tv Joseph Califano Our Damaged Democracy CSPAN April 6, 2018 8:01pm-9:04pm EDT
official talks about his book, damage democracy followed by the rise of populism in the u.s. after 11:00 p.m. we look at the future of the republican party and the influence of newt gingrich. that's followed by opting out of congress. the book broken takes a look at the state of the u.s. senate. >> welcome. i have the honor of serving as the jonathan director of the roosevelt house of public policy institute. it's a pleasure to welcome you. were thrilled that you joined us impact the house tonight.
i like to acknowledge two of our advisor board members who are here today. >> this is a special evening and i know i say that but there is something electric in the air tonight. in part because this marks the launch of our new book published last week and built, our board members here. welcome. and because there is such urgency no tragically to the need to make government function again doing the people's will and business as they did when our famous president ran thanks and when our boss, lyndon
johnson. i think i know why the buzz is palpable. anytime the home of the rose welts can well, great public servants along with the great broadcast journalists we know we are about to bear witness to conversation in history at the highest levels. two giants are in the house and i know you're excited to bear witness. each of these men's has a list of service to the public. they would like me to maximize that list tonight. they have done so in long form. as a writer that makes me happy.
they don't tweet or post as often as they give a long form history and commentary that stands the test of time. jim will lead the conversation was the quintessence of journalistic objectivity. whether hosting a debate rain created new show that others relied on. more than 40 years ago he and robert mcneil launched a report which morphed into the newshour and then the pbs news hour. although he retired in 2011, his example lives on not just in style, but substance. shimmered to emmys, peabody
national metal and it goes without saying he has been in the television hall of fame. he was also a wise counsel and hero of mine. jim will turn the spotlight on the harvard law school graduate went on to devote nearly 60 years to know blaine service and demanding the best of succeeding generations. he served in the defense department and was lyndon b. johnson's chief domestic advisor remember, if it was not for joe we might be setting aside a smoking section tonight.
his other accomplishments include regulations that created and enforced title ix athletic rights for women, equal opportunity for people with disabilities and an end to immigration discrimination against the lgbt community. he has written 14 books including the triumph and tragedy of lyndon johnson and inside a public and private life. he also enlivened an unforgettable conference on the johnson years sharing insights and analysis that elevated the event. he founded and chaired the national center on columbia.
he also serves on our board of advisors. his new book is, our damage democracy, we the people must act. a title that sounds like it was written from the headlines and as if it could serve with future action. i join you want you to join me in making fairness fashionable. [applause] >> i think we could just leave it at that. [laughter] we can go directly to the reception. >> thank you to begin, the way
you began your book was a very unusual dedication. this is the dedication to joe's book, for the women and men who gave their lives to public service in the nation's capital in the states, cities, counties, and towns across america through legislatures, executive offices and courts servants to vote their talent to do executing those laws in adjudicating cases with justice and mercy. i've been privileged to work alongside thousands and no one with whom i'd rather pass or debate about a large program
than a committed public servant. why did you feel moved to do that? >> i think they are the heroes of our society. many years i did not understand that. i started to grasp that in the navy. i saw how hard these officers worked. for country. so much of it working for some presidents. there are people saying here's a good idea and something you should try. without them he can't be a good
secretary and i had four brilliant people working for me at the white house. this is the backbone of the country. today for quite a while we been diminishing and making second-class citizens. we haven't been paying attention that they are the cornerstone of what has happened in these departments. the current president can decide where the senate can decide some things but there's an army of people to don't make much money who are keeping all the wheels going. >> headed their roles get diminished? why are they held in such low regard right now?
