17 Burst results for "Lee Druckman"
"lee druckman" Discussed on How Do We Fix It?
"Yeah i mean. I think it's certainly correct to say that. The democratic platform is more to the left than it has been a very long time but does not have anything to do with subverting democracy. Well that was. That was my next point. Is that the big thing that actually is that. The big difference between the left and or the sort of far left in the far right. Is that the far. Left is fundamentally supportive of representative. Democracy believes. that should be easy to vote to not question election results. Whereas i the far right is fundamentally about subverting democracy at this point and on the issue of democracy in there is absolutely no equivalence between bernie sanders and donald trump. There is no equivalent between afc and josh hawley. Didn't hillary clinton questioned whether the election was fair. Raise some questions but she conceded immediately as someone who comes from a more conservative often see the elements of extremism on the left. Don't get a lot of attention. They they don't get condemned. I think is as much as they should. But you also don't want to fall into a sort of a false equivalence. I mean this is a a dramatically new phase for us. What happened yesterday. And i certainly think that people on the right need to make sure that they don't dismiss. Just how scary and serious. This is amen. It's how do we fix it. i'm richard davies. And i'm jim mags and coming up. We'll discuss some potential solutions. We're back with lee druckman of the new america think-tank lee. What do we do with all this where troubled were upset were disturbed were shaken. But what next well to me. The answer is democracy reform. And i think the fundamental problem is that we have a two-thirds probably pro democracy coalition that is able to act like a super majority and there is a minority of anti democratic ethno fascists. Who have taken over the republican party and because we have a two party system there's really no space for those on the right who believe in democracy to operate so my view is we need a more multi party. Proportional system in which a centre-right party could distinguish from a far right extremist party and work with a coalition of liberals from you know maybe somewhat to the left to a little bit further to the left to you know marginalize. The extremists and at the the model here is western europe You look at germany as as an example there You know there is a far-right already but they are Not in government to me. That's the solution. We changed the way we run elections. We make them more. Proportional allows space for more parties. And that that also is a way of breaking what i call the two-party doom loop. Which is this escalating sense. The other side represents existential threat which justifies more and more extreme actions..
"lee druckman" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Just type the author's name in the search bar at the top of the page. Double UCSB from Washington. Coming up next on book TV from earlier this month and event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. The three editors of the book Congress overwhelmed questions whether or not Congress has the ability to meet the issues of the day. Hello, everyone. I'm you've all of in I'm director of Social, cultural and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute. And it's my great pleasure to welcome you to this discussion of Congress overwhelmed the new book, edited by Kevin Costar, Lea Druckman and Timothy Lip era Congress stands at the heart of our constitutional system. It is the first branch in more ways than one or at least it's supposed to be. In our time, Congress often seems dysfunctional, broken down, even irresponsible. Some observers point to partisanship or polarization as a cause. Other people talk about the temptations of populism or performative politics, scholars might point to historical or institutional causes. This new volume points to a crucial and underappreciated additional reason why Congress is struggling so much. It doesn't have the internal capacity to do what we demand of it is essays Chronicle the institutional decline of Congress and the decades long failure to invest in the knowledge and expertise necessary for it to perform as a first rate legislature. Lack of staff of experience and of resource is too often leaves Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and of the executive bureaucracy. We'll hear from the book's editors about why that has happened and what might be done about it. Our format is very simple. I will introduce our two or three Panelists they leave speak for a bit about an element of the argument advanced in the book. And then the four of us will take up a discussion and at the end, there also be an opportunity for all of you to engage with the panel in Q and a. There are two ways that you can ask a question by email or through Twitter. You can email your question to Alain Alain, whose email is Elaine e l a. Y and Z that Alan a. L. L E. M at a Iittle Gourgue. Or you can tweet them at us with the hashtag Ai Congress overwhelmed. The editors of the volume of three great scholars of Congress sent American government. Kevin Co star is a resident scholar here Day I study in Congress, the separation of powers, political reform and related issues. He's worked at the Arch Street Institute and that the Congressional Research Service And his writings have appeared in many publications. Both academic and general Lee Druckman is a senior fellow in the political reform program at New America. He is the author, most recently of breaking the two party Doom Loop, which I very highly recommend to you, and he writes widely on the challenges facing American democracy. And Timothy LaPierre, A is a professor of political science at James Madison University in Virginia, who studies Congress. Interest groups and lobbying is the author most recently of revolving door lobbying, and he served as Thea Merican Political Science Association Public Service fellow at the House Select Committee on the Modernization of the Congress, the three of them Ring, enormous experience and expertise to the table and the book they've ended. It is a wonderful new resource for students of Congress will hear about different facets of it from from each of them, and we'll start with Kevin costar. So, Kevin, the floor is yours. You've all live in a I something his moderator. Right. Well, thank you. You going? Thank you. Thank you. To all of you who are in the audience. I'm delighted that we're here to celebrate the release of this. New book, which has chapters written by top scholars from Congress. It's been a long time coming lead him and I put in a ton of work, Tonto get this book together. But we couldn't have done it without the help of the roughly two dozen contributors to the volume, so thank you to them, too. Before I go further, I wouldn't give you a simple road map of what I'm gonna talk about in brief and what Lian Temple address and their remarks. My comments are going to focus on the origins of this book. Why do we put this thing together? Please don't talk about the overarching conceptual framework, which is congressional capacity than Tim is going to discuss the survey of congressional staff and the great trove of information and data that we put together that was drawn upon by many of the scholars who contributed to this volume. So let me get to the Why. Why? Why? Another book on Congress? Well, uh, the origin of this book goes back five years to a coffee I had with Lee Druckman, who is at that time a stranger to me. We had of all things interacted on Twitter. I had been writing out there about the Congressional Review Act and how Congress could use it's all making authority to strike down regulations. Lee tweeted in response to me and asked whether it was a good thing for Congressman do if it was being goaded to overturn regulations by entrenched political interest with deep pockets. It's a fair question. Rather debated over social media. We decided to get coffee together. It was one of the best decisions I've made in recent years. What emerged from that coffee chat was that motherly? Looks at things from the left, and I look at things from the right. We both share the same perspective that Congress as an institution was struggling, and when we both agree that part of the failure is due to the individuals in it, and that identified factors like polarization. We're You're playing a role in it. We also had the same perspective that there seemed to be Failure caused by the structure of the institution itself put most broadly, the world around the institution of Congress has changed. The institution itself has not been reorganizing, upgraded so that it can have a real chance to respond to the demands being placed upon it and to meet the public's expectations. And this Could've met a problem. This big, overarching problem. We turned congressional capacity and he's gonna tell you but more about that, Shortly. Now way Both felt that this was a real problem for represented democracy. You just don't have a represent democracy if you don't have a well functioning legislature. Founders wrote the Constitution. They very much expected Legislature to be the heart of the federal governing apparatus, but to anybody who looks a planet that's just doesn't appear to be the case. Um, whole separation of power system is out of balance, with more and more power flowing to the other branches in Congress looking increasingly irrelevant. Now, Lee and I, you know, discuss the fact that in the past when Congress had sort of slid into dysfunction and weakness, it would reorganize itself would strengthen itself. Visa be the executive branch by changing its internal structures and processes would add new staff..
