« The Weeds

Could more corruption fix American politics?


Sarah, Ezra, and Matt use the New Hampshire primary results as a lens through which to discuss Jonathan Rauch's case for "political realism" as a governing philosophy.This episode of The Weeds is brought to you by Squarespace. Start Building your website today at Squarespace.com. Enter offer code WEEDS at checkout to get 10% off.This episode is also brought to you by Harry’s razors. Go to Harrys.com right now to get $5 off your first order with the promo code WEEDS.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Today's episode of the weeds is brought to you by Harry's razors, go to Harry's come endanger promoter weeds for five dollars off your first order. This episode was brought, square space start building a website today, it's where spaced out come and your offer code weeds a check out to get ten percent off the following. Podcast contains explicit language: The nanny state policies of the search of administration welcome to another episode of the weeds boxes, policy, podcast Panoply Network, Matthew, Iglesias, what as usual as recline answer class, they met a we're here in in the wake of a stunning New Hampshire primary. I guess not totally stunning. From the perspective of the poles who said he was going to happen on the morning, but a year two years ago, it's very surprising. Can I can I have making an hour? quickly before we go into that stunning ITALY
stunning announcement, so the the long rumoured, much anticipated as recline show podcast. The interview Pike S have mentioned here comes before right, piloted cement of easier couple times before has actually launched. It is its own podcast. You can find it on Itunes or sound cloud or overcast. The first Interview is with Rachel Matter from MSNBC. It's really I think, a really interesting and about a lot of I'm getting to talked her. We talked about her background is article AIDS activists, we talked about sort of what she thinks is activism, and what is it we talked about why she doesn't mean operate pages, her favorite graphic. those went renewed or a dog, we really release hand a range of topics, so I hope you listen. I hope you subscribe. I hope you waited on Itunes, just as I hope you listen subscribe and rate the weeds on Itunes, but with that, so so New Hampshire, it was you know, Crump one Bernie, one, there,
right by large margins, Ernie one by was it twenty points. It was tat, it was some point. It was crushing only demographic group that Hillary Clinton one, the only income groups you one was over two hundred thousand dollars- is really really of Sanders. Mine. I think, importantly, for how we think on forward. He won college, educate voters, but also non college voters, which meant that even a new hampshire- is a sort of classic what they call like. Like wine track state and undemocratic primary, he won the votes of people who are more typical of more certain midwestern, AIDS, more more doubts Gazeta, we was worse loss than have also did really well among women, which is something that maybe it was not as expected that he is. There is a big gender divide NEO. I believe- and I saw that recipe errand Hampshire Trump, not only wine, which was in the polls, but the guy who finnish second was John Casey has no real so Jane.
Is it after winning in New Hampshire, flew to Michigan? Her The least. I should just safer for people who may be are not as well versed in the primary calendar as we are. The Democrats. Nevada comes next physical exercise, Republican Republican, South Carolina Nevada about anyway. It's not me you gotta, have could next his whole plan. to make this stand in New Hampshire and he doesn't seem to it were now it's a stand and vision. I got alternate plan, isn't Cleary adds that so it was the worst possible outcome from alike. Stop trump viewpoint what world its worst possible come also because- and it's worth noting this marker Rubio did not come in second, and he did not come in third come in? Fourth, nor did I dont came in fact. Is it? Is it after job you're still there is. A solution also does not want to currently in place at the table, but I dont know if you see that in reality, recount for the five percent, this is good.
That sort of momentum, wise and after his kind of Galicia, the debate, a sort of total disaster four Rubeus campaign and what it means in a very practical sense is job. Bush has strong acclaimed remaining in the races Rubio does in Christie didn't really place, but of Christie jobs out. It is in all clear that he will I endorse Ruby, our or that is people gotta Rubia. So the hope for Rubia was it. He is three to one strategy and that he was, Finish third in Iowa, second, in New Hampshire and then first in South Carolina, but three five, something does it actually make any sense, and so his whole strategy has been shot to shit. Yes is bad. You're not going to be Margo Rubio today. Three four five strategy is the new. So can I so last week on the way, We did a special Iowa caucus episode, which caused some
consternation among my cohorts here who felt that I was betraying the sacred trusted the weeds listeners have placed in us, and so we ve come up with a bit of a hybrid this week, these results are really really interesting, but their interesting, not just in a kind of what happened in New Hampshire way for their interesting in a broader theoretical context, and so Gonna try to look at them and ground them in something a little bit deeper and some vacuum in wanting to talk on the show about for a while, which is a paper that Jonathan right shrouded in Russia's scholar, Brookings and its call that political realism, how hacks machines, big money and backroom deals can wait for it, strengthen american democracy and the thesis of Rock his paper and its really intriguing it'll, be in our shared out. You can also find it brookings our research and on the internet. The thesis of Russia's paper is that a multi decade, long sort of eighty logical tilt and both parties-
against political machines against political professionals and towards what we call a kind of transparency and good government and clean government has actually created a very dysfunctional governmental system and that one of the policies run a point out, as it has almost no space to talk about this, because the victory of this kind of new political unity of classically progressive, not in the left right sense. But in the end, though, how government run since eighty ology- it is one so completely than even talking about political machines or talking about the possible benefits of things like earmarks or backroom deals is it's something you you can't even say, but the sort of framework conversation I want to mention two things at Roush puts up at some length because I've been of Hampshire results or were an example of both, and one thing he talks about is a decline in political machines in and he too, funds public machines. Quite broadly, they might be party organisations, they might not be party organisations for the purposes of new
sure they are party organisations in and what we saw was the party organs some of their public and party was lockstep arrayed against Donald Trump and lost the party organization of the Democratic Party was lockstep arrayed against Bernie Sanders and lost. There is a real, deep weakness of political parties in evidence this year, but the other thing that he talks about is a stiff between what he calls in and what other researchers have called amateurs and political professionals, with the idea being that political professionals or politicians or political hacks are seen is being somehow dirty. The scene is being corrupt, are seen as representing a system that is intrinsically transactional. and that has failed and people kind of hate them. People hate politicians, whereas Amateurs who come in and are more ideological or more here, they're more pure in their politics. They don't want to copy eyes. You don't take money from the wrong people there they are seen as being more deeply noble. And Russia's big point is it the? catalytic interaction of the way
gaining of political parties and the increasing this taste for political professional has created a class of more informal, more amateur players who are an amateur I want to say does not mean you have not been in politics before just means you're coming from different direction that we rush frames at its amateurs have one particular goal one issue, their fighting on one thing: they're, not thinking typically of that, the long haul where's political professionals operating system of rewards and building Party and, like this continued ideology, straight out over multiple battles, diameters, typically in the way you friends at our kind of like one time, fighters really changes their orientation, that that's exaggerate and an elder and on as a trumpet and centres are both within this topography. Amateurs and Russia's view is of it. This stuff feels like fixing politics to people, and both trump incentives are running in someone argument. They can fix politics trump because he can't be bought
and discuss how destroy the power big money with a political revolution, but that the mixture of weak parties and these much more principle based aunt. I transactional aunt. I political candidates is a root cause The current this function and the more we respond to that dysfunction by killing in that direction. The worst that this function is going to get is aware that big things fresh ideas in this paper as the problem is how we ve been approaching campaign finance that we make it more and more difficult to donate to political parties, because we think you no major corporation, should have as much influence it should be more about smaller donors and smaller donations. So things years and when you hadn't thought, I think as much as are about keeping finance worrying this paper was. Suggestion is that going to have a lot of money in politics, no matter what that there's a lot of people who want to put their money, torrents, electing people and weakens the rules on where that money goes. We can set it up to its easier to donate, to political machines are harder and one of the arguments at projects
