Plul reporters and Campaign Strategists discuss the upcoming president ial race. Panelists will mainly focus on republican politics. Hosted by the washington center. Live coverage here on cspan 3. Im anthony. My group yesterday went to go see freddie. They are a conservative think tank and they taught us the values and the what theyre trying to implement in congress as for term limits for both the houses for the house of representatives and the senate. You had a discussion about term limits. Thats interesting. Because that would be an amendment to the constitution. Sure. Okay. All right. Good morning, everybody. Its wednesday, of course, your first week here. Is anybody tired yet . Little bit. Little bit tired, yeah. Me too. And, of course, we come into this and, you know, if youve been following in the news obviously the president of the United States may be speaking at any moment. I dont think hes spoken yet about some of the events last night by iran with regard to iraq and were going to, you know, sort of talk a little bit about some of the Foreign Policy implications with some of our speakers probably not today but possibly today and a little bit later in the week and also next week. Obviously were paying attention with whats going on with u. S. Involvement overseas but yesterday we had a lot of impeachment, right, and there were some interesting analyses in our discussion yesterday with regard to how Party Politics works in congress in general and also with regard to impeachment. The two speakers, again, were coming from different potentially political sides in their analysis. They were both talking about, of course, some of the stuff that we had also been reading about in terms of the historical and constitutional contexts and jean healy highlighted the way that elected members seemed to have flipped sides in their discussion of the impeachments from clinton to trump. One of the sort of discussions that i found particularly interesting from mr. Burger was an analysis of the different ways that house and the senate sort of caucuses, the republican and democratic caucuses, are working and can anybody remember how burger sort of described it, particularly with regard to the republicans in the house, versus the republicans in the senate . Does maybe remember what he had to say about that . So he talked about how the house caucus, the republican members, have pretty safe seats, same with the democrats. Most house members have pretty safe seats. Theres a very high level of incumbency in the house and senate in general, but particularly in the house these days, so the house members who are republicans in a certain sense dont have to worry very much with regard to the folks in their districts necessarily being upset with them if they are if favor of the president. What he said with regard to them theyre more worried about what kind of a challenge, and this is also somewhat in your readings, a tea party stuff, challenge, right, that the republicans in congress, particularly in the house, are much more concerned about a primary challenge from the right than they are from a democratic challenger during the general election. That is how that sort of forms a lot of the way that they operated with regard to the impeachment process. Then he compared that in terms of how the republicans in the senate are operating because were now moving into the senate phase of the trial and we heard yesterday from the majority leader mcconnell with regard to the fact that he has a number of votes. What does he have a number of votes for, following this on twitter and so forth. What does he have some votes for . Set the guidelines for the impeachment so there doesnt have to be any witnesses or evidence. Right. So mcconnell has kept essentially the republican caucus, the republican majority in the senate, together on a lot of the rules and procedures with regard to the senate trial. One of the things that burger talked about with regard to how the sort of impeachment is operating in this sort of political and partisan context, is the fact that the people that mcconnell is most concerned about in his caucus, are whom . Who is he most concerned about . The moderate republicans. And the ones particularly running for reelection, right. So hes trying to make sure that they get reelected. He doesnt want to necessarily make them sort of take votes or situate themselves in such a way that make them more vulnerable in a general election. Their seats, because theyre states, not districts, are not as safe. States themselves have more of a multiplicity and complexity with regard to demographics than districts do these days. What he was teasing out in terms of that discussion was an interesting kind of setup with regard to some of the readings we did last night and what were going to hear about in the next couple days in terms of thinking about how elected representatives, party elites, representatives, house members and so forth, are party elites, how they operate in context and they may operate differently in the institution theyre in, what kind of job they have, and also depending on their connection to the party itself. So i want you to start, you know, put on your analyst hat as we move forward in these regards and think about some of the perspectives that were going to be hearing today and also moving into the rest of this week, we have speakers who are going to be coming and talking to us from a variety of partisan perspectives as to some degree political operatives, right. Weve heard from a couple reporters now and yesterday we heard from folks who are either scholars or working at think tanks at this point, so pro to using policy research, but now were going to be hearing from folks who are actually in the administration, had been in the administration, or are, in fact, active and were active in the campaign. So were hearing about politics and party in this regard. Im sure