all the things that supporters of gay rights and abortion rights have to worry about. there is one thing, however, that i want to call to your attention. that is the witchhunts that is already 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 , pleading to the accusation that planned parenthood and other abortion -- marsha may be part blackburn -- who by the way is on the transition committee, masher -- marsha blackburn has chaired this congressional committee that has really 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. none of the hundreds of providers i have interviews -- interviewed cell baby parts. what they do, with patient permission, if they are connected to a university, is they donate fetal tissue for research. the research that, by the way, has brought us the polio vaccine and will likely bring us other vaccines if the fetal tissue supply doesn't dry up, which many people are afraid it is. this is just one letter from a doctor in colorado, the letter speaks for itself. saying me start here by that the socially conservative wing of the republican party i don't think we'll ever go away.
the battlesk of 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 that we can draw , and from action partisan point of view it is a bit dispiriting, conservatives pay a lot more attention to the courts and what will happen to the courts than liberals do. this is what we've got. thank you. [applause] ok, i'm just going to sit here. and thank the organizers. and all of you, for coming. i'm just going to launch right in because 12 minutes isn't very long to talk about such -- i mean, you concern me give me longer, but these are momentous events.
undoubtedly this is a turning point in american politics and american society. i'm just going to talk about one aspect of it. before i do that i want to say that i think we should all be very humble in trying to project what is likely to happen. i think that there is in or miss uncertainty. certainly, political scientists should be humble. whennk that a year ago, trump's candidacy was taking wing, i think i knew one political scientist out of, i don't know, 102 i spoke with who thought that there was a reasonable prospect of trump becoming president. so, i think we all should, political scientists certainly should because is about making projections about what's going to happen next. it's also true just because i think that there is tremendous uncertainty. we have not been here before.
this election will break through some institutional barriers, giving republicans unified control. we know that not by itself -- that by itself is going to produce a lot of change. it's also broken through a lot of normative barriers in the campaign. we are seeing things that i think would have been considered unimaginable handful of years before. i think there's lots of room to worry about the extent to which our institutions that we see as so stable and as structuring our politics and social interactions themselves turn out to actually rest on normative foundations. shared understandings of what's appropriate. and what can't be done. that is now pretty clear are a lot less firmly established than we thought. some, we should all because she is in thinking about what's going to happen next. i'm only going to focus on one topic, given the amount of time
i have. yes. what i want to focus on is the relationship between president-elect trump and the republican establishment with respect to domestic policy. affairs is going to be a distinct and wild, wild west kind of domain. i'm not going to try to say anything about that. i want to say something about their interconnect -- interactive this on domestic terror. there's a good chance that that will be pivotal. i want to start by reading you a quote from a few conservatives. the first is from grover norquist, a longtime leader in conservativism. he said this in 2012 during the republican2012
election. it was during the primaries. i think it is a wonderful quote in the way it captures a lot of holds barred.o -- we do notnow need a president to tell us where to go. we know where we want to go. the leadership now for the conservative movement for the next 30 years will come out of the house and senate. take a republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become the president of the united states. this is a change for the republicans. doinguse and the senate the work what the president signs the bills. it does not matter who as long
as they have those working digits." that was in 2012. . david brooks from this morning's "new york times." that donald trump's victory smashes everything. he is hostile to the republican establishment. he cuts across orthodox party lines. this may be a congress with many caucuses. what follows from there is a column about how a flourishing of centrism is just around the corner. quotes, manyse two people would say, "well, we did not get the president with the digits. we got the peerless leader president."
the grover norquist vision is likely to be closer to the truth on domestic policy then david brooks's. there is considerable room for an aggressive yet standard republican agenda. i argue that for several reasons. first, congress is central to policy formation especially when gridlock is rogan. congress rights -- is broken. congress writes the loss. people always are surprised in my classes that we spend so much time on congress, because the media spend so much time talking about the president. there might be a lot of reasons to focus on a trumped administration, that congress -- but congress is going to be a for middle player in passing laws. congress is organized and ready to go. four years ago, norquist was talking about the ryan budget.