"lee druckman" Discussed on The Economist: Editor's Picks
"Expressed week feelings about her choice. I, vote for the party not attended said Lisa a lifelong Republican staunchly against abortion everyone else appeared fiercely decided. Given. Not just over half were planning to vote democratic. They see more than ever several said this gave rise to awkward scenes. I'm sorry I'm sure you're a nice person but I'm ninety two years old I voted for Republicans and Democrats, and I cannot understand how you can like him a man on Hickory Lane told Mrs Free He then launched a fact filled disarray Shin of Mr. Trump's record before ending fighting back tears on a personal note my father came from Italy trump hates migrants my five dead brothers fought for this country. The son of a bitch calls them suckers. When Mrs Fray Visiting Shaken said this was untrue the man quoted the president slander of John McCain Mrs Fray counted with a fake news story that the late Republican senator killed scores of sailors a fire God. Bless you said the old man. It multiplies said Mrs Fray enigmatically as she walked away though she knocked on at Three Thousand Dollars Twenty sixteen she did not seem used to such pushback. Modern campaigns aimed canvases almost exclusively at likely voters for their own side. She had kindly decided to knock on every door mainly as a favourite Lexington. was also apparent from her assertions which tended to be untrue that Mrs Fray inhabited a deep realm of the trump bubble. Considering much of Fox News too liberal. She got her news from the far right one America News Network, and Epoch Times A pro-trump newspaper produced by the Fallen Gong sect that has spread the Anti Semitic Cunanan conspiracy. When she encountered a like minded voter, her relief was palpable on their doorsteps. She referred to Joe Biden as a communist and any self professed Christians who voted Democratic as Satan worshippers. Lee Druckman political scientist attributes the mutual loathing of America's political tribes to three things cultural sorting, including media bubbles, the slim margins of national elections, which makes them seem existential to both sides and the nationalization of politics which has bulldozed local concerns that once girded communities. All all evident in eastern though it's much provoked voters live cheek by jowl. What lessons does that? One is that politics exaggerates reality while several voters expressed unease about their neighbors allegiances, your columnists nothing to suggest a community anything like as divided as the political views its members expressed on a sunny Saturday morning trumpers and anti-trumps mowed lawns and walk dogs together. Outside. Elections most of them probably give politics little fort given the state of things that is consoling. Yet this election will prove harder to recover from because Republicans taking their cues from the president already trying to invalidate it. Almost misses phrase first words to your columnist were trying to win without stuffing ballots with the Republican Party. She repeatedly assured voters that mail in voting was fraudulent. This promises a new order of conflict for a society whose forbearance cannot be counted on indefinitely. Thanks for listening editor's picks. For. More from US subscribe at economists, Dot. com slash podcast offer. I'm Rosie blow and in London this is the economist..
"lee druckman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"Versus Gore was going to happen, but we know this is gonna happen on November. 3rd President Trump has made a very clear at the debate that he'll continue to call the results fraudulent. And contest the outcome in key states, no matter how wide the margin either way. And that's going to be amplified by a massive amount of disinformation. Obviously Pennsylvania is a major focus of both parties. Post election planning. We've already talked about the number of lawyers that are already employed the number of lawsuits that have been filed Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Arizona, already Minnesota's secretary of state, Steve Simon. He said he fears that the president's supporters will take it upon themselves to mobilize large numbers to go to the polls as poll watchers, But he pointed out they'll be denied access because of Minnesota. They allow only one poll watcher called a challenger, only one per political party at each polling station. So, Simon said he worries that folks on the other side will feel the need to counter mobilize. So one side will mobilize. And then the other side counter mobilizes and then all hell breaks loose. So I tell you that to get to this I found this. Last week it was off a political dot com It's kind of an op ed piece, written by five different writers Couple have been on the show, Larry Diamond Hoover Institution. Lee Druckman Newamerica, Tod Lindberg Hudson Institute Nathan Kalma, Louisiana State University Lily Anna Mason University of Maryland. So it's a long piece. I'm not going to get to all of it, but I just want to throw it out there and then get your response to it. They said At the presidential debate this week, the Republican candidate voiced his concern about political violence left wing political violence. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate likewise voiced concern about Political violence, right wing political violence. Now reading from their peace. Our biggest concern is that a disputed presidential election which we're going to have, especially if there are close contests and a few swing states. Or if one candidate denounces legitimacy, other process could generate violence and bloodshed. We're not being alarmist. There are strong grounds for concern our research, which were reporting here for the first time I already mentioned the authors. Shows a definite upswing in the past few months in the number of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans who say they think violence would in fact be justified if their side loses. The upcoming presidential election. This growing acceptance of the possibility of violence is a bipartisan movement showing that willingness of Democrats Republicans alike to possibly justify violence as a way to achieve political goals. Page two. So the question is, Would you condone violence if the other party's candidate wins the presidential election? In other words, we've always depended on the loyal opposition of the losers. Of elections to carry on a representative republic when you feel and I don't know if I'm speaking for you in particular, but some people feel left and right, that is an existential threat for the other side to win it and the republic as we know it. My life will be changed forever. If the other side wins, That's when violence becomes a riel. Motivating factor, a real possibility. Here's what they found. Among Americans who identify as Democrat or Republican one in three now believe that violence could be justified to advance their party's political goals. Are you kidding me? One and three in September, 44% of Republicans 41% of Democrats that there would be at least a little justification for violence of the other party's nominee Wednesday election Those figures are both way up from June. There's been an even larger increase in the share of both Democrats and Republicans who believe there would either be a lot or a great deal of justification for violence. The numbers are higher. Among the most ideological partisans of Democrats who identify is very liberal, 26% say sure, a great deal of justification for violence. Republicans who identify themselves is very conservative. 16% say they believe there'll be a great deal of justification for violence. This means the extremes of each party. Are 2 to 4 times more apt to see violence is justified in their party's mainstream members. Whatever mainstream members are left altogether, about one in five Americans was strong political affiliations say they are quite willing to endorse violence if the other party wins the presidency. Mother's a sea change in my life, it seems to be anyway. And it it makes me concerned makes me concerned. We depend on the loyal opposition. Of the defeated. That's how the whole thing stays together. That's how the center holds. Shall we just play listener relent right now and take David here, David, Welcome to double the answer. Go ahead. Welcome. How are you, John? The right is overlooking a major election dynamic here. They're relying on policy. They think that you know, these people on the left can be reasoned with And and they have over taken the suburban women vote with their you know, and all that all that talk about Trump's character. Now let's go away. I will use their strategy. And dumb it down a little bit and focus on Biden or Harris character. Now I'm talking to the suburban women. I think they want to support somebody because they're disporting against Trump because his character well, Biden character is far worse than anything, Trump. Said. I mean, you could go to any search engine Joel Girls videos..
"lee druckman" Discussed on Future Hindsight
"That would be terrific. You know be started basically right with the Reagan administration when he basically cut the budget the federal budget for housing by ninety nine percent. And we're still suffering the fallout today. Most of the homeless our the working poor you know they have jobs but they live in shelters or they live in hotels and so many hotels have been. I have heard on the radio. In several areas converted to house the homeless and picking up on Chara's point Lee Druckman. What about the opportunity for politics to be played out more positively at a local and state level? Well I mean certainly. It's the case that local and state politics to the extent that the issues are truly local state issues. Tend to not fall into the predictable. Democrat Republican polarization. That happens at the national level. There is certainly the possibility that we go back to politics. That is more state and local However one of the things that I've noticed that over the last several years in certainly This has become the case in response to Cova crisis. Is that democratic? Governors Democratic states tend to all have one response in Republican. Governors in Republican states tend to to move in tandem as well and you know all the things that somewhat is the extent to which we might see states kind of. I mean there's always been this tension between federalism. The party within federalism in the party that is in the White House tends to want stuff to be done. The National Level Party. That's out of the White House tends to be whilst has to be dug the local state level and you know this fight between the democratic governors and president trump it picks up on a lot of other trends of state attorney general's binding together in partisan ways in so Seems like it's IT'S A. It's a forum shifting on some of these crucial policies and I just seems like a lot of these local things devolve into the local level. Doesn't necessarily reduce polarization it. It just makes the level of power question polarized question and yet there have been other examples though of Republican governors of say Massachusetts Maryland and Ohio. Who have not responded at all in lockstep to the White House or even to other Republican governors so there have been exceptions to that right. Yeah certainly I mean. Massachusetts at Maryland are both basically democratic states with Republican governors. Who are basically a moderate Republicans who probably would fit more in line with the National Democratic Party than the Republican Party? Ohio Dewine is kind of the exception among somewhat mainstream republican governors so we are talking about the impact of covered on civic engagement and political change. And I just wondered whether there's anything from this crisis any of you. That surprised you. That has come about that that in either a good or a terrible way. The you really didn't expect even even a few weeks ago. Yeah I feel like and of course. I didn't know this until