This is that we essentially even harder to donate political machine, so people go towards the amateurs cause, that's where they can park their money, whether things and totally convinced on reading. That was how big is the role of rules and how big is in equality, other things that have been changing in the United States that might funnel people towards em there is any way is because they want to fight one battle. They have millionaire. Who has like one issue that you really want to be vocalize, so that's what things I thought about a lot reading. This paper is How much of this is something we can see? the rules and changing how the political system works and how much of this dysfunction. Split between amateurs and political professionals is part of a larger forces that really would not be governed by changes. If we made it easier to donate to political parties that we kind of change the rules would money flow back there or what it is
keep going an attraction it's been going. You so wish is picking up here on a suggestion that comes from a guy named Ray we're lower. Aha, I think that's how you saved us name. I met him and I did not interrogate him as to the pronunciation Last name is some sort of weeds Trump card like are the real threat of online. I I've, madam. I have real around her right here. Man secondary law hipster here, isn't it was a sort of that wasn't political, isn't true, Marshall, Mcluhan sort sort of moment from any hall I was. I was talking to a political scientist about later. This is a real story. Yeah, I was talking to a political scientist who I had just met about waiting outside about campaign finance and the guy he brings up he's. Probably the bar, and then I was like you know. I sometimes think it's like if, instead of having these superpower, accidents gave the money to the parties, maybe that will be better news like actually I wrote a book, and so I think it's a good boy
as a good suggestion but one of the things that I think is actually played out in this campaign right is that its turned out that super packs and this kind of like outside money, haven't actually play the kind of large causa we're all gonna, we had thought they would for what is one Roquat, yet it back them- and I think we all know this, but much of it in the audience. Does the rules right now is. You can only donate a very sharply limited amount of money to a political party or a political candid about remember what the exact number is, but it's in the low thousands. Condoning unlimited amounts of money to it outside super pack. So if I'm rich guy. I want to give their popping party money, I'm limited tab again. I don't want to get this wrong, but take something run for them I think they they raised, maybe they literally but it's a low. So we must give a million dollars to the grandmother superpower and, what's which weird about the super packs, is that their established select right to rise, USA is a institution that exists
for the purposes of electing George Bush, it's not allowed to coordinate its activity is with job bushes, political campaign right so the proposal, the rational, where our proposal as you should be allowed to make unlimited donations to the political parties and then those party, should be allowed to coordinate with their candidates if you're too, stay out of your Charles Coke Union let's move the ball forward. You give money to the party. The party can coordinate with the candidates who is more effective, but also the party can sort of balance. Competing interests, whether just just do what you want, and I think that, when you think about state government in Nevada, that's actually in some ways, like a kind of a compelling idea that, instead of having outside drive by billionaires, pull things hither and yon that somebody who actually lives in Nevada and like is the chief
men of the Nevada Republican and about a democratic parties somewhere along the way, gets to say, ok we're going to do this? We cannot do that, but at the same time you know wind, Laura was waiting his book when rouse was writing his paper. When we were writing our early hot takes. I think a lot of us thought that these campaigns, packs, we're going to be really really influential and work really changed the way politics is done, and I think, looking at the campaign It's actually played out. We don't see a ton of evidence for that right. there we ve seen going. Is it Donald Trump is not as self funding as it claims to be, but is largely self funding Bernie Sanders is financed by small donor, not by an eccentric left wing billion a year. Those are two methods of campaign finance that are not gonna, be legislated out of the system by Russia's kind of change. My like big picture tat
an rashes paper? Is that one read of it? Is that the wine of transactional political machines has made american political institutions dysfunctional. I think that's correct But then he seems to think that by taking a couple of very modest measure is a slight tweak to campaign finance reform. Maybe don't complain as much about lack of transparency that we can somehow. which the ball all the way back up the hill, but that, if you look, the story of like why political machines go into decline in the nineteen sixty is it's not because of campaign, finance, reformers, camping finance, reformers. one victories in the seventies because the machines had declined and that, finance performers have been losing consistently since that time politics keeps becoming,
more polarize and radiological. If you look at our way, Elinor Brownlow, it's his book and polarization. I think very convincingly argues that what happens is that as the population becomes more educate, and is the country becomes more prosperous people. more knowledgeable about political area, Gee unviable, become less impressed by minor league handouts. Ride like I used to be The word healer might bring you a turkey on Thanksgiving and I'll. Be your gratitude in the fundamentalism in people have economic struggles and the ICES America, but there were very few people who are not able to afford in butter ball, Turkey, from the supermarket on Thanksgiving, like that kind of stuff, is like gonna, sway, votes and also use have tons of people had graduated from high school and they did have a lot of knowledge about politics, but if you This could give me a turkey right like you. So if you had no information about politics and you had a desperate need for Turkey
Political machines could be really let it should be said. Jobs rather vague thing. Political machines did was John related ARC is for they gave you your cousin, a job, and the employment of is a really big deal. It's like the guy who gets the job hands at the turn out, like the fact that the earliest filibuster recorded in american politics was about patronage. Yeah man always forget the who is going to get a printing, chaotic aerial, a lot of the early fights in american politics or about who got government jobs and It is a tremendous amount of what we did. I remember when you watch the Lincoln Movie became a couple years ago. He gets kinds of she had done by giving people postal jobs and is like the idea that you could like ends say making somebody part of the poster today? Six really weird and gesture a Arthur became president because he was vice president. The present SAS needed before he was vice president. He was the head custom collector for the port of New York, which, at the time
was an incredibly important political job, because obviously New York was a big ports, they selected customs, so they employed one tonne of customs guys, so you would pay coup, you hire and those guys would hand out the turkeys and that there was any way relish does not Turkey's such her own s. Efforts already know that the Turkey there of America, Russia is not proof of this is the point is fresh, is not proposing that we eliminate all government contracting standards and go back to a nineteenth century dynamic in which being secretary health and human services is an incorrect. We powerful, crass political job, because you get to pick which a doctor. which hospitals and get paid for medical care and which don't like that would be how you require political machines, but rush appropriately lacks the courage of his conviction, because it would be insane but salami job on that, because I, I think, your exact Europe anything so much of it is cultural. Here I want to read a couple courts him here when rashes, describing
nationals of amateurs. I think it's worth thinking about Donald Trump Irene somebody's, because I so you'll see both how they apply to someone trumpet. Also how much even so much to describe this very positively. It cuts totally as you know, in your intuitive reaction, where, whereas wants you to be he's running professionals into rights. Professionals are repeat players. They work the system for living there, Cannibal for election, victory and sustainable power arrangements. Otherwise, there out of a job, thus they think in terms of real These have power and they develop a sudden detachment towards politics and a certain immunity to its excitement and its outcomes to appear It is indeed often enough. In reality, professionals are kept relating even cynical next paragraph professed is preferred a traffic and interests, not ideas. They feel more at ease with transaction in negotiation, with the politics of issues, issues avoided accepted most general terms. If the parties confident the majority, supports its opinion, its position, professionals
oblivious to ideology principle, but they tend to be in politics, for extrinsic rewards like power status, so she beheld the fun of a game and tangible benefits, including pecuniary once so. This is a path. But the point is what we need are more political professionals the language of american politics and goes to two mats point. Just try. Describe what a political professional is. It sounds such a loathsome creature enemies, and then he goes into activists. They are less. Just didn't extrinsic rewards in advancing a public purpose fighting for justice experiencing the intrinsic satisfaction to participation for them, issues are the essence of politics, amateurs, They love issues. We need them as a source of legitimacy and cohesion, though manufacture them. If none are at hand to your point, met one of the interesting things about this. Is that truly and and and conceptually media. Logically, we have made a very, very, very big shot, one of the interesting part of paper and its done a little bit quickly. Is it offensive
