Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE
CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR
CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
>> SICK OF THE PARTISAN GRIDLOCK
IN WASHINGTON?
YOU'RE NOT ALONE.
NEXT ON "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES,"
WE'LL LOOK AT WAYS TO FIX THE
PROBLEM.
>> THIS PROGRAM IS MADE POSSIBLE
IN PART BY FUNDING FROM...
>> THIS IS
"GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES," WITH
PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING
COMMENTATOR JOHN BERSIA.
>> WELCOME TO
"GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES."
ARE AMERICANS DOOMED TO HAVE
NEVER-ENDING PARTISAN GRIDLOCK
IN WASHINGTON?
CONGRESS USED TO BE A PLACE
WHERE, DESPITE PARTISAN BATTLES,
PRODUCTIVE COMPROMISES STILL
EMERGED.
>> WELL, THEY DON'T MIND WASTING
A DAY OF THE SENATE'S TIME ON
USELESS POLITICAL SHOW VOTES.
>> ISN'T ANYBODY OVER THERE
EMBARRASSED BY THE FACT THAT
THEY HAVEN'T OFFERED A BUDGET IN
THREE YEARS?
>> NOW THE BATTLES DRAG ON, BUT
THE COMPROMISES ELUDE US.
WE HAVE WHAT SOME CALL THE WORST
CONGRESS EVER.
FORMER CONGRESSMAN
MICKEY EDWARDS SAYS THE PROBLEM
LIES NOT WITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
BUT WITH THE SYSTEM.
IN HIS NEW BOOK "THE PARTIES
VERSUS THE PEOPLE: HOW TO TURN
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS INTO
AMERICANS," EDWARDS DISCUSSES
REFORMS THAT CAN HELP US GET
BACK ON TRACK.
WELCOME TO THE SHOW,
MR. EDWARDS.
>> AH, THANKS, JOHN. THANK YOU.
>> SO, WHAT WAS IT LIKE MAKING
THE TRANSITION FROM CONGRESS TO
LIFE AFTER CONGRESS?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THE BEST
THING ABOUT BEING AWAY -- AND
RIGHT AFTER I LEFT CONGRESS, I
WENT TO TEACH, AND I WENT UP TO
HARVARD AND TAUGHT THERE FOR A
WHILE, THEN PRINCETON.
AND IT GAVE YOU TIME TO REFLECT,
BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE IN CONGRESS,
YOU'RE SO SWAMPED IN WHAT'S
HAPPENING EVERY DAY -- ALL THE
BILLS THAT ARE COMING UP, ALL
THE DEBATES -- THAT YOU DON'T
REALLY HAVE TIME TO BACK OFF AND
SAY, "WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE?
WHY IS IT HAPPENING THIS WAY?"
SO, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA TO GET
BACK AND HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY
TO REFLECT ON WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN
AND THEN LOOK NOW WHAT'S
HAPPENING AND WHY IS IT WORKING
OR WHY IS NOT WORKING WAS REALLY
VALUABLE.
>> EXPLAIN TO US WHY IT USED TO
WORK BETTER THAN IT WORKS TODAY.
>> WELL, IT USED TO WORK BECAUSE
YOU MIGHT HAVE A PARTICULAR SET
OF VIEWS THAT YOU HELD VERY
STRONGLY AND I MIGHT, AND THEY
MAY NOT BE THE SAME, BUT WE BOTH
TOOK VERY SERIOUSLY THAT OUR JOB
WAS TO HELP GOVERN
THE UNITED STATES, THAT WE HAD
TAKEN AN OATH OF OFFICE TO
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND OUR
LOYALTY WAS TO THE COUNTRY AND
TO OUR OBLIGATIONS AS MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, NOT TO OUR POLITICAL
PARTIES, AND THAT'S CHANGED.
WHAT'S HAPPENED NOW IS THAT
DEMOCRATS STICK ALMOST
UNANIMOUSLY WITH THEIR PARTY.
REPUBLICANS STICK ALMOST
UNANIMOUSLY TO THEIRS.
THERE'S THIS ONGOING,
NEVER-ENDING WARFARE BETWEEN THE
TWO PRIVATE CLUBS -- THE
DEMOCRAT CLUB AND THE REPUBLICAN
CLUB -- OVER WHO'S GONNA GET AN
ADVANTAGE FOR THE NEXT ELECTION.
AND WE USED TO BE ABLE TO -- WE
WOULD HAVE BATTLES.
WE DISAGREED ON A LOT.