it happened. I feel like I actually had a level of immigrant naievety about the power of my adopted country. I came to the states when I was ten with my parents seeking the American dream and I have to to every extent possible attain. Dad I have a world class education. I own my own business. I live in middle class existence. I'm so I feel like the the notion that you can make it in the US if you work as hard really really shaped who. I am except up until the point that I saw nurses who couldn't have protective equipment except until the point that I heard from my friends who couldn't go bury their their siblings so there uncles of their parents except until the point where people are being found dead in apartments because in my home city of New York where I grew up it has completely shattered my sense of the not even the might but the will of the United States to be a great nation and that to me has been completely heartbreaking because I bought into it I bought into it and I worked through college through Grad School. But you know like did all of the things that made all of the sacrifices that you're supposed to make so that then you come out on the other side with a kind of existence that strengthens the country right and this has completely upended my sense of that ideal that I bought into and worked so hard for. So it's been it's been difficult. It's really difficult to to deal with that as someone who is still striving as someone who has an eight and ten year old. Who wants them to have way more than she was able to attain herself? That's a very profound response. Anyone else want to add to that. This is Neil. I think what was really surprising to me is the sheer incompetence of the government. Because I thought you know trump really really wants to win re election and I thought that because of it he would mount a government response. That is so forceful and so good. That people would have no choice but to elect him again and it would be one of those things where it was a side effect. A side effect of him wanting to win the election that he would have a proper response and I. It's incredibly infuriating and sad and everything that delay guys saying so true. There are so many stories and I have to say that as an Asian American to now live in an environment where Asian Americans are being attacked. Because everybody thinks that we're Chinese and were obviously all-chinese. It's it's really scary. I didn't think I was gonna see this kind of time in my life before we finish our podcast. I want to just ask you about the impact of this crisis on organizing whether it's protests or whether it's just bringing people together Cara from democracy matters how. How would you respond so it? It has most certainly impacted the way we we organize as I look at the issues. I most directly involved in This year I'm I'm a commissioner on the Virginia State Complete Count Commission for the two thousand twenty census and so- organizaing around ensuring a complete count in the twenty twenty cents this which will affect political representation for the next decade which will affect the distribution of federal funds to state and local communities You know this. This crisis has profoundly affected our ability to reach people to explain why the sunsets matters to get people to to complete the census and especially students with whom I work at James Madison University on the other hand voting has also become much more challenging as well reaching students. In that way I think we use in person Programming and communication in so many ways you know. I think I for one had taken that for granted in a lot of ways at the same time you know we we. We do a lot of organizing on social media And through group chats. And so but I think this has revealed that that that is just it's not sufficient right That the social networks and digital interaction is just is just not enough and that we do really need to have that social connection In order to have our voices heard. And so I. I think that's one thing coming out of this That we WANNA innovate. We want to be able to reach. People in in new and different ways. you know we. We've had virtual town halls planned with political leaders and debates ahead of elections here in Virginia. And we've moved those online. But it's it's just not the same as as as being in person and and I think it's something that we're all longing for and and missing during this time and and I'm hoping that we'll be able to return to that sooner rather than than later. It's a good way to end. Cara on Ueli from democracy matters Lee Druckman from politics in question Dzaleka Land Viggo Williams from seventy million meal atmos- from future hindsight. Thanks for joining me. I'm.
"lee druckman" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Thank you for more opening statements. Continue right after this on intelligence squared. Us I'm John Donvan and this is intelligence squared. Us before the break we heard norm. Ornstein make his opening statement in supportive. Vira solution by referencing book called breaking the two party doom loop the case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Well that book was written by Lee Druckman. Who now makes his opening statement against the resolution to choose for two parties? Like a lot of you. I'm very worried about American democracy. Here's our basic problem. And I think Norman. I agree on this. Our democracy is set up to require broad compromise. We have two parties that are roughly equally balanced. Both trying to win an elusive narrow majority constantly describing the other side of the enemy. As un-american storm has pointed out it destroys the shared legitimacy the shared sense of fairness on which democracy depends. We are in this hyper partisan doom loop in which both parties fear. What would happen if the other party gets into power because the two parties represent very different visions of America? We have one party. The Democrats organized around Urban America Cosmopolitan multi racial and we have one party the Republicans based around rural America traditionalist white and those two parties. Frankly it's driving us. All crazy doesn't work with our institutions which are not set up to be narrow majoritarian and it doesn't work with our brains which are easily tripped into black and white US versus them binary thinking it used to be that the parties had tremendous overlap and it wasn't clear what the Democrats or Republicans stood for but now choices incredibly high stakes. I don't see how the Democrats get enough of majority to actually force the Republicans to moderate and even if Democrats do move towards that. I don't think the Republican Party would moderate. I think the Republican Party were turned violent because we know what happens when parties feel like they have no legitimate path to power they turned to other non-political means all.
"lee druckman" Discussed on How Do We Fix It?
"You can think of the expansion engine. The Franchise in the eighteen thirties. Jacksonian democracy particularly the progressive era. I think really resonates a lot with today. And then the civil rights era in the nineteen nineteen sixties. Now if you're keeping score at home that's about every sixty years or so that we go through one of these bursts of democracy reform and if we add on another sixty years I from the nineteen sixties that takes us to the decade that we are now entering and all of these periods have have certain things in common in that before the reform happens. This feels like politics is stuck and it's not responsive and things are never going to change and then social movements build up younger generation gets energized. Politics takes takes on this kind of moral energy and then change happens because the people want it. Great Way to end Lee Druckman author of breaking the two Parties Zoom Lou. Thanks for joining us at. How do we fix it? Well it's great to do the fixing time with you all right. The I really like lease notion that somehow we need to bring bring back this mushy middle in our politics. It could be Joe Biden's campaign Slav. Could well be for my money. The by far the best and most exciting suggestion in this book is about ranked choice voting. I think really does have the opportunity to vastly improved political system. Even if we don't go as far as he wants which is having four or five political parties competing with each other you both you and I are skeptics. Antics of that I'm not sure that completely breaking up. A two party system will solve the problems that we're now being faced. Yeah and this is where I'm supposed to be the more conservative one on the show and Richard. You keep you keep letting me down by being alien either. This act waving left optus need you to be for the drama of well partially because I personally want to save the Democratic Party and I don't want the laugh to split apart in in in two very distinctive ways because I think that if you did have a system that encouraged multiparty democracy you'd have the AFC Progressives Bernie progressives the right and she just she just said AFC if she would be a different party from Joe Biden. I believe that's that's true. Yeah so there's a very clear line. I think that the Democrats are much more likely to split apart into two parties than the Republicans are but as the person who's supposedly the more conservative one. Here in our podcast part of conservatism. Is you break. You bought it mentality like before you start taking apart the car motor. Make sure you know how to put it back together again so I am cautious about going too far too quickly on this idea and there aren't a lot of there are a lot of technical issues. With ranked choice voting for example it requires a lot of engagement in terms of the electorate. Because you not only have to know which can you you want to know five or so candidates. How do you rank them? Maybe a lot of people are like well. I know my one two after that is just. I'm just throwing darts. Oh I don't assume that the American voters are are less intelligent than the time on there has been a demonstrate phenomena where people fill out the first two or three blocks and then they give up and so their votes wind up sometimes getting tossed out. Well I think maybe that's more of an argument against referenda than it is against ranked choice voting. Because if you had for instance one election where you went in you went well I kinda like this woman more than I like that that guy but I'd rather that that guy was elected than his more conservative opponent. Then there's a clear choice there. I don't think that's very difficult. Yeah I'd like us to go slow clearly. There are serious problems with what we're doing right now so I'm not saying that our systems perfect doesn't need to be rethought but I do want to take it one step at a time. I think where you and I do agree an actually more in favor of ranked choice voting than you are but I think where we do agree is is recognizing that independence are very large chunk of the American voting public and having a system which recognizes them as has significant players is something we should strive for. You know. I'm not in favor of identity politics but there are an awful lot of groups out there that feel. They're not being heard. And if there's a way way to pull them into our system better I think there's a lot to be said for that so I don't WanNa wind up like Israel where you get these little tiny splinter parties exercising wild outsized sized influence over policy because they form coalitions with artie gets the plurality of the votes. That worries me. But maybe there's middle-brow at the very least lead Drummond's ideas of provocative and given the state of our democracy right now. We certainly need to have a debate. And he's a thinker to watch really recommend the book walk because we need new ideas right. Now it's how do we fix it. I'm Richard Davies. I'm Jim and our producer is Miranda Schaefer where production of Davies content we make podcasts for companies nonprofits. CHECK US out..