youre all excited not to have to read more federalist papers last night, my students are always excited web they dont have to read more federalist papers, i know its like eating your broccoli, its good for you, your readings moved out of the constitutional context and more into a discussion of contemporary Political Parties and how they work and to some degree dont necessarily work and what is going on inside the parties themselves. A lot of what were seeing right now with regard to the democratic primary is how the Democratic Party is trying to figure out its direction as it moves into a general election in 2020. And we saw some of that in some stark relief during the 2016 election with regards to the Republican Party. Its not necessarily one party or force, it is often trying to figure out which direction theyre going in. So we think about this in terms of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, obviously there are also other parties and well have somebody who is going to come talk to us from the no labels party, which is, again, a sort of group that has both democrats and republicans, as i noted i lived in minnesota during Jesse Ventura who was part of the reform party at the time. So what were looking at in terms of being an analyst is the lens of partisanship and Political Parties and how they contribute to how we see ourselves as citizens and political actors in a democracy. So you all are very active in terms of thinking about politics. Youre here experiencing it but not everybody is as active as you are. At the same time we are all political actors because we do live in a democracy where most of us have a means of influencing and engaging with politics. Lets think about the way we are sort of moving into this discussion of our speakers and think about the readings for today and some of the research that essentially is going to frame how we should consider Stephanie Hamill and peter waner coming to talk to us today. Lets dig foot reading a little bit and tease out some of what these scholars are coming. Sam burger actually kind of made passing reference that i heard and i dont know if you did until you started thinking about it or reading about it last fight, to the article on asymmetrical politics, the asymmetrical politics article written by dave hopkins and matt grossman, wrote it into a longer book with a substantial data set to sort of tease out their general thesis and i recommend it, but you also have read a lot of thesis at this point, is about the fact that parties themselves are not mirror images of one another. Anybody who did some of the reading last night how are they different according to the grossman and hopkins . Say it at the mic. Okay. How are they different in terms of grossman and hopkins analysis . They just mentioned that the gop had a defined philosophy of limited government, whereas the Democratic Party was more interested in the social aspects and what government could achieve for their individual interests. So not only are the parties not mere images of each other, but they also are, in fact, set up and driving at policy goals and goals in generale that are distinct. What else did they talk about in terms of the differences between the parties . We know that, you know, there are definitely different policies and we often talk about this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle, but hopkins and grossman also talk about the fact that there is not only this kind of distinction in terms of how they think about the government, but also in terms of how the parties themselves are composed and think about themselves. So when we think about parties in general, we often do sort of say what does the left think, what does the right think, what do the democrats thing, what do the republicans think . They question of asymmetrical politics and partisanship is something that doesnt necessarily figure in when we are considering the differences between the parties. Its something you should think about in terms of sort of not only the folks in the parties, but how the parties operate. So think about the way that hopkins and grossman also talk about the fact that theres an ideological drive and often demand for a kind of ideological purity within the Republican Party that hasnt been as marked in the Democratic Party which tends to be much more of a collection of different interests, but part of what youre seeing on the campaign trail in 2020 with regard to the democrats is some discussion of ideological purity and sort of where are you now were going back to 2003, in fact, the original vote to go to war in, where . Iraq right. Bernie sanders has been making the case that he voted against the war in iraq and that joe biden voted for it. Did we hear this before . Have we heard this before . When did we hear this before . 2008. 2007. Hillary clinton. Barack obama. Same kind of conversation. Since iraq is now back in the conversation, we are sort of seeing again some of this conversation about some aspects of having more, quote, purity in the Democratic Party. But it hasnt usually been in this generation or two of the Democratic Party the drive of the Democratic Party, but its been much more the case with regards to the Republican Party. That was also the reading in terms of the article with regard to the tea party. How did the tea party operate in terms of an Insurgent Movement inside the Republican Party and how did it impact, in fact, how the Republican Party operates . Anybody read that article and have an answer for me . What do you know about the tea party . We dont hear the term as much as we used to. During mcauliffes election they supported only Tea Party Candidates which caused the republican establishment to vote for the democratic candidate, and they considered it to be a success for the tea party because they were able to exert their influence, even though they may not have won that election, like