Latest / The Oath and The Office / Bonus Episode: Is Bipartisanship Still Possible? With Governors Bill Haslam and Phil Bredesen

Transcript

Bonus Episode: Is Bipartisanship Still Possible? With Governors Bill Haslam and Phil Bredesen · The Oath and The Office

0:09
Speaker 1: Welcome.
0:09
Speaker 2: This is a special edition of The Oath in the Office. Look,
0:14
Speaker 2: there's a lot of talk about the need for bipartisanship
0:17
Speaker 2: and also concerns about overly partisan politics. And I'll tell you,
0:21
Speaker 2: at this moment in time, when we're facing a threat
0:24
Speaker 2: to democracy, I tend to think that's not really the issue.
0:28
Speaker 2: The issue isn't bipartisanship or too much partisanship. It is
0:32
Speaker 2: a president that is intent on destroying democracy. But yet
0:35
Speaker 2: the I don't want to hide from the fact that
0:38
Speaker 2: at pivotal moments in our history, after Watergate, for instance,
0:42
Speaker 2: we have had bipartisan concerns to reinforce, to protect, and
0:46
Speaker 2: build our democracy. And I don't want to take away
0:49
Speaker 2: from the fact that often at the local level, from
0:52
Speaker 2: mayors and in governor's offices, that we've seen a bipartisanship
0:58
Speaker 2: that has really made a difference in the lives of
1:00
Speaker 2: people in areas like education and health care. So what
1:04
Speaker 2: I wanted to do was to have a serious conversation
1:08
Speaker 2: about the limits of partisanship, given the travesty of January 6th,
1:13
Speaker 2: given the danger to democracy of this Trump presidency. given
1:18
Speaker 2: the threat that we talked about of Christian nationalism, to
1:22
Speaker 2: talk about how to have bipartisanship, how to reach across
1:26
Speaker 2: to those who we might not agree with on all issues,
1:30
Speaker 2: who we might not share a common perspective with on
1:33
Speaker 2: matters of religion, matters of philosophy. How can we come
1:37
Speaker 2: together despite that in this time?
1:40
Speaker 1: And really to ask even, is it possible?
1:43
Speaker 2: So to that end, I have two special guests that
1:46
Speaker 2: I'm about to introduce, former governors of Tennessee, one a Democrat,
1:51
Speaker 2: one a Republican, who are really serious about trying to
1:55
Speaker 2: think about bipartisanship, the problem of our overly partisan politics
2:00
Speaker 2: in a way that also takes seriously the threats of
2:03
Speaker 2: Christian nationalism, the threat to democracy that we've seen from
2:08
Speaker 2: Trumpism and from January 6th.
2:10
Speaker 1: So I hope you'll enjoy it.
2:11
Speaker 2: I found it an engaging conversation.
2:14
Speaker 1: And without further ado, I bring to you two.
2:18
Speaker 2: Governors who co-host a podcast together, despite the fact that
2:21
Speaker 2: they are members of different parties. Democrat Phil Bredesen, who
2:25
Speaker 2: served as governor from 2003 to 2011, and Republican Bill Haslam,
2:32
Speaker 2: who succeeded him and served until 2019.
2:36
Speaker 1: Together, they're a team.
2:38
Speaker 2: They host the podcast, You Might Be Right, a podcast
2:42
Speaker 2: from the University of Tennessee's Howard H.
2:45
Speaker 1: Baker Jr.
2:46
Speaker 2: 's School of Public Policy and Public Affairs. And the
2:49
Speaker 2: show brings curiosity and humility to difficult questions inspired by
2:54
Speaker 2: Senator Baker's reminder that the other fellow might be right.
2:58
Speaker 1: So, governors, welcome to The Oath in the Office.
3:01
Speaker 3: It's good to be here.
3:01
Speaker 4: Thanks for having us on. Look forward to talking.
3:04
Speaker 1: My pleasure.
3:05
Speaker 2: I'm really looking forward to it. Of course, we live
3:07
Speaker 2: in a deeply partisan time. It's a time in which
3:11
Speaker 2: we're listening to different shows, different podcasts, often different television shows.
3:16
Speaker 1: And you've figured out a way to try to break through.
3:19
Speaker 2: That divide with a kind of curiosity and humility.
3:22
Speaker 1: So let's start with the title. You might be right.
3:25
Speaker 2: Tell me, how did you come to this podcast, to
3:30
Speaker 2: this name and this idea for a show?
3:32
Speaker 1: How do you know each other?
3:34
Speaker 4: Well, we know each other because I took over from Phil.
3:38
Speaker 5: And there's hardly a better way to get to know
3:41
Speaker 5: someone than to do the job after they did. But
3:44
Speaker 5: we actually became friends before that when I was the
3:47
Speaker 5: mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, and Phil was the governor. We
3:49
Speaker 5: did several things together and invited me to go on
3:52
Speaker 5: an economic development trip to Asia. So we got to
3:55
Speaker 5: know each other. And then after I was in office,
3:57
Speaker 5: we obviously continued conversations. There are certain issues that come
4:00
Speaker 5: up that aren't about party as much as experience and
4:04
Speaker 5: how'd you think about this particular situation?
4:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's one thing that strikes me as
4:10
Speaker 2: we begin the conversation that the more we're talking about
4:14
Speaker 2: the pragmatic questions of governance and the nitty-gritty of being mayor,
4:18
Speaker 2: and I imagine many issues being governor. Pragmatism and compromise
4:23
Speaker 2: and bipartisanship seems a natural way to think about things,
4:26
Speaker 2: but I'm going to dive in to a central question
4:29
Speaker 2: of this show, which is really about the American presidency
4:32
Speaker 2: and about some of the issues that arise at this moment,
4:35
Speaker 2: and in particular, a president's oath to preserve, protect, and
4:39
Speaker 2: defend the Constitution, and also what happens when presidents don't
4:43
Speaker 2: do that.
4:44
Speaker 1: So my big.
4:45
Speaker 2: Question is, you know, I did an event recently with
4:48
Speaker 2: Dick Ephart, and he talked about bipartisanship in the sort
4:50
Speaker 2: of spirit that we started off, but I couldn't help
4:54
Speaker 2: but thinking, and he couldn't help remarking the discussion turned
4:57
Speaker 2: to this, about how difficult things are in terms of
5:01
Speaker 2: bipartisanship now, given this president and the, well, the lack,
5:09
Speaker 2: let's say, we'll put it lightly, of a desire for
5:13
Speaker 2: reasonable disagreement, for compromise, for all the things that your
5:17
Speaker 2: show is talking about.
5:18
Speaker 1: So on the one hand, I see the need.
5:20
Speaker 2: For the hope of your show, but I also have
5:22
Speaker 2: to ask you just off the get-go, I mean, is
5:24
Speaker 2: bipartisanship possible, at least in national politics with this president?
5:30
Speaker 3: I think it's difficult. I mean, one of the things
5:33
Speaker 3: that I think it's fair, I can speak for both
5:36
Speaker 3: of us, that both of us felt that once you're
5:39
Speaker 3: elected to an office, there's that oath of office, but
5:43
Speaker 3: also you become the governor of all the people of
5:45
Speaker 3: the state of Tennessee, and whether they voted for you
5:47
Speaker 3: or not, or they like you or not, and so on,
5:49
Speaker 3: that just respect for the American political process requires you
5:53
Speaker 3: to do that. That's kind of what seems to have
5:58
Speaker 3: escaped us at this point. And You know, certainly the
6:01
Speaker 3: president is responsible for a lot of it, but it
6:03
Speaker 3: goes on in a lot of other places, you know,
6:06
Speaker 3: as well. People are just seeing this as two incompatible worldviews,
6:12
Speaker 3: and one of them has to win over the other,
6:15
Speaker 3: as opposed to we have to figure out how to
6:17
Speaker 3: make them work together.
6:19
Speaker 5: I think, unfortunately, today's politics has become not just about winning.
6:23
Speaker 5: The right answer should be always, I want to get
6:25
Speaker 5: to the best answer, okay? That should be where you start.
6:28
Speaker 1: But then.
6:29
Speaker 5: kind of the next is, well, I want my side
6:32
Speaker 5: to win. But the worst is where we are a
6:34
Speaker 5: lot of times now, which is I want you to
6:36
Speaker 5: beat the other side because they're bad people who are
6:39
Speaker 5: trying to ruin our country.
6:41
Speaker 4: And I'll give you a counterexample.
6:43
Speaker 5: Now, since you're talking about the presidency and the oath
6:46
Speaker 5: of office, Howard Baker, who, like I said, has kind
6:48
Speaker 5: of inspired our show, but I was working for him
6:50
Speaker 5: back in 1978 when the whole issue of President Carter
6:56
Speaker 5: proposed giving up the Panama Canal. And Nobody remembers that
7:01
Speaker 5: today was major controversy. And our mail that back back
7:05
Speaker 5: in the days when you got mail and that was
7:07
Speaker 5: my job. But I was you know, I was 21
7:10
Speaker 5: was to open mail. OK, but it was it was
7:13
Speaker 5: a thousand to one against doing it. But Baker kind
7:18
Speaker 5: of from listening to it and spending time, Panama became
7:21
Speaker 5: convinced this is the right thing to do. And he
7:24
Speaker 5: really became the deciding vote for what gave Jimmy Carter.
7:27
Speaker 4: One of his biggest victories.
7:28
Speaker 5: It also ended up probably costing, Reagan might have beat
7:32
Speaker 5: him anywhere, but anyway, but Baker was running in the
7:35
Speaker 5: 80 Republican primary, probably cost him either a chance to
7:38
Speaker 5: win or a chance to at least be competitive to
7:40
Speaker 5: do it. But he kind of did start with like,
7:43
Speaker 5: let's begin with what's the right thing to do and
7:45
Speaker 5: work backwards from that. So we do have examples in
7:48
Speaker 5: our history of people doing that.
7:51
Speaker 1: Yeah.
7:51
Speaker 2: I mean, well, Bill, what do you think about, and
7:53
Speaker 2: I think Phil sort of started off by conceding, look,
7:56
Speaker 2: it's very hard to do it in this moment, but
7:57
Speaker 2: I wonder- what you.
7:59
Speaker 1: Think about that. I mean, on the one hand, I
8:02
Speaker 1: admire the model.