"lee druckman" Discussed on The Argument
"Our new parties emerging in France macron has a new party Injure may the Greens are rising and so the systems are are are fluid and new coalitions are emerging and politics is more multidimensional. I mean I think that the multiparty systems of western Europe I think have a better chance of realigning and letting old party's fall away. New parties emerging new coalitions emerge. I think there may be true to that. On the other hand I would just say you could also make the case that in fact what's been interesting is how permeable America's two parties have been to some extent to insurgencies that reflect reflect shifting realities right. I mean no one expected Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination but he won and change the party in certain ways that actually made needed a little bit more electorally viable in certain states. And right now Bernie. Sanders has a good chance to win the Democratic nomination for President and clearly the Democratic Party has moved to the left insubstantial ways now that increases polarization in certain respects. But it does. It does seem to suggest that the two parties these aren't just locked into you know exactly where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were in two thousand twelve right. The issue landscape changes the voters. They're appealing to changes. There has has been in spite of polarization. A lot of sort of turmoil and change in who the parties are winning over the last five years. That's true although I think I think Michelle made it important Horton point earlier when Michelle when you pointed out that this may be actually much more geared toward congress than it is towards fixing the problems with the presidency and it seems to me this does really have the opportunity to reduce some of the Mitch McConnell. ISM that we've seen over the last ten to twelve years in which McConnell basically decided I mean he said it Trying to defeat Obama is our number one goal and in a two party system there is a little bit of zero heroes some aspect that that I worry creates an arms race and if you moved to a multi-party system It doesn't guarantee that we solve our problems. Because some of Monreale as as we're all pointing out but I can a little bit more easily. Imagine changing coalitions forming right whether it's on economics next to them might be one coalition and on social and cultural issues. It's on another one whereas right now we have this system in which particularly the Republican Party has just decided well when Democrats were in power. We we just WanNa make things as terrible as possible so they can look bad and we can take back power. The corollary to that is that by giving representation to kind of political minorities please in different parts of the country whether it be you know. Republicans in Manhattan or Democrats in Non Urban Mississippi. You would create more of a middle that you would potentially create more of a middle ground here. I think that's exactly right. And that's what we used to have. We used to have Mississippi Democrats in Vermont. Republicans and they played key hinge roles in building different coalitions. And that's what we've lost as our. Our party system flattened out into a genuine two party the system. I just WANNA I just WanNa say I'm I also. I'm just much more confident that this could have positive results at the state than I am nationally nationally to the extent that the real story of American politics over the last thirty years have a congress that doesn't want to legislate that wants to abdicate to the president accident. I think a world where you had five parties in Congress and we're passing any bill required not just sort of negotiations between two parties but negotiations nations between four. I think it's just very easy to see that as a world where Congress atrophies even more and everyone just pours more energy into the great polarized is battle over the presidency. Let's end on something concrete. which is for any of our listeners who've won over in making this case what should they a root for or even do to make this dream come closer to reality? Well I think they should start working at the state level and Get involved in advocating for electoral reform at the state level. where I think it's much more likely to happen? I think we should start at the state level And now I think also they should probably by my book and read it well. The book is called breaking the two party doom loop by Lee Druckman Lee. Thank you for joining us. We also want to hear from you to convince you about the need for parties. Any did did what would be your chosen third party. Give us a call at three four seven nine one five four three two four so we can consider playing a new on the show. Now.
"lee druckman" Discussed on The Argument
"The United States has third parties libertarian. Green working families and more but none of them much matters at the federal level and many Americans don't feel well represented by either of the two major parties that alienating played a huge role in two thousand sixteen election making way for Bernie Sanders surprisingly good showing in the Democratic primary and even more so donald trump's shocking nomination the nation as the Republican candidate Lee Druckman is a political scientist at the new America. Think tank and he has a new book out called breaking the two party. Doom loop Lee thinks that it's both desirable and realistic for new parties. Spring up here in the United States and joins us now Lee. Welcome to the argument. Hey it's a it's a real pleasure to be here with you. We're going to try something new here in which you take a few minutes to lay out your argument without our interrupting and then Ross Michelle and I I will argue with you about it so we can make the case for third parties. The case I wanNA make is for proportional system of voting that allows for third parties to compete without being spoilers and to turn America into a multiparty democracy. Now I think the greatest threat to our democracy democracy right now is the hyper partisanship that is destroying our political institutions and breaking the shared sense of fairness and legitimacy that democracy mcreavy depends on splitting the nation essentially into this is not a sustainable situation. And it's really a feature of our two party system for for most of our political history. Those parties were overlapping. And we had something more like a multiparty democracy and I think that worked well with our institutions Russians which demand broad compromise and coalition building. And it's only really in the nineties that that kind of fell away and I would say by twenty ten We we had that dreaded. Two party system doesn't work with our institutions doesn't represent the diversity of America and it deprives a Lotta people of a meaningful vote because it means that most districts are lopsided One way or the other now the system that I propose We switched to is a system system that has been used in Australia has been used in Ireland and that would create modest multiparty democracy probably about four to six parties. It would mean multi member the district for the house combining The single district's now into probably districts of three to five members and ranked choice voting which is a system that ATN is now used in Maine New York City a bunch of other places in which voters get to rank their preferences and Candidates get eliminated from the bottom up until There are in a in a five winner system five winners in a single winner system one majority winter and I think it's totally a a feasible thing to do. We're we're seeing it in some cities and when I think about the broad history of American democracy I I see that we I've had these moments of of the reform. They've happened at times in which people have been incredibly frustrated with the status quo and I believe we can do it again. And I don't think there should be ARATU cool idea. Most countries around the world Most democracies use proportional voting systems. They have multiparty democracy's we had the Multi Party democracy within our two party system for a long time and that was the period in which American democracy worked reasonably well so the the truly radical experiment that we're running thing is having a genuine two party system with two parties representing fundamentally different values fundamentally different geographies and forcing every American to to make an artificially binary choice and so on and the system you imagine. Eat No five districts in Texas that right now all elect Republicans It might be that they said one Democrat and that the Republicans they now send become you know maybe there was Donald Trump Republican party and more of a Paul Ryan Republican Party and and and it would look more like that. I think that's that's exactly right. We would see probably a fracture into two or three parties on the right two or three parties on the left and then the parties would come together and build different coalitions on different issues and I think that would create a system in which. There's not one party that feels like it runs the risk of being permanently in the minority and not one party that that is trying to always try to win that elusive permanent majority and so much of the problem in our system. Is that neither party has a clear winning majority and both parties. Feel that if they fight hard enough they can be the majority and if they don't fight hard enough they're going to be in the permanent minority. So I I would say ninety. Five percent agree with Lee People who listen to this show before know that I've spoken really negatively about third parties because I think that within our system is currently constituted they can only play assertive nihilistic spoiler role and ensure that you know by voting third third party you make it more likely that the person who's ideologically farthest from you gets elected but yes if you have ranked choice voting in particular then it. It makes voting third-party feasible in Strategic and Multi member districts address. What I think is one of the biggest problems in American politics which is serve the increasing tendency towards minority rule by a rural wait a minority that is advantaged both by the structure of the Senate and the Electoral College but also just by the way that the populace is spread out so that you have kind of people in the cities really concentrated and Democrats and Democrats everywhere else Sort of impotent. Because you know if you're forty percent of a population you get zero representation but all that said what. I'm not sure I buy is the argument that it makes us less polarized because one thing that the two parties seem to do is sort of forced worst people who might be on the ideological edges into some sort of coalition before voting happens right so if there was is multi party democracy. Wouldn't you have a much bigger. You'd have much bigger kind of socialist representation and also probably a much. Bigger are far right nationalist style. You know kind of Marine Le Pen style party. I think all of that is true that you would have a broader diversity city of representation in Congress but I do think that there are some advantages to that One is that more people would feel represented and and the the big difference. Is that if you all. Politics is coalition building. And either you form the The coalition's before the election or after the election in multiparty democracy you form the coalition's after the election and what it means is that the coalition's can be more fluid inflexible We have two coalitions. Now they are distinct and non overlapping and there is very little flexibility in those coalitions. They're very rigid aged and neither has a clear majority in multiparty systems. You can form different coalitions at different times and those coalitions have to represent an actual majority now in the US. By winning. A plurality of a of a plurality party donald trump got total power and managed managed to take over the entire Republican Party and in the proportional systems in western Europe. Certainly there are far right parties