Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: We know this past week is going to go down
Speaker 1: in US history as the U. S. House of Representatives
Speaker 1: impeach President Trump for a second time, with ten Republicans
Speaker 1: voting in favor. We talked about that with Josh Green earlier.
Speaker 1: A reminder too, of the division and dysfunction we are
Speaker 1: seeing in the GOP. For seven years, Adam Gentlesen has
Speaker 1: been had an up close view of growing Senate dysfunction
Speaker 1: as a top aid to former Democratic Majority leader Harry
Speaker 1: Reid of Nevada. He writes about it in his new book,
Speaker 1: Kill Switch, The Rise of the Modern Senate and the
Speaker 1: Crippling of American Democracy. He is public affairs director at
Speaker 1: Democracy Forward. It's a legal advocacy group against corruption in
Speaker 1: the executive branch and government. Adam joins us on the
Speaker 1: phone from Maryland. First of all, did I see your
Speaker 1: last name correctly? I like to get it right. You did?
Speaker 1: You did? All right? Well, Adam, it's great to have
Speaker 1: you here. Congratulations. First, I've got to ask you before
Speaker 1: we diggle a bit deeper into your book. Is the
Speaker 1: last two weeks they hate the anger of the division,
Speaker 1: the polarization. Are you surprised that we're here? I hate
Speaker 1: to say it, but I'm not surprised. I think this
Speaker 1: is the logical result of what the president has been
Speaker 1: staking for the last four years. Um, And you know
Speaker 1: something I talked about in the book. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the rise of these forces predates him. Um. He took
Speaker 1: over the GOP in terms of assuming its leadership, but
Speaker 1: a lot of the forces that propelled him to office
Speaker 1: existed before he even stepped into the political arena. So
Speaker 1: I think that it's horrible to see what we've been
Speaker 1: seeing over the last week, but it is sort of
Speaker 1: sadly the culmination of a lot of trends of extreme
Speaker 1: partisanship that have been building for decades now. So explain
Speaker 1: your title to kill switch? What do you mean? So?
Speaker 1: When I worked in the Senate, one of the things
Speaker 1: you hear a lot is that the Senate is supposed
Speaker 1: to act as a cooling fauthor. This is dates back
Speaker 1: to an apocryphal story about George Washington explaining to Thomas
Speaker 1: Jefferson as they were drinking some tea, that the Senate
Speaker 1: was supposed to act like the Fosster under Jefferson's tea.
Speaker 1: There you would splash out of a saucer, cool on
Speaker 1: the splash off the cup, and cool on the saucer
Speaker 1: before I was ready to drink. Uh? What that was
Speaker 1: true at a time? Um The founders created the Senate
Speaker 1: to be delivered and thoughtful. They also created it to
Speaker 1: not have a filibuster and to not have a supermajority
Speaker 1: threshold for passing legislation. They created it as a majority
Speaker 1: rule institution. It was designed to be thoughtful, but also
Speaker 1: to get things done and for debate to be thorough
Speaker 1: but limited. What we see today in the modern center
Speaker 1: is a body that allows the party that's out of
Speaker 1: power to use the rules of they as they have
Speaker 1: come to evolve, to stop everything that comes before the chamber.
Speaker 1: This combines with the forces of partisanship that are dominating
Speaker 1: our politics today to turn the Senate from what was
Speaker 1: once a cooling saucer now into a kill switch that
Speaker 1: shuts down everything that the federal government tries to do.
Speaker 1: And a big reason for that is in something that
Speaker 1: you really dig deeply into in your book is the filibuster.
Speaker 1: That's right, and so the book explains the historical evolution
Speaker 1: of the filibuster. Um. This is something that you know,
Speaker 1: if folks know anything about the Senate, they tend to
Speaker 1: know about the filibuster. And when they think of it,
Speaker 1: they tend to think of Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith
Speaker 1: goes to Washington, right, holding the floor, talking at length. Uh,
Speaker 1: sort of using it as an underdog against the forces
Speaker 1: of corruption and entrenched power. Um. The thing is, this
Speaker 1: is not really what the filibuster has ever truly been
Speaker 1: in practice. Uh. And even though it is directly associated
Speaker 1: with the Senate in the popular imagination, it was not
Speaker 1: part of the Senate and was not meant to be
Speaker 1: part of the Senate. Um. When the Framers created the Senate,
Speaker 1: they did not include the filibuster. And not only did
Speaker 1: they not include it, they argued against ever creating something
Speaker 1: like it. They were writing the Constitution in the shadow
Speaker 1: of the Articles of Confederation, which had established a super
Speaker 1: majority threshold for most bills to pass Congress. The Framers
Speaker 1: saw that that was a disaster, and they are dude
Speaker 1: very clearly in the Federalist Papers and other writings that
Speaker 1: establishing a supermajority threshold would have the direct effect of
Speaker 1: giving what they called a pertinacious minority, the ability to
Speaker 1: bring everything to a halt for the sole purpose of
Speaker 1: embarrassing the majority. You know, they were realised, they understood
Speaker 1: this essential fact of politics that you give the party
Speaker 1: that's that a power of this ability to throw a
Speaker 1: monkey engine in the system, they're going to use it.