8:03
Speaker 2: I certainly admire looking to history and to moments in
8:05
Speaker 2: which bipartisanship did govern. I mean, it's not that we
8:09
Speaker 2: didn't have parties or didn't have partisanship, but we broke
8:12
Speaker 2: through it. And I guess I'm wondering if, you know,
8:15
Speaker 2: if we're being, if you're optimistic or hopeful about that happening,
8:20
Speaker 2: at least in national politics, of course it could happen
8:23
Speaker 2: in cities and local government. given a president who really
8:27
Speaker 2: just seems opposed to bipartisan compromise in any sense?
8:31
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you think?
8:33
Speaker 4: No, no, listen, I'm definitely concerned. I mean, that's part
8:35
Speaker 4: of the reason we're doing this is this.
8:37
Speaker 5: Whole idea of like, you know, the polarization and the
8:42
Speaker 5: hate your enemy and wish them death is not good.
8:47
Speaker 4: But I also see, and listen, you look for glimmers
8:50
Speaker 4: of hope, right? But I see that in places.
8:52
Speaker 5: When I go speak places, I ask him, you know,
8:55
Speaker 5: how many people are tired and frustrated about the way
8:57
Speaker 5: politics works?
8:58
Speaker 4: Every hand goes up.
9:00
Speaker 5: I think people really are wanting somebody who can call
9:02
Speaker 5: out our better angels. Now we just need somebody with
9:05
Speaker 5: the the the communication gifts and the the right kind
9:10
Speaker 5: of views who can do that, who can call out
9:13
Speaker 5: those better angels. Because, you know, eventually, like what did
9:16
Speaker 5: Churchill say about America, you know, they eventually get to
9:19
Speaker 5: the right answer after they've tried everything else.
9:22
Speaker 4: I sense that's kind of where we're getting to.
9:24
Speaker 5: People are like, I'm not exactly sure who or what,
9:28
Speaker 5: but this is no way to run an airline right now.
9:33
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you about an issue that I
9:35
Speaker 2: take it that you agree about, although my guess is
9:37
Speaker 2: that there might be some disagreement too. Bill, when you
9:41
Speaker 2: were governor, of course, you vetoed a bill that would
9:44
Speaker 2: have made The Bible and correct me if I'm mischaracterizing it, the.
9:49
Speaker 1: Tennessee's official book.
9:51
Speaker 2: A lot of the show we're talking about the First Amendment,
9:54
Speaker 2: the ban on official religions, the establishment of religion.
9:58
Speaker 1: And this strikes me as. as, you know, an.
10:02
Speaker 2: Important way, I guess, to get at the version of
10:05
Speaker 2: bipartisanship that you're talking about. So I want to ask Phil, too,
10:09
Speaker 2: about the controversy. But tell us, you know, why did
10:12
Speaker 2: you go it and how I'm especially interested in how
10:15
Speaker 2: you handled what I know was the pushback from at
10:19
Speaker 2: least some in your own party.
10:21
Speaker 1: And my understanding, by the way, and.
10:22
Speaker 2: Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that this
10:24
Speaker 2: bill now has been signed by a different governor with
10:28
Speaker 2: different ideas.
10:29
Speaker 5: A little bit different version of it. So it's not
10:32
Speaker 5: quite an apples versus apples comparison. But, and I'll add
10:36
Speaker 5: to the context, I'm actually somebody who believes the Bible
10:39
Speaker 5: is the inspired word of God.
10:40
Speaker 4: Okay. So it made it particularly difficult.
10:43
Speaker 5: But I also think this, I think our founders were
10:46
Speaker 5: brilliant in a lot of things, but one of those
10:47
Speaker 5: is they basically said, religion's too important to be under
10:51
Speaker 5: the control of government. And that's why the whole establishment
10:54
Speaker 5: clause that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion
10:58
Speaker 5: or prohibiting the free exercise of.
11:01
Speaker 4: Those are both really important.
11:04
Speaker 5: And this is one of those where I thought, people
11:10
Speaker 5: try to say, well, we're doing this because we're having
11:13
Speaker 5: the Bible... be the official book because of its historical nature.
11:17
Speaker 5: I'm like, well, I don't think that's why you're doing it.
11:21
Speaker 5: So the Bible's either the inspired word of God or
11:23
Speaker 5: it's not. And don't say we're just putting it in
11:26
Speaker 5: there as a history book, okay?
11:30
Speaker 4: It was one of those things.
11:31
Speaker 5: I had a couple, three really, you know, decisions that
11:36
Speaker 5: got a whole lot of kind of national attention because
11:38
Speaker 5: of the nature of this one did.
11:40
Speaker 4: And to this day, I have people walk up to
11:41
Speaker 4: me in the grocery store and say, hey, aren't you
11:44
Speaker 4: the guy that vetoed the Bible? Which is a little
11:46
Speaker 4: hard to explain when you have your grandchildren.
11:48
Speaker 1: People who are not happy.
11:49
Speaker 4: Right, exactly. But, you know, I think the principle holds.
11:54
Speaker 5: And, you know, one of the things Phil will tell
11:57
Speaker 5: you that's not totally unique, but sort of different about
12:01
Speaker 5: being the governor of Tennessee, it just takes a simple
12:03
Speaker 5: majority to override a veto.
12:05
Speaker 4: And so I think I only vetoed.
12:07
Speaker 5: Like five or six things while I was in office.
12:11
Speaker 5: And this one and another one actually related to two
12:14
Speaker 5: religious issues were two of the ones I vetoed that
12:18
Speaker 5: people that kind of from my worldview were.