>> is started. >> i think a lot of things happened in one way or another we all have our fingerprints on something. the military took a beating in the war i think that was a major factor i think we had a terrific racial problem in the country and when the government became the army to force the civil rights act of 64 that became a problem i remember president reagan in the beginning for sure wasn't that big of a fan of public service we now say we
have to cut back and we've seen it it's just been happening. >> the title of your book says it all. it's a damage country government. lay out your thesis in general terms was the worst? >> the worst is in washington the three branches of government have lost their constitutional bearings. the president has enormous power. he is the nation's chief legislator, for every law that is passed even without laws there's 20 regulations and
hundreds of executive orders by every president. violating son can bring civil penalties. secondly since world war ii millions of americans have been sent into combat, million been wounded in many have lost their lives. there's no declaration of war. the vast majority doesn't know that the congress is supposed to do that they had one other piece that worries me, the white house staff we're out 50 the white house staff is almost 2000 today. you savor 400 people on the national security council how
would you like to be in the secretary of state with that beating down on you. there's a communications department kept growing and exploded under obama. sure is large under trump because he had tweets. 's.gov. the internet 24 hours a day, all promoting the president. we have a state run media that's which he used have may be in the soviet union. >> the state is running it 24 hours a day. dumping out information, propaganda if you will. it's a big operation. measure what you would have to
with pds of 400 people. >> in the counselor's office has become a powerhouse. white house counsel knows there will think about it now, it's been growing along the way. the largest probably was president clinton but even obama's was large. here's two examples, george bush cocounsel for the white house george w. bush got them to say treating prisoners this way is okay. obama went to eric holder and said it to have to report these
and get out and he said yes so he went to his white house counsel and said no. you have to realize there's nothing democratic or republican about it. congress is both crippled and cowardly. it's the only place in the world where wars into war. >> explain how this evolved and how congress backed out of its responsibility to say were going to go to war or not. >> we had a resolution and we
then have support of iraq or not. says one member after another face reelection and got clobbered for voting in favor of these things congress eased often basically if you look at the senate procedures in connection with the iranian deal this percentage is pressured itself not to have to vote no record votes. >> congress essentially just gave the power. >> and the presidents just took it, one after another and i have some examples in the book but it's getting disdaining. >> what drives you served and
observed, what has driven these presidents to keep grabbing more power? is that it? >> they get frustrating because they can get a law through congress. >> you think about the fact that george hw bush said well if you like clinton and bush said clinton has done all these things to get around congress, i want to anyone but he did them all to. presidents now and they sign a law they sam sign in the law but i'm not gonna follow this
position that it was followed and then every president, clinton, obama everyone has done it repeatedly nobody even notices anymore. and congress to sit back parlay their consumed with raising money. democrats not finding members of congress expect to spend four hours a day and call time when you're on washington. that's to walk across the street because he can't raise money of federal property and you call to raise money. if you want to chair the appreciate appropriations committee year depending on what their you have to raise more money for the republican party
or the democratic party whether you want to be a chairman or ranking member. it's significant. >> explain that. i didn't realize until i read this i committee chairman in order to accept the chairmanship they have to raise a certain amount of money. and they specify the amount of money. >> party dues. its way out. i have an appendix from 2013, every democrat in the congress gets a chart on how much they raise republicans have the same thing but i can get my hands on it. not for lack of trying.
for the appropriations committee it's 500,000 bucks for the democrats. 800,000 for the republicans of the ways and means committee is big. so it happens as you become more responsive to the industries you're looking over in your committee then to constituents back home gerrymandering is a killer in both parties. we now have a republican case in wisconsin and a democrat case in maryland. he call the district out so your party will win.
the forces republicans the most active people in the primaries tend to be on the edges forces republicans to go on the right and democrats on the left they make commitments and come to washington and won't compromise. they turned compromise into a four letter word. >> any think money has done that? >> money is another, there is a section on money in the book there are big bucks but then if you're billionaire you have the single issue rule now in which i don't care which you do but i want you to be pro-choice and if you do that the not give you a few million dollars or for gun control or against a door i want
you to have this position on the environment there's a whole section on single issues. if further fractures the congress gives you people who after you get the money they want something for. >> they been bought. >> i think we have to deal with this the other systemic thing is the racial split in the parties we have a terrific race problem. the democratic party at the democratic convention 50% of the delegates were white, 25% were
black 15% were latino. at the republican convention 94% were right. less than 1% black and 5% latino. the voting in this country democratic candidate cannot win an election with less than 90% of the black vote for president. hillary clinton get 88% and she paid a price for it. obama jacked up the black vote. it was 64 when lyndon johnson got over 64 but i worry about the danger in this country of having them so tied to one group. >> will get to it in a minute. how do you solve that problem?