but but they only wind up getting about fifteen percent of the vote and they don't go into coalition in government. Because nobody wants to form a coalition with them but to be but to be clear. I I mean a proportional system would change the way we elect. Congress wouldn't change the way we like the president would it No not immediately I. The president is still going to be of of one party but I think the president would have to get a majority in Congress and that would require more work. in a multi-party system. But it also would mean that if the other coalition was wasn't power in Congress the president wouldn't Defaced automatic gridlock that there'd be more bargaining and perhaps more coalition cabinets even And I think it would mean that Congress would be much stronger as an institution Shen because Congress In the in this two party system congress is either of the same party as the president in which case they just defer power entirely to the president or Congress of the opposite party of the president. In which case it's all gridlock and opposition which actually winds up just forcing the president to do stuff by executive action. So I think we'd have a system that is more like the system we had from been sixty s to the late eighties in which presidents built majorities in Congress. Congress was a strong institution committee base and we had a lot of landmark legislation during that period. Passed with broad bipartisan majorities. He's and and I would argue that because we had something more like a four party system during that period with liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats Alongside Liberal Democrats. Let's and conservative Republicans. And that's what I'm trying argue that we should have again. It's just that we can't get to it within our existing testing system of single winner first-past-the-post elections i. I WanNa talk a little bit about the comparison to Europe And and I should say that I would be delighted to have a multi-party system but it it seems to me that if you look at the very different electoral systems of western Europe right right now. They are in ways. That are sort of specific to Europe reproducing. A lot of the same political polarization that we have in the United States just Great Britain for instance has effectively a three party system with new parties popping up on the edges and it has just endured kind wrenching constitutional crisis and a period of total gridlock. It seems to me that reflects these sort of deep similarities between Western in countries where they're all increasingly polarized between kind of metropolitan liberalism. And a sort of blue collar hinterland conservatism. That feels left behind by globalization in various ways and that manifest itself differently in different places but in each country. It's the reason for for the rise of populism is the reason for polarization and so on and I guess my main skepticism about your proposal is it just seems to me quite likely that part of our polarization really reflects real polarization and not just a sort of something that's imposed by the particular accuser system. That we happen to have. Yeah I think that's It's fair to say that Western democracies are experiencing a lot of the same Issues and a lot of it stems from the urban rural polarization Now I think the the question then becomes what what political system is most likely to reach a resolution on these conflicts and the UK has the same first-past-the-post voting system. So it's basically basically a two party system with a with a few smaller parties that are spoilers and and and it it empowers minority rule the Conservatives won the last election with like forty three percent of the vote and yet they get total power. And it's reproducing the same binary conflict in the US. Now we go to continental Europe with with multiparty systems. And what you see..
"lee druckman" Discussed on Left, Right & Center
"We got rid of automatic spending cuts that were just as we saw when we talked about this earlier this year during the shutdown. Where's your so problematic and what the point that twenty eleven law did was every couple of years we had an environment of crisis that was sort of self manufactured because we had to undo funding levels that were artificially created <hes> and we created a kind of brinksmanship in the meantime Congress still head to fund the government and so I think getting rid of automatic matic spending cuts <hes> was a very important part of what happened in this last deal one criticism? I've been hearing from Democrats with this deal. It runs out in mid twenty twenty. One people are saying it sets up a situation you could have a Democratic president and you would give the Republican Congress Chris Power Soon in that president's term to pull basically what happened in twenty eleven with Barack Obama and threaten a debt ceiling crisis and try to force some big spending cuts related to that you talk about getting rid of the sequester you're getting rid of the lever that has forced Republicans is to the table over and over again since two thousand thirteen two thousand fourteen which is Republicans are focused on undoing the automatic spending cuts in the military and you've seen relatively smooth dealmaking in most cases starting with Paul Ryan and Patty Murray Twenty fourteen do worry about about setting up that twenty twenty one crisis. I do worry about setting up other kinds of spending crises but I think what we have to do which I think we're gonNA talk about. Later in the show is really rethink what it means to fund the Federal Government End to actually use public investment spending so I was obviously I wasn't there. I don't know why they couldn't go get past sort of June twenty twenty one <hes> I actually we've seen very many short term deals that were far less than two years so I I expect that this was really the best that the speaker could get and I think that pushing it out this long actually gives us time to start talking about what the what the debt-to-gdp ratio really ought to be <hes> I have some confidence that actually we can <hes> both get more Revenue Avenue <hes> and increase our understanding of what that ceiling ought to be so we can actually really start funding government Felicia. What do you want to talk about well? What I really wanted to talk about? Was this recent polling we've seen that has as looking very hard at how important independence are are in the twenty twenty presidential race. You know you've seen trump's approval rating about ten percent higher in must win states like Wisconsin and Florida and most of this is with white non college voters so I think it's really important to look at these independents to ask ask what are they actually think about the economy and why might they vote on what basis might they vote <hes> and there's a couple of things that democrats should really focus on <hes> first of all many of these white working class voters are economically distressed and that it could actually affect their vote away from trump. I just did a study <hes> for the voter study group with my co-authors Lee Druckman and Vanessa Williamson and we found that not only one in five Republicans think more like a Democrat on economic policies. They want to tax the rich which they wanNA raise minimum wage. They're actually they say they're more likely to vote against president trump because of that <hes> the second thing is that when you go right to the ultimate swing voter independence who are economically progressive these people are seven percent of the electorate and they've already started switching their votes. They pulled the lever for congressional Democrats by sixteen points more in two thousand eighteen than they voted for Hillary Clinton in two thousand sixteen. You have correctly I think this focus on and <hes> independence white working class voters but let's not forget that these folks are actually economically progressive so rich it feels to me like there are hazards and opportunities for for both parties in in these areas that Felicias describing. I think that these observations ovation's actually do significant extent to inform Donald Trump's two thousand sixteen campaign with his emphasis on the needs of workers rather than entrepreneurs on trade and being in favour of Tariffs de Emphasizing entitlement cuts that previous.
"lee druckman" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"So booing there against a heckler who was interrupting Howard Schultz. You know on the other hand, we got some comments coming in online. GPS six to thirty four says the general concept works for me referring to what Howard Schultz is talking about Jay PX to thirty four says, I don't ride the Acela with him kind of like Charlie Baker for the whole country. Referring there to Massachusetts Republican governor, let's go to the phones Amelia is calling from Placetas New Mexico Emilia on the air. Hey, thank you. Yeah. So I think that David has some fundamental flaws in what he thinks of independent is hasn't as identifies independent I've been registered that way for decades. And I vote Republican democrat independent, and if I thought the socialist Representative had a better idea I'd go that way to I'm a pragmatist. I'm fiscally responsible. But I'm definitely socially humanitarian. I'm on the kind of person who has no problem saying, I'm pro-life, but I'm pro choice. I don't buy into the presumption of m- of lot of this conversation that we will always default only being to party country. He is. Amelia may just jump in here for second and forgive me for interrupting because I think Lee Druckman a who's researched American voters when we talked with him at the beginning of the conversation. He wasn't saying that voters like, you don't exist. I mean, absolutely. He wasn't saying that at all. He just says there aren't as many of them as as folks who generally call themselves independence, and that that was the issue. And I I did hear that part as a person who is thought this way for a long time. I have seen a profound increase in the numbers of people who don't want to be part of the Republican or democratic parties, and they are defaulting that way because they fear being cast aside is irrelevant that doesn't make them disappear. And it doesn't honestly make their votes here. Relevant. It means that we're going to keep you disenfranchised. So I think it's more folks are willing to say we might be three or four party country, which I would feel much better about we'll see people stepping forward and being willing to be identified. Not you know, not even claiming who they are. But saying I'm not a democrat. I'm not a repeating well Amelia, thank you. So very much for your call le-. Let me go back to you and respond to what you heard Amelia say. Yeah, I mean, I think Amelia is expressing a real frustration that a lot of people feel and with with the two parties. And that's one reason why we do see record number of people identifying as independents, people feel frustrated with with the limited choices they have. And they don't necessarily feel either party really speaks for them. But again, given a two party system. Most people do see a difference. And so they were I mean, I think the distinction between people who identify as independence and vote consistently as Democrats or Republicans, and people who are genuine independence, is that the genuine independence. Really don't see any difference between the two parties are really feel caught between them, and that's a very small number of people. But you know, again, I think it is important to recognize that there is a real. I think a lot of people like Amelia feel really frustrated with the choices on offer. And and I do think America would would be much more Representative if we had a four or five party system, I think we'd see much higher voter turnout and think we'd see a much more functional government. I think we'd see true majorities reflected in a lot more policies. I think I think we'd be a much healthier democracy, but we have to change our electoral rules to do that America has often been I it's not true that America's always been a two party.
