tv Discussion on the Presidency CSPAN November 25, 2018 12:46am-1:34am EST
that has two major entrance. boeing and the rockets lying next year. finally. the spacex, space expiration corporation, they were going to fly after. two providers for asked not access to the international space station on america rock. it should start flying next year finally. >> he'll be signing. thank you so much.nk [applause] >> next in fairfax, virginia,
stephen farnsworth, author of presidential communication in character, and former cnn avenue, bill schneider author of "standoff: how america became ungovernable". talk about presidential politics. >> fantastic. hello, welcome to u.s. president. the election in the message at the 20th annual fall for the book literary festival. my name is peter, i'm the ceo and we are thrilled to sponsor this event. the basis quickly and school of network includes 37 schools across the world with one right here in northern virginia. we consistently rank among the best schools in the united states on national international benchmarks. bases independent located near tysons corner. serve students from age two to grade 12. we are proud of an hour after school program, which includes a seminar and primary textbased study of history. civil discourse while spirited,
remains civil in been in these times. please grab materials after the event from my colleague, if you're interested. we appreciate your attendance today. this festival is a nonprofit, is funded exclusively through donations. one of the ways to help us through the group friends of the fall for the book. to learn how to support, go to full for the book.org,/friends. please remember to summit yourself once and thank you in advance for filling out a survey which will help us improve the festival in the future. after the event, office books are available in the lobby of the martin building. any books signed sentence will be in the lobby as well. onto the event. two political experts discuss different factors of the u.s. presidency. the election and the and ministrations message afterwards. stephen burns worth, phd, professor of political science and international affairs at the university of mary washington where he directs the university's center for leadership and media studies. he is the author or co-author of six books.
recipient of the state council of higher education for virginia's outstanding faculty award for 2017 and the canada u.s. research scholar at the university in montréal. his book presidential communication character, white house news management from clinton and cable to twitter and trump, details evolution of white house news management over the last 20 years. alongside the evolution of american media. in his book standoff, how america became -- how america became ungovernable. he takes readers into the american voting booth of several hard-fought elections. to discuss how voters decide and why they are decisions sometimes seem so compatible. bill schneider is a professor at the shah school of policy and of government at george mason university. he was a cable news network senior political analyst from 1990 to 2009. he's covered every u.s. presidential and midterm elections since 1976 for the lance angeles times. the monthly, cnn, and english.
he has been labeled the nations election meister by the washington times and the aristotle of american politics. by the boston quote. he was a member of the cnn political team that won an emmy in 2003 election coverage and a peabody for the 2008 coverage. please help me welcome, stephen firms worth and bill schneider. [applause] >> your book is communication character. they were confused. [laughter] i'm thrilled to be here. i taught for a few years at george mason and look forward to another conversation on this campus. the argument that i make in this book, is that the first four president of the internet age developed markedly different approaches to selling themselves policies through the mass media.