12:21
Speaker 4: Thinking, what are you doing?
12:22
Speaker 5: But I think you either believe in what the Constitution
12:26
Speaker 5: says and that you swore to uphold or you don't.
12:31
Speaker 3: I think also that, you know, I think you've got
12:32
Speaker 3: to recognize that people have, I mean, religion is for
12:37
Speaker 3: a great many Americans, you know, kind of a fundamental
12:41
Speaker 3: part of the way they see the world, its moral
12:43
Speaker 3: terms and their obligations and so on. And I think
12:46
Speaker 3: throughout our history, people have pushed a particular set of
12:50
Speaker 3: religious views, their own religious views as, you know, as forward.
12:56
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm old enough to remember probably the first
13:01
Speaker 3: presidential election I remember really clearly was Kennedy versus Nixon.
13:05
Speaker 3: And I lived in a part of the rural upstate
13:08
Speaker 3: New York where everyone was just totally upset at the
13:11
Speaker 3: notion of a Catholic ever becoming president and so on.
13:15
Speaker 3: So I don't think this push up, I think of
13:20
Speaker 3: this sort of Christian nationalism stuff that's going on now.
13:24
Speaker 3: I don't think it's really new in this country. I
13:27
Speaker 3: do think there's more tolerance for it with this president
13:30
Speaker 3: and this Congress, for that matter, than there has been
13:32
Speaker 3: in the past. And, you know, I see some of
13:36
Speaker 3: the frustration right now, in my mind, just is the Congress,
13:40
Speaker 3: you know, one person, a president can always get off
13:42
Speaker 3: the ranch on that stuff, but the Congress is supposed
13:44
Speaker 3: to be an antidote to that, and they're not doing it.
13:46
Speaker 5: Another discussion for another day, but I don't think the
13:50
Speaker 5: Christian nationalism view is even biblical.
13:52
Speaker 4: So, but a longer conversation for another day.
13:54
Speaker 5: Right, right.
13:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, we've had a number of conversations.
13:58
Speaker 2: My co-host, who's not with us today, John Fuglesang, has
14:02
Speaker 2: a book called Separation of Church and Hate. And it's
14:04
Speaker 2: all about that idea that believing in Christianity certainly doesn't
14:08
Speaker 2: require believing in Christian nationalism.
14:11
Speaker 1: To the contrary, they're really at odds. I want to
14:13
Speaker 1: ask you about the follow-up.
14:14
Speaker 2: About that exchange that you just had, because I think
14:16
Speaker 2: it does start to get to the details of what
14:20
Speaker 2: it might mean, not just to compromise, but to do
14:22
Speaker 2: what you're both doing on the podcast, which is reason together.
14:25
Speaker 2: And that's the question of whether or not you really
14:28
Speaker 2: have to bracket, at least, not to say that one
14:34
Speaker 2: set of beliefs is true or false, but just to
14:36
Speaker 2: say what politics is about is not answering the question
14:40
Speaker 2: of theology, not answering the questions of God's existence or
14:47
Speaker 2: the truth or lack thereof of religion, but to try
14:50
Speaker 2: to find a common vocabulary. And at least, you know,
14:52
Speaker 2: I invite you to push back if this overstates it.
14:55
Speaker 2: But what I'm hearing and what both of you say
14:57
Speaker 2: is that, you know, you each have your own philosophical
15:00
Speaker 2: and religious beliefs, but that what politics is about, especially
15:04
Speaker 2: a politics that's going to involve dialogue across parties, is
15:08
Speaker 2: finding a kind of common vocabulary. Does that go too far?
15:11
Speaker 2: I mean, is that the mistake of Christian nationalism, that
15:14
Speaker 2: it tries to overtly insert a particular version of Christianity
15:19
Speaker 2: into politics? And is that a prerequisite? I don't want
15:23
Speaker 2: to overstate it. Martin Luther King Jr., of course, is
15:26
Speaker 2: citing the Bible often, but he's always careful to give
15:30
Speaker 2: a common vocabulary to appeal, for instance, to the United
15:33
Speaker 2: States Constitution as a supplement and to say, you know,
15:37
Speaker 2: this is how I see it, but it's not how
15:39
Speaker 2: we all see it.
15:41
Speaker 5: Yeah, so my answer to that would be, listen, it's
15:44
Speaker 5: naive to think that we don't all bring our worldviews
15:47
Speaker 5: to whatever we do, to our political positions, to business,
15:51
Speaker 5: to raising children, whatever we all do. And if you're
15:54
Speaker 5: a person of religious faith, that's part of your worldview,
15:57
Speaker 5: and you bring that to the public square. And I
16:00
Speaker 5: think that's what we're supposed to do. But we're all
16:04
Speaker 5: supposed to recognize this is a pluralistic society that we're
16:08
Speaker 5: not a Christian nation, okay? We're a nation that I
16:12
Speaker 5: hope is, you know, people that truly are seeking God's truth.
16:17
Speaker 4: But that's not who we are.
16:18
Speaker 5: You don't have to pledge an oath to to Jesus
16:23
Speaker 5: or to Muhammad or to anyone else to be a
16:25
Speaker 5: Christian citizen. And to try to say that that's that's
16:31
Speaker 5: the the. the uniform we're going to make everyone wear.