many hall as actually having done a lot of good for people and sort of being remembered so poorly because of basic the irish racism at the time. But within this for I think you see just how hard this is even truer to discuss. I think that the matrix it he's pointing out a sort of party machines and and political professionals, amateurs you see how some like Donald Trump, but it is hard to imagine how would even begin arguing. where to go in the other in the other direction because of the underlying premises, fit amateurs Then professionals and political machines are worse than non political machines are so overwhelmingly held right. Thank you. Read that paragraph on perfect. and like you could think, just like sliding like hell Clinton like in for professional- and you see that as the big kind of it. and the reality Democrats are even thinking about sinners strongly? Like you know, you read that paragraph hysterical and kills more at ease with transaction negotiation than with politics of issues. Hillary Clinton,
avoid void issues except in the most general terms, where she's, confident the majorities or its position. It's a shockingly close line up between what worsening in politics and things you just Ives today. What things that I struggled with a little bit in this paper. Is that around starts off saying that the political our grandparents generation did a pretty good job of governing the country does not living all the bosses and backrooms unlimited donations that romanticize, the little that the last twentieth century of I don't know how you both felt about that part, but suggesting dean of the things. I guess things with less gridlock, but there are also women can vote for good chunk of time. unlike african Americans, are disenfranchise for good chunk of time that there the role of the activists that I thought was camped out. Here the positive role that, Events have played and kind of pushing american politics for grows. You know he grand set a little Betty talks, I'm just trying to defend the professionals because that's become such
hard thing to do, but I also think it gives a bit of short shrift to them amateurs, and this is some which are spare no paper where you're kind of arguing give amateurs are totally dominant right now, but that's one thing I felt was missing a little that suggesting that fifty years I was better than now there's a lot of things have two years ago. That warrant is God S right now? Why would he does, I think, is he he defends the system of the late sixties, and of the seven needs, which is like a system in which the machines were still in full and show, but there matures were making a real difference, and then I think, there's a wisdom in that, in terms of, if you want to pick an egg for the system working well, which is like environmental activists got fired up in the nineteen seventies and, like Politicks, Professionals didn't want to deal with environmental issues because it scrambled their normal alignment rich one
looking Ladys were upset about forests being destroyed, but you know business Bavaw and in political professionals help Shan all that activist energy into like something happening that was consistent with the economy, doing to function. I think rash. What would make argument or I would make me like that machines did not want to put civil rights issues on the table, but once activists force on to the table the hand the issue in a reasonably responsible way. People were killed in in civil rights clashes, but not all that many people considering the scale of the social upheaval that that happened, because political professionals helped media. You have weird things like Democratic Party, senator, from the south would often have in the early to midnight in sixties, have started their careers as die, hard white supremacist and ended careers in the mid till eight nineteen. Eighty is being elected, mostly with African,
can votes and having black staffers and that's the spirit of nationalism was like we're going at a comedy. cells to social change rather than fighting back, but it also makes for an odd paper, because what he's saying is that The machines play a useful role during period when they were being destroyed by illogically motivated activists he's not actually defending the pre idiot logical error total machine dominance? So he's not really Think making the case that the Activists and amateurs who brought down the machines were wrong. question. All of this is why, when you get the result that he wants, The reason the fashionables continued. the role and the sixteen Seventys was that they had already built up careers and these masses of political power? But how would you get new machines up off the ground
in an era in which the people who are involved in politics are involved for evil reasons and in which the v the vocabulary of amateurs versus professionals, is itself very nice sixty years waiting the differ. between eight party professional who were for the machine and someone who showed up one day and, as you know, what I care about clean water mental groups are run by professionals. Fish so since seven actually came up in centres versus Clinton. Why does it really wants to say look? The leading rights group supports me. The biggest labour unions in America. Support me Bernie says: oh, no, that's the establishment plan, parenthood, z, establishment than Hilary fights back. They like a snickey argument about it, but the point is that these are issue oriented activist groups and they now have professional staffs because we're talking about the system the change decades ago, there are no bosses. You can't
can't we empower them because this nobody there. But I think that that some of what he's trying to do here and try to say here is actually usefully thought through through the Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton presidential thought experiments round, which is that he's trying to ask the question of what kinds of Paul actions and political relationships create space for deal making and Clinton. Obviously, her approach to politics is heavily transactional, has a mass to the support of virtually every major democratic interest group in office holder through you no reason his actual politics, they are sure that she will, within the the possible space for deal, making try to make deals, have benefit their interests and her kind of of deep relationships with these interest groups with politicians in government. The idea of the content and invite you ve talked about this in the podcast in and written it. I think on box is it she will come in office, and she will figure out
where the possible positive some negotiations can be had and had them. So maybe that's the big european trade deal Maybe that is going forward on some kind of corporate tax reform Sanders Bike contrast. His argument is, we shouldn't really have transactional politics at all. His argument is that we should political revolution that will lead to people. Should have rising up outside the system had been so much pressure on the system that deal making is rendered functionally unnecessary and I think a really core question the democratic primary frankly in their public at primary Donald Trump. If Michael Bloomer comes into a third party candidate, this this holds true as well. and a question that Russia's raising here is well. How much do you think you'll make and compromise are necessary within our political system. A lot of people want to think they're, not ass, believes I. She grew him that our system be set up to force a very unusually high level of compromise and concern
since for anything big or small, they get done, and so, if you begin that promises. He does it. Then you asked ok, who are the kinds of players and politicians? What are the kinds of structures like political parties who can help you in an ideologically sharp period to make those kinds of deals, I do think it's actually a really useful thing to think about, because I think what rashes arguing here is it. There is a level transactional mess that is inherent to american politics and that you can't get rid of by getting rid of political machines. You can't get rid of that by getting more outsider, inspiring amateur candidates into office. You would actually to completely rebuild american politics from the ground up cabin, not work that way. So, if you agree, A premise then he's basically arguing you have to accept things in american politics vit. Maybe you dont like them, Lot of things that make feel making in negotiating happen can strike peoples
well they're wrong it's backroom deals. Are people have a lot of time to work out ideas without the public hearing about and being able to blow them up, and we ve talked about how that's been, how congresses work the last year in it in previous episodes of pod guest and a lot that is like your marks and its having politicians who are tied and the limit in hock to political parties that care. this can happen five rate for years from now, ten years or twenty years from now. Not just what's gonna happen right now, so I think that's where it gets kind of complicated, the gothic, Russia's naive here, I think you know, she's going to get act without prehistoric time, but I do think that he's trying to get people to accept a premise but american politics, and that a lot of people accept, but also to get them to accept what follows from which a lot of people let's take a break and talk about a great deal for weeds listeners and then what about Donald Trump and deal making is like an inn staying phenomenon that I'm not sure we really chewed over and in the right way. Here.
