Speaker 1: I have a number of thoughts swimming in my slow
Speaker 1: moving mind, trying to coalesce them into a theme. Four
Speaker 1: major polls have come out in the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: all with pretty high approval ratings for Joe Biden, the
Speaker 1: highest being at fifty nine. He's somewhere in the low
Speaker 1: to mid fifties. It would seem if you average out
Speaker 1: these polls his uh, how do you like him personally
Speaker 1: ratings or even higher than that, similar to the way
Speaker 1: Barack Obama was. Barack Obama would would would poll really
Speaker 1: well even if people didn't like some of his policies.
Speaker 1: You know, if a policy would would do poorly in
Speaker 1: a poll, his personal rating would still be pretty high.
Speaker 1: People just liked him. Um uh, certainly a majority um.
Speaker 1: And then Kevin McCarthy came out yesterday he's the leader
Speaker 1: of the House for the Republicans, the minority party, and
Speaker 1: said he has not talked with Joe Biden since Joe
Speaker 1: Biden got inaugurated. Mitch McConnell said something similar a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago. I don't know if that's changed. So
Speaker 1: you got the the Republican leaders of the House and
Speaker 1: the Senate have not talked with the president in three
Speaker 1: months since he's been And I thought that was weird
Speaker 1: at the time until I heard it pointed out from
Speaker 1: a number of people that you know, maybe they haven't.
Speaker 1: They kept it a secret. That's its own interesting story
Speaker 1: in that they both sides would get killed by their base.
Speaker 1: The lefties would hate it if they found out Biden
Speaker 1: was talking with McConnell or McCarthy, and the and the
Speaker 1: hardcore right would hate it if McCarthy and McConnell were
Speaker 1: talking to Joe Biden. How far? How dare you even
Speaker 1: dignify his position? I'm not sure I can buy that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just maybe a child would think that.
Speaker 1: But that's the weird government works. Well, maybe we should
Speaker 1: talk to somebody super smart about that, whether or not
Speaker 1: that why that is is that where we are now
Speaker 1: where you can't even be seen talking with the president
Speaker 1: as the leader of the House of the Senate on
Speaker 1: the other point, in the other party, is that so damaging?
Speaker 1: Is that what's going on? Let's talk to Lani chat
Speaker 1: David and Diane Stephy, fellow in American Public Policy Studies
Speaker 1: at the Hoover Institution and the director of Domestic Policy
Speaker 1: studies at Stanford University and a regular contributor at Seeing
Speaker 1: an Opinion. Lonnie, how are you. I'm doing well. Thank
Speaker 1: you for having me well. Congratulations on being super smart
Speaker 1: is declared by Jack Well. I got a buddy who
Speaker 1: listens in Salt Lake City all the time, and he
Speaker 1: was raving about you from last week. He really enjoys
Speaker 1: your segment and yeah, because you're super smart, appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. And uh, you know, every once in
Speaker 1: a while, every every every every once in a while,
Speaker 1: I sort of take that as a compliment every once
Speaker 1: in a while, sort of thinking, I don't know, are
Speaker 1: people really trying to say that, are really trying to
Speaker 1: say that? Is it a compliment or a backhanded compliment? Oh?
Speaker 1: Come on, now, this is a straight up compliment. So
Speaker 1: what do you think of Jack's analysis of why the
Speaker 1: president hasn't spoken to the two ranking Republicans in the legislature. Well, no, look,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of that makes sense. We are
Speaker 1: in a time and a place when our politics are
Speaker 1: very polarized, and people who expect political purity, and if
Speaker 1: you are seen sort of consorting with the enemy or
Speaker 1: consorting with the other side, it can be held against you. Now,
Speaker 1: I also think it's the case that there probably are
Speaker 1: conversations going on at the staff level on a on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, you know, even though the actual political
Speaker 1: principles haven't spoken. I do think that there are things
Speaker 1: going on. I mean, there have to be for the
Speaker 1: machinery of government to keep going. But the image of
Speaker 1: one leader from one party talking to a leader from
Speaker 1: another party in a very public way, or even by
Speaker 1: the way, if it was a private conversation and got leaked,
Speaker 1: I can understand how in this political environment you would
Speaker 1: see both sides not necessarily wanting to have that as
Speaker 1: a as a as a as something that could come
Speaker 1: out in public. Have you read any of the John
Speaker 1: Bayner book. I've been reading it, and I don't usually
Speaker 1: read those kind of things because I find them boring
Speaker 1: most time. This one's pretty damned interesting. You know. I
Speaker 1: have not read it. I've only read the excerpts of it,
Speaker 1: including the the you know, little aside he has about
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. But I haven't. You know, John Bayner is
Speaker 1: such a colorful guy. I am sure there are so
Speaker 1: many entertaining stories in that book. Perhaps at some point
Speaker 1: I will, but it just it was on my mind
Speaker 1: because he talks about working with Barack Obama and there
Speaker 1: he was Speaker of the House for the Republicans, and
Speaker 1: how much he had to work with Barack Obama. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, I just I don't I don't know
Speaker 1: if we can do that now, if if anybody, anybody
Speaker 1: works with anybody. Um. Uh. Baynard does mention early in