it is still there. they have been updating it in various ways, but there are still conversations around it. it is the cornerstone of domestic policy thinking in conservative circles. it is not going away. they are ready to go. unlike the donald trump administration where they do not even have a secretary of treasury named. congress is to set the agenda. -- gets to set the agenda. the president gives the speeches, but in most areas of policy if it requires a statute to do it, it has to move through congress. and so, they will be putting things on the president's desk. his opportunity will be to sign it or not. finally, in many areas of domestic policy, donald trump does not disagree with the republican agenda.
he does not disagree with the ryan budget. , this is also true for many of these mavericks among republican senators. if you look at the list of people that are being trotted out -- i think it is right to focus attention on these actors, issues, in many of the where republican voters are likely to dissent from a trumped administration, they could play a pivotal role. most of these folks are issues ony" on related to the ryan budget. what you are likely to see is what jacob and i called in an earlier book, the republican swiss army knife which has two blades. one is tax cuts for higher income people, and the other is
deregulation. rattle offy, i will some of the things that are likely to be on an extremely expensive domestic policy agenda in the first few months. one, you will see the bush tax cuts redux. you will see huge tax cuts aimed at the highest income groups in the united states. all the nontrivial progress that was made over the last few years in reducing income inequality -- i do not want to say there was huge progress made them up but there was nontrivial progress made through policy. made, butuge progress there was nontrivial progress made through policy. second, you will see deregulation. ,f you look at the stock market it is entirely concentrated
among financial industry stocks. they are doing very well all of a sudden. for reasons i think that are not very hard to understand. consumer protection -- consumer finance attention board which was signed up under dodd frank and has said tens of billions of it iss for consumers -- likely to end up on life support. environment of protection, there are likely to be dramatic changes. many of which are likely to be pursued through a trumped administration without further legislative action. we are likely looking at a regular -- and it a radical transfer -- look at a radical transfer of the welfare state not only with the affordable care act but medicare. -- this a prospect that is likely to be contentious, and i think it would suggest that congressional democrats are
going to plant their flag in trying to defend medicare. there is a real prospect, though, of moving towards what is essentially a voucher system for medicare. the government promised is going to be to provide you with a check of some set amount which you can use to buy private health insurance with the idea being that you would save time -- save money over time -- the government would save money over time. be anegislation would astonishing, huge change following a campaign in which president-elect donald trump promised would not do anything to medicare or social security. it would not only shift the burden of absorbing health care to oldrom the government and sick americans and their families, that it would remove -- but it would remove the most
countervailing source of bargaining power in the american health care system. really, the only bargaining source for organized, institutional are getting power which is the best as regards the private health care sector. that is the main reason -- organized, institutional bargaining power as regards the private health care sector. that is the main reason it is on the chopping block. conservatives recognized in shaping domestic policy that we are now going to several conservative appointments to the supreme court that it had profound effects on wide areas of domestic policy. a lot of those areas are self evident. i want to emphasize one thing that i think is not fully
recognized. that is the possibility you could end up with a supreme that i thinkuld many modern conservative republicans would view -- a court that basically views most of the modern edifice of the federal government as illegitimate. there were four votes back in 2011 or whenever it was -- there were four votes to eliminate the affordable care act entirely as unconstitutional. far from saying a whole are of federal activities also unconstitutional. you could end up with a serious effort on the part of the court, with justices embedded for a very long. iod of timeg per
that might try to move back to a late 19th century court. that is where most federal activity is moved out of bounds by most federal judges. none of this is to say that donald trump is just a guy with sign who is going to everything the republican establishment wants. but a lot of it will look like but at thetional same time very radical republican policy. [applause] [inaudible]
>> is this on? ok. thank you all for being here. thank you to everyone who organized this. in some ways, i should have gone before paul. this is a bit more about how the election came to pass as it did. does 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. every clinton responded that she had been busy preparing for the debate. been alsothat she had preparing for the presidency. the remark that elicited applause from the audience. the issue was that donald trump's campaigning -- that donald trump had not prepared for the residency. that was not the case. he had prepared himself in a serious manner for his run for the presidency. his method was to immerse himself in right wing media. this practice included listening to talk radio of the likes of rush limbaugh, sean hannity. it included monitoring tea party websites and discussions. it also meant following right wing news sites like breitbart news.