Speaker 1: It took basically two centuries for that power to evolve
Speaker 1: in the way that it has today. But that is
Speaker 1: what we've come to scene. That's what we've come to
Speaker 1: see happen in the Senate is the minority use that
Speaker 1: power and that monkey wrench, and exactly the way that
Speaker 1: the Framers warned us they would. One thing I want
Speaker 1: to ask you, um, take us back to the first
Speaker 1: time you got to the Senate. What was it like?
Speaker 1: What was your first experience of it? The first start
Speaker 1: I got to the Senate, I was I was brought
Speaker 1: up to meet my boss, Senator Harry Reid. And it's
Speaker 1: an incredibly ornate building. I mean, unfortunately, a lot of
Speaker 1: scenes are on display this last week of the inside
Speaker 1: of the Capital for the wrong reasons. But when you're
Speaker 1: there and able to appreciate it, it is incredibly dramatic.
Speaker 1: You've got painted walls, you've got arched ceilings, you've got
Speaker 1: giant chandeliers, you've got historic portraits everywhere. It's overwhelming. Uh.
Speaker 1: It feels a little bit like versa I uh in
Speaker 1: a little bit uh, a little fancy for a democracy,
Speaker 1: more than you might expect. Um. But it's an incredibly
Speaker 1: intimidating place. Uh. And then the leader's office is they've
Speaker 1: they've nicknamed at the taj Mahal for a good reason.
Speaker 1: It's got these huge views of them all, dramatic feelings,
Speaker 1: huge fireplaces. It's it's a lot to take in, is
Speaker 1: as a young staffer. Um. Yeah, And I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting when we read about right, we grew up reading
Speaker 1: about history. We read about the capital, and it is something.
Speaker 1: It's got it. It must have just been something to
Speaker 1: actually be kind of part of it. Then uh and
Speaker 1: didn't live up to your expectations? Did it? Did it
Speaker 1: go beyond your expectations or did it start to disappoint
Speaker 1: how quick? My big yeah, pretty quickly. My big tickle
Speaker 1: a was was the big, massive gap between what you
Speaker 1: expect from such a grand institution and what it was
Speaker 1: able to produce. Uh. You know, I was there during
Speaker 1: a period of historic gridlock. One of the defining experiences
Speaker 1: for me I talked about us in the book was
Speaker 1: after the murder of twenty first creators in Newtown, Connecticut. Uh.
Speaker 1: The absolute failure of the Senate to pass any kind
Speaker 1: of policy solution, even in the middle of the road. Uh.
Speaker 1: Some might argue, not even not even strong enough policy
Speaker 1: like background checks. Um, it is stunning. You know, this
Speaker 1: institution that has a reputation for being slow and has
Speaker 1: a reputation for working in a deliberative fashion. But I
Speaker 1: think that in many ways has been used as an
Speaker 1: excuse for it to simply do nothing. And I think
Speaker 1: that's the problem that we're seeing today. We as we
Speaker 1: as a federal government are simply unable to operate in
Speaker 1: an intelligent way to meet the policy challenges that we face.
Speaker 1: And and part of what I argue in the book
Speaker 1: is that we need to find ways to restore the Senate,
Speaker 1: to keep what's good about it, to can let it
Speaker 1: continue to be a deliberative body, but actually make it
Speaker 1: be a ace where good ideas don't just go to die.