Speaker 1: his book about how good he thinks Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: at her job and and and how smart Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: is and all that. But man, if people aren't talking
Speaker 1: to each other, God, I don't know how we get
Speaker 1: anything done. Well, It's just it's absurd. I mean, I
Speaker 1: just I can't even contemplate people who think like that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, it just goes to if you go over
Speaker 1: the years and you see how many but let's just
Speaker 1: take Republicans for example, how many Republicans have gotten into
Speaker 1: trouble for uh, you know, working with Democrats or the
Speaker 1: perception being that there are rhinos, you know, Republicans in
Speaker 1: name only because they have a conversation with the other side. Um,
Speaker 1: you know that that point of view is is relatively common,
Speaker 1: I would say, um, you know, and I've seen it
Speaker 1: all the time. The difficult part of that, of course,
Speaker 1: is that really to get anything done, you kind of
Speaker 1: have to have those conversations. And there are a whole
Speaker 1: host of issues that I don't think are particularly ideological. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: they do get turned into sort of ideological part of
Speaker 1: the issues by by one side or another. I would say,
Speaker 1: for example, with infrastructure, what's happened now is because the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is put forward a plan that's essentially bastardized
Speaker 1: the definition of infrastructure, it's it's made it more political, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we were just talking about roads and
Speaker 1: bridges and airports, I think that's a nine ten issue
Speaker 1: of Americans regardless of party, say yeah, let's do what
Speaker 1: we can to improve our roads and improve our bridges
Speaker 1: and do all that stuff. But the minute you start
Speaker 1: including things like hey, you know, you you can't necessarily
Speaker 1: choose whether to join a union, or hey, we want
Speaker 1: to have a massive expansion of of medicaid, or hey
Speaker 1: we want to you know, put all these other things
Speaker 1: into the bill, then it starts to get the issue
Speaker 1: gets more polarized, and you can understand why. Then it's
Speaker 1: harder for the two sides to get together. So I
Speaker 1: think some of that dynamic, unfortunately, is endemic to our
Speaker 1: politics today. Each of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University on
Speaker 1: the line. So I guess we talked about this a
Speaker 1: fair amount, but I'd love to hear your take on this.
Speaker 1: Given the unbelievable logistical and humanitarian crisis on the border
Speaker 1: right now, why is there not a huge cry on
Speaker 1: both sides to get together and fix the immigration system?
Speaker 1: Oh my goodness. Immigration is quite possibly the most polarized
Speaker 1: issue out there. I mean, we have seen over the
Speaker 1: years so many efforts, you know, amongst people to try
Speaker 1: and get together and figure out, hey, can we do
Speaker 1: this little piece or can we solve that piece of it,
Speaker 1: and repeatedly over and over and over again, it just
Speaker 1: hasn't happened. Uh. And there are things that have become
Speaker 1: so polarized. I mean, I'll give you, guys, one example.
Speaker 1: The concept of border security. Okay, this should be there
Speaker 1: should be very little debate in my mind about the
Speaker 1: fact that we need to have a secure southern border.
Speaker 1: We need to do what we can to put in,
Speaker 1: whether it's physical barriers, technological barriers, funding the US Border Patrol,
Speaker 1: making sure that we're doing everything we need to do
Speaker 1: to have a secure southern border that has somehow become
Speaker 1: a really, really controversial issue. And I cannot see the
Speaker 1: life of me understand why. You know, and in the
Speaker 1: same way as hey, look, we I think we want
Speaker 1: to have an immigration system that allows people who are
Speaker 1: able to contribute to the United States, to our economy,
Speaker 1: to our to the fabric of our country. We want
Speaker 1: to welcome people in and have a rational immigration system.
Speaker 1: That's you know something that I think again, if you
Speaker 1: pulled the Americans, I would say the broad majority want both.
Speaker 1: But somehow we cannot get together and get things done.
Speaker 1: It's incredibly frustrating. Yeah. Well, back to the Baynard book briefly. Um,
Speaker 1: there are a number of interesting segments in there, including
Speaker 1: where he tells about a representative from Alaska putting a
Speaker 1: knife to his throat he claims in the House floor,
Speaker 1: but whether or not that happened or not. But at
Speaker 1: one point Baynard talks about Michelle Bachman coming to him.
Speaker 1: She was a representative from Minnesota who ran for president
Speaker 1: for a cup of coffee, and she wants to get
Speaker 1: on some committee and she's brand new. He says, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna put you on there, and she says, okay, well,
Speaker 1: I guess I'm gonna have to go to you know,
Speaker 1: to Russia, Limball and Sean Hannity and go on all
Speaker 1: those shows and say that you won't let me be
Speaker 1: on there. And Baynard says in his book, she thought
Speaker 1: she had all the power and I'm the speaker of
Speaker 1: the house. Turns out she was right, is basically what
Speaker 1: Bayner says. And and he hadn't realized that things had
Speaker 1: changed that way obviously. If that's the dynamic on both sides, well,
Speaker 1: how how are you ever going to get anywhere well? Right?