what donald trump found there was a collection of online news that constituted taken for granted understandings of the popular right base of the republican party. trump found a reservoir of rifts that were available to him that he could pull out when he thought the moment was right. this was part of his free association style of campaigning. withresonated profoundly the crowds at his rallies. to the outside world, literal and democrats and established republicans and democrats, what he was saying was outrageous, offensive. presidential elections were rigged. that hillary clinton would wind up under indictment. that clinton and obama had created isis.
typesecond amendment might have solutions when all else fails, and so much more. commonplace in the right-wing world of discussion among themselves. the liberals and the establishment called for a policies -- apologies. said herump's audience is saying what is on our minds. the establishment types do not like it, well that is just political correctness. let me describe the kind of political statement donald trump encountered in the right-wing media. first, the democrats. the long-standing resentment against the liberal elite going back to at least pat buchanan was not only alive and thriving, it had taken on new dimensions since the obama presidency.
race became the subtext of projections like glenn beck's famous accusation that obama hates white people. birtherism created open season for alienating obama. he was a foreigner, therefore an illegitimate president. he was a muslim. as late as september, 2015, 43% of republicans nationally believed obama was a secret muslim. 42% according to a cnn survey. 43% according to a cnn survey. and muslims were the new enemy to the u.s. they were fighting the u.s. not only abroad but at home thraw rough terrorism. and obama was on their side. he and the democrats were betraying america. i'll try to give you a picture of what was being said in a kind
of taken for granted way in this world. the feeling was that they, the real americans, were living under occupation. in the summer of 2015, the joint held exercises in the united states were being held as martial law in red states like texas. but it was opinion on the populace right about the republican party establishment that was trump's most significant discovery. there, too, resentment had been simmering. in 2008 in 2012, the candidacies of huckabee, hoffman, kane, santorum, and others had been defeated. all by the republican establishment. the winning establishment
candidates were rhinos. republicans in name only. they doomed the party to defeat. only a real conservative, the populace believed, someone like them, could lead the party to victory. instead, as the head of the tea party nation put it, "therepublican establishment mccain and romney down the populace throat like the central committee of the communist party." yet, it was tea party activism the dot with much justification cap the republican party alive and kicking during the obama years. tea party candidates were winning in state legislators and governorships. ofy turned the house representatives republican in 2010 and later the senate. they expected results. they expected obama care to be
taken down. all they got were dozens of futile resolutions. shots were fired over the bow. the number two in the republican house, eric cantor, of virginia, was taken down at his primary. the house leader john boehner left office. still, the republican establishment was lining up behind jeb bush. the feeling among the base was changing. resentment of the establishment was being superseded. the world had turned. resentment had given way to a feeling of betrayal. a fox news poll in 2016 found 62% of republicans felt betrayed by their parties' office holders. trump made another discovery in his immersion in the far right. a line had been drawn in the sand. there was an issue on which side -- on which neither side the republican establishment nor the populace base was willing to give an inch. that issue was immigration. from the establishment side, the issue was straight forward. the american population was
changing rapidly and the republican party was living under a demographic sword of damacleus. following the election the -- the election, the republican national convention commissioned an analysis of why they lost the election. a document commonly called the autopsy report. without developing support among 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 don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it does not matter who will run in 2016. we're in a demographic dead spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces with the hispanic wemunity is in my view if
don't pass immigration reform. it really does not matter who we in 2016. what this amounts to the establishment view is a threat the party, itpand will cease to exist. counter to this, the loss not of the party but of the country. of america. that was at stake if immigration was ended and turned around. we could spend a long time parcing through the issues and dynamics of populism that made any give on the immigration question impossible. but for brevity's sake, i quote ann coulter. a very early trump supporter. this is not an election about who can check off the most boxes on a conservative policy list or even about who is the best or nicest person.
