Pleasure to read. I think is great and important because a lot of attention. And just wanted to start out by kind of pulling back a little bit and asking you why did you want to write about Political Parties visiting your first book was focused on lobbying and in the universe of potential reforms, the electoral college, one of the biggest ones money in politics between your tongue about. The growth of executive power, he chose to focus on parties. Thats really is the linchpin. Can you talk a little bit about the parties. In the process. Matthew is going to be with you again. If an reunion here. Lee on cspan. And so why did i write this book. Another because i was worried about american democracy. I saw hyper partisanship as a serious problem. Affecting a country and i wanted to think about if there was some way to maybe solve the problem. It kind of exploded in a somewhat indirect way for my previous book but the corporate lobbying in that book i had basically concluded that one race white levees were so powerful in washington dc was because they essentially wrote a lot of the bus. There is not a tremendous amount of expertise and knowledge and capitol hill because congressional staffers turnover at such a high rate in congress did not really invested itself. After the book came out, when run talking to folks and run congress and think they should just hire more staff than more expertise in recent well of course you. That makes total sense. And yet, it didnt happen. One of the reasons i think is because the power became decentralized in congress and somewhere i also realize that even adding more staff would not solve this problem of hyper partisan ship in congress. In this way in which nothing is done because theres so much gridlock except for the cable moment which is done adolescent core problem, of our democracy is at this moment was the fact that we have two distinct National Parties and i think this, that is new in american political history, and its just in odds with way of governing institutions work. Currently the console a little crazy. Matthew case a little bit about what you think is new. You mention political history obviously, because more than two centuries back. And talk a little bit about how the framers, envisioned politics working in the framers that the role for factions and parties that they saw and why this is such a departure. Lee puts it with the framers. So the framers, re engaging in this kind of radical active this system of selfgovernance, and they felt Political Parties were very dangerous things. They had read their history of ancient roman greeson early republic. And they thought that civil war was a real threat. And so the worst happened when it got split into and then there were two parties and the Majority Party in a Minority Party often what would happen with the majority of the point they would use his power to oppress Minority Party so they thought that they were going to come up with a system of government make it very hard for parties to form. Cameron legislature they were to have three branches of government on top of federalism. That didnt make it very hard for parties to form. At least, and a coherent way. In fact it is one of the reasons why many parties have always been weak and incoherent up until recent times but because blood parties were state and local, the Coalition Parties separate branches. The several decades, they are really truly nationalized for the first reason for the first time a, weve truly nationalized parties that are genuinely distinct, genuinely different values and different visions of america, and we have the binary partnership was is that very thing that the framers feared. Matthew the twoparty system, even not always democratic and Republican Party this twoparty system has survived for centuries. And why is it endured. And then we will get to the hyper partisan argus and the kind of contemporary piece but historically, it seems to have evolved endured in these parties seem to have responsive. Toot National Crises depressing national concerns. So i like to hear a little bit more about that. Matthew i think endured because of the national oven level, a social we had the bullet parties that wouldve been the twoparty system. The parties themselves were have brought overlapping coalition so that they were more flexible and governing level, and congress you do a different coalition based on different issues across parties. Often the local political identity was more important than the National Political identity that also allowed for a lot of the world politics. It helped grease the wheels. In earlier error, local concerns were more important, that it was just easier to build different governing coalitions at different times. Not because the parties have become so distinct and separated in the both competing for this narrow majority the compromises the coalition have a better system of government depends on, and no longer work. Theres this really fascinating morning in this book. Matthew will be to the Solutions Later in the conversation about the nationalizations of the hyper partisan as you put it. One thing that struck me again, speaking with the kind of Historical Development piece, one thing that struck me is invading iraq, where women were in carol or carol would during earlier eras in the passenger each day during the great depression. When 1960s when of course we had scores of urban riots and insight work. Protests, three political leaders were assassinated and outside of the democratic convention, in chicago. I am wondering if youre looking back, if you saw democracy really under greater threats and say the 30s or the 60s than it is today and how you kind of place the parties in those earlier errors versus now. Lets start with the 60s, and certainly the idea of violence is not something new to american democracy. But the idea that there was some peaceful age of american politics that i think is a total mess. Politics, and at times, a little violence. But what