November 17, 2023 • 49 mins
In this episode of "The Middle with Jeremy Hobson," we explore whether or not bipartisanship is still possible in today's political climate. Jeremy is joined by former Republican Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels and Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina. The Middle's house DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus callers from around the country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to the middle, Jeremy Hobson. Is bipartisanship still possible?
Our number is eight four four four middle. That's eight
four four four six four three three five three. Tolliver
is here. Hih Tolliver.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hey, Jeremy, Hey, listen man. I've always been bipartisan. I
like the Cubs in the White Sox, the Stones and
the Beatles sleeping and napping, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Having grown up in Champagne Orbanna. By the way, it
was very difficult to figure out whether you should be
a Cubs fan or a Cardinals fan. The cities are
all anyway, that's pretty tough. You're bipartisan. Well, I've been
paying a lot of attention to the news this week,
and sometimes it looks like bipartisanship is definitely not possible anymore.
Like when former President Trump referred to his political opponents
(00:47):
as vermin, echoing Adolf Hitler, Or when two members of Congress,
Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat and James Comer, a Republican, got
into it in a committee hearing.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Wing stopped the clock.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
You all continue, Do you look like a smurf here
just going around and all this stuff?
Speaker 5 (01:04):
Now, look, mister Chairman, you have hold on if we're
we're not on time.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We you this information you have done on Hill.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
You had, the press did something, you you're doing stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
It gets to a point, I think at some point.
But but the thing is Tolliver. When it came down
to it, the House of Representatives and the Senate ended
up passing a bill this week to keep the government open,
with members of both parties on board. In the end,
almost all Democrats voted for it, Republicans were split. So
again our question, is bipartisanship still possible? Our number eight
(01:38):
four four four six four three three five three and
before we meet our panel guest Tolliver. Last week we
asked what role abortion could play and how people vote
in the next election. So many voicemails, as always, take
a listen.
Speaker 6 (01:52):
My name is Heather. I'm calling from Please go to Ohio.
Speaker 7 (01:54):
My name is Alan Crouch. I'm calling from Saint John's, Florida.
Speaker 8 (01:59):
My name is William.
Speaker 7 (02:00):
I'm calling from Saint Louis.
Speaker 9 (02:01):
This is not a statement from Gilbert arizonas my vote
would have been Democrat. But since in this election we're
voting over abortion, yes or note, I would be forced
to vote for Republicans.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
I certainly voted to enshrine the right to abortion in Ohio.
By the next morning, our Republican legislature was doing all
they could to figure out ways to circumvent that. I
will do everything that I can to make sure that
we vote every last one of them out.
Speaker 7 (02:30):
It is going to affect the way I vote, and
that I'm expecting politicians to represent those of us who
do are about life, and I'm hoping that there are
those who at the very least are more toward the
middle to span an abortion period.
Speaker 10 (02:47):
That's wrong and if on God leave the decision for
the people, that's all we.
Speaker 11 (02:51):
Need to do.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So many great calls. If you were listening live last week,
you heard there were some phone problems. That's because so
many of you were calling, you were overloaded the system.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Absolutely not a bad problem to have.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
I'm serious about that. Apparently the capacity has been boosted.
So fingers crossed this hour as we ask, is bipartisanship
still possible? Eight four four four six four three three
five three is our number. Let's meet our panel guests.
Mitch Daniels, a Republican, served two terms as governor of
Indiana before he went on to lead Purdue University as
its president. He left that job last year and is
now a senior advisor to the Liberty Fund. He's with
(03:24):
us from Atlanta, Georgia. Governor, welcome to the middle.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
I appreciate being included.
Speaker 12 (03:29):
Well.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina is with
us as well. He's in his first term and is
a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus. He voted to
avert the shutdown this week. He joins us from Greenville,
North Carolina. Congressman, welcome to you.
Speaker 13 (03:42):
Hey, jeremy, thank you for having us today, and look
forward to join you and the governor for a great
discussion tonight from the middle.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Well, and let me ask you, first, Congressman, the news
that actually matters to Americans this week from Washington is
that the government is not shutting down. But the headlines
were about sucker punches and swearing on Capitol Hill. Did
this week feel different to you there or business as usual?