one of the most important presidential rolls in my view, is this marketing of the president. in order to convince congress and the public, oftentimes skeptical, to support initiatives, it's necessary for a president to promote themselves, really in a way that might be unseemly to an earlier age. in our media environment, it simply doesn't stop. what's striking about these for most recent presidents and that's bill clinton, and george w. bush and barack obama and donald trump, all of them use very different strategies in terms of using the media, to cultivate that positive opinion of themselves. the one thing they did have in common, they all focused a great deal on character. on how they could connect with ordinary citizens in this mechanism. i would argue that the social media environment, the internet age is really very tailored to that. we have short attention span, we
have even shorter attention span, as journalists. snippets of you are as a person, realistic and of you are as a president, can go a long ways when people are not interested or not all that informed about the specifics of the affordable care act or balanced budget act or tax-cut or the difficulties of working through the middle east. all of which turn out to be pretty, gated once you are in office. now, largely unified executive branch, makes president very capable of dominating the discourse whenever they choose to do so. when you thing about what is newsworthy, the white house is newsworthy. the matter what happens. with bill clinton, the challenge, i think, in terms of particularly presidential
communication and character, was this sort of unsavory reputation that either developed and perhaps exacerbated during his time as president. but what he does, as is selling., to feel our pain. to really connect with us. if you look back on the tape for those of you, college students the room, when you look back at the debate, attention in particular to the weight of which he connected with questioners during the debate. we had one of the three presidential debates in virginia that year. he was able to demonstrate that forever, he understood our pain. that was a way to move beyond the question of bill clinton as somewhat less than exemplary. social media was perfect for that. this is an era of pop shows, late-night, in many ways, bill clinton was a virtuoso of talking about how he could connect with people. that was his real skill as politician. turning to george w. bush, another media change in the last 20 years, the rise of fox news. fox news is very well tailored to the rise of church w bush and the marketing of george w. bush
in terms of his personality. his character in his efforts to mitigate. what george w. bush ended up being as president, the foreign policy president, that clearly wasn't what he had in mind when he was elected in 2000. that's also not what the journalist had in mind. there was almost no coverage in the 2000 election. if you look back to another book i wrote, presidential election, the nightmare, with robert lichter, who teaches at mason, we look at coverage in presidential election cycle. but there is an increasing focus on character and munication and for george w. bush, it worked well to use fox news as a vehicle for generating the image of deafness. with brock obama, you had a different strategy when you saw with the first you. in many ways, you could think of bill clinton and george w. bush
and the differences in politics as being people who really believed that the best strategy for presidential communication is to be this king. this thing that the bride at every wedding and corpse at every funeral. the wasn't a policy issue that the two of them did not want to wait and on. clinton and they did so with great, great opportunity and great aggressiveness. brock obama in some ways, and more different president these two. in terms of, he didn't try to dominate every news cycle. he didn't insist that is tourism, every policy goes back to the old harry truman idea that in a lot can get done in washington if you don't mind some of the else taking credit for. obama approached healthcare for example, was more about presenting an image of the congress doing a lot of the heavy lifting. there was the visible place with that was happening. obama character was was this other story. it was compelling to a lot of americans.
we think of the difficulties in his childhood, how he rises above that, how he deals with an increasingly diverse america. in many ways, barack obama tried to sell himself through hope and change, the personification of the better america. it was left divided and by race, by culture, by class, by region, that was his vision for what he could represent his personification of the country. which presidents always try to be. his vehicle for using this, was particularly social media outfits like youtube particular. one of his great media moments as the president was when he appeared on between funds, telling jokes about healthcare and by the way, a good idea for young people to register because he and rome done that my is coming shortly. corporal obama understood about the changing media environment, you have to make people where they are.
as it becomes so diverse, it's become essential. thick about going to those media outlets with young people are. where others are. youtube stars interviewed mama. he used zach as a show, as vehicles for reaching the public. it wasn't the same sort of traditional media press that you saw back in the days when television was more dominant. it was a very effective realistic adjustment. particularly on that signature issue of his. the affordable care act. will turn to trump. then i'll turn it over to my fellow panelist. the vehicle for trump, trump is the voice of twitter. twitter existed before donald trump. it will be an open question with twitter after donald trump. but we can imagine that donald trump is the ideal president of
the twitter age. the idea of policy being complicated is not something that really works well. you have 14280 characters to say what you think. that's a great vehicle for generating grievance above all. twitter is great about, when people are angry. for example, it took me two and a half hours to get here today. when i'm done with all of you, i'll be on twitter complaining about how the washington metro system has dented disappointing me again. maybe that's what we all use twitter four. at least part of the time. the reality, is that this is an opportunity for donald trump to speak to the issues that really motivate his presidency. donald trump really speaks to a lot of americans who are very angry. or anxious about the future. they are worried are not not be as good as her for the children as it was for them. they worry about the opportunities of how america
that they understood, and that they believed in is changing in ways they may not find all that recognizable. it may be a focus of anxiety for some, it may be a focus of anger for others but when you put it together, it is a vehicle of grievance. it is ideally suited to twitter. really, trump is a tchaikovsky of twitter. if you think about what he is able to do. he's so effective at managing that kind of anger. speaking to that kind of anger. while trump wouldn't be good at a meeting where he's got questions from ordinary citizens and spoke about how to deal with policy, he struggles even with the very carefully stage-managed event that he does if reporters
asking questions. it seems like he doesn't seem that well-informed about the health care bill that he supporting or the tax-cut bill that he's supporting or even the extent to which he understands what's going on in respect to the crisis in saudi arabia. it's not a level of specific and that we are used to from presidents. in fact, trump is the first president from a major party indicates not to have more experience in government. not to have been in the military or congress or serve as a governor before the white house. it's also present that trump maybe needing a bit of a plan for some of these issues. that matters little on twitter. 280 characters, you don't need to know a lot to get to the end of all you can say. that is a great vehicle for trump. it's a great vehicle for channeling anger. is not necessarily a place where you can go to get a really effective policy discussion in fact, it seems like every conversation on twitter that coaster more than four or five iterations, and sup with somebody else insulting to me personally. but we can hope for better. i have one less thing to say.
