tv Joseph Hoeffel Fighting for the Progressive Center in the Age of Trump CSPAN December 31, 2017 7:46am-8:31am EST
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is on twitter and facebook, and we want to hear from you. >> i think we'll get started. my name is nancy marshall and i the great, good fortune of being the executive director of the best public library and at least montgomery county. [applause] possibly the state, possibly the
world. i am proud to introduce joseph hoeffel to you all today. joe is a former congressman, state legislator and county commissioner from an something to. he holds a bachelor of arts degree in english from boston university, a jurist doctorate degree from temple. is the author of the iraq life, how the white house sold the war. in a suburban philadelphia, pennsylvania, community, joe was the first democrat elected in 60 years to the statehouse, the first democrat ever reelected to congress, and first democrat to chair the montgomery county board of commissioners. and a final personal note, his wife, ray manchester, is one or most valued and talented volunteers. [applause]
>> thank you so much. well, hello, everybody. i'm so happy all of you are here it's a beautiful day. you could've been doing other things and i really appreciate your choice to be here with us. and let me say how much i appreciate what nancy marshall and her great staff do here at the abington library. this this is a magnificent comme asset. nancy, thank you and keep on trucking. we're lucky to have such a wonderful library here. it doesn't matter the air-conditioning isn't working. we're going to raise the temperature a little bit here to do anyway, have a good discussion and help you have a lot of questions and comments to make after i make a few remarks about the book and about some of the things that i wrote about in the book. i am delighted that my wife and family are here. you've already heard about francisca and if a few more things to say about francisca in
few minutes, but of all my fellow members who are here i want three of the four granddaughters to be acknowledged. the book is dedicated to our four granddaughters. so also in louisa is not here, mavis and nelly are here. i'm very happy about that. [applause] they may make a commotion and actually early, but that's all right. so it august of 2004 i was campaigning for the u.s. senate in johnstown pennsylvania and i was walking out of town with about 30 volunteers and staffers being trailed by a sound truck, really a big rv with eight-foot tall smiling photos of me on it with the sound blasting. we're trying our very best to make as much commotion as a good going out of town, get as much attention. and they happen happened to beg this one house. the screen door burst open. a young man not more than five
years old marched out, went to the edge of the front porch, surveyed the commotion, put his hands on his hips and said, what the hell is going on here? and i look back and realize, that young man needs an answer. i couldn't give them one at the time because i was laughing too hard, but the shape of our politics today, i think we are all asking the question to one degree or another. our political system is broken. there's too much partisanship, too much bickering, not enough consensusbuilding, no reward for compromising. both political parties are to blame, and the excessive political warfare -- warfarin is really just stagnated our politics in gridlock. i was in politics for 40 years, 25 years in public life. a lot of good things happen to me during that time.
my first visit to the white house in november 1999, 1998 as a congressman a congressman elect. bill clinton was our tour guide in chief, a bipartisan group of nearly elected members. i went out on the truman balcony and got goosebumps. i snuck into the lincoln bedroom and sat on the chair, on the bed and bounced up and down a few times. it was a remarkable experience. the first flight on air force one, members of congress get to hitch a ride wherever the president flies to their part of the world. my first time to set me down on this chair with a telephone in the console, and the flight attendant said feel free to make a phone call. there's a communication specials on the other end of the line. i sat there and looked at it. halfway through the flight i finally picked it up and the guy said hello, congressman. i said, well, would it be okay if i called my wife, francisca?