Speaker 13 (04:06):
It was definitely a different week. Perhaps we've been in Washington,
d C. Too long. With a sucker punch that took place,
we had a ledge challenged to fight over in the Senate,
and yes, as we highlighted the wonder world of the
Smurt's return and bargarellably return here. I don't know what
was in the water in Washington, d C. But I
(04:28):
can tell you I'm definitely glad to be in eastern
North Carolina.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Mitch Daniels, you had divided government when you were governor,
and you've said that if you're interested in results as
a politician, you have to work across the aisle, especially
if you want to get big things done. So what
do you make of the current state of bipartisanship at
the federal level.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
You described my point of view very accurately. I think
if you're interested in results, in most cases maybe all
you really have to be open to the idea of
working with people who see.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Things a little differently than you do.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
If you're only interested in scoring points, there's never any
There's always the opportunity to do that. But whether we
had as half our time in office was divided government,
half we had a supportive legislature, But in both cases
I felt.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
It was really really important wherever.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
Possible to them try to find common ground. Bipartisanship is
the only way to achieve things when polities are divided,
and it's the way to achieve enduring change even if
one party has temporary control.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
So why do you think that it's so hard to
find these.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Days each party?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I think when the party's lost control their nominating process,
they drifted it. It seems to me they drifted into
the current situation in which nominations are increasingly controlled by
their fringes and their edges and leaving a lot of people.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
In the middle who bill a have limited or no choices.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I think folks who are selected in that way and
looking over their shoulder to make sure they keep their
offices when they're controlled by an avid or a passionate edge,
are much less likely. I'm afraid to think about results
or to look for a commonality with people of different viewpoints.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Let's go to the phones. Jay is with us from
Overland Park, Kansas. Jay, go ahead, Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Hi there.
Speaker 14 (06:37):
I was just explaining to the person on the phone
that I believe I work for a political nonprofit that
seeks to be nonpartisan and kind of reach across the aisle,
and as I work in politics, I share a lot
of different opinions, and I find that there are are
(07:00):
still people committed to being in the middle, that there
are people who want to find common ground with people
from different political parties. But I also hear a majority
of people saying, well, I just can't work with people
who don't see eye to eye with me on issues.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
So what do you say to those people? What do
you say to those people?
Speaker 14 (07:21):
I say to those people that I agree with them.
You know, I want to be committed to issues rather
than party, and I think that I am willing to
work with anyone who agrees with me on those issues.
So I think that bipartisanship is possible. It's just more
of a question of are people able to get past
a party label and are people able to actually work together,
(07:43):
especially if they're not agreeing on certain issues.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Jay, thanks for that call, Congressman. I'm sure that you
in a purple state like North Carolina hear from a
lot of people who you know, feel that way or
don't want to talk to somebody from the party that
that isn't theirs and that they disagree with politically.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Oh.
Speaker 13 (08:01):
Absolutely, I believe it's so important for us to bring
civility back to this process. This is about humanity and
the relative it is. I remember my grandmother always reminded
me growing up looking for the best and that best
in everybody. Somehow we forget that in this process. But
(08:23):
I'm not giving up. I look, you know, even over
the courses this week, with everything taking place, we were
still able to get at the end of the day
to a stop gap to continue to keep the government
open for the American people. And this is about putting
the people over politics.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Let's go to Bill in Central Illinois. Bill, welcome to
the middle. Go ahead, Hi, Bill, Hi.
Speaker 15 (08:55):
There just half a second when let me turn that
radio off and clip and put it on regular phone.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Okay, and go ahead.
Speaker 16 (09:04):
Can you hear me better?
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Can you hear you? Yes? Please go forward, Thank you.
Speaker 15 (09:11):
I was just making the point that I thought the
Overton window had shifted so far to the right with
the advent of Donald Trump and other politicians that I'm
not sure by partisanship is possible anymore. The things that
they are now espousing and saying, you know, camps to
(09:34):
put all the illegals in and to port eleven million people,
that your political opponents are vermin that we're going to
exact retribution on her political enemies. These things are such
anathema to anyone who is even just mildly center left,
and how can you expect cooperation?
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Uh, let let me let me take that to the
governor of Mitch Daniels. You know, this is I'm sure
something we're going to hear tonight, which is that Donald
Trump has changed the game here.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Well, the game has changed, and he's been one actor
in it.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
But I think it's not accurate to assign him all
the blame for where we are. Both both sides have
their absolutist points of view. In fact, I think what
gave rise to the Trump phenomenon more than anything was
the naked contempt that was shown by too many people
(10:35):
who would describe themselves as left or center left for
the values and the lifestyles and of those who disagreed.
You know, back to Jay's point, You know, you have
to hope that people will come to accept the notion
that tolerance of another viewpoint does not connote endorsement, and
(11:00):
that compromise does not require a forfeiture of principle. I'm
back to the term results again. But if your real
interest is the public good of the country and trying
to move it in whatever direction you believe important, and
I have respect for people who hold their view strongly,
whichever set of us those are. But if your real
(11:23):
goal is to advance those then you're very unlikely to
make much progress by, you know, hurling insults and disparagement
at the other side. And so I hope that at
some point, maybe we need things to get desperate enough,
as they were in the case of this near shutdown,
(11:44):
that people face up to that more often.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
You know, Tlliver. One of the most famous cross party
relationships was the one that existed between former President Ronald
Reagan and the House Speaker during his presidency, Tip O'Neil.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Yeah, they were famously closed despite their political differences. Here's
was Reagan speaking with William F. Buckley nineteen ninety about O'Neill.