[inaudible question] >> with another panelist to speak to. i'm glad to talk to you about it in a moment. will come back to that. whether trump is this thing to come. now we imagine, celebrities would like to run for president. if john can do it, why can't i? opera, cognac, who knows. >> the naughty? >> celebrity politics that come to the past and future. i will say this. i think that what donald trump is, it's like the lebron james of twitter. i'm not sure that we're going to see people who can re-create this. i think you see, the democratic presidential candidates who are jockeying for position, known of
them see as good at twitter is trump is. i don't know that he is going to be a two-term president, we'll see. but i do think that there is one thing to remember for the future. what we want american politics consistently has been but we don't have. when you had somebody who had a lot of experience like obama, who understood policy, a sophisticated policy thinker, some people comes off as professorial. even condescending. for others, a vehicle of trump. the anger, resentment, the channeling of blue-collar values even from a goldplated mansion in new york city, or a tower, these sorts of things do not give us a pattern for the future. it gives us something not to like for the next election. look at bill clinton, george bush, look at obama. they are reactions to the presidents before them.
so my guess is, the next president will not be of any trump or trump too. but rather the on trump. in the same way that trump was the on obama. i believe this to my fellow panelist. the questions you have, i'll be glad to answer in a few minutes. thank you. [applause] >> a lot of my book has to do with one president to the next. each new president gives us something that we want and we are not getting from the incumbent. as steve said, trump was the on obama. on obama was the on bush. when you think about the next presidential election, think about who is going to be the on trump.
i'm going to be the democratic jump. he's just like donald trump. he doesn't know very much. but he's very angry and says he's the only democratic around who can take on trump. that's what democrats want, that will be intesting. fifty years, american politics has gone from camelot to "game of thrones". [laughter] my book, which i have here, a standoff who published describes how that happened. you have to know that we have a constitution that enables reebok. the constitution has checks and balances and visions of power. if you have different parties competing, it can be entrenched in different branches of government. it doesn't work right, it doesn't work too well right now, because we have republicans control of congress, republicans control the white house in a republicans control the supreme court and most state governments. president trump is discovering, even if the republican party controls congress, he can't give everything he wants. look how much trouble he has in
his famous wall. it's going to take a big struggle even with a republican congress. it may not last much longer. the constitution created a system of limited government. we could government. the authors didn't trust strong government. the major that president joel power would be limited and would be checked by other branches. trump doesn't like that. i'm told that every now and then, he'll turn to a name, and say why can't i fire congress? he would love to. the reason things are blocked, we have two political movements in this country. when i called the new america on the left and the old america on the right. it's a backlash to the origins of the new america. what's important, fundamentally different values. interest to what politics are supposed to be about. conflicting interests. interests can be negotiated and compromised. values can't. what emerged is a divergence of values which i trace back to
wales, the 1960s. values were attached to people's identity. the distinction between interests and values is a major theme of my book. i talk about the fact that there was a book written in the 2004 election. what's the matter with kansas? it pointed out the kansas be a hotbed of popular. mary was the leader of populist kansas. she said, farmers should raise less corn and more out. get is not one of the most conservative republican states in the entire country. why? mostly a state of poor white voters. working-class white voters. the.is, orders have very conservative values. they are deeply religious, fundamentalist there, they vote their values. not their interests. in the other direction, jewish have conservative interests and liberal values. their interests whether dictated
by economics or by the support for israel, tends to leave them to vote republican. but their values tend to be liberal. typically, when there's a conflict between interests and values, people for their values. that 70% of jewish voters in 26 in, voted for clinton. the division in this country, has an going on for almost 50 years. the about 50 years. long before donald trump. trump didn't create it. he saw it as an opportunity. like a good businessman, which he is, sometimes, he took the opportunity. he got elected by exploiting the nations division. with the help from the kremlin. trump does not come out of the conservative movement. he used conservatives to