BUT AT THE END, WE WOULD COME
TOGETHER.
WE WOULD KNOW EACH OTHER.
WE WOULD SAY, "COME ON.
WE'RE ALL GOOD GUYS.
LET'S FIND THE AREAS OF OVERLAP.
LET'S FIND THE AREAS WHERE WE
CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF COMMON
GROUND, 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE BRIDGES
DON'T COLLAPSE.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
TROOPS GET AMMUNITION.
WE'VE GOT A COUNTRY TO RUN."
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYMORE.
IT'S NOW "MY LOYALTY IS TO MY
TEAM."
>> IN THE END, WHAT DOES EACH
PARTY HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IF
WE'RE NOT SERVING THE NATIONAL
INTEREST?
>> WELL, WHAT THEY OBVIOUSLY
HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IS MORE
POWER, YOU KNOW -- TO NEXT TIME
WIN THE HOUSE, WIN THE SENATE,
WIN THE PRESIDENCY.
HOW DO YOU FRAME THE ISSUE IN A
WAY TO MAKE THE OTHER GUYS LOOK
BAD?
I MEAN, ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS
IS THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
TODAY, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
ALIKE, NOT ONLY ARE BUSY RAISING
MONEY FOR THEIR OWN ELECTION,
BUT IN THE HOUSE, REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS NOT ONLY RAISE WHATEVER
IT TAKES TO GET ELECTED
THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE TO RAISE
$300,000 A YEAR TO GIVE TO THEIR
PARTY TO KNOCK OFF MEMBERS OF
THE OTHER PARTY.
BOTH THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO DO
THAT, DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO THAT.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S CHANGED.
WHAT'S CHANGED IS THAT IT'S ALL
ABOUT HOW I WOULD -- THAT'S
DIFFERENT.
AND WHAT THEY HOPE TO GAIN IS
MOSTLY POWER, AND IT'S BECAUSE
OF THE STRUCTURE WE'VE SET UP SO
THAT A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE --
DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S
JOHN BOEHNER OR NANCY PELOSI
BEFORE HIM OR DENNY HASTERT
BEFORE HER.
DOESN'T MATTER.
THEY SEE THEMSELVES NOT AS THE
HEAD OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT BUT AS A PARTY
LEADER, AND THEY THINK, JUST
LIKE A MITCH McCONNELL WOULD
SAY, "MY JOB IS TO DEFEAT
BARACK OBAMA," RIGHT?
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS HIS JOB FOR
THE YEARS LEADING UP TO THE
ELECTION.
NANCY PELOSI SAID HER JOB WAS TO
ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS.
THAT'S NOT WHY THEY'RE THERE.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE THE
LEADERS IN CONGRESS HAVE THE
OBLIGATION TO THE COUNTRY, NOT
TO THEIR TEAM.
>> WELL, AND THAT'S MY QUESTION.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF POWER IF
YOU FAIL TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF
THE NATION?
>> WELL, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW,
POWER BECOMES ITS OWN AVENUE.
POWER BECOMES ITS OWN MEANS.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST THAT
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DON'T
THINK THAT THE POLICIES THEY'RE
PURSUING ARE WHAT'S BEST FOR THE
COUNTRY.
THEY DO.
AND SO THE SUBTITLE OF MY BOOK,
WHICH I DIDN'T WRITE -- THE
EDITORS OF THE ATLANTIC WROTE IT
WHEN I WROTE MY ARTICLE FOR THEM
THAT PRECEDED THE BOOK -- "HOW
TO TURN REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS INTO AMERICANS" --
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT
PATRIOTIC.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T CARE
ABOUT AMERICA.
IT'S THAT THEIR FIRST LOYALTY AS
A MEANS TO GET THERE IS TO STICK
WITH THE TEAM, NEVER BREAK OFF
AND SAY, "YOU KNOW WHAT?
I'M GONNA THINK ABOUT THIS FOR
MYSELF.
MY LOYALTY -- I HAVE TO
REPRESENT MY CONSTITUENTS.
I HAVE TO USE MY BRAIN, NOT TAKE
MY BRAIN OUT OF MY SKULL AND
HAND IT OVER TO THE PARTY TO
TELL ME WHAT TO DO, YOU KNOW?
SO, WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS, IN THE
PURSUIT OF WHAT THEY THINK IS
THE GREATER GOOD THAT EVENTUALLY
THEIR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY -- IT'S
GONNA BE THEIR WAY TOTALLY --
CAUSES THEM TO STICK TOGETHER NO
MATTER WHAT.