this is an election about saving the concept of america. an election like no other has ever been. anyone who does not grasp this is part of the problem and not part of the solution. amazing who quotes eldridge cleveland these days. what trump perceived and went forth into was a situation where the republican establishment and the party's populace base had become irreconcileable. each saw it as a crisis and could give no quarter. arguably, the mother text of of american right wing studies is richard hoff steader's 1964 essay "the paranoid style of american politics." for hoffsteader, the condition of being irreconciled is crucial. he writes, "perhaps the central
situation conducive to the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests, which are or are felt to be totally irreconcileable and thus, by nature, not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise." now, we come to what i call the great irony the 2016 election. we all know where trump came down on the contrasting existential views. he didn't merely meet the populace. he raised them like a bettor at a poker table. first, he promised to build the wall and condemned mexican immigrants as bringers of criminals and exploited behaviors.
he called for nothing less than ethnic cleansing. then, he buckled down on muslims -- promising to ban them from the entire -- from entering the country. and he won. both the nomination and the general election. why the great irony? because the calculation of the republican establishment was that without expanding the party's base there could be no national victory and that 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. yet, he expanded the base. that is the great irony. there were two major areas of expansion. one was what you could call the star of the election cycle. the white, male working class. and from workers who had become indifferent to elections and were now electrified by the donald trump campaign. trump had managed to conflict
both republican and democratic establishments into a single corrupt entity and present himself as the opposition to this corrupt political establishment. this had exceptional appeal to classly the working disappointed in the diminishment of life chances, but it spoke as well to the second new face brought into the trunk coalition. this was the most fringe element of the american electorate. the white supremacist, white identity, sometimes neo-nazis, sometimes k.k.k. voters. who had not played a direct role in american elections in decades. which now developed an internet -based identity widely known as the alt right.
it is no stretch of the imagination to think of how donald trump campaign, his no holds are attacks on people of color, galvanized this fringe. sure, there was the occasional run by the kkk or david duke for office in louisiana, but now, it was somebody talking their language at the level of presidential politics. trump institutionalized the old -- alt right. by august, he brought in steven bannon as the strategic head of his campaign. bannon had established himself as the hinge of moving news and conspiracy thinking, and when he called pop lift nationalism. one could certainly call it white nationalism.
out from fringe -- through drudge, fox news, and finally into the mainstream media. it vulgarized the trumpian message. give you a few examples. the real americans became the identitarians. multi culturalism becomes understood as cultural marxism and multiculturalists as globalists. rhinos become conservatives. you may ask me about that later. finally, through the institutionalization of the alt right in the trump campaign and now in the trump administration, they would introduced tropes of hoary conspiracy theories into the american mix 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've seen first hand in the wikileaks documents in which hillary clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of u.s. sovereignty global, to enrich financial powers, special interest friends and donors." okay. we'll leave it at that. here is trump talking about an international conspiracy of bankers. this is, more or less, directly from the protocols of the elders of zion lacking the word jew. so, the republican party coming
into office often resembles the far right parties that have been europeedge of power in in recent years and who largely have origins with one foot in the era of classical facism of the 1920's and 1930's. this contrast with the free market, free trade, antiwelfare state conservativism of the republican party since 1980 that paul spoke of, right now, it seems to me an open question, which of these entities is going to govern over the next four years? thank you. [applause] >> okay. for the question-and-answer period, we're passing around cards or picking up cards as the case may be.