legitimize his rise to power. the media are using him too. trump was supposed to sit in the white house, sign whatever legislation the republican congress came up with and then keep his mouth shut. the problem is, he won't keep his mouth shut. a student once asked me, is this the most divided we've ever been as a country? i said, we did have a civil war. three quarters of a million americans died in the civil war. i don't think we are close to that now. i would venture to say that this is the most divided the country has been since the civil war. since that terrible time. it was a reasonable, a third of americans believed we were headed for a second civil war. i think we could be on a different side than the rest of the south. the difference between the political parties historically has been mostly about west. democrats with a party of hardscrabble working people. they call the british labour party, corny handed sons of 12. republicans are a part of the
wealthy elite. education is the difference now. the democrats are the party of the educated elite. barack obama, the prince's education. republicans have a party of wealth. mitt romney, the prince's wealth. two competing elites. education and wealth. the republican party has now been typified. the most amazing thing i've seen is the way republican parties fell under the sway of donald trump. they are not intentionally loyal to president trump. republicans embraced populist cultural values, racial backlash, resentment of immigrants religious fundamentalism, values that the educated elite often considers unenlightened or vulgar. mr. trump, of queens and midtown manhattan, does extremely well
in rural america. his best face in 2016, were west virginia and wyoming. i don't know what he has in common with them. those are his best states. democrats used to be the party of organized labor. now, they are the party of the universities. until recently, virginia was the most republican state in the south. from 1952, 22004, virginia for republican president in 13 out of 14 presidential elections, all except 1964 with the landslide. virginia has voted democratic for the last three election. i would describe my students virginia is two thirds seven and one third new jersey. welcome to new jersey. these changes really started in the 1960s. that's when we in the united states, had our own cultural revolution. i remember when then president, who in china visited washington. i pointed out when i was covering his visit to washington, in the 1960s,
china expensed one of the great tragedies of human history. cultural revolution. which is using is, they got over it. i've been to beijing, they have restaurants in beijing where they have reenactors who dress like guards and hold up read books because to them, they reenacted like we do the civil war. the happened a long time ago in this relevant to what's going on today. here in the united states, the differences, we had a cultural revolution in 1960s as well. but we can't get over it. bill clinton said, about ten years ago, brooklyn said, if you look back on the 1960s and you think they did more good than harm, you are a democrat. if you look back on 1960s and you think they did more harm than good, you are a republican.
he said more than harm than good for him. american voters, are increasingly divided today by education. white voters without college degrees, working-class white, actually have been not been voting democratic since richard nixon. obama intentionally alienated them. partly because of racism and at the same time, trump is driving well-educated voters out of the republican party. you can see it happening now in suburbs that used to be solidly republican. i give you barbara who made it be with us very much longer. the rule in american politics is this. the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to vote republican. the better educated you are, the more likely you are to vote democratic. i always have a very smart person who says, what if you are wealthy and well educated? which a lot of people are. then you have to use the sociological term, class
pressure. the opposing directions. if you vote your economic interests, you vote republican. if you vote for cultural values, you will democratic. increasingly, that's what we find in well-educated affluent suburbs like fairfax county. trump has increased and intensified that educational difference. people who finished college, never finished college, like him. particularly men. college graduates can't stand him. particularly now women. in fact, i remember when trump won caucuses in 2016, he went before the cameras on the night of the caucuses and said, i did very well with the poorly educated. i love the poorly educated. well, why do -- he's an outsider as he said. he has no experience in military, or in politics at all.