SO, HERE'S A PREDICTION.
SO, WE JUST HAD AN ELECTION, BUT
WE DON'T KNOW YET WHO IS GOING
TO BE THE NEXT PERSON TO LEAD
THE SUPREME COURT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO WILL BE THE
NEXT PERSON NOMINATED FOR THE
SUPREME COURT.
BUT I KNOW THIS -- DEMOCRATS
WILL BE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT,
REPUBLICANS FOR IT OR AGAINST
IT.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA STICK
TOGETHER AS TEAMS RATHER THAN
MAKING A REAL EVALUATION OF THE
MERITS OF THE PERSON NOMINATED.
AND THAT'S TRUE NOW IN ALMOST
EVERYTHING THEY DO.
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSCORE THAT THE CONSTITUTION
WAS DESIGNED FOR THERE TO BE
DEBATE, SO THERE SHOULD BE
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.
OTHERWISE, WE WOULD BE IN A
SYSTEM THAT WASN'T DEMOCRATIC.
BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK STARTED
MOVING US AWAY FROM THAT IDEA --
DEBATE AND THEN PRODUCTIVE
RESULTS?
>> AND I'M REALLY GLAD YOU MADE
THAT POINT, 'CAUSE ONE THING I
WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS I'M NOT
TALKING ABOUT POLARIZATION.
POLARIZATION IS YOU'VE GOT ONE
VIEW, I'VE GOT A DIFFERENT VIEW.
WE MAY HOLD THEM VERY STRONGLY.
PARTISANSHIP IS VERY DIFFERENT.
PARTISANSHIP MEANS, YOU KNOW, I
CAN'T EVER COMPROMISE 'CAUSE
IT'S "WHAT'S GONNA WORK FOR MY
TEAM?"
YOU KNOW, AND SO WHAT WE'VE
CREATED NOW -- THERE'S A COUPLE
OF THINGS THAT HAVE LED TO THIS.
ONE IS WE WENT THROUGH A PERIOD
IN CONGRESS WHERE JIM WRIGHT,
FROM TEXAS, WHEN HE WAS THE
SPEAKER, STARTED USING CLOSED
RULES THAT PREVENTED
DEMOCRATS FROM -- PREVENTED
REPUBLICANS, RATHER -- FROM
BEING ABLE TO OFFER AMENDMENTS,
FROM BEING ABLE TO OFFER THEIR
BILLS, MOVE THEM FORWARD, SO
FRUSTRATED REPUBLICANS SAID,
"WELL, WHERE CAN WE FIND
SOMEBODY WHO WILL STOP THAT,
SOMEBODY WHO WILL BE A REAL
FIRE-EATER?"
AND THEY TURNED TO THE
BOMB-THROWER THEY KNEW, WHICH
WAS NEWT GINGRICH, AND HE BECAME
THE SPEAKER AND MADE IT
EVEN MORE PARTISAN THAN IT HAD
EVER BEEN BEFORE -- YOU KNOW,
NONSTOP PARTY WARFARE.
SO, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE GOT
THERE.
BUT WE'VE ALSO CREATED -- YOU
KNOW, THE POINT OF MY BOOK IS
THAT WE'VE CREATED A POLITICAL
SYSTEM THAT CAUSES US EVERY TWO
YEARS -- I MEAN, THINK ABOUT IT.
EVERY TWO YEARS, JOHN, THE
PEOPLE GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE
OUT THE PEOPLE THEY JUST VOTED
IN, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE BACK THE
COUNTRY FROM THE PEOPLE THEY PUT
IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY.
AND IT'S BECAUSE OUR POLITICAL
SYSTEM IS SUCH THAT COMPROMISE,
COOPERATION, CIVILITY ARE
PUNISHED.
YOU KNOW, WHAT GETS REWARDED IS
PROMISING TO BE INTRANSIGENT,
YOU KNOW, TO NEVER COMPROMISE,
AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF OUR
PARTY-PRIMARY SYSTEM, PARTLY, SO
THAT, IN A STATE LIKE DELAWARE,
YOU COULD RUN FOR THE U.S.
SENATE IN A PRIMARY, GET ONLY
30,000 VOTES IN A STATE OF A
MILLION, AND KEEP SOMEBODY WHO
COULD WIN STATEWIDE --
MIKE CASTLE, IN THAT PARTICULAR
CASE -- FROM EVEN BEING ON THE
BALLOT BECAUSE WE LET THE
PARTIES CONTROL WHETHER YOU CAN
BE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER.