Speaker 17 (12:03):
We got along and Nancy and I had Tipp and
his wife over for dinner. And then one day I
picked up the paper and read where he had made
a statement about me that was pretty harsh.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
And I called him and I said.
Speaker 17 (12:17):
Tip, I thought we had a relationship here where we
could do business together and all, and no I read
in the paper that you said, and he interrupted me
and said, well, old buddy, that's just politics, he said,
after six o'clock, we're buddies, we're friends.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Well to all of our buddies and friends. More of
the Middle coming right up after this break.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
This is the Middle on Jeremy Hobson. If you're just
tuning in the Middle as a national call in show,
we're focused on elevating voices from the middle geographically, politically,
and philosophically, or maybe you just want to meet in
the middle. My guests are Mitch Daniels, a Republican who
was a two term governor of Indiana and after that
president of Purdue University, and Democratic Congressman Don Davis of
North Carolina. We're asking you, is bipartisanship still possible? Perhaps
(13:03):
political leaders in your area have found a way to
work together. We want to hear from you. Tolliver, what
is that number again?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three, Go ahead and
give us a call.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Before we go back to the phones. I want to
ask our guests if this partisan ranker is opening up
a lane for a third party presidential candidate who could
actually get into double digits percentage wise and shake up
the election next year. Mitch Daniels, what do you think.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
I don't think it's impossible.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
I know folks are dismissed of some of this idea,
but they're looking in the rear view mirror only, and
we're to me an astorical moment with unprecedented percentages of
people expressing total discomfort with both of the standing parties,
(13:52):
which the parties used to compete for the middle and
that's why third parties generally fizzled out. These days, when
they are captive to their edges, it leaves a huge opening. Plus,
we've never seen a race between two octagenarians before, so
you've got to unique historic situation.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
I'm not predicting anything.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
The odds are probably still long, but I don't accept
that somehow it's out of the question.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Congressman, is this something that you and your Democratic colleagues
are worried about because it would make it easier, for example,
for Donald Trump to win the election without independent voters
if it's a three way race.
Speaker 13 (14:30):
I believe what's most important it's looking at results, looking
at what's been accomplished for the American people. When I
think about the infrastructure Plan, I think about so much
that's been accomplished right here. For instance, in eastern North Carolina,
we see real work on the ground to help get
(14:50):
broadband out across rural communities. That makes a huge difference.
So I believe at the end of the day, the
American people will decide what has taken place. They can
see through a lot of you know, these things and
sift through who's who and what's what, and who's actually
delivered for them, and I believe the people will show up,
(15:12):
they'll cast those votes for who will deliver or they
feel that have delivered for them. And we know the
challenges before the American people right now. Inflation is still real,
many people struggling to put food on the table. So
you know, these are real issues. These are issues that
I hear every day from constituents. And I also hear
(15:35):
interestingly increasingly more people saying they want me to go
to DC and work to get along. And that's what
I've tried to do. And I just want to be
clear here when we talk about the middle and what's happening,
is it possible here's a reality which is not reported
in the media right now on the most contentious votes.
(15:55):
Look at my voting record fifty three percent actually with
Republicans on fifty five contentious bills three hundred and two
bills that haveve co sponsored out of three hundred and
eighty six, seventy eight percent or bipartisan have worked. For instance,
with Zach Nunn, we've worked on nine pieces of legislation together,
and that record expands. And these are issues and topics
(16:19):
and policy issues that are not often picked up in
the media. So we just have to be honest and
real about that as well. There are many who are talking,
having meaningful conversations and are not looking to just go
drop bombs. And the unfortunate reality and I just want
to pick in touch on this point is somehow we've
(16:41):
gotten to the point that we are rewarding those who
show up to drop bombs and run, you know, to
the media and have the loudest.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Voices, right, I mean, and it's true, it's true what
you're saying that as you know, as you watch as
you watch the news these days, that often the loudest
voices are the ones that get the clips over and
over and over and over again. Let's get to our
phones and hear from some of our callers and listeners
that are calling in Robert in North Carolina is with us. Hi, Robert,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 12 (17:11):
Hey, hey, Dan.