he's the only president we've ever had with no military or governmental experience. as because of historic tendency in the united states. americans like the outsiders in office. i write a chapter in my book about what was behind the wall with it. similar to behind the donald trump movement. the desire for someone who is completely outside politics. a businessman. essential faith, one central belief. that was the politics. some of this is shared by most of her americans. the politics is the enemy of problem-solving. most people believe that. why can't we deal with climate change? because politics gets in the way. i can we do something about the national that? well, we could. politics gets in the way. that is a core element of american populism. meetings like this, i'm asked by someone in the audience, i think we should bring government like
a business. we ran government like a business, it would be efficient and we wouldn't let it be -- politics would not interfere with her. as we all know, there's no politics in business. but, there's an answer to that. remember this. business is not a democracy. business is not a democracy. that's why we can't run government like a business. if business were a democracy, it was a quick government. it would be very messy and inefficient. the book talks about how the new america emerged and how it first became politically conscious in the 1960s. latinos, asian americans, african americans, jewish americans, gays, emerged as a political force. working women, single mothers, educated professionals, never that they had any real role in the american rule in class. young people in one group that democrats don't like to talk about, but they are growing. the unchurched. she, nobody is supposed to be unchurched. this country was founded by
people with freedom of religion. one quarter of americans now, you protestant, catholic, mormon, something else? wasn't? they say, i'm not affiliated with any of those. i have no religious affiliation. i don't belong to a church. that number has been growing. about 7% in the 1960s. now it's 22 to 25% of americans. they are solidly democratic. as you might expect, a lot of them are young. all those groups that i just mentioned, are growing in size. except two. jews are about the same, they are not really growing in size. latinos, asian americans, gays are probably growing in size but they are coming out of the closet. every time, a larger force. i remember 1984, we asked people in a pool nationwide, are you a homosexual or lesbian or bisexual? 2% of the voters said yes. it was anonymous.
if years later, we asked the same. 5% of voters said yes. i don't think it was a sudden sexual conversion in the country. but gays have become more comfortable coming out of the closet. all of those groups except backs and juice, are growing in size and influence. especially educated professionals. young people moving into the elector. democrats expect they'll be saved by this emergence in the new america. it could happen. except for one problem. demographics is wrong. politics is short. demographic change is going to occur in this country. it's going to take ten to 20 years. maybe longer for these groups to come into. politics happens overnight. some event, a foreign policy crisis, every thing changes in politics overnight. i remember talking to kane when he was running for vice president. and number of people at this meeting and one of them presented the argument that the
democrats are going to do well because the democrats represent groups that were growing in size. senator kaine interrupted and said i understand what you're thing and i think it's wonderful news. but there's a problem. i've got to win in november. what you're talking about is going to take ten years. i've needed right now. demographics is long, politics is short. remember this. trump followed for president in a row, two republicans and two democrats. they promised to bring the country together. the first president bush, is kinder and gentler. he got fired after one term. bill clinton said he was a new democrat in the third way. he got impeached. george w. bush called himself a uniter, not a divider in the end up tearing the country apart over the war in iraq. barack obama became prominent in
2004, four years before he ran for president. he said there is no liberal america and no conservative america. there's only he demanded state of america. he was wrong. there is a liberal america and a conservative america and the line is becoming stronger and stronger. to reprogram, to democrats, they promised to be healers. they promised to unite the country. they all failed. trump was different. he never, for one minute, promised to be a healer. nothing he will be able to do. you get a way to turn the bitter division of the country into a political asset. like a shrewd businessman, he's a consulate opportunist. the bitter division of american politics created an opportunity to for him that was right for exploitation. he ran as a divider he got elected as a divider, he governs as a divider. in the end, you have to have a base. define your base. your base are the people who are with you when you are wrong. ronald reagan had it basis during the scandal.