"lee druckman" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Whether it's athlete protests, the Muslim travel ban gun violence, school reform or just the music. That's giving you life right now race is the subtexts to so much of the American story on coats, which we make that subtext text. You can listen to us on NPR one or wherever you get your podcasts. This is on point a mega chucker bardy. We're talking this hour about reaction to former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz saying that he's considering a presidential run as an independent enroll. So questioning what a true independent in America is right now whether or not they are actually the almost forty percent of the electorate as they are registered or act a much smaller number. We're joined today by Lee Druckman, he is a senior fellow in the political reform program at new America, a non-partisan think tank and joining us now also from Washington is David Frum. He's a staff writer at the Atlantic. Former speech writer for President George W Bush Bush, I should say, and he has recently written about Howard Schultz in the Atlanta, we have a link to that at on point radio dot org. David fromm, welcome to the program. Thank you so much. It's great to have you also with us is near a tendon. She's with us from Washington as well. She's president and CEO of the center for American progress served both in the Obama and Clinton administrations was top advisor to. Lary Clinton during Hillary Clinton's twenty sixteen presidential run near at hand. And welcome to you as well. Thank you for having me. Okay. So David fromm. Let me start with you. You're writing that Howard Schultz is just the thing that the democrat Democratic Party needs to save it from itself. Why? Yes. Well, imagine if Tony Perkins or some other evangelical leader of announced this week that he was planning a twenty twenty run on a real no fool and bring back. God honest to goodness pro-life, no compromises with the gay rights agenda, independent candidacy, I think a lot of the people were upset about Howard Schultz would be very inwardly happy. I mean, they might deplore inwardly they'd be happy because they would recognize this candidate is drawing votes from Donald Trump's coalition. The reason that so many Democrats and liberals are upset about the Howard Schultz prospect is they recognize that Schulz will draw from the democratic coalition not enormous numbers of people. But even fleas figure is correct that it's four percent. Four points is the difference in Hillary Clinton winning and losing. So they recognize that this is coming from them. Why are they able to this challenge? And the answer is because right now, the Democrats are running a left her than thou competition should the maximum tax rate. Be raced fifty percent or seventy percent or seventy five percent, how big should the wealth tax be. If you leave the country should be allowed to take your wealth with you Medicare for all, you know, how John and forgetting that one of the reasons the Democrats did so well in two thousand eighteen is in a lot of people who normally vote Republican, but could not stomach Donald Trump in a lot of places like suburban Houston in the suburbs of Philadelphia. They held their noses and voted for the other party in order to put a check on a rogue president. What Howard Schultz is doing is reminding Democrats, those people exist and they're important. They're not a majority at all. And they're not a plurality, but they are necessary to the anti-trump coalition or anyway, it's highly risky to run an anti-trump coalition without them. And the Democrats right now are engaged in building anti coalition Trump coalition without suburban moderates. Well, so as you right in your ear Atlantic piece, you you say that that President Trump will be beaten not by his fiercest enemies, but by his softest supporters. I mean to that point we've got a comment coming in here on our website from some unnamed honesty who says that Schultz is offered genuine criticism of some of the damaging awful left wing ideas being proposed by democratic presidential hopefuls and honesty mentions. Those high marginal tax rates wealth tax accept Medicare for all its cetera. So let's hear listen a little bit more from Schultz himself criticizing democratic presidential contender. Kamala. Harris Senator come come Harris is Medicare for all healthcare plan. This was Scholtz on..
"lee druckman" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Are a little bit little bit right of center on immigration social issues, some a little bit more writers center, but like think government should help people, and maybe tax the rich little more and support Medicare, and and healthcare and social security. My most people think these are pretty important things for government to do. And one reason Trump may have probably one in in two thousand sixteen is is because he he spoke to these voters, and he tried to differentiate himself from other Republican candidates by saying that he was going to protect Medicare and social security now turn out that as president. He has done has has moved considerably to the right from where he was as a candidate. But he spoke to two very very popular issues. And there are a lot of voters out there who who. Who want government to help them out? But you know, might be a little uncomfortable with with too much immigration and might hold some traditional religious values. Okay. So how is it? Then that we should be defining or thinking about what an independent voter is in America versus what you know. A a politically centrist American might be. Well, these are quite loaded terms. You know, I mean, I mean, I guess a true independent, if you if you want to be specific about it would be somebody who really doesn't care or doesn't see any difference between the two parties and kind of goes back and forth between them and again. That's maybe five percent of the electorate at most. You know, a centrist is probably somebody who's in the middle of of the distribution on both of the important political questions economic, and social, and, you know, th there's not that many people like that either. I mean, a lot of people are are cross pressured, and maybe liberal on the people who who don't feel well represented by the two parties are are mostly people who are liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues. So maybe you could argue that that's the center, but but the true center, I think it's it's actually pretty small, and again, we also have to keep in mind that there are a lot of people who will tell pollsters that they're sort of in the middle or if they're moderate. But that's again because it's a nice label in the way that independent is a nice label. You know, people say well, a moderate, I'm independent. Well, those are also a lot of people who don't pay that close attention to politics. I mean, frankly, you know, we're we're the weird people in the country who like have have thought through all the issues and really have strong opinions most people now they're busy living their lives. And you know, they trust party to more or less represent them. But, you know, poster estimate battery of questions most people if they haven't thought about it they'll kind of pick the middle answer, although say, well, not liberal not conservative. I guess a moderate then not a I don't feel strongly about being a democrat or being a Republican. I guess I'm an independent. So that's why we see high numbers for people identifying as moderate or independent interesting. Well, Michelle Goldberg in a New York Times is site. She cites some research from from the Pew Research Center, showing that over the past two decades, self identified independents have actually grown more ideologically polarized. Not more. Moderate and she points out that America has two independent senators and one of them is Bernie Sanders. Interesting, but I wanna play a little bit more more tape here from from Howard Schultz and his interview on CBS is sixty minutes, of course, after Scholtz announced that he was considering a presidential run. He got a lot of heat from from Democrats saying that his run may may help reelect President Donald Trump into that Scholtz told Scott Pelley on sixty minutes that if he did decide to run he would be representing all Americans of all parties. Do you worry that you're going to siphon votes away from the Democrats and thereby ensure that President Trump has a second term? I want to see the American people win. I wanna see America win. I don't care if you're democrat independent. Libertarian Republican bring me your ideas, and I will be an independent person who will embrace those ideas because I am not in any way. In bed with a party Howard Schultz on sixty minutes on Sunday, Lee, Druckman isn't the fundamental problem here not so much who or what is an independent in America right now..