You know that in the razor industry they have this sort of business model, that's called razors and blades with it does so you this this razor and it looks really nice and for cheap and then a gouged you on the blades that that custom fit into it. That's why, when you go to the drugstore, you find yourself shopping for blades there like under lock and key like its precious metal. That's been, is being stored up back there because they're they're so expensive, and then you know we ve got a great sponsor this week. Harry is, and they ve got, believes that our good, you know you use them. They shave. You feels nice, look, nice and they're just way way way cheaper than what you see from the kind of major national brands. Their selling German engineered five blade cartridges gives you a nice close comfortable shave. There's no cuts that no burns, the quality is guaranteed. If you don't like it, you get a full refund. So there's no ask and the price is much lower because they cut out the middle man, they don't have. This web of retailers adjust ships write to you, so the blades come in it about half the price,
the leading national brand of vermilion guys have already made the switch and thousands more switch everyday. Why pay thirty two dollars for an aid package blades when you can get them for half that price at Harry's doc? and the hairy starter said is just a great deal for fifteen dollars. You get razor, you get a most rising shave cream and you get three blades as a Harris. Prices are already really low, but we ve got this special offer for you guys. Harry's will give you five dollars off your first order with promo code weeds, so stop overpaying for great shave, good Harry's, dot, com. Right now, that's H. A r r I asked a calm and intricate weeds a check out. I think that we have mapped the professionals. Amateurs defied very nicely into the democratic primary, where I agree really really killed it on this matter. We are already hide lines. Have guidelines have so well with Claymores Sanders, even though sinners been in politics at one time under public inside. I think it's different. Donald Trump is a genuinely averages literal about it. He is an amateur and politics, and the people there
running against are professionals, but if you think about the spirit of the politics of their running with The republican party, more so than the Democratic Party, has come too dominated by view. The ideological people who are very deeply invested head conservative ideology and who are quite right to engage in deal making an embargo. That's been like a big shaping force of the the years and we have as written about political science search showing that in a republican party, you don't like to make deals in part, because republican voters don't believe in deal making in general as a sort of a political vow so the professionals have we become amateurism outside worse in trump you. How an amateur who all he talks about is due making his.
Is called the art of the deal and he campaigns on ideologically heterodox issues like he's going to strike better trade deals. He's gonna make a bargain with the pharmaceutical companies and I think that one way to think about the promise of trumpets, em He is saying too: there is a group of people who feel that the Democratic Party, as the party of racial minorities, unorthodox, sexual orientations. Urban MA politicians etc, does not represent their interests personally. But who are themselves bought into conservative ideology and what they want. they transactional politics for them, and the Donald Trump is for in that he is saying the two straight white culture we christian but not necessarily super duper observant America that I will go to Washington as steward of your interests, and then I will do stuff to advance urine
forests, but I'm not saying that, like I'm gonna do this stuff that was cooked up in a laboratory in the Heritage Foundation, because life is complicated. There's japanese guys trying to put it over on us and drug companies and everyone's ripping us off. So you need Trump in there too, like fight for you as a deal maker, there's something almost inspiring about as an impressive defensive trunk. I say I think, that's a good point. It brings up a deal making Herndon trumpets, but whether things that just feels like a little bit different about tat deal making and professional deal making as the system Roush writes about is one where there's a war there's a whole system where you have all these people, like you, know, they're getting turkeys and all these things are that are happening. Turkey's about Turkey's are back. I dont see Lake Trump as Turkey's sort of guys
give a trace in it for the extrinsic rewards of souci ability and what was on the less power power I mean. Maybe we have, as you don't want trumpet ministrations as all hypothetical don't have one yeah. I was told by the way that I cannot do my like full at a chump rant on the spot guest we'll go to vocs that kind of our oil and at you you can search Vocs Trumps rises a terrifying moment, an american politics zone trample not be appearing on as reclining show from what I can tell. I believe it is it for me to see from building this machine, that's like a varied model, scale. People are rewarded, the trump seems build lot of his reputation like I'm, the guy you cuts I'm going to advance myself and maybe in the way you advance yourself. Is through deals and is through giving other people positions of power in giving them turkeys and whatever you do to word folks. But when the thing that seems different about Trumps role in all of this is that he seems to lake to talk arms.
Much is like a one man negotiating show not like an entire system. That's built around extending things for the long haul that we must not that he personally is gonna, make the best deals, but we're going to bring in all the best minds from the business community and they're gonna make up. I am, I am a little bit joking, but I agree that Trump is not promising to bring back the machine system, but I think that's because you can't bring back the machines, but you do need to bring back the spirit of the deal. But let me push because I think Sarah something really right here. I think that we getting very literal about the idea of transactional politics. Cynthia making here I'm very but our person and shrimp is not talking- about it, not in a real way talking about deals in the way that Russia's trump you the idea of the deal and the idea of his deal making prowess as roughly
Analogue Bernie Sanders, his political revolution jobs. You view of what will happen when he can make deals is not that people different interests are going to give a little and get a little and ultimately everybody's going to come out ahead, but that Mexico is gonna pay to build a wall, chump the idea of the deal isn't it he's gonna get in there and Aranjuez Gonna give up their nuclear where you're being letter all, but without it I am being I am saying this is what Europe is telling people whether Trump believes this actually is a little bit to the side of the point, and this is a place where the amateurs professional thing you can reach an agreement arms because you doesn't mean amateurism somebody, you can be an amateur he's, been working in american politics for fifty years under the definition the rash uses here he started. media logs versus party here right, which is again nada, not a super easy. I'm also has very low language in it, and I think that what is in resting about shrunk from that perspective.