she's at work. this isn't a government call. it's personal. he said, congressman. everybody who flies on air force one either calls their spouse or their boss. i don't know what you took -- i don't know what took you so long to pick up the phone. i called and francisca laughed at me and i enjoy the rest of the flight or i got to meet john lewis, our civil rights icon. i i took a bus trip with him in 2000 it was the 35th anniversary of the march from selma to montgomery over the edmund pettus bridge, 35 years after he didn't be in over the head. and on the bus tv monitors there was a documentary showing john lewis being overrun by the alabama state troopers in his white trenchcoat. and coming down the aisle 35 years later was john lewis just chatting with people saying hello. he was the host of the trip. and demonstrating that quiet dignity and strength that he is
use for 35 years to call us to our better selves. so many, many exciting things but i've never ever before seen our national government in such disarray and dysfunction as it is today. in the late '60s i protested richard nixon and the vietnam war, and i was convinced that my government was lying to me. 30 years later when george w. bush took us to war in iraq under false pretenses, i was convinced by government was lying again. and to my frustration i was part of that government. and now today i don't trust anything i hear out of washington, d.c. when donald trump speaks i can't tell if he's telling me the truth or greatly exaggerating the truth, or simply lying to my face. he doesn't seem to say what he means by mean what he says. his tweets, the simplicity of his tweets simply don't match the complexities of governing.
he doesn't honor the personal norms and the political dealings that most of the rest of us work very hard to honor. he's divisive, these nasty, he's narcissistic. he plays one group against another group. i really do think, and less the president mince his ways and learned how to bring the country together and wants to bring the country together, he's going to end up being the worst president we have ever had. so the question is what do we do about it? what the heck is going on around her? my granddaughters are exiting before use i use that bad word again. my son gave me a bad look when i said that. so what can we do to bring our country back? it's my view that progressives need to fight for the political center of our political arena, or civic arena. with policies that are not only socially liberal, that's the easy part for us, but also
fiscally responsible. and that's the tough part. by the progressive center i mean, progressives believe government has a vital role to play in our society by leveling the playing field and maintaining a strong safety net, providing for the last among us and creating opportunity as best we can for every american citizen. and the center is that middle ground in our political arena where people can come together, people of goodwill and can seek consensus and compromise, and honor that compromise, and do it without partisan wrangling and extremism. so if we're going to fight for that center, that progressive agenda, what should the agenda be? i think the first thing we need to do is oppose the right wing mantra of starving the beast. the right wing talks about
cutting taxes and shrinking government, and then cutting taxes more and shrinking government work, they call it starving the beast. and i think that offers very little hope to most americans that do need a helping hand in order to improve the quality of their lives and make a better future for their families. so i i think we ought to have r own mantra, balance the budget and invest in people. balance the budget so we can invest in people. we need to get our fiscal house in order, and both parties are badly to blame for the lack of fiscal responsibility. we spend $4 billion a year in our national budget here our national debt is $20 trillion a year. that's like a family having a gross income of $100,000 a year, and the debt of $500,000 a year. that family can't invest for the future. they can't repair their house.
they can't pay for their children's education. that's the situation our country is in today. to fiscal commissions in recent years made recommendations to show us how to do that. it was tough love. there were hard recommendations but there the workable and shod receive discussion in washington. president obama appointed one of them, the simpson-bowles commission, and the president just didn't talk about it at all. all. and i really think barack obama missed a huge opportunity to show leadership on that issue. deficit reduction is the name of the game. it needs to be shared on a 50-50 basis. democrats just want to raise taxes. republicans just want to cut spending. neither one is going to get 100% victory. there's got to be a balance. i suggest 50-50, and i suggest doing it in a way that protects
lower income americans. then we need to invest in people, and i really don't need to describe the ways we should do it. it's pretty self-evident. better public schools so we can maintain that social and economic ladder upwards that has been the mark of america and the pride of america all these years. more economic development, job training, community rebuilding programs. improved health care. there's a lot of healthcare debate lately. i think it's time for medicare for all. i really do. [applause] it's an expensive proposition, but it's less expensive that our inefficient system today that has millions of uncovered americans as well as bureaucratic overhead and excessive paperwork and insurance company, advertising and profit. >> we would be much better off if we just spread medicare to
all of our citizens. then we need to fix our politics. there's a lot of reforms we should return to, all the financing of elections, no more no-bid contracts but the biggest thing i think is fixing gerrymandering. and i believe with a shot to have that happen. there's a very aggressive effort made at the state level, in state court and the supreme court as nationally accepted case in wisconsin. i hope they will in gerrymandering. pennsylvania is one of the poster board. in 2012, 52% of pennsylvanians voted for the local democratic candidate for congress. and there are 18 members of congress so you would think by that racial the split would be nine to nine but it's 13 republicans and five democrats. because the last reapportionment with a ring -- with the republicans in charge, at the