WE ALSO HAVE WHAT WE CALL
"SORE-LOSER LAWS" IN ALMOST
EVERY STATE THAT SAY IF YOU RAN
IN YOUR PARTY'S PRIMARY AND
LOST, EVEN IF THERE WAS ONLY A
SMALL TURNOUT, YOU CAN'T EVEN BE
ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
SO, WE ALLOW PARTIES, THROUGH
THEIR MAJORITIES IN LEGISLATURE,
TO CONTROL CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICTING -- WHAT A
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT LOOKS
LIKE.
INSIDE CONGRESS, YOU ALLOW PARTY
LEADERS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT
YOU CAN GET A SEAT ON A
COMMITTEE WHERE YOU MAY HAVE
EXPERTISE, BUT, OF COURSE, YOU
HAVE TO PLEDGE LOYALTY TO THE
PARTY POSITION.
SO, WE'VE CREATED THIS SYSTEM
NOW THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
COMPROMISE, BECAUSE IF YOU DO,
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS YOU'RE
GONNA GET KNOCKED OFF BY THE
SMALL, UNREPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF
ZEALOTS WHO SHOW UP IN THE PARTY
PRIMARY.
>> WELL, YOU PROPOSE SEVERAL
REFORMS IN YOUR BOOK.
WHY DON'T WE GO THROUGH TWO OR
THREE OF THOSE THAT YOU THINK
ARE MOST IMPORTANT AND WHY DO
YOU THINK THEY MIGHT WORK?
>> WELL, EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW
PARTISAN THE GOVERNMENT IS --
WHETHER IT'S THE PRESIDENCY OR
THE CONGRESS, HOW PARTISAN IT
IS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION.
OVER 40% OF AMERICANS CALL
THEMSELVES "INDEPENDENT" TODAY.
NOW, THEY MAY HAVE A LEANING
TOWARD ONE PARTY OR ANOTHER, BUT
THEY'RE NOT LOCKED IN.
USA TODAY HAD AN ARTICLE THAT
SAID THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
FLEEING FROM THE POLITICAL
PARTIES.
SO, IN WASHINGTON STATE, THE
VOTERS SAID, "YOU KNOW, WE'RE
TIRED OF THIS KIND OF A SYSTEM,"
AND THEY CREATED A COMPLETELY
OPEN PRIMARY SYSTEM THAT WHAT
HAPPENS IS EVERY ELIGIBLE
CANDIDATE IS ON ONE BALLOT, AND
EVERY SINGLE QUALIFIED VOTER IN
THE STATE GETS TO VOTE AND
CHOOSE AMONG ALL THE PEOPLE THEY
WANT.
THAT WAS IN 2006.
2010, CALIFORNIA DID THE SAME
THING.
ARIZONA'S GETTING READY TO VOTE
ON IT.
SO, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE
PEOPLE BEGINNING TO REBEL
AGAINST THE PARTIES BEING ABLE
TO TELL THEM WHO THEY CAN CHOOSE
AMONG.
THAT'S ONE SOLUTION.
THE OTHER THING IS 13 STATES
HAVE TAKEN AWAY FROM PARTIES THE
ABILITY TO CONTROL CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICTING, AND THEY SAID,
"WE'RE GONNA HAVE NONPARTISAN,
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS."
THOSE ARE -- WASHINGTON AND
CALIFORNIA DID THOSE.
THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT STEPS.
YOU KNOW, GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE --
I'M A CITY GUY.
I GREW UP IN A CITY, AND BECAUSE
I WON -- I'M A REPUBLICAN.
I WON IN A DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE
REDREW MY LINES SO THAT I NOW
WAS REPRESENTING WHEAT FARMERS
AND CATTLE RANCHERS.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THEIR
ISSUES.
THEY HAD A RIGHT TO BE
REPRESENTED BY SOMEBODY WHO
COULD ARTICULATE THEIR CONCERNS.
BUT THEY LOST THAT KIND OF
REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT WAS TO
THE ADVANTAGE OF THE OTHER
PARTY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS
DID.
REPUBLICANS DO IT, TOO, WHEN
THEY'RE IN CHARGE OF A
LEGISLATURE.
SO, THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED.
PROBABLY IF I NAMED THE THIRD
ONE THAT IS AT THE TOP OF THE
LIST...
THE IMPORTANT FIRST STEP IN
DECISION-MAKING IN CONGRESS --
REMEMBER, CONGRESS IS WHERE ALL
THE POWER IS.