Is it wanting that he really does share with the amateur or a dialogue approach here, as you say that, like something that he he is Much more all over the map, and so in that way is not a traditional, a dialogue. In a sense, it he's not like a highly structured, liberal or conservative, in fact, that trumpets sort of an actual moderate. The moderates you find out in the country where he's got a range of issue positions, a very strong and they just don't map left or right very easily. Sometimes you can quite liberal for public and in some cases, way more conservative and headquarters said trumpet is arguing on some level and from a somewhat unusual vantage point that politics is deeply dropped and its transactional corrupt one of his big arguments. In the reason he focuses on this lie that he self financing his campaign so often is at all the other politicians are corrupted by the money there raising and he had this whole thing in his new Hampshire victory species who he talked about the bad deals that all the current politicians are making an
kind of pay. The marker Rubio argument that they know exactly what they're doing yeah what? What is the line that lets dispel with the notion that Barack Obama somehow doesn't know what he's doing he knows exactly so that is troubles view, as expressed in his answer political speech of the victory speech of the other politicians and in the game. So I do think that one thing he really shares here is a belief that is: promoting healthy campaign show that politics has become corrupt and its run by people who are in it to sort of pocket little bit off for themselves or get a little their power. Obviously we think Trump is kind of that way too, but some self presentation, and possibly even hisself, conception from from a slightly viz. Our angle is, I think, he's a sum of his. Our guy is different than that. I do think maps onto this pretty my bag. I got a further defend tramp myself, so ok, so one thing is on the corruption point, and I think this is an area in which we see a change in the system, because one of Russia's big points is that a political, professional profits from
Holding office waiting He wants to continue to hold office and that's why, in Russia's view, the machine promotes like stability and to an extent, good governments, because you maybe scheme a little off the top, but you need to stay in power in order to keep profiting the modern system is a system of sort of rise up and then cash out right in what you don't run. hold onto off is, and if you look, for example, at the trade deals that trumps referred to a timidly, Russia, a good piece for four vocs and how the Eu S trade representatives, office, works and the way eggs is that you get to a high level, and you do like the farmer negotiations for the. U S t our office and then you go for the pharmaceutical ivy afterwards and that's how you make you'll make your money back. Holding the job and you Sdr were you- are maybe a little corrupt, but also accountable. You make your money by sort of
and favours for industry and then getting out, and so I think that too, extend the critique of corruption that exists of the sort of revolving door type. Corruption is in fact more problematic than the old kind of honest graph that that Roush talks about, and that is a mistake to gesture of say, while all anti corruption, which is obviously corruption, is not good at right. I mean, I think we also I agree that apple with Russia saying. Is that used to have this kind of functional role in politics that he would motivate people to try to govern? For possibly in fact continued to profit. But we ve made actually holding office much less lucrative relative to the business world in a way that I think undermine some of this stuff. The reason I'm soft and tromp as a transactional politician is that Trump as a business man originally before he got into television, was in the very most politically try
action on line of work that were made right, which is big city, real estate development. Yet his explanation for why you should contribute all this money to Democrats. As you know, he was operating places that were governed by Democrats, and it is a hundred percent accurate that the only way to get permission to build the large buildings in urban areas is you in fact bribe stakeholders and it's not in a bad way like it would be really really bad if it was impossible to do these projects and the way you get them done is a mix of campaign contributions, but also you agree to use Labour union workers and that gets you support from like a larger council of stakeholders and an he writes about this. To an extent, I think, is an art of the deal, and he talks about his father to you know was real state development and he was very involved in politics. So I have this level of faith that at some level trump knows,
score and understands actually what the tension between an honest political system and a functional political system is in a way that is very different from Bernie Sanders, who it seems to me, is like a genuine not naive person, because he's been in Congress for a long time, but he's observed Congress for a long time and has truly concluded that The transactions around money in politics are what's stopping him for making progress, and I think he's mistaken about that. I was here, our attention to another character in all this TED crews actually comes up in this paper, particular in, I think he says, Scimitar things about unity. We ve been talking about how amateur professionals blurring a little bit so things round, it's about is that unities machine keys on corporate mission of workers, are pretty adapted, marginalizing grand standards and so on, shipowners and machine dominated Senate. There isn't Room for figure, like TED crews. He can't shut down the guy. So is this idea that every two more machine dominated Senate TED Cruiser
be able to say I oppose Obamacare and I'm down the government for two or three weeks a few years ago, because of it in a kind of suggests in this world that TED cruises kind of this amateur figure. He has one issue. He really hates Obamacare. He has a number of issues, but of Africa like rises to the top, but Timely, took cruises, turn that into staying power like Tom Cruise one, the eye or primary, and had crews as much as it seems like you do. In that case, it was kind of one freelance. This building this move and around him and one kind of assumptions embedded in Russia's paper is that there is a desire to make deals that everyone like wants to advance legislation and they want to do things that are win them votes. Eighty one interesting things even about as there are think, there's weaving video about it- is that legislation tenths of a liberal feigning via swear it when you're passing laws are usually expanding things you. Nobody cares expanding insurances, stimulus laws, so Medicare, parochial, medical or ideas, or even when republicans legislate, its expanding government
actually, if you think about you, know what it means to make a deal what it actually means to pass legislation. That's not often the goal Republicans often obstruct It is in that frame could be the right goals, right there. Absolutely so. So let me make two points in this. I think I think you'd totally right too TED increases in some ways. More interesting example. One hissing- I was her abuse by, and you have to do- is to do this for one minute, is the public and who came in first used to support go payer and also supported Hillary Clinton, two thousand and eight healthcare bill Republican who came in second John Cassock has said that if you don't acceptable cares. Medicate expansion. You will not get into Heaven, so the one thing we ve known about. The republican party flask appears as a really hate government sponsored Healthcare and it turns out base, is not quite as pure on this, at least not in New Hampshire, as a lot of people thought, but