was different about the 1960s, was that the conflicts over civil rights were not hyper partisan. Conflicts were fought more within the party civil rights bill actually, there was a higher percentage of republican members of Congress Voting for the major civil rights in 1960 so that the Democratic Party named telnet. That set of policies anyway. So would admit is that though these were difficult conflicts and people who lost their lives in these conflicts didnt threaten the fundamental stability of the political system because been created condition in which everything was at stake with every election which is the situation that were in now, which is creating is an credibly, incredibly emotional politics. In this country, into two entirely distinct political coalitions which is undermining the basic sense of legitimacy and fairness in which a system of democracy has to depend on. And that is a fundamental challenge in the in the 30s, in the challenging time and lots of folks who thought the democracy and that fascism was the way of the future. Nano perhaps on the election of 1932, turned out differently, or a different person became president. Thanks, turned out differently. All wishing remind us that democracy is not something we should take for granted. But it is somewhat fragile. Lee matthew you described for party system, two parties within the party. My question was there a bargain made on the issue of race predict and civil rights and that the parties agree for a number of decades essentially push the issue of jim. And racial segregation aside. In order to have these kind of more harmonious and bipartisan potential because once of course they were introduced, certainly, white americans in the south and in the north in particular, this takes were extreme high and that was of course to africanamericans that were left. In the bipartisan consensus of the 50s in the early 60s but of course that consensus was really based on exclusion of civil rights in the National Phase and continuation of the jim crow south. So this is why politics, fundamentally, about conflict and we have to have these talks. Then we have to figure out how to have them in a way that is not so broad and zerosum. And that the Civil Rights Act of 1960, set in motion the long realignment of america in politics own cultural and social and identity lines which we know are experiencing the culmination of, and they would say that from probably the mid 60s through the late 80s and early 90s, we do have Something Like a functioning for party system which liberal republicans and conservative democrats alongside liberal democrats and conservative republicans, and although, the system certainly wasnt perfect, in retrospect, knowing pretty well because it meant that you could build different coalitions along different issues in congress and lots of landmark legislation passed with overwhelming support. In congress think with that strong committees it hadnt had that much power to the executive branch as it has now and for a lot of voters of course it meant that the parties didnt really stand for anything which frustration for a lot of others at a functioning level ultimately, but with actually multiple parties the voters actually make those more clearly. You mentioned some rights and beyond, civil rights. Matthew how do you explain the past several decades i would use them up and especially in the 60s and 70s and 80s, we see the breakdown. Our the broad cultural forces the rise of the cultural wars and things like that fractured me of the landscape so many pundits and scholars talk about and how would you explain forces that are for driving these national. I think you identified a few of them from the rising politics and the cultural war. Speech of they were accelerated in the backlash to civil rights. And just the increase in culture war issues at the national level, and the cold war played a little bit into that as well in the kind of common enemy. And i spent two chapters in the book detailing the trends in internet does not do anything. The complexity of the historian of it. In short, as americans become prosperous and they have expanded interesting Economic Issues of an earlier era, and the rising identity cultural war of politics and the parties took on distinct and separate National Images by the 1990s, when the cultural war issues reached a level of national failures, the democratic parties have become much more liberal in the Republican Party had become more of cultural liberalism in these patterns, and these trends all feed on themselves. Because as these national extract Cultural National the motor start identifying which party with their values better. The parties themselves change liberal republicans in the conservative democrats disappears. In the National Identities of the party changed in the voters mood and shifted. In this what led to where we are today. The house speaker, the leader of socalled republican revolution of 1994, and the memo, the fellow republican policy that had to describe democrats. Importing fundamentals from your book. He recommended the republicans use words to talk about democrats such as betray, bizarre, decay and destroy, and it devoured and graded lies in pathetic radical and selfish shame, and traders. Thats a pretty remarkable set of attributes to fix on ones opponents. That kind of encapsulate a different level of record. Then what even though as we are discussing politics and we will always consider brutal, are we talking about something fundamentally new in the early 90s. Will route you race, dementia things and that 19 inc. And he encouraged his republicans to talk in much more aggressive way about democrats pretty also the first time he really nationalized Congressional Election in the past Congressional Elections had mostly been run on global issues and he noticed something which is that republicans cufflink national elections. They must 1992 but they were losing a thought that the key these national that reagan. So he