"lee druckman" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Okay. So I love that people are really upset about this. It's not just that random guy in the audience. I mean, frankly, I don't understand what Cory Booker is doing out there in the audience shouting at him. It don't help a Democrats are so threatened by the possibility of a centrist democrat running that they're getting up and shouting at Howard Schultz. Now the way to stop people from voting for Howard Schultz. If you're a democrat is to nominate somebody who isn't that bleep crazy is to nominate somebody who isn't pledging to destroy one quarter of the American economy till may nominate somebody who doesn't pledge for move guns from the hands of one hundred million people. Why are you start with that can be nominated? Somebody who wasn't quite as nutty, then maybe you wouldn't have to worry about Howard Schultz. But the fact is that Democrats in the base want their cake, and they want to too they want to be able to nominate somebody radical without alienating everybody in the middle. This is why shell Goldberg over at the New York Times Zinni sheer panic today. Michelle Goldberg because legitimately the stable over at the New York Times this stable of just awful columnists. It really is amazing. But Michelle Goldberg has a piece today called Howard Schultz. Please don't run for president a bid by extra of Starbucks would be reckless idiocy. Why would it be anymore? Than Elizabeth Warren running for president while because Howard Schulz's moderate. So here's what Michelle Goldberg sessions. Unlike Donald Trump, the former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz is genuinely successful businessman who built a company that's become part of the daily lives of people across America for this. Those of us who are horrified by Trump's relentless scripting should be grateful. It gives us something concrete to boycott should Schultz decided to launch a narcissistic spoiler campaign for president. So she's happy that he is associated with Starbucks because then they can boycott Starbucks worth noting. Michelle Goldberg is so dumb that. She doesn't even recognize that he's the former Starbucks CEO. He's no longer associated with Starbucks. So she's going to boycott company. He's no longer involved in brilliant. But here's what Michelle Goldberg writes. I mean, do they even have editors over the New York Times anymore? She says could end up helping get Donald Trump reelected shorts appears to share the conviction endemic among American elites that the country hungers for a candidate who socially liberal, but fiscally conservative after all if you're rich. You probably know a lot of people like this. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Centrist would love to vote for rational democrat and get Trump out of the White House chief executive of the major Bank who wanted to remain. Anonymous recently told politico lamenting Michael Bloomberg's poor odds of the democratic primary, but this frustrated executives politics aren't widely shared by people who haven't been Saddam votes in two thousand seventeen study the political scientists Lee Druckman plotted the two thousand sixteen electorate along two axes one dealing with social issues that identity the other with economics and trade only three point eight percent of voters fell into the socially liberal, economically, conservative, quadrant. So here's the question. What is Michelle Goldberg? So scared of why she's so scared. What what what you worry about? If nobody in the Democratic Party is gonna vote for this guy. The what does she worried about it? She worried about what's her face Marianne Williamson who announced she's going to run for president. Is she worried out Marianne Williamson with why isn't there a column in the New York Times about the kooky yoga instructors who for Marianne Williamson? The answer is nobody knows who she is. And she's not gonna win any votes. So if there's no constituency for Howard, Schultz wise, Michelle Goldberg all upset about his possible candidacy. So here's what she says. She says Bloomberg's research underscores the folly of Schulz's trial balloon Monday, Bloomberg Wisconsin plating at twenty twenty. Rhonda's the democrat put out a statement that seemed aimed at Scholtz though, it didn't mention him by day in two thousand twenty eighth grade likelihood is that independent would just split. The anti Trump vote and end up reelecting the president RoH Bloomberg. That's a risk I refuse to run in two thousand sixteen and we can't afford to run it. Now baffler with such a risk Schultz is demonstrating a level of medical maniacal recklessness. That is it self disqualifying. So the fact that Scholtz things maybe I should run to raise because there's a bunch of people who don't like either party. That's megalomania. Call now. So there's no you can't have it both ways. Either. No one's gonna vote for him. So why are you worried or everyone's gonna vote for him? So maybe he should run by the show Goldberg and many in the Democratic Party won it both ways, they know they're too radical for the American people, and it freaks them out that somebody might be running a third party candidacy that could damage a beloved candidate like Elizabeth ward or combo a Harris or Bernie Sanders. Okay. Just a second. I wanna get to more of Howard Schulz's program, and why Democrats should feel threatened by it first. Let's talk about your car sooner or later, we all know it your car's going to break down. It's a fact every car truck and SUV owner knows if you're lucky that's going to happen while you're still under manufacturer's warranty. But if it happens after the words, he expires, well,.
"lee druckman" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"They wanna be able to nominate somebody radical without alienating everybody in the middle. This is why Michelle Goldberg over at the New York Times. Did he sheer panic today? The Schober legitimately the stabile over at the New York Times a stable of just awful columnists. It really is amazing. But Michelle Goldberg has a piece today called Howard Schultz. Please don't run for president a bid by an extra. Starbucks would be reckless idiocy. Why would it be any more than Elizabeth Warren running for president well because Howard Schulz's moderate? So here's what Michelle Goldberg says, unlike Donald Trump, the former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz is generally successful businessman who built a company that's become part of the daily lives of people across America for this. Those of us who are horrified by Trump's relentless scripting should be grateful. It gives us something concrete to boycott should Schulz decide to launch a narcissistic spoiler campaign for president. So she's happy that he is associated with Starbucks because then they can boycott Starbucks worth noting. Michelle Goldberg is so dumb that. She doesn't even recognize that he's the former Starbucks CEO. He's no longer associated with Starbucks. So she's going to boycott a company, he's no longer involved in brilliant. But here's what Michelle Goldberg writes. I mean, do they even have editors over at the New York Times anymore? She says he could end up helping get Donald Trump reelected Schultz appears to. Share the conviction endemic among American elites that the country hungers for a candidate who is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative after all if you're rich. You probably a lot of people like this. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist who would love to vote for rational democrat and get Trump out of the White House chief executive of the major Bank who wanted to remain. Anonymous recently told politico women getting Michael Bloomberg's poor odds of the democratic primary, but this frustrated executives politics aren't widely shared by people who haven't been to Davos it. A two thousand seventeen study the political scientists Lee Druckman plotted the 2016 electric along two axes one dealing with social issues that identity the other with economics and trade only three point eight percent of voters fell into the socially liberal, economically, conservative, quadrant. So then here's the question. What is Michelle Goldberg? So scared of why she's so scared like what what what what you worried about if nobody in the Democratic Party is gonna vote for this guy. Then what is she worried about it? She worried about what's her face Marianne Williamson who announced she's going to run for president. Is she worried out Marianne Williamson with why isn't there a column, you're? New York Times about the cookie yoga instructors who who are gonna vote for Marion Williams. The answer is nobody knows who she is. And she's not gonna win any votes. So if there's no constituency for Howard Schultz, Why's Michelle Goldberg all upset about his possible candidacy. So here's what she says. She says Bloomberg's research underscores the folly of Schultz's trial balloon on Monday. Bloomberg was contemplating at twenty twenty round is a democrat put out a statement that teams aimed at Scholtz though. It didn't mention him by name in twenty twenty great likelihood is that independent would just split. The anti Trump vote and end up reelecting the president RoH Bloomberg. That's a risk refused to run in two thousand sixteen and we can't afford to run it now by flirted with such a risk Schultz demonstrating a level of medal maniacal recklessness. That is it self disqualifying. So the fact that Scholtz thinks maybe I should run to raise because there's a bunch of people who don't like either party that's meglomaniac now. So there's no so you can't have it both ways either. No one's gonna vote for him. So why are you worried or everyone's gonna vote for him? So maybe he should run. But the show Goldberg and many in the Democratic Party won it both ways, they know they're too radical for the American people, and it freaks them out that somebody might be running a third party candidacy that could damage a beloved candidate like Elizabeth Warren or combo, Harris or Bernie Sanders. Okay. And just a second. I want to get to more of Howard show. Tsa's program. Why Democrats should feel threatened by it first? Let's talk about the coffee. You had this morning now was that good? My guess mediocre. You want better coffee morning coffee is an American institution. Which is why would it comes to starting my day? I reach for the most American coffee on the market black rifle coffee..