all right, i am going to read these three questions, and then i'm going to turn back to the panelists. so one question is, how was the -- how would the elimination of medicare, obama care, and lower medicare reduce demand for health care and affect the health care industry? the second question is, why did trump win? [laughter] >> and the third question is, with the recent attention given to the french far right candidate, the brexit in england, incursion, and now
donald trump's election, does this show a trend to super nationalism which almost always precedes a world war? so, shall i ask our panelists to respond to whichever one of those questions would like. who would like to start? lawrence? lawrence: thank you. the question is, does brexit, does the rise of right parties in europe, one might add, does the breadth and power of things like putinism, do they indicate a trend in the world? i think that speaks for itself. 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?
in earlier years with conservativism, which certainly seemed extreme at the time, i would say coming into power -- it was almost always a funny way reliable that they would overreach themselves. they would run into problems with in their own communities and their own coalitions that would over time undo them. i'm not as sanguine about that mechanism of painting in the trend toward trumpism and brexitism and so forth, and it's largely because there is, i
think, in these movements more of a tendency to change the rules once they're in power and make it more difficult for the ordinary means, political means of bringing down a weary establishment. they may not be as available as we once have taken them for granted. >> i will do the why did trump win question so you can do the health care question. [laughter] it seems necessary at this point to remind people that hillary clinton got 2 million plus more votes than trump. i mean, that's the mantra we should hold onto when we wake at 3:00 a.m. depressed. and, you know, i've read lots of
analysis how much people liked trump as opposed to people who didn't like hillary. keepsement of analysis reemerging. it looks like the comey bombshell really did have an impact. i corresponded with colleagues earlier today asking if they had any data on the basis of how many people voted on the basis of abortion one way or another. they didn't, but my colleague ant me an analysis showing considerable number of people who made up their minds in the last week. of those who made up their mind in the last week, more went to donald trump then went to hillary to -- hillary. that, clearly, i think was a
factor. too bad it happened. being a partisan for a moment, too bad it happened. also, hillary of course as many of you know -- she was criticized for not campaigning enough in wisconsin and michigan. she was in pennsylvania all the time. she 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 moment. paul: not small questions to short period of time. very quickly on health care -- the u.s. is a huge outlier on
health care across nationally. an outlier in not only providing less coverage but basically spending twice as much for the health care we consume as any other country does. i think the cross national evidence is very clear that the reason for that is because other countries have used government to create count veiling power that can negotiate prices 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 are going to be able to provide that kind of counterveiling power, i just think there is no evidence for that. so, you know, i think the cross national evidence is just very, very clear on that. again, it's not that americans consume more health care than other countries do.
it's that we pay twice as much for the services that are provided. so why did trump win? i agree. think at the end did make the two percentage point difference probably that cost clinton the election. but i would say it more broadly that the media has an enormous amount to answer for. you know, the fact that by the end of the campaign americans were divided about who was more dishonest, hillary clinton for donald trump. -- it just look at really, to me, is an indication of sort of a deep failure that one should examine on the part of the media and their attempt
to prove that they're not partisan or that their tough on everyone. i don't know exactly what drove that. but i think it was fundamental. i want to just quickly say something about two things i think are deeper explanations for why trump won. one is i think the gradual grounding down among many americans who had previously voted democratic and any belief that democrats were capable of delivering better economic outcomes for them. all right? and i think there are a number of things that fed into that. one is the growth of antigovernment sentiment. a very lop sided argument that's been carried out in american politics over the last 30 years, which is basically -- which has ,asically left most americans even those who actually do benefit enormously from the government role in various places like medicare or social security or environmental
protection, that they don't believe it. secondly, democrats are increasingly divided internally. they are a party that is largely funded by the very, very wealthy just like republicans. a party largely funded by the very, very wealthy. are at. where unions they are a much weaker force than they were a generation ago. i think there's no question that 'hat has blunted the democrats ability to produce and convey a popular economic message. the last one and i think this is one that really deserves a lot of soul-searching. one reason why democrats no longer can convince many of these voters that they had economic solutions to offer for their challenges is because it's not clear what those economic solutions are.