Speaker 1: And and that's the thing I mean about social media
Speaker 1: and about just the way we consume media. Now, everybody
Speaker 1: consumed the media that they agree with, right, And if
Speaker 1: you have a presence on those media outlet, you're incredibly
Speaker 1: powerful in some ways, much more powerful than whatever formal
Speaker 1: title of positions someone else has. And I think Bayner
Speaker 1: probably realized that as he went on, you know, I
Speaker 1: think others, uh, you know, realized that as they go
Speaker 1: on that formal position, formal place in the Congress. It's
Speaker 1: not like it was in the nineteen sixties and the
Speaker 1: seventies and and even the eighties when the Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House had a tremendous amount of power. Now it's
Speaker 1: more like wrangling cats, and and any one of those
Speaker 1: cats can decide to go off, and you know, give
Speaker 1: an interview on Fox News. They can blow you up
Speaker 1: at any given time. So it's a tough dynamic out there.
Speaker 1: To be sure, we want to he Chan of Hoover Institutions, Stanford.
Speaker 1: You know, I haven't run a little late, but I've
Speaker 1: got to ask you this, the the the court packing
Speaker 1: discussion that's going on right now. You actually had a
Speaker 1: couple of just America's most despicable legislators my words, not yours,
Speaker 1: trotting out the idea of packing the Supreme Court. We're
Speaker 1: talking earlier on he about the idea of you just
Speaker 1: go ahead and state these crazy ideas, and you you
Speaker 1: ask for a vote, You put him in front of
Speaker 1: a committee, knowing that they will fail miserably, but knowing
Speaker 1: now it's part of the national discussion. Is there anything
Speaker 1: conservatives can do um to counter that. I mean, because
Speaker 1: the temptation is to say that will never pass, it
Speaker 1: will never get through, and not pay attention to it.
Speaker 1: I think we need to be yelling about it. I don't.
Speaker 1: What do you think? Yeah, I mean, look, this is
Speaker 1: a serious problem. The the implication of what the folks
Speaker 1: who want to pack the court are doing is that
Speaker 1: because they can't have their way, because they can't have
Speaker 1: the ideological composition of the court they want, they want
Speaker 1: to change the fundamental nature of the institution. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's a tough argument to carry, but I do think
Speaker 1: you're right. Conservatives have to articulate why the rule of
Speaker 1: law is important, why the current composition of the court
Speaker 1: is important, and why it is that this is this
Speaker 1: is about elections mattering, right, I mean, they can complain
Speaker 1: all they want about President Trump having put you know,
Speaker 1: several Supreme Court justices in the court. The reality of
Speaker 1: elections have consequence is now Biden is going to have
Speaker 1: his opportunity. This is how American politics work. This is
Speaker 1: not a you know, you you you cry over spilled milk,
Speaker 1: and you turn around and go home and you decide
Speaker 1: you're going to rage against the system. That's essentially what
Speaker 1: we have for those who want to change the composition
Speaker 1: of the court. So I think it is important for
Speaker 1: those who believe, hey, look you know, packing the court
Speaker 1: not the right idea. To say that very loudly and
Speaker 1: to make it very clear why that's the problem. Lan
Speaker 1: Chen David and Diane Stephy, Fellow in American Public Policy
Speaker 1: Studies at the Hoover Institution and Director of Domestic Policy
Speaker 1: Studies at Stanford University. Lani, great to talk to you. Thanks,
Speaker 1: have a great weekend. Thank you too. I'm looking at
Speaker 1: some of the polls from Gallup. You know, he was
Speaker 1: talking about how how people feel about it, and he
Speaker 1: thinks most people would be an agreement on strengthening security
Speaker 1: at the border. I'm looking at this from Gallup. Please
Speaker 1: tell me whether you strongly favored favor opposers strongly opposed
Speaker 1: each of the following proposals. Hiring significantly more border patrol
Speaker 1: agents and this is from last two I guess it's
Speaker 1: two years ago, out nineteen. I like that question because
Speaker 1: it's it's very practical, as opposed to fuzzy ideological hiring
Speaker 1: significantly more board border patrol agents, not just more, but
Speaker 1: significantly more. Strongly favor forty one percent favor here a's
Speaker 1: seventy two percent favor or strongly favor that you wouldn't
Speaker 1: get that from watching the news, would you know absolutely
Speaker 1: not build bridges, not walls. Yeah, we're gonna bring We're
Speaker 1: gonna build walls, and then we're gonna hire guys to
Speaker 1: guard them. He said, Amica, you think with a seventy
Speaker 1: percent issue you can get something done. But I think
Speaker 1: people are misled by Twitter. Politicians are, and people are.
Speaker 1: People are misled by Twitter and cable news and talk
Speaker 1: radio and everything else into uh not knowing what America
Speaker 1: really thinks about things.