You're. Broader point is right in, and it goes to something that I think is fascinating about this dichotomy and about that. The total triumph for this kind of thinking from where the paper starts there really know politicians today and I think it goes for we want a political into earlier. I think another mapping a page on Vainer who actually countess, I. I think that all of the people patients today in any kind of long sweet view of american politics are incredibly highly ideological champagne. It is a very conservative person. His voting record is incredibly conservative and he has some of the personality traits like he would have been a good machine politician, but in context in which he operates. He is so What further towards the amateur side of this than the professional that he is so much further towards the in governor to pursue an ideological set of ends, as opposed to in government, to continue being government to win power to to at these words, I funny- and the same is true for Hillary Clinton. To again
some of these folks have have the traits of more machine politicians I personally, but they are increased Lee bounded by the context which which is highly idiotic, price increases are really great example about, as you say, creases by any measure. At this point, he player in the conservative establishment, which is a really important establishment. It is related to a distinct from their power again establishment right, a lot of their public and establishment isn't like TED crews. You can see Chris, has raised a tremendous amount of money. I think he's only second job Bush, accounting, super packs and stuff. He has garnered a very large number of endorsements from incredibly influential players and conservative politics and That's what he's doing these built a big operation on the ground is doing really. Well you he won't. I owe you did. I say ok in New Hampshire, so you now a thing where we are only looking at different verse of ideological politicians or the kind of weird thing that
up is there's really know no one left to. I think you just look at as a pretty pure deal maker. I mean, I think, back not that far back in american political history, random, I'm not that hold. But when I came in discharging to cover politics, he still had people like John Brew right who was a Louisiana Democrat who was- very, very, very naughty lodge who had kind of cut most steals. It got in front of him and am sure to some degree like compared to people before him. He was summoned ideological, but there aren't folks like that now and I'm not saying like I was an advantage. Ambrose like I was very frustrated by budget deals. He cut, but there aren't that set of people in the Senate. Now our people in a house now who you expect, at the end of any negotiation over any thing architecture, Can it be votes and play me just now, How that you don't of people with deal making ahead of ideology and also the electioneering manner ready made again from the corner quote old days when relatively
People like setting out right Tom Dash all would run for reelection inside the code in and TIM Johnson to with, like adds about how like well, it would be ridiculous for the conservative electorate of this conservative state to elect a conservative Republican, but these powerful Democrats have all this random pork barrel spending bright and there's just no one would make that argument. Today. Like just ten years later, because it would sound ridiculous, like leg, you again, dodges, like you, don't want me out of office, send me to jail like I'm, really corroborated em. You saw that in the Obama CARE right, where a lot of these these politicians on their last stand, I mean a lot of them. Were democratic party politicians representing more conservative than average states, and so they were like a tough position, because there is Obama and change their big idea was. Will we should put obviously merit less permit ill? They just happened to be beneficial to our state and it didn't
work out. Well, for this is that it is usually famous example. They could, I think, it's worth doing for a minute. I've also does so with such a weird moment in american politics. Person were sort of talking about here without sings. Name really has been Nelson, who is from Nebraska, and he was a conservative Democrat from Nebraska Nebraska is a very red state. Brok, Obama did not come close to winning it in two thousand and eight and at the end of the negotiations, in order to sign onto the bill, Nelson inserted what later became call the corn huska kick back and Sir, do you remember the details on the corner? Oscar kicked Bela as our. I hope I don't get this round of embarrassing, but I, as I remember it better, medicated better Madagascar. This is the fucking good medicate match now we'll know so they ended up extending it to all the states is like how those gets basically, he says. Well, I once Nebraska, medicate expansion paid the first three years. They kind of work this end. Someone then obviously notices the court. Huska kicked back all the other senators freak out and that we end up paying for all the states.
extensions for the first four years, which turns out. Thank you, the Nelson above administration, because now we got all these states too, so that the point of this is, though, that what you wanted imagine what happened here is voters, the other forty nine states would be really mad about this corner cricket back because they were ultimately paying with have to subsidize Nebraska because by Nelson happened to be a pivot vote on this legislation. But what actually happened was voters in Nebraska were really mad it by Nelson, because he thought he was corrupt, and so he got voted out when he was next up for reelection and endless really didn't help him, and it was an amazing moment of watching someone practice. He old politics at a moment when the new form of politics a kind of taken over already, because that kind of thing is it didn't work any more and that it should work and makes total sent him in another way of talking about earmarks? What would more or less ban now is just saying that the thing that politicians do to make it more Donald Trump in argument is come in and cut really good deals for their constituents, so that vote
oh hi, oh get a better deal than voters from while meeting, but do not really allowed to say that anymore. It's considered a dirty, wait, a practice politics and that created, I think, what's important about it, for this paper is when you could talk about without being loaded when he could talk about that with? being a huge benefit huge bragging right. You brought back to your state that creep a non ideological access of accomplishment, but you can use when brackened, a slight that created a acts of accomplishment that really work for profit. No more hacking. Politicians where you were making a case, self, it wasn't about you being the best, the liberal or the best conservative you are using the best representative of people from Nebraska. and what that requires any given situation. You know change and aren't you do that you really actually do too, to a large degree have to compete, don't being in the primary sector,
liberal or the best conservative, with the only leavening factor being elected billowy. This is where I they're, saying that's insightful but, as the saying goes wrong and in the rash paper, which is just that, I think he's under rating the extent to which it's not like the media or DAS, Lee Good govern reformers you ve changed here. It's the actual human beings. The population is much better educated, is wealthier, is more sophisticated and is less interested in this kind of corrupt filmmaking. one thing that I remember from early in the sort of Amr CARE debate was that they work in like your mark this thing through, but you can do like non your mark, your marks, and so the workable people who were working on some just like.