i think it's very tough but i think grip i want republicans to go out after democratic votes, want more african-americans to become affluent enough. to even see a candidate here and there and roosevelt for whom this -- they began in the democratic party and then the clincher was the civil rights act of 64. in the other piece of that is that kennedy did not get a majority of the white vote.
lyndon johnson is the last democratic president to get a majority of the white vote. they have not had that since 1964. it's been slipping in your now running about 40%. we have to recognize what's happening in this country. it's not helping. >> the judiciary is damaged as well. >> in the last ten years there have been 50 supreme court decisions and with the republican position. and -- has been the deciding vote. the federal district courts, if
you want a blowout obama's immigration plan due to the east district of texas did a nationwide injunction. fiona block trump's plan go to san francisco test make a big democratic supporter but it's not just in that area, it's all over. we have an increasingly amount of that. i hope you read this book one point is how incestuous these problems are. nominated the supreme court justices an example. the president looks for someone to take his position. we don't nominate people who you don't know what they stand for
when the bushes started think about nominating gonzales we had this campaign but the president thinks i have to get someone who supports my positions he doesn't have to ask any questions anymore. he only appoint appellate judges who have written opinion so you know what they think committee send the nomination of a and then you have theater of the absurd where everybody knows that same stuff that the president knew and we go through the questions and it's a political thing where senators are saying for this or that.
that will continue to save it. the second amendment is an individual right. we go through this and we all know the position of the nominee. is the nominee smart enough or thick enough to walk on these hot coals. what is everybody worry about. they could have the greatest medical system in the world to keep her going for ruth bader ginsburg and when we used to be you tried to get somebody. i think earl warren was maybe his worst mistake.
a lot of politicians went on the court. now, nobody goes on the court without knowing exactly where they stand on the issues. the battle becomes a political battle and as a result people -- the approval rating for the supreme court has dropped from the high 60s to about 40% over the last ten years or so. . .
give me a scenario for fixing the damage. give me a dream scenario. >> a dream scenario, the first thing is we have to get much better people in government running for government. why don't they run? they run because the primaries, i hate to use the term, but in a sense the primaries are rigged for the activists. and how many people in this room consistently vote in primaries? you know, primaries is where the action is. if you look at the presidential situation the last time around, people say, oh, my god, what did
we have? we had a woman who really was sort of entitled and didn't make any major program. she got the nomination of the democratic party with 8% of registered democrats. and we have this republican who's an egomaniac, he got the republican nomination with 7% of registered republicans. and that's the presidential election. when you think about senators and congressmen, you're talking about 2 or 3% deciding in these primaries who's going to get the nomination. one, our people have to get out. two, i think we, we've got to reverse the supreme court decision in citizens united. money is not -- [applause] a first amendment, doesn't have first amendment -- i really believe that. because when you -- if you want to run for office, jim, and you say, well -- >> no thank you. >> okay. [laughter] that's right. but what do you say?
you used to say i can do this for new york, or i can do this for westport, or i can do this for my state or in my town or my congressional district. no, that's not what you say now. you say how can i raise the money. can i raise the money to do this. >> that's the first question. >> that's the first question. >> yep, yep. >> and so raising money, and i say in the book we all have -- anyone who lives in washington in this world in the last 50 years have fingerprints on this, for sure. i certainly have fingerprints on some of these problems. but i've raised enough political money to know how demeaning it is. it is demeaning to raise money from any people. it's tough, it's hard. and so -- >> demeaning just to ask people for money -- >> well, and you know they, the big money now, you know, the big money, they want something. >> yeah, yeah.