Speaker 1: Good ideas go there to be developed and perfected and
Speaker 1: then actually passed. What's been miss McConnell's role in all
Speaker 1: of this, well, no one has done more to increase
Speaker 1: gridlock in dysfunction in Congress than Miss McConnell. When he
Speaker 1: took over as leader, there was a historic rise in
Speaker 1: the use of the filibuster under his watch and at
Speaker 1: his direction. I should be clear about that. Um. It
Speaker 1: was explicitly a strategy of his. He decided when President
Speaker 1: Obama came into office that he could attack Obama's core
Speaker 1: political brand of fixing our broken politics in Washington, something
Speaker 1: President Obama talked about from his convention speech in two
Speaker 1: thousand four all the way up through his inauguration in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. McConnell knew that if he used
Speaker 1: the tools of obstruction at his disposal, even though at
Speaker 1: the time he represented the minority of Senators representing just
Speaker 1: thirty five of the American population, that he could bring
Speaker 1: that political brand down to earth and voters would see
Speaker 1: a gridlock Washington. They would see that Obama had not
Speaker 1: delivered on his promises, and then Republicans would have roped
Speaker 1: to massive political victories, as they did almost immediately in
Speaker 1: the two dozen and ten midterms, and Republicans gained enormous
Speaker 1: numbers of seats in both the House and Senate. So
Speaker 1: you know, he brought gridlock. The problem is it worked
Speaker 1: and that has increased the incentives for both sides to
Speaker 1: deploy gridlock, which is a shame. Right, This whole idea
Speaker 1: of bipartisan deals, I think, you know, go back multiple decades.
Speaker 1: I've said this a million times Adam on Air. I
Speaker 1: remember being in a a Bloomberg event. This was a few
Speaker 1: years ago, and it was Alan Greenspan and he said
Speaker 1: when he got to Washington in the seventies, he'd go
Speaker 1: to a social event and you would have both Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans at that social event, socializing. He said, now
Speaker 1: you would do something and this was mind you still
Speaker 1: a few years ago, but he said, you'd go somewhere
Speaker 1: and it was either all Democrats are all Republicans. You know,
Speaker 1: how did we get so far away from from being
Speaker 1: you know, lawmakers represented by we the people, um to
Speaker 1: do our bidding right while we go about working supporting
Speaker 1: our families. Right. It was interesting. I had a car
Speaker 1: ride in this morning. Is an immigrant and older individual,
Speaker 1: very thoughtful. He said, we're the ones you and me.
Speaker 1: He pointed to me, you know, to keep the engine going,
Speaker 1: the engine being the economy. He said, our voice, we
Speaker 1: vote for those to protect us. We put you there
Speaker 1: to be our eyes, and this is what you give us.
Speaker 1: He said. The word that describes this moment for him
Speaker 1: politically is betrayal. I had to write it down because
Speaker 1: it just stood with me. But right, this is what
Speaker 1: our lawmakers are, policymakers, Democrats and both Republicans. I hate
Speaker 1: to point the finger, but you know, it's just becomes
Speaker 1: so dysfunctional. No, that's absolutely right. And the problem is
Speaker 1: that our political system has come to incentivize gridlock. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, these are larger forces at work. These are
Speaker 1: the forces of polarization that we see in all aspects
Speaker 1: of our lives, right where we shock. Uh you know
Speaker 1: what what we watch on TV, all those things, the
Speaker 1: big sort. Uh, it's come to the Senate. And the
Speaker 1: Senate was one of the last American institutions to actually
Speaker 1: fall to this sorting. But it has fallen now. Uh.
Speaker 1: And what that means is that the party that's out
Speaker 1: of power has enormous incentives to block the other side
Speaker 1: so that they can regain power. Now, one of the
Speaker 1: things that's interesting here is that you would expect sort
Speaker 1: of narrow majorities to increase the possibility for bipartisanship. Right,
Speaker 1: they're both parties sort of have evenly balanced power, maybe
Speaker 1: they'll work together. The problem is political scientists have found
Speaker 1: for for decades now, is that narrow majorities actually increase
Speaker 1: the incentives to obstruct because the party that's out of
Speaker 1: power knows it only takes one or two more seats
Speaker 1: for them to get back into power. So if they
Speaker 1: make the party in power look bad, they the party
Speaker 1: out of power and the very next election can ride
Speaker 1: that voter discontent back to power by gaining just a
Speaker 1: few seats. Some narrow majorities can actually be very bad
Speaker 1: for cooperation. One last quick question, Is there a simple
Speaker 1: way out? I think I think you need to Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you need to get rid of the filibuster,
Speaker 1: but also restore some living incentives for senators to be
Speaker 1: on the floor together, to talk to each other, to
Speaker 1: bring amendments to the floor, to deconstruct the power of
Speaker 1: leadership so that rank and file senators can bring bills
Speaker 1: to the floor. You need to make the Senate the
Speaker 1: free and open place again. That's what it was designed
Speaker 1: to be, and I think you need to it back
Speaker 1: to that God. It's time to like pull out the
Speaker 1: history books and remember what this is supposed to be
Speaker 1: all about. Adam Gentlesen, thank you so much. Public Affairs Director,
Speaker 1: Democracy Forward, former Deputy chief of Staff to Senator Harry Read.
Speaker 1: His new book that is out, Kill Switch, The Rise
Speaker 1: of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy
Speaker 1: really just gets to the heart of some of our problems.