their party may not have won that election, but as a faction they were able to exert their influence on the republican establishment essentially. And the tea party and the Freedom Caucus inside the Republican Party, inside particularly the house of representatives, has been able to exert a lot of influence and to some degrees h has been able drive a lot of the policy, sort of emphasis and to some degree the leadership that discussion that blum has and we sort of start out with regard to the assem mettrycle politics article are about fact that john boehner, who is on the sort of partisan scale quite conservative, was essentially pushed out of his position as speaker of the house by the Tea Party Caucus within the majority in the house of representative republican group. And paul ryan, who succeeded him, faced not exactly the same thing but something close to it. When we think of the difficulties that the parties have in operating, think about these highprofile people, speaker of the house, you get that job because your party won the majority, right, and your people elected you to that position. Its a constitutional officer but it comes to you as a representative of the party itself. We have seen, to some degree, these tensions and difficulties in a certain sense within the parties operating and thats where i wanted you to look at the article by dr. Julia azari where she talks about, this was a shorter one so maybe a couple more folks read this one, weak parties and strong partisanship, and her argument in terms of weak parties and strong partisanship is something that has often been sort of not necessarily a criticism, but an observation about american parties in general, that theyre big and oftentimes considered, quote, big tents, but they dont necessarily have structures that operate in a way that keeps the coalition together. Azaris point at this point in terms of our understanding of partisanship is that the parties themselves are rather weak in terms of what they do, but at the same time, we have very high partisanship and how does the party operate with regard to that level of partisanship . Her point sort of is and we sort of see this in our discussions about party elites, particularly right now and in 2016, around the president ial nomination process, what is the role of the party with regard to the nomination process . This is so complicated. You go to vote in a primary or a caucus, how does that work . What do you do . How many of you have voted in a primary or caucus . What do you do . You vote. You go, vote, its like any other time, right. What youre actually doing is taking party in a party event, not necessarily in an election that the state or the National Government is saying has to happen. Its one that the party has said needs to transpire and the state, i live in wisconsin, the state of wisconsin provides me the ballots, organizes the polling place and all of that good stuff that were used to. This is a party event. Thats sort of the complication around how the parties operate, that they dont necessarily have these institutions we sort of think about as part of our operation. One of azrais points we get confused and it gets murky when we look at say the nomination process. What is the role of the party in selecting a nominee . Who is in the party . Anybody here in a party . You dont have to tell me which one. Bet lot of you might think of yourselves as being in a party, right, but what does that mean . Do you go to a lot of meetings . Maybe, maybe not. Do you vote for somebody who is connected to that party . That may be the way you think about yourself as being in the party, but all of that means, again, we dont have a very tight connection directly to an operating party, which is different than most of our parliamentary colleagues in other democracies where the parties to some degree have oftentimes more sort of direct connection with legislative outcomes. So azaris point is one i want you to think about with regard to these tensions that we sort of are seeing inside the parties, that we have strong partisanship, that partisanship is not all in one way, that partisans dont all think the same thing and that parties themselves are trying to grapple with that and also trying to effectively do what . What do parties want in terms of elections . To win. They want their candidates to win. Its not the party thats going to win, its their candidates that are going to win. Thats another complicating kind of component with thinking about parties and partisanship. Dr. Azari took us through that discussion in terms of thinking about this idea of high partisanship, which weve already heard a lot about and going to hear more about, but also what are how and what these sort of groupings of people who calls themselves the Democratic National committee, the Republican National committee, some of you are going to go up and see them on friday or the Libertarian Party or the socialist party or green party in the United States, all much smaller, but what do they do and how do they operate . So i want you to sort of be thinking about that as well. But then we also sort of, again, i gave you a couple more readings in terms of thinking about the Republican Party in particular, and we had on the shifting inside the Republican Party, right, and he sketch out the original, as he would say it, the Reagan Coalition of supply siders, social conservatives and internationalists and bringing these groupings of ideologies and adhere rance into one party, that they all influenced each other inside the party, but that the party is shifting, particularly under the leadership of President Trump and that trump coalition, to one that is a little bit different than that Reagan Coalition. Thats also where you see some of the tension and fissures that i think some of what mr. Waner will be talking about today in terms of his own place in the Republican Party, and m