Essentially means specific insurance ideas like was, if something who could do that would involve like lobster fishing accidents, or you know the timber industry like it because mean was represented by two motto: republican senators, who seemed like we ve natives, also, you know so the way which is like a sort of give the families of lobster fishing. Folks, a turkey right, exacting Nosey was like a small side initiative being done by a couple people in the health care world who were trying to brainstorm. Look. What are some thing is we can put on the table for Olympia, snow and am Susan Collins, and at the end of the day they just warring interest. You know it wasn't that they asked for too much or or something like that. It's that the game had changed, and even though I mean it's not like a great state for begins to run in its not a super conservative state. They knew they wish committed to being republican Party. Politicians at this point to say: ok,
We voted for this giant Obama Healthcare Scheme, because it's gonna create a cancer research centre at the University of Main or because it's gonna do great four lobsterman, he was like the way part works now. Is that sometimes is a time for choosing, unlike it had come down, deals were not being cut and, like you just couldn't, do and I think this idea that, like wow, if they could have had a few more earmarks ride like it's, that the changes like bigger than the procedural changes, its a change in what voters would value in a member of Congress, and you know now that I think about the Obama, Our debate is also good to you to become like a much more stealth in your kids. select one. The ones that I think about is the coronets Gorky like giving Nebraska more more money was just such an obvious like this is a thing for Nebraska bill. Things. Washington state, for example, did manage to get into law, is, am Washington state they had some. It's called the basic health plan. The covered people too,
hundred percent of poverty. What exit how's it worked out, but basically they got the law to make it easy for them to get more money for this programme. Now you wouldn't it doesnt mention Washington State anywhere in the lie. Just happens at like they have this other states could build it if you'd like to build this programme, but they were. continue their am basic health plan. Through this laws they can break I think what a great programme this is like how it is able at them expanded, but they re a Cantwell account or petty Murray can't brag about the faculty. This great thing I got done for one, ten state. It has to be like much more. Buried in this massive law are either brings us back to the Iowa New Hampshire results in an interesting way, but but before we do, that, I think we have, a message transactional from our sponsor you, I built a lot,
Besides, I alighted from blogs over the years used to be frankly really really hard. We had some barriers to entry in this industry and it was lovely, but now there square space. It's super easy sites come out. Looking professionally designed, no matter what your skill level is, you don't need to do it coding to make them look great. But if you do know how to insert a little Coty your own, you can do that. You make it with intuitive super easy to use tools and you get a free domain. If you sign up for a year which has just been Maison Deal, she can start you're free trial site today at square space to come launch it up start working. I think you're gonna love it and when you decide to sign up for square space, make sure you see offer code weeds to get ten percent off refers purchase so you're both clearly right about that. This broader point, which is that this is not just a question of rules. It is a question of taking marks out of Congress, it's a question of the much broader ideological shift and what the electorate values that lead to earmark being outlawed in congress- and I think
what you really saw in New Hampshire in and to some degree actually- and I were too- which is shift has been so totally and so overwhelmingly that politicians who, a couple years ago, like Bernie Sanders, novel chopper within basically incomes, Voltaire would when a major party nomination are now in a position where maybe they really might win it, and I think that one thing that we ve really seen on display. Is it it isn't because of their personal charisma. It is partially because a personal charisma, both of them are very talented magnetic candidates. But I think that if you the recent democratic debate. For instance, you saw Hillary Clinton finding herself com sweetly unable to defend a transactional approach to politics. Onstage right, you saw her being questioned about can t she talk, which is quite transactional politics, but it is kind of part of his web of interest group associations, but also more broadly saw just how much sir, it sounds when
Bernie Sanders talks about below his kind of purity and political revolution and mobilizing people versus Hillary Clinton, explaining how she's gonna try to cut deals, and one of them A fascinating kind of aftermath. things right now. The democratic party after that debate is one the Clinton campaign launch these really hollow kind of ridiculous attacks like oh Bernie Sanders took two hundred thousand from the democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and that two hundred thousand came in part from banks and other big corporate actors, and so he's actually transactional politician. Like everyone else in the Hillary Clinton campaigns, theory is maybe they can make Bernie Sanders, look more like men, because Irving so much trouble making themselves of more like Bernie Sanders and similar area. There has been a continuous advantage for tromp for crews. Even marker Rubio, it's worth remembering, came into
This is a couple years ago. As someone who is fighting the Republican Party, he ran against Sir Publican parties favoured candidate in Florida, Charlie Crest, and he was considered a real tea party. Eighty along a real and certain against establishment, I think clearly where we on american politics right now is that that the basic language and the basic sort of positioning the electorate is such that even pretty ideological candidates who have some if Transactional ism about them are having a trouble defending that it isn't. It can't be done. Obama theory and await did have transactional. Some to it, he thought there'd be a broader common space for making the Olsson was arguing, novel the, whose arguing it in a way that I don't think that's what it felt like. He was saying to people we're really in a space now where I think the basic terms are. The debate really favour these kinds of much more outside of candidates who have managed either within the system. I pretty Sandridge a tete cruiser outside, like Donald Trump to somehow on everything.
Speaks overtures to how you frame the debate? Because you can talk about you know the desire to compromise, to make deals to weather, This, I think sometimes, though, see politicians run on. As you know, I can work with the other side I can be in like middle space and the flip side of that is being turned? action on the corrupt and its curve. To framing of this, thank you to the big question that the brush paper raised for me: will it is to think about it is behind this and would making the changes he talks about. Pushes act in the opposite direction. came away a little sceptical that they kind of where Matt started that they seem like some pretty small changes and that my son, although not perfectly researched at this point, but there's something larger going on with the electorate that pushing back campaign. Finance could see the machine almost becoming more like the amateur is kind of equal. As I was saying that anyone you look at now really isn't go machine, but that's what things I came away from this paper thinking about is out. There
one thing I think, arguably bigger than the universe is looking at, that is true moving towards this type of politics we have now that would not be addressed with some campaign reform finance and you no more money running through the machine. Let me make the case here, though, for Russia's medicines should who his practical solutions are clearly to small, but what solutions are often like If there are easy solutions like these, would it be hard problems like their decisions? Part of political books are always really disappointing, but is met. A solution is that their needs to be a kind of advocacy around political realism and a different approach to politics that there that are often Right now that there may be some restful think there is like you do. political commentators who love talking about her great bi partisanship, is but want to see transsexual deal making as part of their their very upset when things begin to feel to them like their not being sufficiently transparent or there tilting interior kickbacks in backroom deals and and all that, if you can
crash seriously, and you believe in his underline point here, what kind of call four sightly, a new class of realists, something I think What we call it Clinton lately is the way in which she combined something that, I think, is good with I think, is pretty bad. She really understands how the system works and she's really as deep relationships in it, and she has a very pragmatic practical understanding of it. But she is by buying into pretty much every facet of the political system, including things like doing six hundred seventy five thousand dollar three p speech, his fur Goldman Sachs, and so what you end up with is a bit allotted but defending funding realism are not good. messengers for their case right. They dont didn't believe in it as an actual good approach to politics, just kind of what they ve been doing, and I ve been doing the good sites in the bad sides of it. It is kind of I bring up Obama here, look at who, I think, has been a different version of it,
The real ass to his kind of managed to walk outline, a real doubly astutely he's catalogue deals it. Neither liberals and conservatives like you, clearly worked a lot with the farmers Local industry he's cudgels with Republicans. Liberals didn't like he made an argument in a way that definite people's hopes much higher about what could be accomplished, but in a practical way, Did we lie and theories about negotiation and compromise in bringing people together? He was again really brought expectations. I fear that the, but I think there is something there if Political realism is to be saved from the political realists. You're gonna need P, who advocated because it is the thing they ve fallen into over a long career in which they have allowed themselves to get pretty approach created by the political establishment in any people who come to it itself, as a more,