16:34
Speaker 5: By the way, that didn't work out well for the
16:37
Speaker 5: church in Europe. If you look at where the church
16:39
Speaker 5: worldwide is the most dead, if you will, it's in
16:42
Speaker 5: Europe because they made the church part of the state church.
16:47
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
16:48
Speaker 3: I mean, to me, one of the real geniuses of
16:51
Speaker 3: the founding fathers was recognizing that there are always going
16:56
Speaker 3: to be these, these quite different worldviews. People have different,
17:00
Speaker 3: different experiences. They've got different parents or they got different genes, um,
17:05
Speaker 3: and so on. And what they designed was a system
17:08
Speaker 3: which can accept that as a reality that one side
17:11
Speaker 3: is never going to win over the other. Um, but
17:14
Speaker 3: find ways to move forward to do things that, you know,
17:17
Speaker 3: that are for the common good that you have to do. And, um,
17:21
Speaker 3: That's the piece which now, and there have been other
17:25
Speaker 3: times in our history, I think that we're losing a
17:27
Speaker 3: little bit. We're turning this into every political issue is
17:31
Speaker 3: a fundamental moral decision about the future of the country,
17:35
Speaker 3: as opposed to saying, look, there's always going to be
17:38
Speaker 3: people with different views of these issues. How do we
17:40
Speaker 3: figure a way to, in some way, move forward and
17:43
Speaker 3: do things we need to do together?
17:45
Speaker 1: Yeah.
17:46
Speaker 2: And of course, the framers, in addition to their brilliance
17:48
Speaker 2: in the First Amendment of saying that we wouldn't have
17:50
Speaker 2: the establishment of religion or laws that relate or respect
17:54
Speaker 2: to an establishment also ban religious tests for office. And that,
17:59
Speaker 2: I think, coincides well with the points that both of
18:02
Speaker 2: you are making. And they were quite conscious, too, of
18:04
Speaker 2: wars of religion and not wanting to have an internal
18:08
Speaker 2: civil war of religion. This has been a great discussion
18:11
Speaker 2: so far with Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam. We're going
18:15
Speaker 2: to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
18:20
Speaker 6: Have you ever read The Handmaid's Tale before? We haven't.
18:24
Speaker 6: Haven't even watched the TV show.
18:28
Speaker 7: Bandcamp, our top-ranked comedy podcast, is back for Season 11,
18:33
Speaker 7: and we're reading The Handmaid's Tale out loud, cover to cover.
18:38
Speaker 6: Now, if you've never read it before, you're going to
18:40
Speaker 6: discover it with us. And if you have read it before, well,
18:43
Speaker 6: you already know what's coming, and this is going to
18:45
Speaker 6: be your chance to laugh at us as we get
18:47
Speaker 6: horrified over and over and over.
18:51
Speaker 7: And because we haven't read it before, you're going to
18:53
Speaker 7: hear us bumbling through it while we're trying to figure
18:56
Speaker 7: out why it was banned in the first place. New
18:59
Speaker 7: episodes every Tuesday and Thursday.
19:02
Speaker 6: Assuming that we actually make it through the reading. You
19:05
Speaker 6: can find us at bandcamppodcast.com. And that's banned like books
19:09
Speaker 6: they don't want you to read.
19:20
Speaker 1: Welcome back to The Oath in the Office.
19:23
Speaker 2: I'm speaking with Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam, both former
19:26
Speaker 2: governors of Tennessee.
19:29
Speaker 1: And let's continue the conversation.
19:31
Speaker 2: I did want to pivot a little bit to think
19:34
Speaker 2: with you both about the limits of compromise in our
19:37
Speaker 2: own moment. We had Congressman Jared Huffman for an amazing
19:41
Speaker 2: conversation on the show about really the untold story of,
19:46
Speaker 2: and he has a book called No Prophets about this,
19:49
Speaker 2: which I recommend to our listeners and to both of
19:53
Speaker 2: you about the kind of untold story of the role
19:56
Speaker 2: of Christian nationalists in particular in January 6th, and alongside
20:02
Speaker 2: the Oath Keepers and other groups that were covered more fundamentally.
20:06
Speaker 2: And part of his point is, you know, this is
20:08
Speaker 2: an uncomfortable fact that this happened, but we have to
20:11
Speaker 2: talk about it. And so I wanted to ask about
20:14
Speaker 2: the question that we started.
20:16
Speaker 1: With about the possible limits of compromise. I mean, what
20:19
Speaker 1: do we do with the fact that you know, there
20:22
Speaker 1: was an.
20:23
Speaker 2: Attempt to undo the election in January 6th. Is this
20:27
Speaker 2: something that we can bracket as we seek compromise, even
20:29
Speaker 2: on the local level, I guess?
20:31
Speaker 1: I'm interested in your thoughts about that.
20:33
Speaker 2: Or is it just always front and center that there
20:35
Speaker 2: really is a threat to democracy that this president encouraged
20:39
Speaker 2: and that groups, including with violence, tried to really undo
20:43
Speaker 2: our democracy? So this January 6th, you know, I know
20:47
Speaker 2: it presents a challenge to compromise, but.
20:50
Speaker 1: How would you characterize it?