democrats do this in democratic states, so i'm being even had to do, just using pencil thing, politicians cannot help themselves when it comes to redistricting. in the last pennsylvania reapportionment, the democrats were packed in five districts and republicans were spread out as a small majority in the other 13. .. >> rather than the other way around, and it really does need to be reformed. we need to oppose the president's america first agenda. it's just warmed-over isolationist and a brand new nativism that i think is dangerous. we need democratic alliances, we need trade agreements, we need mutual fence, defense
agreements, and we need open and fair trade. and we need to stand for that as progressives. we need to display the courage of our convictions. the right wing is very good at demonizing liberals, and we need to fight back. we've got a story to tell, and we need to tell it. in 1983, francesca and i were on a private trip to israel, and the group taking us took us out to the settlements around jerusalem where very brave israelis were choosing to live on the heights in order to deny the heights to the terrorists. so we met these folks and chatted with them. one more -- one very young woman had three or four children, and someone in the group asked her, by the way, how many children do you intend to have, and she said as many as it takes. well, that was a woman of
conviction, no doubt about it. putting her family's security on the line. when i was in congress one day, i saw that charlie rangel got arrested for demonstrating against the darfur genocide in front of the sudanese embassy in washington, and i thought that was a pretty good idea. a nonprofit was leading it, the police were in on it. it was kind of like professional wrestling, nobody was going to go to jail, but if yo did it -- if you did it, you'd be arrested, pay a $50 fine and hopefully make the point. i came home and told francesca, you know, i'd like to do this. and she asked me some very critical questions about it and thought for a minute, well, if you're going to be arrested, i'm going to be arrested. so she joined me. and i'm really very proud of that. and we went down, and we demonstrated and got arrested trying to stand up for the
people of darfur. and in the paddy wagon on the way to the police station, i was riding with our fellow protestee, dick gregory, who just died. wonderful man. and i said to him, you know, mr. gregory, this is my first time being arrested for civil disobedience, and he said, congressman, that's great, i hope you keep doing it. [laughter] i've been arrested 300 times. when we paid our fine, i looked back, and gregory was in there with all the staff around him, the policemen, the clerical staff, and it was like they were just so moved by his presence, shaking his hand, talking with him. so people of conviction can make a huge impact. progressives need to bring it every day. you know, we have to talk to voters where they live. something that hillary clinton did not do. she did not lose because of e-mails, she did not lose because of jim comey, although
comey should have been fired by obama for breaking the fbi rules. she lost because she lost touch with her democratic roots, with the working class voters of the democratic party. she just didn't bring it. and the best example of anybody who i ever saw who brings it every single day is her husband. i've never seen anyone like bill clinton, his ability to connect with people is legendary and well-earned. i could tell you a lot of stories. every democrat active in national politics in the 1990s and 2000s has about ten bill clinton stories because he was everywhere. but my favorite was a limo ride i took with him after another flight on air force one. he was coming to philadelphia to sign a bill at independence national park, and all of us got an invitation to fly with him. the other guy said, nah, he's a lame duck. i said, yeah. a ride on air force one? of course i'll take that ride. i didn't get to talk to him on the airplane, he was busy, but
when we got off the plane, he said ride in the limo. so i jumped in. i remember three things. the first is he pulled down the flap and looked in the mirror, and his hair was askew, and he licked his fingers a few times and slicked down his hair. i loved that. then he asked me about my district and the surrounding congressional districts, and it immediately became apparent he knew more about my district and the surrounding districts than i did. the man was extraordinarily competent. but the best thing is, and this may be hard to describe, we had a police escort, but the sirens weren't wailing, and it was not even an announced visit. i think he wanted to get out of washington for the day. i think that's basically why he took the trip. we get into philadelphia, and as we would turn a corner, the people walking by would kind of take note of the police cars and then this big, black car with flag on it, and they'd turn and realize is this the -- and then
they'd look in the back window, and there'd be bill clinton. and he was talking to me over here. and as we turned a corner, he would turn and make eye contact with the passer-by and give a little wave and a little nod while that passer's-by eyes got like this. and he did it without breaking his conversation with me. he just did it. and it was amazing. i know those people went home and said, honey, i saw the president today. and he looked at me, and he waved at me! maybe a silly example, but he was, he was on his way out of national politics, and he was still connecting. we've not to learn that we've got to be great communicators. we've got the use social media, all the technology that we have that we can bring to bear. the first time i had to use a teleprompter i was nervous as could be. 9 1996, i was -- 1996, i was speaking at the democratic convention as a candidate.