exciting, philosophically interesting proposal. I think that I think that's kind of interesting thing. The thing that he really convinced me of is not that we should like all the way to the other side, but that the language has gotten so far from even being able to consider what the futility of somebody's other more grubby parts of politics have been that work. the place now where we know what we ve probably underrated them in bygone a little bit too far, and that in order to get back to another place, it is going to be small tweaks turd you get to donate to it's gonna be. changes in the argument about what makes a good person good politician in
well. What I think is is tricky. Here is a piece of this that we we haven't hush much about, which is transparency rather than would swear tat. I think one thing now says that I think is a hundred percent correct. Is that the push to do things in a more and more and more and more transparent way has really harmed people's ability to make compromises, because when you're talking in public, you have to take positions, and he can't signal which interests you're willing to throw overboard. You can't say You know, I know those are my guys, but, like you, you know this bigger is bigger fish around here you just you can't say that in public, and that means you cannot do a deal. Why there is nothing that is done outside the world of government politics it's done in public right? You don't
Have a business negotiation by doing blog posts You know like back and forth across each other, because it doesn't yet if it doesn't work great, like in our workplace. We have a largely like an open, open off his plan and open desks, but sometimes you have to talk to somebody else behind closed doors and because it's like shady, because you can't have conversations between people when other people can listen to the conversation right like everybody knows that, but there's a very persistent idea in politics like, I think the craziest thing we do in the government is at our peril. every email that everyone and our government sends to anyone for any purposes they all have to do all their communications about anything like remotely sensitive like on phone calls or at then there was a thing to subdue industry. This is by the way, the sort of hidden thing about the whole plant and Emily scandal. It's the thing. People think she did every single
fishing does, which is take sensitive communication and get that into places that are not archives, are always calling you on the phone or email you on the personal counter saying in person meeting she just because she did it for everything just ended up looking much worse, and that means that he had practical effect was as AIDS dangerous, rather did make. Impossible for the relevant agencies to secure government communication systems is incredibly inefficient, drastically decreases journalists ability to understand what's happening in the government right, everybody knows it, but, like nobody will say we need to. Let me four transact government business in secret? Because it's just like,
literally all other human endeavour, is you just cannot do it in public and they don't so like the visitor logs to the Treasury department or public. So I have on occasion met with people there who insist on meeting at the coffee shop across the street, so it doesn't show up in some cockamamie story like two years later that, like oh, we only talk to this guy and many workers because, like I don't know it drives me nuts, but it is
so really really really really hard as a not just as a politician, but as a journalist to make the case against transparency, because, obviously I would like Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. Like I want to read the I'm curious person, I would like to correct the stories about them. I want to know what's going on and like that's all, it's not our role as journalists. I can have a special thing because I dont like phone calls, were. I can say what I wish they could email me off like in general. It's just our line of work to say that we should know more stuff that it is good that we found out about Obama's deals with pharmaceutical industry. That, like we wish, we knew more about what conversations the FED had with banks, what guarantees they were given like. Would you step that
like a long way back when you look like the story of how the Civil Rights act that pass straight, it does not seem like I'll be days. Activities would have withstood the light of day, and it also doesn't seem bad that he like made some shady deal about a bank merger to get a Texas newspaper to endorse civil rights legislation to help get some whatever ever whatever done. I think that this is a really tough problem, like we need to some extent, like politicians, to stand up to join fuck, you guys, like you know, it's not important that you know and people hate journalists almost as much. There's this one paragraph in the raft of that kind of thing I mean what browser you were talking about and kind of. Why proud and the people on the site that have such a tough time making their case. We writes about either the release, believes in the reality of tradeoffs. We live in a world of second and often third, best choices and in order to govern one. Let's make decisions and engaging practices which look bad up close and are hard to defend in public
which nonetheless seem to be the best alternative at the time, and that sounds like totally reasonable if it gets to like you know what you were saying about, making deals in the back room that like pursues an sort, civil rights legislation, silicate terrible slogan like a hundred more economic third best option for government. The first best option just isn't realistic, the one that you light. That's not gonna happens. We have this realistic thing that you don't really like, but it's much more plausible or like how you gonna get that done Bernie and then the answer is that he could hear of deals that won't withstand scrutiny, but but this is why it is also not just a journalist issue. It is not like politicians are banding together, get to do this because for them it is a very useful cudgel whenever they don't, like anything. Brok of Amr ran for office, saying that all his care negotiations a to be on c span. People. Remember that, and now Partial reaction to like the fury Democrats felt about the Bush administration, secret backroom consultation to the energy industry for their energy bill, and
tenuous cycle of this. Is that whoever did not get what they want in a deal. you going to use the ways in which the deal was transacted secretly or in which deals it out with stand, scrutiny were made as waived. editing the deal, and they both do it and then, when they get in in order to satisfy what they argue to their support, as they have to put him It's a bunch of measures, big or small, to show there going to be more transparent and they end up trying to get around the the measures they themselves created and it creates a weird cycle. But but it is, place where I think patients themselves are very culpable because the exact same Republicans currently going ape should over Hillary Clinton. Emails are not going to love when it is, you know their secondary state or their whatever's Picker senior administration official who it turns out ways sending to many emails off of a private email address and they're. Gonna feel that you know
that is how you have to transact some of that business, but because this stuff is only a good argument in the negative, because it is only a good argument when you're saying how bad it isn't. This happened. What happens at any given time. Is that the part in power making these deals is not defending conceptually and Structure the way they made these deals and astronaut China legislate the presidential record, ACT out of existence. The party, of power is often somewhat irresponsibly demanding a level of transparency. They don't ever one offer themselves, but the care more about getting back in a power then being a long from questions of how american politics is governed. They end up Chris expectations any to partially fulfil when they come into office. So they, Upham regulations for transparency and insipid. They did their work and to overcome. We keep going destruction. I met again that's the language the rules? So I what I think is good paper city, just really points out like the feed. Loop were in where I think impulses correct in true in american politics have probably gone too far.
But you know it is also a question of institutional design that I mean I think for good reason, people are reluctant to say Local mechanics that we have inherited from the late eighteenth century are simply not workable in modern conditions, but one thing like Roush cannot do throughout this. Paper is be like here in this other advanced country, acts where political and economic and social conditions are even better than the United States like they achieve that by being much more relaxed about corruption. If you want to look at places internationally, that closer to the old machine politics of United States, you wind up looking at ITALY, Greece, maybe Mexico, where countries that are at a much lower level of economic development. In the eyes states, if you look at any countries that should allow do us on Cuba, development indicators, nordic countries, New Zealand, you also find countries that do better on scores of transparency and and lack of corruption and its because they have shifted to play.
All institutions that function in a way that it can. And with a lack of corrupt in a highly educated, knowledgeable citizen based other kinds of things like that. Now there's no good way to get. from here to there. Exactly that that I can see short of violence. So you know, I don't think that's a great solution, but I do think it's also worth being above board. I guess, I'm just a little bit of like a conceptual cul de sac were in here where The United States has, I think, as a society sort of outgrown as issues that were set up for a period of time when there were no electronic communications at when most people cannot rid of things like that, but we have no way of talking about the idea that we need a different kind of system. We should, in future, episode of the wheat or we talk about the idea of why we need forget the system. I write more turkey. Yet more turkey's more corruption, or let us say I support this measure. It gives us an option. Awesome. Well,
listening to another absurdity: weeds thanks to act and bloom and uneasy Valdez into our sponsor square space. Harry's we'll be back next week greatest on Itunes, sinister email at weeds, it box. I come and check out my new interview, podcast, the as recline show, which you can find wherever fine pot gas are allowed to be downloaded, have really on the internet, start biased, balancing ass here going to fire software. This air time you gotta, are we gonna, get a swap, is getting ready to do something corrupted the back in the back room here. Ok, right, we're we're gonna, make the steel not in full hearing about listen ass. Let's turn turn the microphone and we'll make it work.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-15.