IT'S NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
CONGRESS DECIDES ON WAR, TAXES,
SPENDING -- ALL THAT STUFF.
AND THE FIRST PLACE WHERE THAT
GETS ADVANCED IS IN COMMITTEE.
AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS
DECIDE WHO -- WHAT REPUBLICANS
WILL SIT ON WHAT COMMITTEES,
DEMOCRAT LEADERS, YOU KNOW,
WHICH DEMOCRATS WILL SIT ON
WHICH COMMITTEES, BASED ON THEIR
COMMITMENT TO STICK WITH THE
PARTY LINE.
AND IF THEY WON'T MAKE THAT
PLEDGE, THEY DON'T GET THE
POSITION, NO MATTER HOW GOOD
THEY MIGHT BE FOR THE COUNTRY.
THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED.
PEOPLE THINK WE'RE LOCKED INTO
THIS SYSTEM.
JOHN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW
IT.
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE DOESN'T
EVEN NEED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE.
YOU COULD PICK ANYBODY AND SAY,
"LET'S HAVE A LEADERSHIP IN
CONGRESS THAT'S FOCUSED ON
BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER TO TALK
ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT CONFRONT
ALL OF US TOGETHER AS
AMERICANS," NOT JUST ABOUT "HOW
CAN MY TEAM PREVAIL?"
>> HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT SOME OR
MANY OF THESE REFORMS WILL
ACTUALLY COME TO FRUITION?
>> WELL, AS I SAID, YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS BIGGER THAN
MANY COUNTRIES -- CALIFORNIA AND
WASHINGTON STATE HAVE ALREADY
DONE THIS.
ARIZONA'S GETTING READY TO DO
IT.
LOUISIANA HAD DONE IT A LONG
TIME AGO.
I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC
PRESSURE MOUNTING.
YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY NOW IS
TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF
PARTISANSHIP.
WHAT MY BOOK DOES, HOPEFULLY,
THAT'S DIFFERENT IS SAY, "HERE'S
WHY IT'S THE PROBLEM, AND HERE'S
HOW TO SOLVE IT," BUT
EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT "WE
CAN'T CONTINUE IN THIS
COMPLETELY PARTISAN WAY."
WE ARE, AFTER ALL -- WE'RE
AMERICANS, AND MY LOYALTY WAS TO
THE UNITED STATES, NOT TO MY
CLUB.
AND SO I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE
BEGINNING TO FEEL VERY STRONGLY
THAT WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE THE
SYSTEM.
>> IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE IN
THIS PARTISAN WAY, WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU
ANTICIPATE?
>> WE ARE ALWAYS GONNA BE FACING
THE QUESTION OF "ARE WE GOING
OFF A FISCAL CLIFF?"
WE'RE ALWAYS GONNA BE FACING
QUESTIONS ABOUT "CAN WE PAY OUR
NATIONAL DEBTS?
CAN WE SUPPLY OUR MILITARY?
CAN WE DEAL WITH ENERGY
PROBLEMS?"
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE
310 MILLION OF US, AND WE'RE
VERY DIVERSE -- ALL KINDS OF
BACKGROUNDS, EXPERIENCES.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO COME
TOGETHER.
AND IT'S NOT CONSENSUS.
THERE ARE TOO MANY OF US.
THAT MEANS AT SOME POINT, I HAVE
TO SAY TO YOU, "OKAY, YOU DON'T
AGREE WITH ME, SO I'M NOT GONNA
GET EVERYTHING I WANT," AND YOU,
MAYBE ON THE WEAKER SIDE -- YOU
MAY SAY, "I COULD LOSE A LOT
LESS.
THIS WAY, I LOSE LESS."
SO, YOU COME TOGETHER AND YOU
COMPROMISE.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AS AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE HAVE TO
BE ABLE TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER,
TALK TO EACH OTHER, RESPECT EACH
OTHER, AND FIND GROUNDS TO COME
TOGETHER.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE MIGHT
RETURN TO WHAT WE HAD IN STAGES?
IT USED TO BE THAT WE HAD MUCH
MORE DEBATE ON DOMESTIC ISSUES
THAN ON FOREIGN.
IS THAT POSSIBLY PART OF THE
SOLUTION?
>> I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE
SOLUTION.
WE HAD FOR A LONG TIME THE IDEA
THAT THIS PARTISANSHIP ENDED AT
THE WATER'S EDGE, SO WHEN WE
TALKED ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY,
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS NOT WHERE YOU
WERE PARTISAN.