of course, it was 2:30 in the afternoon, and nobody was watching, but that's all right. they a trained me on the teleprompter, they said there'll be a screen here, a screen here, a screen on the desk and a big screen across the hall. whatever you do, congressman -- well, i was a candidate then -- don't stand there all stiffly and jerk your head from screen to screen. you'll look like an idiot. be relaxed. turn your torso, you know, look at natural as you can. so francesca and i had lunch right before the 2:30 speech. i was a nervous wreck. i was going through this whole thing, i can't do this, i can't do that. [laughter] she said, honey, relax. i've got the answer. forget about this screen, look straight across at the big screen, read your speech and as you do it, just keep turning your shoulders like this. [laughter] so i laughed and i got through the speech. well, i haven't lost my belief
that politics matters and that government is important and makes a difference in people's lives. the night of my first election in 1976 to the statehouse i found myself in the middle of the night on my feet in my boxers dancing around the bedroom throwing a flurry of punches, you know? uppercuts and jabs. i was shadow boxing in the moonlight with excitement of my public office to come. now, the last election i contested was 2010, a four-i way primary for governor, and i came in fourth. there was not a lot of shadow boxing that night. but i haven't lost my belief that all of this matters. i know that donald trump isn't winning right now. he's not expanding his base. his poll numbers are terrible. at the moment i think it's safe to say he's a big loser. but we've got work to do, and we
have to believe in ourselves. we have to move to the progressive center with policies that are socially liberal and fiscally responsible, and we need to get good things done for the american people. thank you. [applause] i would be very happy to answer any questions. before we do, we will have a book signing, and the book will be on sale for anyone who would like to buy it. the publisher's charging $37, which is too much. and amazon's charging $35, so even that's too much. i'm going to charge 30 today, and half of the proceeds will go to the library. and nancy's clapping. [applause] so i want to do my part to support this great institution. if anybody has comments or has a question or or wants equal time?
tim. >> what would you say to the bernie sanders supporters who don't want to move to the progressive center but would rather double down, take the party to the left or even abandon the democratic party completely? >> that might make them feel good, but i don't think they'll have governmental success. america doesn't govern on the extremes. at least not for long. neither party can get much done at all unless it's bipartisan just to begin with. and if it's on the far left of the democratic party or the far right of the republicans, it just isn't going to happen. you've got to be willing to compromise without giving up your principles. or another way of putting it, seek consensus. seek areas of agreement and accept two-thirds of what you want. i'm digressing here a little bit, but i know governor wolf is having trouble with the republican legislature, and i think back to governor rendell.