and they know that they're selling something, and they're selling their vote, is what they're doing. >> yeah, that's right. >> that's the demeaning part. >> that's right. >> yeah. >> that's right. and so that's one thing. the other thing is, i mean, i think this world of -- this is your world now, the world of the media. not the world, your media, but the world of the media today you have this, you have this incredible situation where, you know, you have social media can go after you, you don't know, you know, doesn't have to be true, may or may not be true -- >> could even be the russians. >> could be the russians. or, you know, who, you know, who the next thing they may do is say, well, here's what this guy did in the backseat of his car when he was 16 years old. i mean, we're in this incredible -- so we have that. and the social media's
absolutely finish there's no way, when you think about the russians, of going after somebody for telling a lie or for suing them for libel or doing anything like that. there's really no protection. and then you have cable news, okay? you have fox on the right, way on the right, you have msnbc way on the left, you have cnn on the left. you have this world in which, you know, i still watch pbs. [laughter] i mean, but i think that's about the last -- pbs and national public radio are about the last objective news operations we have. on the tube. >> but they're not even perceived as that by the right wing. they're considered also to the left as well. >> but all you have to do is watch the programs -- >> oh, sure, i know. but those people don't do that.
they don't watch -- >> well, that's the other thing. you don't have to -- we now live in a country in which you don't have to watch anything that you don't agree with. i mean, you just watch, you just go there every night and say, boy, that's to great. >> but, joe, whose responsibility is it to do something about all of this? i mean, if we're going to repair this, somebody's got to lead -- >> i think it's all of our responsibilities, as voters, to get much more involved. i think the other thing is i think we've got to find much better leaders in this country. you know, in the senate, in the house we need and i hope and pray we're going to have some really great leaders come along. i'm not going to try and identify them or not identify them. but if you look now, and i know how hard it is.
there's so much at stake because there's so much money in washington. you know, forget about the donations. in 2016, $3.2 billion was spent on lobbying, okay? $3.2 billion. that's 6 million every member of congress. i mean, we're really, we're really in an incredible world. and those are the people, this is the reported -- these are the reported amounts. we have heavy duty problems like that. money is a big factor, and we need somebody, you know, i would not have voted for bernie sanders. i voted for hillary, i mean, i'm not -- but the book is
rigorously nonpartisan. but his assault on that, and things come along. you know, he came along and he said i'm going to get it over the internet, i'm going to get it from kids, i'm going to get $100 amounts. look how much money he raised. >> so it can be done, you're saying. >> things can be done, yeah. yeah. but we need people to do them. and we're going to see a situation. i mean, i don't know what -- i'd like to make one other point. the senate is not, you know, the constitutional founding fathers thought the senate would be an institution where we'd have the longer view. but for 20 years now, the senate has been on the margin. it's been either one party or the other, it's been two or three votes, four votes. and what that does to the senate is turn it into the house. because the day after the election the minority leader's figuring out how he can get his hands in control of the senate
next time. and the majority leader's figuring out how he can hang on to control. and that's unfortunate. because you don't find a lot of long-term thinking. we have no debates anymore. finish i -- i mean, there's no daniel webster, there's no everett dirksen, there's no hubert humphrey. we don't have on the floor of the senate what we used to have. i worry about it. but mostly we have to get good people in government running for government and taking government jobs. you know, if you're offered an assistant secretaryship at the state department -- i don't know as much as some people here do about it -- but when you're looking at a national security council that's got 400 people on it, wouldn't you rather be one of the top four or five dogs on the national security council? wouldn't you rather handle latin
america for the national security council than for the state department? of course. if you're in domestic policy, think about it. the clinton health care bill was put together by a hundred people on the white house staff. the department of health and human services had virtually nothing to do with it. so when those things happen, you say how do you get a good cabinet officer, how do you get a good assistant secretary. and if you're an assistant attorney general and the white house counsel's office is 40 or 50 people, wouldn't you rather be over there? yeah. >> joe, there's some people in the, i would say the current punditry class is tying all of these reality things -- in other words, real things that have happened in our country recently like the election of donald trump, the mass shootings, the
#metoo movement on sexual harassment. a lot of these things are all coming together and arousing people to do things that they haven't done before which is to organize. there are more women running for public office right now than ever have, and they're still being recruited not just by democrats, but also by republicans. there are more latinos, more african-americans are running all because these issues have come to, have helped arouse interest. do you think that bad news, that this bad news can be turned into -- >> well, i think, yes. and i think we're going to have a pretty good crop, whichever side you're look at better than -- you know, we're starting to move to another generation. yes, i do. i think, i think these are all good, healthy things.
