Speaker 1: So that's so that's came up the other day in conversation.
Speaker 1: We've been talking about this for years when it comes
Speaker 1: to presidential elections that, for instance, debate are are about
Speaker 1: the stupidest way to try to compare to candidates. That's
Speaker 1: so called debates, which aren't debates. No, they aren't debates
Speaker 1: in any way, yet the media acts like they are
Speaker 1: and at the end they ask who do you think
Speaker 1: one and and it's just the whole thing is stupid.
Speaker 1: And now we've moved onto these town hall creations, which
Speaker 1: I like better than the debates. But um, we're we're
Speaker 1: We've always just been wondering what what's the best way
Speaker 1: to pick a president of the United States. Seems like
Speaker 1: we go about it in a terrible way. Let's introduce
Speaker 1: our guest, Lan Heatchen, the host of the podcast Crossing
Speaker 1: Lines with Lan Hea Chen, David and Diane Stephy, research
Speaker 1: fellow Toover Institution, also the director of Domestic Policy Studies
Speaker 1: and Lecture at Stanford University. Loan he how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: Good morning, get to be with you. Good morning. So
Speaker 1: at the end of our discussion last time around, the
Speaker 1: topic came up of the primaries and how they've changed,
Speaker 1: and how they often yield on electable candidates, and and
Speaker 1: we're talking about what you thought would be the best
Speaker 1: way for the parties to boil down the would be
Speaker 1: candidates and pick somebody, Um, you want to start with
Speaker 1: the Jack's topics there, the so called debates are idiotic
Speaker 1: in our minds. What would be better than that? Well,
Speaker 1: you guys have a great point about debates. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've you know, I've been involved in four presidential campaigns
Speaker 1: and been in a senior role in two of them,
Speaker 1: and what I can tell you about these debates is
Speaker 1: that there's nothing more than theater and and the challenges.
Speaker 1: Instead of having a real discussion about issues, what you
Speaker 1: really have are you know, one to two minute position
Speaker 1: statements that are really about posturing and about trying to
Speaker 1: appeal to certain constituencies rather than really trying to answer
Speaker 1: the questions. So I tend to agree that one of
Speaker 1: the problems we have is now we've got a primary
Speaker 1: process where you literally have fifteen twenty debates before you
Speaker 1: even get to people actually voting. And I'm just not
Speaker 1: sure that's the best way to do it. I would
Speaker 1: prefer a system where people actually get to answer questions
Speaker 1: substantively that the town hall thing actually isn't bad because
Speaker 1: there you get a little bit more insight and a
Speaker 1: little bit more detail. But even then, the way these
Speaker 1: guys set it up, a lot of people in the media,
Speaker 1: it's just about gotcha questions and that doesn't get us anywhere.
Speaker 1: And I I'm bothered by crowd response. That's always bothered
Speaker 1: me in debates. It makes it more fun to watch.
Speaker 1: It feels kind of weird when there's no crowd and
Speaker 1: it's just dead silent. But then it all becomes about
Speaker 1: what line gets the biggest cheers or hoops or booze
Speaker 1: or whatever. And that's a heck of a way to
Speaker 1: run a run a dog and pony show. Well, yeah, Lony,
Speaker 1: you've been involved in in campaigns, it would be pretty
Speaker 1: easy to load a town hall audience with twenty people
Speaker 1: who are in favor of puppy side, I mean, just anything,
Speaker 1: and they cheer like crazy and people think, yeah, that
Speaker 1: person is really popular. Yeah, I mean you saw You've
Speaker 1: seen this every every time around in UM there were
Speaker 1: debates in the Republican primary, for example. I recall there
Speaker 1: being debates UH in New Hampshire for example, there was
Speaker 1: a debate in New Hampshire where Marco Rubio, um, you know,
Speaker 1: had a gap essentially where he basically you know, the
Speaker 1: knock on him when he was repeating the same thing
Speaker 1: over and over again and people in the crowd were
Speaker 1: booing and hooting, and it was pretty clear that Chris
Speaker 1: Christie's team, his campaign had basically packed the audience against Rubio.
Speaker 1: And there was another debate where Rubio had essentially packed
Speaker 1: the audience. And this is the kind of theater you
Speaker 1: end up with, which is it's all about getting that
Speaker 1: crowd response. You guys may remember in two thousand eight
Speaker 1: there were YouTube debates. There were debates which essentially featured
Speaker 1: questions from people on YouTube and it was the most
Speaker 1: random thing ever. And that's what you end up with.