ed rendell, i think he got two-thirds of his agenda passed into law with an equally republican legislature 15 years ago because he was willing to deal with and do deals with the republicans. nothing unethical, certainly nothing illegal. i mean, just, you know, swapping favors and doing stuff. people scorn that sometimes, it gets a bad rap, but you've got to be able to find common ground. and so that's what i'd say to the bernie sanders folks. yes, ma'am. >> i've been calling brendan boyles' office in washington and also brian fitzpatrick's. a friend of mine told me that the best way to get your point across is to call them. and their aides are wonderful, they said. they write down everything that you say, and they say i'm going to pass it along to whoever. i'm also going to call governor wolf about the educational funds, but i want to hear what
you think is the best way for us to express our opinions to people who represent us. >> the best way is the most personal way that you can imagine. manage, rather. so the best way is to get a one-on-one meeting with the congressman or the mayor or the senator. it's hard to do, no doubt. if you have a group, it might be more doable to get a personal meeting. so a personal meeting is better. a phone conversation with the elected official, that's better than a personal letter. but a personal letter's better than a petition. a petition's better than an e-mail. i don't think e-mails count for much anymore. so just work to make it as personal a touch and repetitive. repeating your outreach is useful too. but, you know, this is valid for going to your township commissioner to get a pothole filled or a stop sign put in or
getting the library air-conditioning system fixed. [laughter] so we lobby all the time at all levels of government, and the more personal it is the better. yes. >> this is intended to be as nonpartisan a question as possible, but what's your position on term limits in d.c.? >> well, i have not favored them for legislative bodies. i to favor them for executive -- i do favor them for executive offices like governor, mayor, president. there's an argument to be made for term limits because number of long-serving office holders get stale, they get lazy, they don't work as hard as they used to. but i think part of the problem with government is the bureaucracies are there, the special interests are there, the governmental agencies are there entrenched and very firm in their beliefs and their seniority. and the legislative branch needs
some people of wisdom and experience also. and if we just have a bunch of newbies in the statehouse or the congress, i don't think that's the best way to go. yes. >> gerrymandering, there was just an article in the paper that it's sitting at, one of the things that's sitting at the court in pennsylvania. and the court is not going to rule on it until the supreme court rules in wisconsin. so i don't, i mean -- >> i read that too. i read that too. i know the group bringing the legal action in pennsylvania is agitating as forcefully as they can trying to get the court to respond. it's hard to lobby a court, you know? you can't get ahold of the judge. but i think through public advocacy they are trying to raise the point that the state court system ought to deal with it. the time to effect -- in time to
affect the 2018 election. my guess is they'll wait until the supreme court makes a decision. and there's a practical reason for it. if the court struck down our plan in time for 2018 just for pennsylvania, we'd have to redistrict in 2019 and then do it again in 2021. so that's a little impractical. so my guess -- but i hope the supreme court deals with this. it's long past time. the supreme court has set forth standards for reapportionment, but the only ones they've enforced are one man, one woman, one perp, one vote -- one person, one vote and that districts must be contiguous. they can't have islands. they've set forth standards like compactness and keeping communities of interest together, but they're never enforced those standards. if they would do it one time, the states would have to redo their plans, at least the states like pennsylvania that have
districts that are not contiguous and that go all over the place for political purposes. there was a hand -- yes, pat. >> what do you think about the electoral college system? >>, it's terrible! [laughter] -- oh, it's terrible. >> can it be changed? >> yes, of course. but it doesn't seem to hold the interest of either the political class in washington in both parties or of, you know, advocates, talking heads on or the citizens. it's antiquated, it's out of touch, it's unnecessary. it's actually undemocratic. i did a little research because i was curious about this. i suspected this. the number of electoral delegates are based upon the number of representatives in your state -- that's, of course, based on population -- plus the two senators. so i thought, well, the smaller states, they get more clout in the electoral college than the bigger states. so i looked at six states out
west, contiguous. they happened to be republican, but i don't think that really -- that's not my point. see if i can remember them. it was montana, north south dak, idaho, north dakota, idaho, wyoming and iowa. they have seven million people between them and 21 electoral votes. pennsylvania has 13 million people and 20 electoral votes. so that group of voters out there -- they happen to be a republican majority and we're kind of purple-ish, but that's really not the point. they just have more impact, each individual voter out there, than you do. and i think with technologied today, i know things can be hacked and we're worried about computer security and rightly so, but i think we can accurately count everybody's vote. in the 21st century. and we ought to do it that way, and we do it for every other election. it gets tricky because it's the
democrats that have been disadvantaged. al gore got ripped off and hillary got ripped off, and so when we complain, the republicans go, oh, you're just being part saab. and if the -- partisan. and if the tables were turned, that's what i'd be saying to them. but it's time to make the election of the president small d democratic. yes, tony. >> hi. so what do you think -- or the bernie sanders question but also the issue of issues is and ideas versus just voter empowerment. seems like the republicans have gotten a a lot of traction by whole voter fraud stuff, and if we could empower more voters, my feeling is we might have more of a democratic process rather than these wonderful ideas of health care for all which would be great, but what if we just changed voting to put it on sundays when a lot of working
class people don't have to work and don't need two days to go from their farms to the towns now? i mean, that's an antiquated system too. >> you're right. and there's a lot of ways to reform voting. changing to a weekend or making it two days, a lot of countries do that. making registration easier. same-day registration, automatic registration. there are a bunch of ways. some states have experimented with some of those ideas, and they seem to work well. it is caught up in politics, there's no doubt. everything seems to be caught up in politics these days, which is frustrating. and it gets back to the whole purpose of the book and why we're here talking about this, because the politics is gumming up the works so much. but we would just be better off as a country if more people participated, it was easier to register, easier to vote. so, yeah, thank you for raising that.