do i think democrats are offering a better economic package for working-class americans than republicans are? yes, i do. all right? but that's not the same as saying they're offering a good package. in that, they share the circumstances that every affluent democracy shares. change inhat technology, changes in the global economy have been brutal. for working-class citizens especially. that's especially true away from urban areas and the solutions are not obvious. so the idea that the democrats that her or handed control of the party over to one faction or another -- they would have some great solution? i'm skeptical of that. carole joffee: one more quick thing about why trump won and it is painful for many of us here. i mean, the gender gap, the euphoria about 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 won were college educated white women and she only won them 51/49. i mean, african-american women, latino women voted heavily for hillary. white women didn't. and for many of us that is an extremely painful thing. lawrence rosenthal: to some extent i hope my talk addressed why trump won but i want to throw in at least one other thing, maybe two. one is that by the end, trump had actually developed an extremely sophisticated computerized system of locating voters. remember, in 2012, obama sort of -- his campaign kind of set a standard for that kind of thing and were largely responsible for the turnout and so forth. this time around, in a way that's 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. he begins supporting cruz and then moves over to trump. his daughter, rebecca, is on the transition team. the way mercer 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. and he developed an arm in which he took the technology from that which has stayed ahead of all its competitors, and developed a political arm of it using that technology and similar technology. there was actually an institution, a company he called cambridge
associates, and they were very effective in -- actually what they did is they brought to bear the kinds of psychological profiles used in advertising. they brought that to bear using data from the internet in identifying trump voters and , personalizede messages. that's the one thing i want to say. the second thing i want to say is very brief. i do not underestimate the importance of celebrity. in california, there has been one, statewide republican elected since about 1994, and that was schwarzenegger. celebrity is very, very powerful.
people who take politics seriously in a day-to-day way 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. there is one for each panelist, and then a more general for one. carole, do you see any path to protect the abortion providers? to paul, is there any way to stop the ryan budget? for lawrence, do you think trump's campaign was well thought out by trump, or is he simply being himself? and then for everyone, what do you think of the efforts for
recounts and the popular vote/electoral vote debate? let's start with carole again. carole: okay. so the question is, what is the path to protect providers? well, when we think about abortion providers and the protection they need -- until very recently, we were talking literally about physical attacks on them. and here is where the selection of jeff sessions becomes very problematic. when abortion providers first murder being attacked in in the 1990's, bill clinton was president. janet reno, who died literally the day -- i mean, she died on the monday of the day before the
election. janet reno immediately established a task force on the protection of providers. some of you might remember in 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, met with reno. janet reno said, "what do you need to keep your clinic open?" and the director said, "i need federal marshals to protect my doctors." and she did. and throughout her tenure as attorney general, she sent her own marshals to provide protection. that's very expensive. i mean, it has a certain amount it, butical cost to
also just having three people in eachs of eight hours around-the-clock guarding people is very costly. janet reno made that commitment. it is not at all clear to me that jeff sessions, i mean, and i should say it's been since then we've had more affirmative protection of providers coming from democratic attorney generals like eric holder, who, i mean, shortly after obama was elected some of you might recall dr. george tiller was killed in kansas that spring. eric holder's response was immediate. anyway, so how can we protect abortion providers? i mean, i don't know. in other words, their physical protection has a lot to do with what an attorney general and the department of justice is willing to do. abortion providers, as my last last slide showed, abortion providers are now under attack
by the -- i mean, are now under legal attack, being subpoenaed by blackburn's committee. the democrats on that committee have been flawless. jan schakowsky has repeatedly called for the committee to be disbanded. this committee by the way has consistently leaked the names of the doctors subpoenaed and the fetal tissue rearchers, putting these people at physical risk. i don't know how. i mean, there are ways to make them feel not isolated. many people in their communities do clinic defense or just show up at clinics, you know, bringing notes of encouragement. how one fights marsha blackburn and jeff sessions, to be honest, i'm not prepared to say at this moment except acknowledge this is a serious problem. paul: i want to sneak in one last comment about why trump won.