20:53
Speaker 3: I mean, I sort of divide these things right now
20:56
Speaker 3: into two camps. I mean, there are there are differences
21:00
Speaker 3: on issues which are I think which are fundamentally, you know,
21:05
Speaker 3: what what politics is about. And and, you know, the
21:10
Speaker 3: issues of should you have tariffs and if so, how
21:13
Speaker 3: and what do you think about, you know, abortion and
21:16
Speaker 3: what do you think about abortion? you know, immigration and
21:21
Speaker 3: how it would affect. Those to me are political questions
21:26
Speaker 3: that you answer. And whatever your view of it is,
21:31
Speaker 3: it deserves respect of the other side's view of it
21:35
Speaker 3: and listening to it. There are things, though, that are
21:39
Speaker 3: going on now, which are much more fundamental to challenging,
21:42
Speaker 3: I think, some of the basic assumptions of of what
21:46
Speaker 3: America is about and what the framers, you know, originally intended. And,
21:52
Speaker 3: you know, obviously marching on and invading the Capitol is
21:58
Speaker 3: in a different category, in my mind, than your view
22:01
Speaker 3: about immigration or something. So my tolerance sort of, there's
22:04
Speaker 3: a place in which I stop and say, look, there's
22:06
Speaker 3: a place which you're just going over the line. You're
22:09
Speaker 3: challenging things that are very fundamental about our um, the
22:14
Speaker 3: nature of the government that was created and has been,
22:16
Speaker 3: has been so successful here. And, you know, those, um,
22:20
Speaker 3: you know, those are not about just different views of issues.
22:22
Speaker 3: Those are about someone who rejects, totally rejects the social
22:26
Speaker 3: contract that made the country possible.
22:30
Speaker 5: There's a lot of beautiful things about this country, but
22:33
Speaker 5: one of those is this, we're not a nation of
22:36
Speaker 5: a certain race or a certain ethnicity. We're a nation
22:40
Speaker 5: that's built on this idea that, uh, you know, conceived
22:44
Speaker 5: in liberty and dedicated the principle that all men are
22:47
Speaker 5: created equal and free to pursue happiness in the way
22:52
Speaker 5: that they desire. One of the hallmarks of this country
22:57
Speaker 5: of ours is the free and peaceful transfer of power. Now,
23:02
Speaker 5: if somebody could come and say, right here, we know
23:06
Speaker 5: that there was some illegality or some corruption in the
23:08
Speaker 5: voting process, but Nobody ever was able to do that
23:11
Speaker 5: despite a lot of money and time spent. OK, so
23:15
Speaker 5: if you look at it, if you look at the
23:17
Speaker 5: you for earlier, the 1960 election of Kennedy Nixon, that
23:20
Speaker 5: was actually a really, really close election. There there might
23:23
Speaker 5: have been some improper doings in the Illinois vote total,
23:28
Speaker 5: you know, and that could have been, you know, that
23:30
Speaker 5: you can go back then to 2000 and Gore and
23:33
Speaker 5: Bush and obviously the contest there. But what has stood
23:37
Speaker 5: forever in our country is this idea of free and
23:41
Speaker 5: peaceful transfer of power, where one party or not hands
23:47
Speaker 5: over the keys to the next. And for people to,
23:53
Speaker 5: particularly younger people, to have trust in the institution of
23:57
Speaker 5: our country and what makes us special is really important.
24:02
Speaker 5: And every time we try to tear down one of
24:04
Speaker 5: those foundations of the country, we come out worse.
24:09
Speaker 3: You know, one of the things when I watched you,
24:12
Speaker 3: you mentioned, Bill, the Gore versus Bush back in 2000.
24:16
Speaker 3: One of the things that really struck me about that
24:19
Speaker 3: and I learned is that I'd always thought about elections
24:21
Speaker 3: in terms of it's really important about who gets elected,
24:24
Speaker 3: you know, policies and capabilities and stuff. And after that,
24:29
Speaker 3: I said, you know, maybe the most important part of
24:32
Speaker 3: elections is just bestowing absolute legitimacy on whoever is elected,
24:39
Speaker 3: you know, to avoid the kind of stuff that you're
24:42
Speaker 3: talking about. And it's that tackling of the legitimacy that
24:48
Speaker 3: I think becomes the real danger that's inherent in what
24:52
Speaker 3: went on with January 6th and what's going on with
24:54
Speaker 3: some of the stuff now with with the federal government
24:59
Speaker 3: basically poking their fingers into the electoral process at the
25:02
Speaker 3: state level.
25:03
Speaker 5: Right.
25:04
Speaker 2: And of course, we did see people cross over from
25:07
Speaker 2: partisan allegiances to defend democracy. We saw Mike Pence refusing
25:12
Speaker 2: to back down to the threats that he was facing,
25:15
Speaker 2: including the threats to his life, to heroically say, no,
25:19
Speaker 2: I don't have the authority as vice president to deny
25:22
Speaker 2: the certification of these votes.
25:23
Speaker 1: It's a formality.
25:25
Speaker 2: And of course, we had the January 6th committee and
25:28
Speaker 2: some bipartisanship, including the leadership of Liz Cheney. So, you know,
25:32
Speaker 2: I'm hearing this sort of theme in both the last
25:36
Speaker 2: couple of sets of.
25:37
Speaker 1: Answers that.