i'll write another book about that. yes. >> how can we put politics aside for our elected officers and hope that they will vote their conscience rather than to be reelected? >> well, yeah. the voters could solve all this if the voters were really careful about who they selected and did not reward the extremists in either party. did not reward people who won't compromise. now, it's hard to figure that out though, in defense of the voters. it's hard to know how your representatives are voting day in and day out. there's ways to figure it out, but it takes an effort, it takes a lot of work to really know how your representatives are performing in your name. but if voters started punishing the obvious extremists and fighters, that would go a long way. gerrymandering reform would help a great deal because that
pushes, as i think i said, the democrats left and republicans right. and they actually get punished for compromising and doing something on a bipartisan basis. they only worry about their primary election, and they don't want to be challenged from their flank. and so they stop compromising in the performance of their duties. that's a huge problem. and the country's got to calm down. country's got to calm down. cable news has to be more responsible and accountable. the stations i watch have gone so far left, i mean, i kind of like it, but they're just so far left, and once in a while i'll look at the other stations just to to see what they're say, and they're so far right. the country's got to wake up. it sounds trite, but the public really does have to demand change. >> well, i have tried --
[inaudible] to express my disfavor. constantly, the line is busy. >> yeah. pat, pat's a nice man, i liked him. we were both in the house together, and i liked him, and we got along well, and he didn't take shots at me, and i didn't take shots at him unlike some of the other republicans that surrounded my district. but he has not been responsive in the senate. and i'm surprised. he's a very smart guy. he can talk to people. you know, he doesn't have to hide behind staff. he can handle himself in public, and he ought to. i'll be bipartisan. bob casey has not been available to people. there was a picture of bob in the inquirer last spring looking really sporty in a pair of jeans and a pullover, and he was having a town meeting in philly. i thought, well, that's great. then i read the article, it was his first town meeting in philadelphia in six years. since before his last
re-election. bob casey's better than that. i mean, he doesn't have to -- i mean, he's a bright guy, and he can defend himself. so i don't know. it is frustrating. yes, ma'am. >> what do you think of the new block, path for citizenship for -- >> say that again? >> the new block of a path for citizenship for immigrants joining the military. >> i'm not familiar with that particular aspect. i'm sorry, i'm not up on it. i hate trump's immigration policies. i hate the way he plays one group against another. i'm glad the courts have held up that travel ban. because i think that's a bad, a bad thing for the country. i don't like the sanctuary cities movement. i applaud mayor kenny for speaking up against that. and i'm surprised that the trump
administration's pushing that. the supreme court has said you cannot withhold federal funds for coercive purposes, to punish a city, and you can only hold up those funds -- it can't be punitive, but it's got to be related to the subject they're funding. if the money's being misspent, you can withhold. well, sanctuary cities want to withhold all federal funds for housing and schools and nutrition. it's, i think it's unconstitutional, i think it's illegal. so unfortunately, i don't know enough about your question to give you a good answer, sorry. yes. >> a friend of mine is a republican committee man, and he ran to be a delegate to the national convention. and he received dozens of calls in the couple weeks before the election asking him who he was committed to. and he said i'm going to hold my
commitment until i get to the convention and hear the delegates. and he did not get -- people wanted somebody committed to trump regardless of whatever was said. you know, you can't go in the middle, they don't want you. >> right. did he go to the convention? >> no, he didn't get chosen as a delegate. >> i see. well, the 2016 election's going to be studied for generations because of the anger, the surprise of it all, the mistakes that were made mostly on the democratic side. but, you know, this were valid reasons for -- there were valid reasons for voters to be upset. we do have income inequality and economic stagnation, and we do need change. and that's what trump stood for. now, he hasn't delivered. he hasn't drained the swamp. there's just different people paddling around in the muck. [laughter] and he's done nothing about economic stagnation. but that's why he won. and hillary wasn't talking about