i hope, hope that when these things happen the existing institutions can act on some of them. you know, i think of these kids coming from -- these are not people running for office, but along the lines -- these kids coming from parkland, florida. >> yeah, yeah. they're going to have a march. >> they're going to have a march, okay? now, i hope that has an impact. i think it will. but i just -- and this goes way back. when robert kennedy was assassinated, we had proposed gun control, lyndon johnson had, for four years. we couldn't get anywhere with it. and johnson said we will get something out of this awful event. he said we've got ten days to get -- >> ten days? >> ten days.
we had a bill that, aside from -- there were no limits at that point. 18, only 18, you had to be 18 to why -- to buy a gun, you couldn't get the $10 specials, and there was one other thing. we also had registration of every gun and licensing of every gun owner. >> nationally? >> nationally. okay, like a driver's license. >> yeah. >> that was it. johnson said we have ten days to get this out of the congress. and senator tidings, well-meaning -- >> from maryland. >> -- from maryland thought he had a different kind of bill that might work a little better. and the president said you have got to convince him -- >> you have to, you, joe califano -- >> i, joe califano, and get larry o'brien, which i did. and we went to convince him.
can, you know, just back off. let us get this bill out of committee. but, no, he didn't do it. and we ended up, we lost. we got the first three things. we got -- we didn't get registration of guns and licensing of gun owners. to propose that today, it would be laughed at. and i have to tell you, when i look at all the proposals, a little better background check, we're going to be a little more careful about it, we're going to provide, you know, get an authorization, then you've got to get -- it's not a battle where you get one vote. i want these kids to get some kind of a law. i hope they do. but it's, you know, while we applaud them, there's another army, smaller, but it's a lot richer working to make this different. than they want. >> so i'm going to finish i'm not a pundit, but i'm going to say something punditry here.
so, in other words, i'm reading into what you just said. a little bit of glimpse of optimism that this can be done. >> the guns? >> yes e. >> yes. i believe something -- >> well, not only guns, but fix this -- >> oh, yes. i do -- look, jim, i do -- i wouldn't have written the book if i thought -- >> yeah. >> -- we couldn't deal with it. the point of the book was to say, look, maybe some, a lot of american people don't understand -- >> yeah. >> -- some of the things that have built into these systems now and have to go after them. >> yes. >> i think, i mean, you know, i even believe, know that the supreme court does respond to publicity. >> yeah. >> i mean, look -- obama brilliantly, brilliantly put john roberts in a position where he had to get that, he had to bless obamacare. i thought he, the president founded a brilliant campaign. and the supreme court responded.
i mean, that's happened throughout history. and i think, you know, the people can say something, you know? this is a mess. vote some of these guys out. what i'd love the media to do is really get into the money issue. >> yeah. >> really get into it. you know, i have nothing against billionaires. i'll never be one, i know that -- [laughter] but i do think for somebody to have so much money and decide what they want to do and decide, well, i care about this issue and i'm going to put on a line for you, i mean, just think for a moment. was it, it was 12 years ago when newt gingrich was trying to hang on in atlanta, and sheldon adelson came in with $5 million to get him through that. >> yeah. >> that's happening every day in these presidential p contests. have no illusions about that. that is happening.
and, you know, what marco rubio quite -- quote him a couple of times. but, you know, he says, you know, there's a billionaires' primary. there's a billionaires' primary in both parties. and that's, and that's going on now. right now people that want to run for president are calling, trying to get their hands on big money. no question about that. >> and it has more to do with that than it does with what they would do if they were elected president, right? >> that's correct. >> joe -- [laughter] we have a few minutes for some questions from the audience. and anybody wants to -- there's, back there in the back.