sorry. i think a factor that is not discussed enough. though, carole made the nice point about the share of the women's vote that he received. i think in a lot of ways it's not so surprising that a lot of working-class voters, especially in rural areas, noncollege educated voters, especially men, voted for trump. it's sad to me but i think in a lot of ways that is not surprising. what i think caught a lot of people by surprise was how little price he paid among other republican constituencies. at the end of the day, even though 2/3 of americans said he wasn't qualified to be president almost half of them voted for him. right? i think what that suggests and this is one of the few places i think political science has been pretty good in understanding what's happening out there -- american politics especially among voters has become more and
more tribal. people stick with their tribe. and so i think the clinton campaign was operating on the premise if they could just point this out enough times, and most of their advertisements were just letting donald trump speak. they could point it out enough times enough republicans would desert him and it could carry the day. i don't think it was a foolish strategy. i think, you know, before hand i believed it would work. but it didn't. i think we draw some implications from that. is there any way to stop the ryan budget? that is very complicated. the short answer is it depends on what parts are talking about. a lot can be done through the reconciliation progress -- process which means that you only need 50 votes plus to break a tie. figuring out exactly what can be
done for reconciliation and what can't is a complicated matter. you know, medicare shall the kind of reforms they're talking about. i would actually be really surprised if they are -- if they are able to do a lot of that through reconciliation. -- there aregoing going to be different pieces of that agenda that are going to face different kinds of thresholds in the senate. some stuff would be filibuster. and it does seem like there are quite a few -- i mean, i, personally, i don't like the filibuster. i think it's -- it makes a pretty antidemocratic institution, the senate even more antidemocratic, you know,
promotes gridlock. but, you know, what's good for -- in this case i'm not sorry that it's there. and that will have an effect on a lot of legislation. but there is quite a bit that can be done through reconciliation. finally, on recounts in the electoral college, i'll just say i don't like, personally, i don't like the fact people are pushing for the recount. i think it's a distraction. i think it a had been interested in donald trump not being president, there were other things they could have done a little bit 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 their country, it is just a profoundly undemocratic institution. it is an 18th-century institution. this will be the second time in recent history with a person that one the most votes did not
win the presidency. this will be the second time there has been all of these structures which were essentially side issues that i think limit our ability to have a solid conversation. do we really think it is more important to recognize wyoming's compared the process to making sure the person who wins the most votes wins the office? >> paul mentioned the word filibuster. i suggested earlier that one thing to keep your eye on about this republican domination of washington will go changeatch whether they 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 think, but it is about the discrepancy between the polls and the actual election. this is a hypothesis of mine, and i hope that the center for right-wing studies gets to study this event. i think there is a good amount of the reverse bradley effect, which is to say that people did
not regard saying, "i will vote for trump," the pollsters, as saying i will be looked down upon, but once the voting came around, voted for trump. i suspect that is a significant thing, and i look forward to trying to develop some data around that. finally, the question for me, did he think this stuff out? or was it personality? the personality question is enormous. in trump's campaign, and the way things will turn out going forward, there's a famous playboy interview with trump
from the early 1990's in which he says, "you know, my dealmaking, it's a lot more improvisational than people think." i think he brought that to the campaign. that there was a kind of, it could go this way or it could go that way, and many different that way at many different stages. for example, one day he goes to mexico city, and has a lovely little 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. there was some town hall with sean hannity in which he was
asking whether they should go ahead and build the wall. asking the audience. in other words, his variability in those things is considerable, and he seems to carry two sides, -- carry two sides. whether one side or the other emerges seems to depend on factors beyond my comprehension. [laughter] >> ok, i think we are out of time. before we break up, i would like to thank christine, cynthia alvarez, and ben for doing some of the detail work here. [applause] i would also like to thank our sponsors, and, most of all, please applaud our panelists. [applause]
>> tonight on the communicators, carnegie mellon university professor and co-author of the book streaming, sharing, stealing will discuss the -- and of data on the its impact on the entertainment industry. access to this detailed user information, and having the skills and thatngness to use the data you think it would provide them with an advantage. you can see they are really investing and outgrowing