that. she was talking anti-trump in the final weeks. in my view, she won all three debates. i thought she's in easily, she's doing a great job. but her advertising at the end was still anti-trump, anti-trump, and i thought, well, people have already made their minds up about trump, they're for him or against him. she should have been making a democratic argument. that's why democrats were put on this earth, to talk about jobs and economic opportunity. we may be wrong, we may waste money, but that's what we're here for, and she didn't talk about it. she won the popular vote but didn't win the election. so the 2016 election, that's going to be in textbooks for a long time. we have time for two more questions. here and here. mary ann? >> so do you think the democrats have learned something from the 2016 election and that we can hope that's prix decor will be a
little bit better next time around? >> well, i hope so. i think right now they're very tempted just to set back and let trump get himself in all these problems. but that doesn't help the government any. now, schumer or and pelosi were willing to those two small deals with trump. i was delighted to see that. it was good for the president to do those deals. i mean, i want the president to succeed. i don't like donald trump, but i want the president to succeed because i want the country to succeed. those deals, let's see, one was on the debt limit and one was on something else, in september. he should keep doing that, and the democratic leadership should cooperate where they can, where they can reach agreement and do some bipartisan deals. that would be good. but i don't know who the next candidate's going to be for president on the democratic side, and the party's a little uncertain right now because there's never been an opponent like donald trump.
somebody -- yeah. judy. >> in hillary's defense, i do think sexism played a role, and russians played a role. >> yep. >> and do you want to talk about division, they were using robots on the bernie sanders side. the administrators were saying, please, don't believe everything you read here, and, you know, if it's too good to be true, please don't forward it. they were sowing discord, they're still sowing discord. what are we going to do about that? >> well, yeah, the whole russia cybersecurity -- it's getting a whole lot of attention in the washington, that's for sure, and i'm glad it is. and i assume we can do a better job technologically to protect against that sort of thing. and your comment about hillary is fair. there was sexism. you know, james comey did break all the fbi procedures. of course, her e-mail problem was really of her own doing. but that, she just lost control
of that issue and then couldn't put the genie back in the box. but i still think it was the lack of the economic message that cost her the election. because i think that's what people care about. people were titillated by the e-mails and by comey and all that, but people are worried with about the economy, and they vote on the economy. at least democrats do. i think republicans do. everybody wants jobs. it just makes sense. and that she didn't keep pace with trump on the economic argument. i think a lot of his argument was simplistic and it hasn't happened yet, but he made the argument. and she failed to, and i think that's why she lost. and i hope we can all do better. and i'm out of time. so here comes the great nancy marshall. nancy is, thank you. [applause] >> well, every month for the past 20 years one of the nation's top nonfiction authors
has joined us on our "in depth" program for a fascinating three-hour conversation about their work. now just for 2018 "in depth" is changing course. we've invited 12 fiction authors onto our set, authors of historical fiction, national security thrillers, science writers, social commentators like colson whitehead and brad thor, brad meltzer and many others. their books have been read by millions around the country and around the world. so if you are a reader, plan to join us for "in depth" on booktv. it's an interactive program the first sunday of every month that lets you call in and talk directly to your favorite author, and it all kicks off on sunday, january 7th, at noon with david ignatius, washington post columnist and the author of ten national security thrillers. you can join us live on sunday, january