NOW WE'RE PARTISAN IN
EVERYTHING.
BUT THE PRICE WE PAY FOR IT IS
SO HIGH THAT I DON'T THINK IT
CAN BE FOCUSED ON WHETHER IT'S
DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN.
WE HAVE TO CREATE A NEW CULTURE
WHERE THE VOTERS THEMSELVES --
THAT'S WHERE THE POWER IS -- AND
THE VOTERS SAY, "IF YOU VOTE
DOWN THE LINE WITH YOUR PARTY,
WE'RE GONNA GET RID OF YOU
BECAUSE WE WANT
PROBLEM-SOLVING."
THAT'S WHETHER IT'S IRAQ,
AFGHANISTAN, LIBYA, ANYTHING
ELSE, OR, YOU KNOW, HEALTHCARE
AND EDUCATION.
WE JUST HAVE TO DEMAND THAT THE
GAME-PLAYING STOP.
>> THE STARTING POINT FOR YOUR
REFORMS WOULD BE WHERE -- AT THE
GRASS-ROOTS LEVEL?
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I POINT OUT
IN THE BOOK IS THAT WHAT
HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON AND
CALIFORNIA CAME ABOUT BECAUSE
24 STATES HAVE INITIATIVE
PETITIONS IN THEIR
CONSTITUTIONS -- STATE
CONSTITUTION -- SO, YOU CAN DO
IT WITH INITIATIVE PETITION, YOU
CAN DO IT THROUGH REFERENDUM,
YOU CAN DO IT BY CONFRONTING
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OR STATE
LEGISLATURES AND CITY COUNCILS,
YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE MEETING
WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND JUST
DEMAND THAT IT STOP OR WE'RE
GONNA REPLACE THEM.
HERE'S THE THING -- INCENTIVES
WORK.
NOW ALL THE INCENTIVES ARE TO
NOT COOPERATE.
THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY, "HERE'S
THE INCENTIVE.
YOU BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE, OR
YOU'RE OUT OF A JOB."
THAT CHANGES THE INCENTIVE
SYSTEM PRETTY QUICKLY.
>> IS THE PICTURE BLEAK ACROSS
THE BOARD, OR ARE THERE STILL
SOME AREAS WHERE GOVERNMENT DOES
WORK REASONABLY WELL?
>> GOVERNMENT WORKS BETTER --
THIS IS ONE REASON FOR MY
OPTIMISM.
PART OF MY OPTIMISM IS THAT
PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO RISE UP
AGAINST THIS AND SAY IT'S GOT TO
STOP.
THE OTHER PART IS, IN SOME
STATES AND SOME CITY GOVERNMENTS
WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNOW EACH
OTHER AND THEY'VE GROWN UP
TOGETHER, THEY LIVE IN THE SAME
AREA, THEY ARE DOING A BETTER
JOB OF SAYING, YOU KNOW, "LOOK,
YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT,
JOHN, I KNOW YOU.
YOU KNOW ME. WE'RE NEIGHBORS.
WE CAN TALK TOGETHER."
SO, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, WE ARE
MAKING BETTER PROGRESS.
>> SINCE SO MANY OF THE MAJOR
ISSUES TODAY ARE GLOBALLY
CONNECTED AND WE REALLY DON'T
HAVE THAT SEPARATION BETWEEN
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AS MUCH AS
WE HAD BEFORE, AND IT SEEMS THAT
IT'S MORE IMPERATIVE THAN EVER
THAT WE REACH SOME KIND OF
CONSENSUS, BECAUSE THESE ISSUES
CAN HAVE A TREMENDOUS NEGATIVE
EFFECT ON US IF THEY'RE NOT
ADDRESSED.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
GLOBALIZATION MAY BRING GOOD
THINGS.
IT ALSO BRINGS SOME BAD THINGS.
IT DECREASES YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AS
A NATION, AND SO, IF YOU HAVE
SOME KIND OF TREATY WITH A WHOLE
BUNCH OF OTHER NATIONS, THEN YOU
HAVE TO SAY, "BUT HOW DO WE
PROTECT WORKERS' RIGHTS?
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE
PROTECT SAFETY REGULATIONS THAT
WE'VE ALWAYS PUT IN PLACE?"
AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS
YOU'RE WILLING TO COME TOGETHER.