>> your -- you're talking about the money that's prevalent in politics, but some of these single action money is voted for cause such as removing gun violence. so how do you reconcile that approach for these one issues, favorable situation as opposed to buying something that's supporting, you know, gun rights or whatever the case may be? >> my problem with the single issues money is that we should elect candidates based on what they stand for. i i mean, senators, you know, what are you like as a senator. you know, what are you going to be. are you -- you're going to face a host of issues. you're going to have to vote on defense issues. you're going to have to -- you may sit on the judiciary. you're going to have to do a lot of things. don't say the only reason i would vote for you is if you do
this. that's my point. not that -- look, money's found in all kinds of causes, you know? i'm not just saying republicans are spending money. democrats -- george soros is spending a lot of money. and it's not just at the top, incidentally. it's also what is the d.a. going to be like in enforcing the marijuana laws, or what is the d.a. going to be like in terms of the criminal justice system. there are all kinds, there's all kinds. i just don't -- i think we really should, sure, people are going to give, you know, you give to the democrats, you give to the republicans, you give to this congressional candidate or the challenger. i understand all that. but not, not start measuring people, the big money measuring people by one issue. i think that's a problem. and it fragments, it fragments the congress which in turn flag bements the country. fragments the country. >> other questions?
right here. >> that's -- can i hit, i hit my microphone. [laughter] >> for the past 15 years or so, it has occurred to me that one political party believes in government as a force for positive administration, making -- doing good for the public, for the country. the other political party appears not to believe in that, to have a different view of what government is for. and it's more interested in holding power. i'm interested in when you agree with that, and if you do agree with that, how can we, the people, change or -- or how then can we put into effect the remedies that you propose? >> i think, i think it's not simply the political parties. i think if you looked at
somebody like george w. bush and what he did domestically in a variety of areas, you realize that he saw a lot of government as a force for good. we may have a very sharp division now, right now where you have in office, an administration that may not see that. but i do think that i hope both parties would understand that. i really learned how important -- i knew government was important, but i really learned how important it was when i worked for johnson. i was inspired by kennedy to go to washington. i actually supported -- i worked for bill vandenhoogle. i went around the upper east side saying vote for -- [laughter] i did in 1960.
and kennedy got me down there. but i really got to understand what you could do. and the importance of that. and it wasn't the handout, it was the hand up. you know, most of these people you talk about giving someone an education or some health care or a place to live, these are things that most of us get from our parents and got from our parents. these are not big, major things. so i think -- i do understand what you're saying, and i note in the book by saying, you know, because i -- and i've done a couple of events. i really shouldn't. harold wanted me to start here. but -- >> [inaudible] >> you were part of the great society, and you were one of the architects, and you poured this stuff out and gave all these programs to the executive branch. yeah. but we need a congress, we need an executive branch that is, as you say, sensitive to using them, and we also need a
congress, we need a congress that sees where the people are executing laws. over i think it's 24 years we've had one, one congress that has done an appropriation bill by department, looking at each department. continuing resolutions, one humongous, several thousand word bill that we all read about all the hidden stuff in it and at times in the washington -- in the times and the washington post for the next month as the reporters try and find it. we need -- i really believe that there are, you know, i think both bushes, actually in different ways, cared about people and made that clear on various things. but i think even -- let me just
use health care as an example and close this off of money, okay? in the johnson years when we proposed medicare and medicaid, the ama was very powerful. financially powerful and powerful. and so were the hospitals. we didn't propose to give doctors their usual, customary and ordinary fees under medicare which gave doctors the right to set their own fee. we did that to get the bill out of the house. to get it out of the senate finance committee, we gave hospitals cost plus reimbursement, okay? why? the insurance companies had refused to do that for years, so they got it under medicare. when the next proposal, when
george w. bush proposed that we close the so-called doughnut hole and provide coverage of pharmaceuticals for senior citizens, what happened? george w. bush had to give the pharmaceutical companies the ability not to compete. >> yeah. >> the power not to -- no competition for their pills under medicare. and we got the doughnut hole closed. when obama wanted to pass obamacare, the key, the key to that was the insurance companies. he said to the health insurance companies we will provide appropriations to fund you so you don't lose money. without the insurance companies, he couldn't have gotten obamacare. so you have three examples, and we said, oh, the health care system's a mess, and we all have problems, you know? yeah, sure.