25:40
Speaker 2: You know, it's not just about compromise or bipartisanship. There
25:43
Speaker 2: has to be. I mean, I take it that both
25:45
Speaker 2: of you really have an underlying agreement, despite what are
25:49
Speaker 2: your disagreements as policymakers and were as governors of belief
25:54
Speaker 2: and that, you know, we don't impose our religion on
25:58
Speaker 2: others that we bracket in the name of.
26:00
Speaker 1: Reasoning together, our.
26:02
Speaker 2: Personal religious beliefs, and certainly a belief in democracy that
26:05
Speaker 2: you're both have stood for. And, you know, these should
26:09
Speaker 2: be things, I think, that in a different time, they
26:10
Speaker 2: would be completely uncontroversial and like, of course, but in
26:15
Speaker 2: our own time, it is, well, heroic for people to
26:20
Speaker 2: step forward, frankly, especially Republicans, and to say these things.
26:24
Speaker 2: I do want to, you know, pivot a little bit
26:26
Speaker 2: towards a question of how Hope on this podcast, we're
26:29
Speaker 2: trying to be honest about what's happening, but also talk
26:33
Speaker 2: about hope. And so can we talk in a kind
26:36
Speaker 2: of concrete terms about issues where, even if it's not
26:39
Speaker 2: in this Congress and future Congresses, that we might see
26:43
Speaker 2: potential for compromise across the aisle?
26:47
Speaker 1: Immigration, of course, has.
26:48
Speaker 2: Been one issue that in the past was such an issue.
26:51
Speaker 2: We're thinking about AI in the current moment and the
26:54
Speaker 2: revelation from both former employees and current CEOs that, yes,
26:58
Speaker 2: it might kill us all and that we are facing
27:01
Speaker 2: a potentially existential threat. I mean, are these issues, they're
27:04
Speaker 2: so dire, are they issues where you both are hopeful?
27:08
Speaker 2: And if you want to bring up other potentials for
27:11
Speaker 2: bipartisan compromise, I know our listeners love when we are
27:14
Speaker 2: both honest, but also talk about hope for the future. Yeah.
27:18
Speaker 5: And listen, fundamentally, we are both hopeful, optimistic people and both, uh, Again,
27:24
Speaker 5: I keep quoting Howard Baker since he's kind of the
27:27
Speaker 5: inspiration here. He had, even after Watergate, where he was
27:30
Speaker 5: a key player, his quote was, the republic will survive.
27:34
Speaker 5: And I think we're both people who believe in the
27:36
Speaker 5: republic here, okay? But I think there's two different ways
27:40
Speaker 5: that the parties can come together.
27:42
Speaker 4: One good, one, in my opinion, maybe not so good.
27:45
Speaker 5: One way you're seeing it to come together is the
27:47
Speaker 5: example of AI you gave, where now we have Bernie
27:51
Speaker 5: Sanders and Steve Bannon. coming from two traditionally very different
27:56
Speaker 5: places where the horseshoe is.
27:58
Speaker 4: Meeting on the AI issue.
27:59
Speaker 5: Now, maybe that will end up being good, but I
28:02
Speaker 5: think it's driven in both cases by maybe a populism
28:09
Speaker 5: at the root of it that may or may not
28:11
Speaker 5: end up with better answers. The other example I'll give
28:15
Speaker 5: that maybe I am hopeful, I actually think there's an
28:17
Speaker 5: answer on immigration. And as the country has kind of
28:19
Speaker 5: gone from guardrail to guardrail, where People felt like Biden
28:23
Speaker 5: was not protecting the border, and I don't think he was.
28:26
Speaker 5: And we had massive illegal immigration to where now people
28:30
Speaker 5: are going, ah, you know, the crackdown here doesn't actually,
28:34
Speaker 5: not just, we love that you secure the border, but
28:36
Speaker 5: the way that you're addressing some of the other issues
28:39
Speaker 5: doesn't feel like us. I think there actually is the
28:42
Speaker 5: opportunity for an agreement, because to be honest with you,
28:45
Speaker 5: I think this is one of those, if you could
28:46
Speaker 5: push the.
28:47
Speaker 4: Politics aside, you could come to an agreement.
28:49
Speaker 5: You could put the right people in the room and
28:51
Speaker 5: in a 24-hour period come to an agreement.
28:54
Speaker 3: I think one of the things that, just to add
28:56
Speaker 3: a sidebar on that, I think one of the things
28:59
Speaker 3: that we've learned in the podcast that we do together,
29:03
Speaker 3: that you might be right, is that when you have
29:07
Speaker 3: people on with different views of it, it matters a
29:12
Speaker 3: lot about how you ask the question and whether you
29:15
Speaker 3: do something in the way that causes them to sort
29:18
Speaker 3: of raise the flag for a point of view early on.
29:21
Speaker 3: An example would be we did a podcast about gun control, okay,
29:26
Speaker 3: and had someone on each side of that particular issue.