ULTIMATELY -- EVEN THOUGH ONLY A
PRESIDENT CAN NEGOTIATE A
TREATY, ULTIMATELY, THE SENATE
HAS TO APPROVE IT, AND YOU HAVE
TO BE ABLE TO SAY, "THERE'S
GREAT BENEFIT TO THIS TREATY.
THERE'S ALSO SOME IMPINGEMENTS
ON OUR OWN ABILITY TO TAKE CARE
OF OUR OWN PEOPLE.
LET'S FIND A WAY TO MAKE
WHATEVER CHANGES WE NEED IN THE
TREATY SO THAT WE CAN APPROVE
IT."
>> IS THE CURRENT ATMOSPHERE
KEEPING SOME OF THE BEST
CANDIDATES AWAY?
>> THE ATMOSPHERE OF BEING SO
NASTY, SO UNCIVIL, SO MUCH A
QUESTION OF, "WELL, CAN YOU GET
ANYTHING DONE?
BECAUSE ANYTHING YOU PROPOSE
WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY OPPOSED BY
THE OTHER PARTY."
AND THE MONEY -- YOU KNOW, THE
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY IT
TAKES TO RUN A CAMPAIGN, WHICH
IS CONTROLLED BY THE PARTY
APPARATUS THROUGH THE VARIOUS
OTHER GROUPS, SUPER PACS OR
WHATEVER, BUT IT'S THE PARTY
OPERATIVES WHO ARE RUNNING THOSE
THINGS.
UM, YEAH.
IT'S VERY DISCOURAGING.
IT'S VERY HARD.
YOU HAVE A GREAT CAREER.
YOU HAVE A GREAT CAREER IN THE
ACADEMIC WORLD AND DOING ALL
THIS, AND MY GUESS IS, I COULD
SAY, "JOHN, YOU WOULD BE AN
ABSOLUTELY TREMENDOUS MEMBER OF
CONGRESS."
BUT IF I APPROACHED YOU ABOUT
RUNNING, YOU WOULD SAY, "WHOA!
I GOT A GOOD THING HERE.
DO I WANT TO SUBJECT MYSELF TO
THAT?"
AND WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE WAY
THE SYSTEM WORKS SO THAT GOOD
PEOPLE WILL BE WILLING TO ENTER
INTO IT AND SERVE THE COUNTRY IN
THAT WAY.
>> AS YOU TRAVEL AROUND, TALKING
ABOUT THE BOOK, DO YOU FIND
CERTAIN AUDIENCES THAT ARE MORE
RECEPTIVE TO IT?
I'M THINKING OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN
PARTICULAR, BECAUSE MANY OF THE
CHANGES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
WILL TAKE TIME.
>> YEAH, BUT IT'S KIND OF
SURPRISING.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE YOUNG
PEOPLE, BUT NO.
I THINK WE'VE REACHED A POINT
WHERE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS
JUST SICK OF IT.
THEY'RE JUST SICK OF THE
NAME-CALLING AND THE BACK-BITING
AND THE PARTISAN WARS, AND SO,
NO, I'M ACTUALLY FINDING AS I
TRAVEL AROUND THE COUNTRY, YOU
KNOW, GREAT, GREAT RESPONSE TO
THIS, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN THINKING, "SOMETHING
NEEDS TO BE DONE."
AND THE ONLY THING -- I HAVEN'T
SAID ANYTHING NEW.
WHAT'S NEW IN MY BOOK IS "HERE'S
HOW TO CHANGE IT."
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE
RESULT OF ALL OF THIS OVERSEAS,
AND WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES, OTHER
GOVERNMENTS, OTHER INDIVIDUALS
LOOK AT US, IS THEIR PERCEPTION
OF US DIMINISHED BECAUSE OF THIS
INABILITY TO COMPROMISE?
>> FOR MANY YEARS, THE WORLD
LOOKED TO US AS THE EXEMPLAR OF
WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS SUPPOSED TO
BE.
AND WHEN THEY SEE US FIGHTING
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING
TO PAY OUR INTERNATIONAL DEBTS,
YEAH, THEY ROLL THEIR EYES AND
SAY, "HAS AMERICA LOST IT?"
WHEN THEY SEE US TRYING TO DEAL
WITH ANY OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS
THAT WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY AND
WE CAN'T DO IT, WHAT THEY'RE
SEEING IS THEY'RE SEEING THE
SAME THING WE'RE SEEING -- A
GOVERNMENT THAT'S COMPLETELY
DYSFUNCTIONAL.