but we have to recognize that these forces are very powerful, and they need to be exposed. one more? >> one more question. right here. yes, ma'am. >> all the things you've been talking about, what effect do you think this has had on the party system itself? are the parties finished, or are they going to split up? >> no, i don't think the parties are finished, but i think both parties are clearly fragmented today. i do think, i think the parties will not, you know, david rotor wrote a book, my god, when jim hairer and i were -- lehrer and i were kids in washington. remember "the party's over"s? >> yeah, great book. >> thirty years ago saying the parties are finished. i think they're fragmented, there's no question about that.
and, you know, there's a sharp right in the republican party and a sharp left in the democratic party. there's always been some of that. that's another reason why your presidential vote is so important. because if you go back and look at whether you agree or not the ability to pass all that legislation in the johnson years was because we had republicans and democrats. we didn't have any southern democrats. they weren't with us. but i do worry deeply about the racial thing. the cutting edge is in the south. we have eight or nine democrats in the house from the south, all black. we have about 22 republicans in the house from the south, all white. i think, i think that's a real problem, and i think we have to face up to it. i want the republicans -- [laughter] to go after those votes.
why not? they want to win. and if you have the two parties with some group they're committed to like the republicans, you know, committed to a more affluent group of americans and the democrats having these identity issues, can't give anything, can't give anything that would hurt african-americans, republicans saying, well, we can't give anything that'll hurt these, you know, our carried or interest friends. i hope there aren't -- there may be some in this room. but let me -- i think these are real issues. i think the parties will stay, but i think they're going to change. and i think the internet's going to change them dramatically over time. >> joe, in closing, would you not agree that the number one thing that everybody in in this room and in this country could do to help resolve our problems
is to buy a copy of a book called -- [laughter] "our damaged democracy" by jost califano? [laughter] [applause] >> i want to -- [applause] i want to thank jim lehrer who i called a couple of months ago or a month or so ago and said would you come up here. and i said to him when i saw him, i said, you know, jim, i've been having a drink years in washington -- for 20 years in washington i had a drink with you every night as i watched the news. [laughter] thank you. >> thank you, joe. thank you. [applause] thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, frederick hess from the american enterprise institute and the brookings institution's michael hanson discuss the future of u.s. education policy and the recent teacher walkouts in kentucky and oklahoma. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live at seven eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. ♪ ♪ ..
center in university of oklahoma. >> this document here is a memo written by ted sorenson to speaker albert, labeled personal and confidential. but it lays out what should albert do if he becomes president. it says, step one, take thought of office. step two physically taking over the office. step three, resign from the house. this is another thing albert would have had to have done. had to resign the speakership to move up to the presidency and only be temporarily. i think this is a really interesting piece of history that many people don't know about. we think about nixon and impeachment. we don't think about the other things that potentially could have happened during that time period. >> watch the cities tour of norman, oklahoma, on saturday, at noon eastern, on booktv, and sunday at 2 p.m. oregon american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable
affiliates as we explore america. >> next week, facebook's ceo mark zuckerberg will testify before nat and house committees on facebook's handling of user information and data privacy. tuesday at 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span3. in a joint hearing before the senate judiciary and commerce committees and own wednesday at c-span3 before the house energy and commerce committee. watch live coverage and listen live with the free c-span radio app. up next on booktv's "after words," republican national committee spokesperson kayleigh mcenaney reports on the grassroots populist movement in the united states, interviewed by matt lewis. afterwards is a weekly interview program with relevant guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their work.