the didn't abandon him. bill clinton has a powerful base that remained with him during the lewinsky scandal. 2018, this year, is going to be a battle of the bases. the trump base, versus the democratic liberal base. it's furious with president trump. each of those spaces in rages, the other. the trump base, fortunately, for democrats tends to be more reliable voters than the liberal democratic base which includes a lot of minorities, immigrants and young people who don't have much of a habit of voting in midterm elections. base campaign is bound to be ravenously david and divide us if it makes governing difficult because after the election, the parties can't come together and compromise if they different fundamental values, those values can't easily be comprised. it endangers democracy because each party, regards its
opponents as illegitimate. the winning parties sees its victory, however narrow, as a mandate to destroy whatever the other party has achieved. so for jump, that means heat eradicating all traces of barack obama's presidency including healthcare reform, environmental protection, trade agreements and treaties. if trump succeeds in building at least some of his promised wall on the mexican border, democratic candidates, i can assure you, will race to the wall, to be the first to stand before his supporters and say, mr. president, tear down the wall. will end up with cycles of lunging political revenge. first, one party than the other aiming to do everything it opponents did and undo
everything it opponents did in office. make america great again was a thinly disguised attack by president trump on his predecessor. barack obama. it was great, under barack obama. hope and inspiration, that was the political style of both barack obama and ronald reagan. the most sold hope and inspiration. they are going to be rare. not much evidence as long as donald trump is president. final word, what will say this, but can save the country, unfortunately, with this happen repeatedly, we need a crisis. our country is designed for the ungovernable, the title of my book, but we do work very well when there is a crisis. work, 9/11, when there's a crisis, americans come together. the divisions are for a moment, cast aside. when there's a huge urgency in public opinion, to solve a problem, the country can function. the government can function admirably. 9/11 worked for one year. democrats still believe it but
for one year, majority of democrats favored and supported president bush. a charismatic leader. that was supposed to be obama. our constitutional system of weak government provides an answer. to saving america from this bitter division. it was designed in the 18th century to protect america from a tyrant. the people who wrote the constitution thought of a resident -- a constitution that would protect us from a tyrant. my view is, our constitution in his genius, can also protect us from a maniac. thank you. [applause]
>> will take questions. please let us know which one of us, want to ask a question of. both of us. why don't i start with someone up here. there's a microphone coming around. this is taped by c-span. >> my name is arnold. i've been a generalist for four years. what you make of the fact that in the past seven presidential elections, the democrats have outvoted the republicans? all but one. >> i think this speaks to a lot of the frustration that you see among democrats today. they feel like the system is not fair. the electoral college, not twice
recently, in the last several election cycles, republican even though the popular folk favored a democrat. the gap in this last election was 3 million. so much bigger that the 50 -- 500,000 rather, in the popular vote back in 2000. i think that this is really leading to this argument that my colleague here on the panel makes that america is getting more and more governed because there is so much anger and energy that is really pulling us apart. even the electoral system, even the structures of our politics, not just anger with the politician, is now intensifying. i think that's a very serious problem. arabic it's going to change. i think the small states like getting disproportionate influence, they are going to keep it. the gaps, may very well be larger as bigger states get less of an opportunity. i think the electoral college, it's very hard to pass. that's why 200 years ago, it was only if you. >> even after -- it was obscure,
senator from new york state, hillary clinton. it didn't get anywhere. the electoral college, small states like it. even though it doesn't advantage small dates, it's battleground states. the presidential campaign takes place in states that are swing states. it can be very large like florida, but nobody goes to california or texas in the presidential election. we don't know how they are going to vote. it pays a lot of money too. it's a small like new hampshire, which is also a swing state. see a particular change. i do know that after the 2000 election, there was some disappointment, there was anger about the electoral college. but the electoral college is the problem. without changing that, you're not going to get anywhere. >> because of time short, let's get if you questions from the other side. >> hold on a second for the microphone. >> my name is zachary.