29:30
Speaker 3: And it turned out to be a very interesting and
29:32
Speaker 3: informative podcast because we didn't start out with, well, what
29:36
Speaker 3: do you think about the Second Amendment, which would have
29:39
Speaker 3: forced everybody to immediately raise raise the flag in some
29:42
Speaker 3: some way or the other about it. But I think
29:45
Speaker 3: it was Bill asked the question, look, there were whatever
29:47
Speaker 3: the number was, 40,000, 60,000 people who were killed by
29:50
Speaker 3: gunfire in the United States last year. we can all
29:55
Speaker 3: agree that's not very good. What thoughts do you have
29:59
Speaker 3: about maybe how that might be managed or if it
30:02
Speaker 3: should be managed further and so on? And actually got
30:05
Speaker 3: into a pretty interesting and fruitful, I thought, conversation as
30:08
Speaker 3: a result of that. But this issue of just not
30:12
Speaker 3: forcing people to sort of display their flag about their
30:16
Speaker 3: views in a way that just makes it impossible for
30:20
Speaker 3: them to discuss alternatives, I think is an important piece
30:24
Speaker 3: of it. And something– I just say that all because
30:26
Speaker 3: I think that's part of the solution at the national level,
30:29
Speaker 3: which is maybe to have a president who presents these
30:34
Speaker 3: views in a way that both sides can have an
30:37
Speaker 3: opportunity to make a point about it.
30:40
Speaker 5: I'm not seriously proposing this, but wouldn't it be great
30:43
Speaker 5: if you couldn't serve in Congress unless you had been
30:45
Speaker 5: a mayor or a governor?
30:46
Speaker 3: I bet it has this– That's your punishment for being
30:51
Speaker 3: a mayor.
30:53
Speaker 1: I was going to say, well said by a former
30:55
Speaker 1: mayor and governor.
30:57
Speaker 4: I'm obviously joking.
30:59
Speaker 5: But being a mayor, you take the most liberal person
31:03
Speaker 5: you know and make him a mayor, I guarantee you
31:05
Speaker 5: they'll become a little bit more practical. And the same
31:07
Speaker 5: thing of the most conservative because, you know, Mayor LaGuardia
31:10
Speaker 5: in New York famously said there are no Republican or
31:12
Speaker 5: Democrat potholes.
31:14
Speaker 4: But it makes the issue bigger, okay? And it's still
31:18
Speaker 4: the same.
31:19
Speaker 5: I do think Phil said something and kind of reminded
31:23
Speaker 5: me of a point I make. We need to elect
31:25
Speaker 5: people who are there to make a difference, not make
31:27
Speaker 5: a point. And if you're just there to make a point,
31:30
Speaker 5: that's easy. I can go throw red meat at my
31:32
Speaker 5: side and, you know, you can throw, I guess they
31:34
Speaker 5: call it blue meat on the Democrat side.
31:36
Speaker 4: I'm not sure what they call it.
31:38
Speaker 5: But I can go do that and get 10,000 likes
31:41
Speaker 5: on my social media post.
31:44
Speaker 4: But I haven't solved a problem.
31:47
Speaker 5: Yeah.
31:47
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, we're unfortunately out of time. We could
31:50
Speaker 2: keep going, I think, and we'll have to have you
31:52
Speaker 2: back on the show. But I did want to just
31:54
Speaker 2: point to something that's in both of what you said.
31:56
Speaker 1: I mean, thinking about the next president and the hope.
32:00
Speaker 2: That might come from possibly a president who encourages bipartisanship
32:04
Speaker 2: rather than rejects it.
32:05
Speaker 1: But I'll say something else, too.
32:08
Speaker 2: Which is that, you know, Senator Baker, who you both
32:13
Speaker 2: admire and your podcast comes from, Bill, you mentioned his
32:18
Speaker 2: role after Watergate, and that was one of the most
32:21
Speaker 2: important bipartisan moments in the country. It came after a
32:24
Speaker 2: disastrous presidency, but yet there was a desire to think
32:28
Speaker 2: about how to fix the structure of government.
32:31
Speaker 1: Now they didn't do a perfect job. We're seeing that
32:33
Speaker 1: at this moment.
32:35
Speaker 2: But that's some of the hope, I think, in what
32:36
Speaker 2: both of you are saying, that even if we're not
32:38
Speaker 2: talking about this moment, we certainly could be talking about
32:42
Speaker 2: a real possibility when it comes to the next president.
32:45
Speaker 2: So I really want to thank you both for joining
32:47
Speaker 2: The Oath in the Office. It's really been a pleasure.
32:50
Speaker 2: It's been both honest, but also hopeful. And I hope
32:53
Speaker 2: you'll join us again.
32:53
Speaker 4: Thanks for having us.
32:55
Speaker 3: We enjoyed being here. Thank you.
32:57
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for listening to this special edition of
33:00
Speaker 2: The Oath in the Office, a bonus edition. I hope
33:03
Speaker 2: you enjoyed that conversation as much as I did. I
33:06
Speaker 2: think it was honest about the fact that, yes, we
33:08
Speaker 2: can come together, but that's not just a matter of,
33:11
Speaker 2: you know, hugging your local Trumper. It's a matter of
33:14
Speaker 2: really having a common commitment to democracy, to religious freedom,
33:20
Speaker 2: and at the same time, seeing that there are policy differences.
33:23
Speaker 1: That we can work through.
33:24
Speaker 2: This has been the Oath in the Office podcast. If
33:27
Speaker 2: you haven't subscribed, I hope you do subscribe. You can
33:31
Speaker 2: listen to us on Spotify, on Apple, wherever you get
33:34
Speaker 2: your podcasts. You can also watch us on YouTube, tell
33:38
Speaker 2: a friend. And thanks for joining us. We'll be back
33:42
Speaker 2: as we usually are on Thursday with my co-host, John Fuglesein.