reall. Matthew i think ingrid is a fingerprint and often he becomes as caricature of everything was fine. And then suddenly it took over and things went to. And essentialist power and is picking up on trends in one reason why he came to power in the Republican Party is that there were a lot of republicans in the house tired of being a minority and to go along to get along and the Democratic Party had been in the majority of the house for 40 years and they have been a big corrupt. An increasingly strong centralized leadership on their speaker jim. Which a lot of publicans rebelled against their public there were being cut out. In the rise in a green preach and i think he is an important player but is a product. Matthew just to be clear, this is not about institutional is pretty is a symptom right. There is a reason the gingrich emerged. And so i dont want to undervalue the actor at the particular time but i think that we often over rate the role in particular actors are transforming institution when they are largely responding to pressures and incentives and brought, pattern. Matthew when the most refreshing things about your book is to read contemporary politics that is not trump centric. Some focus on trip. Which is mentioned a times but its really quite refreshing not to be about trump. And it overfocus on him. In getting back to the 90s and the 2000, trying to bring us up to where we are today. You write the congress has not had a serious bipartisan lot making sense 1990. And when i read that, hardly thought okay i know congress, i used to work in congress. The minority Peter Gephardt and warfare. In the simply by thought will clinton enacted, nafta and welfare reform, the crime and a host of other Bipartisan Legislation and a lot of them we might disagree with. But certainly it was 90s. After 911, both parties seem to come together about security reforms whether good or bad. And then the passage of tarp in response to that 2008 financial crisis so my question is, on the parties in the past, have they been able to reach compromises and find some level ground. Ands special in times of crisis. Where are these examples that i am siding, are they really so exceptional. To this toxic hyper partisan norm. Lee it doesnt happen all at once, there has been a steady decline. There is major immigration law, major budget, and americans with disabilities act which are all really landmark legislation. But there hasnt been major partisan legislation since then but, having four major bills in a year. That doesnt happen anymore. It is been spluttering out really since the 2010 in which i would argue that for the first time we have had a genuine twoparty system. And basically nothing in terms of major Bipartisan Legislation. Billy legislation now the passes is the partisan very some of the passes in criminal justice reform. And in 2018, there was something. But if we are talking about our thinking about the denominator, which is the number of problems that congress is to solve a look at the numerator, the function is getting smaller and smaller. Matthew especially when it seems overwhelming from the american people. Like the commonsense government. Some of the title of the book, its this breaking the twoparty doom loop, you talk a little bit about why it is so dire. Why we cant seemingly escape is because a portion of the politics is never status. But he confides there is a certain space and that we kind of spiral into really a negative. Her era we should really is no state which there is a fundamental productive property reform. Lee we have two distinct National Parties fighting over a zerosum conflict over what is our national identity. One parties democratic, at its core, and the urban cosmic talk potent america. And multi cultural and economy. The other part of the republicans which has its core in rural traditional White Christian america. Increasingly disconnected from the global economy. Twentytwo very different visions for governing america. Lee the challenges in roughly equal power. In any given election, republicans could win control of washington. And weve had no going back to 1992, along pendulum of politics, unified governments, and unified government from the other governments. In the democrats, making unified control. After the 2020 election but it will probably only keep it for two years even if they do. So there is no or the stakes are incredibly high and we are in this era of extended trench warfare with no obvious resolution. And besides desperately fear being in the minority. In both sides think that they can win the majority. But it is a stalemate and neither side has any intention of ever backing down. And to even engage in political compromise, is essential to baptism. So just like youre stuck in a traffic jam. And cannot move because there fundamental barriers ahead. Matthew getting stuck in this endless cycle youre getting getting angrier and angrier is also for, the forces in a political system, it leads to more escalation. People get more emotional about politics, you cant compromise with the other side of people are cutting off friendships. People a more more surrounding themselves with people who share their values. And engaging in information. It reading information and news, that reinforces themselves. So what is even a true fact at this point. Matthew freight example, the 2018 collection, where all of the partisans, the antitrust partisans that was not part of an escape of valve of some sort of let out some of the steam of the democrats won the house. They won a number of state legislatures. This had an atomic effect on some of the toxins. Lee charlottes amount of the seamount, but it is not a longterm solution that the majority is not likely to be a permanent majority and once trump is out of office, a lot of that energy will dissipate in the democrats will disappointed with whomever they elected. And will disengage it at. In the big, and there should be problems. One is that there are a lot of really pressing Nation