YOU KNOW, IT'S -- EVERYTHING --
A CORPORATION, A UNIVERSITY, A
GOVERNMENT HAS TO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO CARRY OUT ITS
MISSION, ITS DUTIES.
AND WHEN PEOPLE IN ANY OTHER
COUNTRY LOOK AT
THE UNITED STATES AND SEE WE
CAN'T DO THAT, WE NO LONGER CAN
GET TOGETHER ON ANYTHING, THEY
BEGIN TO WONDER, "THIS IS THE
COUNTRY THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE
LEADING THE WORLD?"
YOU KNOW, AND SO WE -- IF WE'RE
GONNA HAVE ANY SAY IN THE WORLD
THAT'S EMERGING -- ESPECIALLY IF
WE'RE GONNA LEAD IT, BUT IF
WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANY SAY IN
IT -- WE HAVE TO GET OUR ACT
TOGETHER AND START ACTING LIKE A
GROWN-UP COUNTRY.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SYSTEMIC
CHANGES, WHICH CAN TAKE TIME.
IN OTHER AREAS, WHEN THERE'S
BEEN A STRUGGLE AGAINST
SOMETHING -- A WAR, IF YOU WILL,
AGAINST SOMETHING -- PEOPLE
THINK IN TERMS OF A GENERATION
OR MORE.
HOW LONG, REALISTICALLY, IF ALL
OF THESE REFORMS YOU'RE
PROPOSING WERE TO BE EMBRACED,
HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR THEM
TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECT?
>> IF, UH -- WELL, I MENTIONED,
YOU KNOW, THE STATES HAVE
ALREADY DONE THIS, SOME OTHERS
STARTING TO DO IT.
IF WE STARTED CHANGING THE LAWS
ABOUT PRIMARIES AND GET RID OF
THE SORE-LOSER LAWS SO THAT
PEOPLE CAN HAVE REAL CHOICE
ABOUT WHO TO ELECT AND WE CHANGE
THE REDISTRICTING SO THAT THE
MAKEUP OF THE CONGRESS BEGINS TO
LOOK DIFFERENT AND THE
INCENTIVES TO COOPERATE LOOK
DIFFERENT, 10 YEARS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
GENERATIONS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DECADES.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN CHANGE THIS
PRETTY QUICKLY.
YOU AND YOUR LISTENERS, YOUR
VIEWERS, SHOW UP AT THE TOWN
MEETING THE NEXT TIME THEIR
CONGRESSMAN ARRIVES AND SAY, "WE
WANT THIS CHANGE OR YOU'RE OUT,"
IT'LL CHANGE.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE POWER IN
THIS COUNTRY.
>> AND AT WHAT POINT WOULD YOU
START TO FEEL HAPPY ABOUT THE
CHANGES?
>> YOU KNOW, AS I SEE IT BEGIN
TO DEVELOP, I WILL ONLY FEEL
HAPPY WHEN I SEE THAT BY
CHANGING WHO GETS ELECTED, BY
CHANGING THE INCENTIVE
SYSTEMS -- IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
THE PEOPLE BUT THE INCENTIVE
SYSTEMS WORKING ON THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE ELECTED AND WE BEGIN TO
SEE ON MAJOR ISSUES -- YOU'LL
HAVE MAJOR BATTLES.
I MEAN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE BIG
BATTLES.
BUT THAT THEY THEN COME TOGETHER
AND THEY CAN PASS A BUDGET THAT
THEY CAN DECIDE ON THE TAX CODE,
THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, DO THESE
THINGS, I'LL FEEL BETTER.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, JOHN?
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE
OUTCOME IS THE OUTCOME I WOULD
HAVE PREFERRED.
YOU KNOW, I'M ONE PERSON, AND I
HAVE MY BELIEFS.
MAYBE IT'S A COMPROMISE.
I DIDN'T GET AS MUCH AS I WOULD
HAVE LIKED.
DOESN'T MATTER.
I WANT TO SEE THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO FUNCTION
AGAIN.
>> SOUNDS LIKE THE POTENTIAL FOR
A NEW BOOK.
ONCE THIS IS OVER, WILL YOU
WRITE THE BOOK "HOW WE TURNED
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS INTO
AMERICANS"?
>> I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT.
I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US TODAY, MR. EDWARDS.
>> THANK YOU, JOHN.
>> AND THANK YOU.
FOR "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES," I'M
JOHN BERSIA.
WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.
>> THIS PROGRAM IS MADE POSSIBLE
IN PART BY FUNDING FROM...