Speaker 1: You end up with these situations which you know, to
Speaker 1: the ordinary person watching, they think, wow, gosh, well that's
Speaker 1: you know, it seems like that person didn't do all
Speaker 1: that well and they don't realize all of the stagecraft
Speaker 1: that goes into it. So this is this is the
Speaker 1: problem with the current system. Okay, so obviously we need
Speaker 1: something see Spanish no audience, even handed moderation or extended
Speaker 1: answers or is came up last time when we were
Speaker 1: talking about this. Do we go backwards in time to
Speaker 1: where the parties get together with the powerful alone in
Speaker 1: a room and make their own decision and who they
Speaker 1: think ought to be representing their party. Would that be better? Well?
Speaker 1: I think in some ways it would produce an outcome
Speaker 1: where you would ensure that the nominees of each party, um,
Speaker 1: you know, probably were people that had very similar profiles, right,
Speaker 1: So you would have people who had been in government,
Speaker 1: who had experience, who you know, had had essentially good
Speaker 1: relationships within the party. And I think in some ways
Speaker 1: that would produce a more more main streams that of candidates.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that would ever happen in this
Speaker 1: day and age. To go back to this question of
Speaker 1: how to some candidates for a minute in the general
Speaker 1: election when we have the general election, the debate structure
Speaker 1: in the general election where you've got two candidates, that
Speaker 1: the structure is set, the audience cannot respond to anything
Speaker 1: that's said during the debate. You've got usually pretty well
Speaker 1: regarded journalists who are the moderators. That structure is not
Speaker 1: bad in terms of comparing candidates, but really what we
Speaker 1: need is we need an informational platform for the American
Speaker 1: people to really see what everybody is about. And I
Speaker 1: tend to think that will help a little bit, you know,
Speaker 1: not not the smoke filled rooms process, but when will
Speaker 1: we get more information out there that tends to be
Speaker 1: the better idea? Boy, definitely, the dozen or more people
Speaker 1: on stage where they each speak for forty five seconds
Speaker 1: is practically worthless. Lan he Chen is online host of
Speaker 1: the podcast Crossing Lines with Lan he Chen. So, yeah
Speaker 1: again to the question of, you know, the primary process.
Speaker 1: The word democracy is thrown around like a religious incantation
Speaker 1: these days, as if more DeMont cristy is always better
Speaker 1: and always yields a better result. When that's not true. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny. I keep going back and see
Speaker 1: the bullet train in California. Oh yeah, for instance, or
Speaker 1: you know, I remember being fascinating. I think it was.
Speaker 1: One of my college professors pointed out that democracies are
Speaker 1: very bad at ending wars because there's national pride involved
Speaker 1: in all sorts of things, and you have to build
Speaker 1: a consensus, whereas a dictator can just say this ain't
Speaker 1: work and and and end it and he's not gonna
Speaker 1: suffer for it probably anyway. So the idea of the
Speaker 1: party elders of smoke filled rooms, those people getting together
Speaker 1: with an outsized influencer, complete influence, and saying, look, Bernie's
Speaker 1: never ever gonna win. We need somebody more reasonable than that.
Speaker 1: Let's look at X, Y or Z that has its appeal.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, I could see that yielding over
Speaker 1: and over again candidates on both sides who are just
Speaker 1: going to perpetuate the concentration of power in Washington, Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Deficit spending and and the scam continuing. So
Speaker 1: I don't even know what I think. Yeah, and you
Speaker 1: never really get disruption, and sometimes in a democratic process
Speaker 1: what you need and want is distruction. You want people
Speaker 1: who come along. I mean, for for all of the
Speaker 1: discussion about Donald Trump, what what he was primarily into
Speaker 1: dozand of sixteen was someone who came along and completely
Speaker 1: disrupted the process. And I didn't be upset a lot
Speaker 1: of people, for sure, but to a certain degree, that
Speaker 1: is what That is what people want every so often. Now,
Speaker 1: every so often they want something different, and that that's
Speaker 1: what democratic processes are designed to yield. The design to
Speaker 1: be responsive to what people are feeling and what they want,
Speaker 1: and that has downside. Now, It's one thing when you
Speaker 1: talk about candidate you guys mentioned the bullet train. It's
Speaker 1: another thing when you talk about policy and letting people
Speaker 1: legislate every couple of years, things that may be completely different.
Speaker 1: And I have a big problem with how significant the
Speaker 1: initiative process, for example, has become in California or in
Speaker 1: other states. The California is a perfect example. Will you
Speaker 1: go to the ballot and you've got twenty different issues
Speaker 1: that you're expected to vote on, and who knows about
Speaker 1: some of this stuff? I mean, it's absolutely ludicrous that
Speaker 1: we're asked to vote on sometimes, but that's the process.