i'm a student of government. my question is, for professor from zürich. i noticed you mentioned that john got election in part because of economic inequality. there is an article in the washington post a couple of weeks ago, they made the argument that it wasn't exactly inequality, but racism that led to his victory. i do think racism played a role in getting trump elected, why zero what? >> i get it. the donald trump, to the extent that he wasn't nationally known before he became a candidate for president, one of the key factors that he was using, was the earth movement. the idea that barack obama was not a legitimate husband. the argument was that he didn't happen american birth certificate but part of that had to do with he's not one of us. that resonated with a lot of
people. throughout the social media environment, throughout the republican primary process. there's no doubt about it. one of the dynamics of this resentment, is not inequality with respect to economic issues but also a concern that other people are getting a better shake from america than you are. that level of presentment, i think was one of the things that trump was able to play like a virtuoso. that explained why the popular vote deficit that he had nationally, matter less than the 80000 vote margin that he had in those industrial states, pennsylvania, wisconsin and michigan, that really were ground zero for that issue of racial division that you are raising into question. >> i agree. let's get more questions. >> my name is gastonia. i'm a student here at the university.
being in the united states as we have so many different cultures and economics stances like different states, what you feel like the difficulty and also the process of a presidents communication to keeping positive image and all these different states of having trump who one appealing to people someone from west virginia or for someone from a more, even though he didn't win, new york or california, still appealing to those conservative voters from states like that? and people that are so different in the sense of how our dynamics in america are so different.
>> i think what we are talking about here is a change in terms of optimism. for the longest time, if you look across most presidents who have been successful, they've had this vision of a better america. a more optimistic vision. usually, when a person says, the president is better than the future, that doesn't really work. this kind of message that trump offered, it was really a challenge. for americans to adopt. in many ways, there are people who are where trump is on this point. the challenge of how to be optimistic in a time of divide, challenge of how to be optimistic anytime with growing international that, the challenge of how to be optimistic in a time where more and more people are looking at plans that the haven't invested well in because the private pension dance don't exist the
way they used to. want more jobs are being turned offshore because of lower wage rates. you add up all these things, you can understand why. there was a sense that optimism is missed placed. particularly in certain places, certain communities and those were the places where trump did well. it's a great challenge for a politician who wants to be optimistic saying a way that reagan was. or the way that obama was in 2008. that's going to be a great challenge. i imagine there are democrats up to the task because that's one of the strategies that we both talked about in our work about how we want we don't have. maybe there would be a way to turn that around. at the moment, i don't have a great deal of assurance about how that might take shape. >> for clarity,. >> -- >> it was nervous, for clarity, i'm asking more, how does a president in general, appeal to so many different varieties of voters?
>> i can answer that. presidential -- our parties are coalitions. coalition, you have to read on one thing. you can be very different on everything else, you have to read on one big bird hillary clinton should be president. as we you feel? good. you are a democrat. you're not going to ask more questions for you can be racist and supportive of the democratic party. if you think donald trump or hillary clinton should be president, you are one of us. that's all we're going to ask. trump really represents something closer to a movement. he didn't get a vote. republican party has become more and more admit a movement in recent years. democrats are showing interest in becoming a movement. there was a point where a committee, about ten years ago, when some smart guy from ohio came up with a list of ten positions. he said, in order to be the official republican candidate, you have to agree with at least eight of these. it has to do with the iraq war,
ending social security, getting rid of medicare, and the national that. you have to agree with that eight out of ten. summary pointed out, ronald reagan would not have qualified. he didn't agree with eight out of ten. that's a movement. the movement, that's an example of a movement i know of. not a tea party. they said, you have to agree with us on everything or we are going to go you out. they did with a lot of republicans. they were defeated at the polls. movement coalition. our parties are coalitions. they are supposed to be diverse. jumps -- he's closer to a movement leader because his people, his base is supposed to agree on everything. including some things that republicans have not agreed -- a great deal with. like the wall. protectionism, which is not part of a conservative tradition. that's a different kind of president. any president of either party, in recent years. >> thank you to our speakers.