"lee druckman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"And analysis from NPR and WNYC. All this hour. We've been talking about the new congress. We ask you for your expectations by name is John Farage from Orleans, Pennsylvania. I don't see the opportunity much progress. My name Laura, and I am from forest grove, Oregon. I fully expect the new congress to be completely ineffective listens. Not a lot of hope out there. And that's not a surprise public opinion of Congress's pretty dismal. According to Gallup's most recent data just eighteen percent approve of the job. Congress is doing the house of representatives has a reputation for being a bit rowdy. There are four hundred thirty five members after all that's more than four times the number in the Senate. But did you ever wonder where that number came from? It's four thirty five because in the nineteen tens of the nineteen twenties. Congress couldn't agree at add more members. And then they decided well, maybe we have enough. So it's been that way for over a century. Now, that's Lee Druckman. He's a senior fellow in the political reform program at new America. And he has an idea for fixing the dysfunction in the house. Make it bigger might really congress would be a much more Representative institution. If there were more members at four hundred thirty five it's hard for congress to be really a Representative sample of the country, which it was intended to. Be congress are though more diverse now than it was before the twenty eighteen election is still predominantly an institution of older whiter men. And it doesn't really reflect the country have a bigger congress. It's more Representative of the country. I think ultimately it would create more space for new coalitions to form something a little bit more like a multi-party system in which you build coalitions on issue by issue basis leadership wouldn't be able to be so top down. You'd have a more vibrant committee system more vibrant subcommittee system, which arguably is is how congress has worked best. If if you want to look at when congress was most productive from about the nineteen sixties to the to the eighties was when there was a real thriving committee system subcommittee system. And I think that's exactly what you would wind up having with a much larger house. Yeah. I mean to me that is the most exciting part of it. Right. The theory that we can really create different kinds of coalitions that today or not. Possible in a house that has many more people and the interests are going to be much more localized tell me how big us think the house should be how many members do you think would be a good place to start? Then that would mean how many people in a congressional district would be represented by a member. So I'm going to go back to what it was. One thousand nine hundred twelve when we got four thirty five it was about two hundred thousand to one and that would take us to sixteen hundred members in the US house, which is a pretty serious increase. Although it still puts us on the high side in terms of international comparisons on the number of constituents per Representative in the UK. It's a hundred thousand to one in Germany. It's it's pretty similar the only other comparable democracy that would be over that is Japan at two hundred and seventy thousand or so to one so it's still possess on the high side. So Lee someone who I pride myself on knowing all of the congressional districts in the country, and who represents those districts, I can barely keep up with the new members of congress elected every two years how on earth could having maybe sixteen hundred members not turn into total utter chaos. Well, it would be a little bit more chaotic that's for sure. But maybe cast is a good thing. If it creates fluidity and responsiveness, sure members might not get to know each other. But they don't really get to know each other now already Congress's kind of a big chaotic institution, particularly the house. I think what you'd see if you had a much larger house is UT this decentralisation of power in the house, which I think would loosen some of this binary, hyper partisanship and would create some space for new coalitions that cut across the way that the parties are split right now. And then we, of course, get into the important question of how that house then works with the much smaller United States Senate, especially a Senate that could be controlled by one party. Right. And so you could get a whole bunch of bills making it through the house when the with these divers interesting new coalitions, and then they get to the Senate and just hit a total roadblock. How could this process actually push legislation beyond just the house while the Senate was designed to be the place where the passions of the people were cooled and the Senate is the place where legislation goes to die. So I have a proposal an idea that's been in my mind, but I'm going to put it out there and see what people think is is a reverse filibuster in which the Senate has to vote on any Bill that get sixty percent of sport in the house and vote up or down. But it, but it has. Vote on it. That would keep the Senate from being an entire. I think there'd be a lot of pressure on the Senate to bring up bills that are popular in the house. The other big divide. We have in this country, as you very well know is geographic right that there is a rural urban divide that has gotten even more significant and tell me how increasing the size of the house would impact that it seems to me that it would make that rural urban divide even worse with rural legislators feeling like oh my gosh. We're losing all of our influence, obviously, the areas of growth in this country aren't coming in places like Nebraska or Kansas or North Dakota. Well, certainly, you would have more presentative who would represent the broader spectrum of the country. But I mean, the reality is that that rural America is less than twenty percent of the population now is classified as rural and the the congress should reflect the broader population of the country and right now because of the way districts are drawn rural America has a disproportionate influence in the US house. So I think the house should represent the diversity of the country fairly not in a distorted way, which it does now. And do you see this as sort of an all or nothing thing? Like, forget about just increasing it by ten or fifteen seats or twenty seats. You gotta you gotta go for sixteen hundred or a thousand or not really try at all. I mean, I'm a believer in doing it in a really big way. Some people have proposed to go back to what the framers would have intended. If we got to. This big of a country, which would be about six thousand that was actually this is the funding this fun. Bit of history is that the original first amendment was going to be an apportionment amendment that Madison's initially proposed twelve amendments of which only amendments three three twelve became the Bill of rights, but amendment number one was that you were going to fix the number of constituents to representatives at thirty thousand to one up to one hundred members forty thousand to one to two hundred members and then after that fifty thousand to one and that was as high as as he could conceive of going now past the congress. It was always just one state short of getting the the requisite three quarters of states to to approve it Lee Dreckman. Thank you so much for joining us. Hey, it's my pleasure lead Trotman is a senior fellow in the political reform program at new America. Here's my take more members.
"lee druckman" Discussed on KCRW
"We have enough. So it's been that way for over a century. Now, that's Lee Druckman. He's a senior fellow in the political reform program at new America. And he has an idea for fixing the dysfunction in the house. Make it bigger might really congress itself would be a much more Representative institution. If there were more members at four hundred thirty five it's hard for congress to be really a Representative sample of the country, which it was intended to be congress. Are though more diverse now than it was before the twenty eighteen election is still predominantly an institution of older whiter men. And it doesn't really reflect the country have bigger congress. It's more Representative of the country. I think ultimately it would create more space for new coalitions to form something a little bit more like a multi-party system in which you'd build coalitions on issue by issue basis leadership wouldn't be able to be so top down. You'd have a more vibrant committee system more vibrant subcommittee system, which arguably is is how congress has worked best. If if you want to look at when congress was most productive from about the nineteen sixties to to the eighties was when there was a real thriving committee system and a subcommittee system. And I think that's exactly what you would wind up having with a much larger house. Yeah. I mean to me that is the most exciting part of it. Right. The theory that we can really create different kinds of coalitions that today are not possible. In a house that has many more people in the interests are going to be much more localized tell me how big youth think the house should be how many members do you think would be a good place to start? And that would mean how many people in a congressional district would be represented by a member. So I'm going to go back to what it was one thousand nine hundred twelve when we got to four thirty five was about two hundred thousand to one and that would take us to sixteen hundred members in the US house, which is a pretty serious increase. Although it still puts us on the high side in terms of of international comparisons on the number of constituents per Representative in the UK. It's one hundred thousand to one in Germany. It's it's pretty similar the only other comparable democracy that that would be over that is Japan two hundred and seventy thousand or so to one so it's still puts us in the high side. So. So Lee someone who I pride myself on knowing all of the congressional districts in the country, and who represents those districts, I can barely keep up with the new members of congress elected every two years how on earth could having maybe sixteen hundred members not turn into total utter chaos. Well, it would be a little bit more chaotic that's for sure. But maybe cast is a good thing. If it creates fluidity and responsiveness, sure members might not get to know each other. But they don't really get to know each other now already Congress's kind of a big chaotic institution, particularly the house. I think what you'd see if you had a much larger house is you'd see this decentralisation of power in the house, which I think would loosen some of this binary, hyper partisanship and would create some space for new coalitions that cut across the way that the parties are split right now. And then we, of course, get into the important question of how that house then works with the much smaller United States Senate, especially a Senate that could be controlled by one party. Right. And so you could get a whole bunch of bills making it through the house when the with these divers interesting new coalitions, and then they get to the Senate and just hit a total roadblock. How could this process actually push legislation beyond just the house while the Senate was designed to be the place where the passions of the people were cooled and the Senate is the place where legislation goes to die. So I I have a proposal an idea that that it's been in my mind, but I'm gonna put it out there and see what people think is is a reverse filibuster in which the Senate has to vote on any Bill that get sixty percent of sport in the house and vote up or down. But it, but it has. Vote on it. That would keep the Senate from being an entire road. I think there'd be a lot of pressure on the Senate to bring up bills that are popular in the house. The other big divide. We have in this country, as you very well know is geographic right that there is a rural urban divide that has gotten even more significant and tell me how increasing the size of the house would impact that it seems to me that it would make that rural urban divide even worse with rural legislators feeling like oh my gosh. We're losing all of our influence, obviously, the areas of growth in this country aren't coming in places like Nebraska or Kansas or North Dakota. Well, certainly, you would have more presentative who would represent the broader spectrum of the country. But I mean, the reality is that that rural America is less than twenty percent of the population now as his role, and the the congress should reflect the broader population of the country and right now because of the way districts are drawn row America has a disproportionate influence in the US house. So I think the house should represent the diversity of the country fairly not in a distorted way, which it does now. And do you see this as sort of an all or nothing thing? Like, forget about just increasing it by ten or fifteen seats twenty seats. You gotta you gotta go for sixteen hundred or a thousand or not really try at all. I mean, I'm a believer in doing it in a really big way. Some people have proposed to go back to what the framers would have intended. If we got to. This big of a country, which would be about six thousand that was actually I mean, this this is the funding this fun. Bit of history is that the original first amendment was going to be an apportionment amendment that Madison's initially proposed twelve amendments of which only three through twelve became the Bill of rights, but amendment number one was that you were gonna fix the number of constituents to representatives at thirty thousand to one up to one hundred members forty thousand to one up to two hundred members and then after that fifty thousand to one and that was as high as as he could conceive of going now past.