Speaker 1: That's that's what happens. When you have a process that's
Speaker 1: designed to be maximally democratic, you end up with like
Speaker 1: voting on things that you have no clue what you're
Speaker 1: actually voting on. That's not healthy for democracy well, and
Speaker 1: and the winner carries the force of law, and it's
Speaker 1: it's been a disaster for folks listening all over the
Speaker 1: fruited plane and foreign lands. The initiative process in California
Speaker 1: more democracy has been an unmitigated disaster because you get
Speaker 1: to special interest groups, whether their unions or whatever. They
Speaker 1: higher good pr people. They got plenty and money to
Speaker 1: pay for them. They spin the heck out of these
Speaker 1: issues or paint rosy rosy pictures of this, that or
Speaker 1: the other, and the poor suckers at California you don't
Speaker 1: have half a clue on transportation infrastructure, for instance. Vote
Speaker 1: for something utterly idiotic and then it's just it's impossible
Speaker 1: to kill. So beware lanhi chan us with us crossing
Speaker 1: lines with Lan Eachen, Go ahead. No, let's say it's
Speaker 1: big business. I mean, that's where it comes down to you, guys.
Speaker 1: I mean that the whole initiative thing is big business
Speaker 1: for for people who work in the in the campaign industry,
Speaker 1: and that's what it's become. You've got signature gatherers, you've
Speaker 1: got people who do the advertising, people who do quote
Speaker 1: grass roots work. I mean, it's big business. And that's
Speaker 1: why the entrenched interests will probably never want to really
Speaker 1: change the system because they make a lot of money
Speaker 1: off of it. Hey can we get before we run
Speaker 1: out time? Four five seconds? Amoch? Can I get a
Speaker 1: bottom line real quick on the previous thing? So would
Speaker 1: you go with the current system with just different debates
Speaker 1: and such and let the lots of democracy into the
Speaker 1: primary system. Or do you like super delegates kind of
Speaker 1: the older mix or what? What? What would you be
Speaker 1: your bottom line? Yeah? I like cute things. One is
Speaker 1: I like a debate process that's got fewer debate with
Speaker 1: rules that are designed for more civil discussion and people
Speaker 1: actually hearing about issues. And I do like the you know,
Speaker 1: some party elder element, whether it's super delegates, what people
Speaker 1: who understand what the implications are for the parties having
Speaker 1: a slightly outsized voice, not as totally outside voice, but
Speaker 1: as slightly outside So can we get forty five seconds
Speaker 1: on the whole China trade thing? Tariff situation is a
Speaker 1: Trump on the right side of this? Well, look, I
Speaker 1: think that at the end of the day, both the
Speaker 1: United States and China need a deal. I think the
Speaker 1: Chinese need a deal worse because their economy is really struggling,
Speaker 1: and it just demonstrates how dependent they are on on trade.
Speaker 1: But but fundamentally, in the long run, it's not healthy
Speaker 1: for either economy to have continuing conflict terrorists. In my mind,
Speaker 1: in the long run, probably not the right answer. I
Speaker 1: think they end up raising costs for consumers here. But
Speaker 1: in the short run, I think getting China to the
Speaker 1: table and forcing them to recognize, hey, they've got to
Speaker 1: make some changes. They can't stop being they can't continue
Speaker 1: stealing intellectual property and requiring US companies to be in
Speaker 1: joint ventures where especially their excuses to rip off our stuff.
Speaker 1: That certainly is the right path, but it's not a
Speaker 1: sustained along the tap out hope they could get to
Speaker 1: some kind of systemic reformed seeing. Yeah, I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody's thinking of this in the long term, but we'll see.
Speaker 1: Lan he Chen crossing lines of the line. Hea Chen,
Speaker 1: look for the podcast for podcasts are distributed. Lani is
Speaker 1: also a fellow with the Hoover Institution and heads up
Speaker 1: the Domestic Policy program at Stanford University. Lan he thanks
Speaker 1: as always good stuff for all your food is out there.
Speaker 1: I'm unwrapping a McDonald's steak, egg and cheese bagel. Look
Speaker 1: at this steak and the juice running down the side.
Speaker 1: Get a little bit on a wrapper here, and then
Speaker 1: the fluffy egg and real cheese flowed over the thigh,
Speaker 1: looking just so good. Grey old onions and a butt
Speaker 1: of bagel too, founds off a mcdonald' steak, egg and
Speaker 1: cheeze bagel for breakfast. Love It Up, I participate in
Speaker 1: McDonald's