Speaker 10 (17:12):
My answer to the question is, I do kind of
think biparty by partisnership is dead, but it can be
good in my opinion, if it leads to something else
besides our two party system. To me, that would be
a good thing. And when y'all y'all mentioned earlier there's
(17:33):
talk of a mainstream, maybe more centrist third party, you know,
called No Labels. If we just had another option besides
you know, team A fighting team B and it's just mudslinging.
I think the media kind of feeds the whole negative cycle,
and so I just think things are broken if we
had more valuable options. You know, we have Dean Phillips
(17:55):
is actually going against Joe Biden and Mark Kennedy No Labels,
right right?
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Are you going to Are you going to vote for
a third party candidate next year in twenty twenty four?
Speaker 10 (18:07):
Yeah, I mean I'm going to wait to see who
they run. You know, I know they're supposed to run
a split ticket Democrat and Republican. But I've been like
salivating over the idea of having a third choice for
decade at least fifteen years. And that last thing. Our
current system is definitely broken, like the gentleman said earlier,
mainly because of the primaries that we have, so the
(18:29):
far fringes of the parties end up running against against
each other. But right now they say two thirds of
the country does not want to see Trump versus Biden,
and the fact that it's going to be Trump versus
Biden just shows you what a broken system that we have.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
You know, Robert, thank you for that call. Let's get
to another call. Carly is with us from Salt Lake City, Utah. Hi. Carly,
welcome to the middle.
Speaker 12 (18:51):
Hi, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Do you think bipartisanship is still possible?
Speaker 18 (18:58):
Well, I think one of the concerning that the caller
brought up previously when they were speaking about just how
far right with Donald Trump politics have swung, and how
it's difficult to find that middle ground because it's weird
the pendulum has swung so far. I think one of
the things I'm really concerned about, and I feel like
the governor avaded the question a little bit of that
(19:20):
caller was that when we talk about the people on
the far right extremes, they tend to attack the individuals
in politics as opposed to creating policy and idea that represents.
And one of my big concerns is that if we
are just attacking the people involved in politics and we
never actually get to the policy and ideas because we're
(19:43):
tearing them down, then we're never going to get to
the medal. And I feel like the at least on
the left side, we tend to hear more conversation about
the policies and ideas of the right and finding issues
with them.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Carly, thank you for that call, Governor. She invoked your name,
so I'm going to go back to you on this one.
What about the point that she makes though about Republicans,
She says, going after the character of their political opponents
as opposed to the policies.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
Well, first, let me point out that I haven't had
a thing to do with partisan politics for eleven years.
Out of respect for the public institution at which I worked.
I stopped, as a matter of fact, was six months
ago in the previous job. So to an extent, I'm,
you know, like I've been a spectator to this, but
I understand what the caller's saying. But believe me, and
(20:36):
I looking from a third party's perspective. There's plenty of
horrible invective, insulting, and again contemptuous outlook that's been directed
at people who of more traditional outlook, and I think
Trump took it as became the expression of their frustration
(20:58):
and their to a large extent, their sense of that
they had been looked down on by not just the
people on the leftist political persuasion, but the national media
and the higher institutions of this country. So, you know,
I'm a little more charitable then than she might be
(21:20):
about the way they have reacted. So I'm not excusing
anything that has happened that Trump has said or done,
but it's it's too simplistic in my judgment to assert
that somehow he's the cause of all our current difficulty.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Let's go to John in Illinois. John, if you can
turn your radio down and tell us what you think
is by partisanship still possible.
Speaker 11 (21:47):
Particiansanship is very difficult and maybe maybe almost impossible because
the House of Representatives has been polarized because by because
the majority of the People's members the House of Representatives
have safe seats and therefore unwilling to engage in bipartisan
solutions to legislative problems. This is a result of partisan
(22:12):
jerry mandarin. I live in a district that's been Republican
solid for thirty years and will be republic for another
ten years. I am deprived of the meaningful election day experience,
not because there's no Democrats living around me, but because
the city has been split in half, where Democrats on
one side of the seat and Republicans on the other
side of the street, and we're stuck. I think if
there were less partisan jerry managers. Right now, there's only
(22:35):
about thirty seats in the House of Representatives that are
truly competitive. If there were three hundred and fifty or
four hundred seats that were truly competitive, then the extremists
wouldn't be able to behave as they do without being
accountable to the people that elected to office the next
time the election cycle comes around.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
John a great point. I want to bring that to
the congressman, and I'll just say, Congressman, that one of
my favorite quotes from the late Anne Richards, the former
governor of Texas. She was on Larry King Live, and
she said, she said about the jerrymandering, Larry, some of
these districts are so Jerry Mannard, you could drive down
the street with both your car doors open and hit
every house. So to the put the point that John
(23:17):
was making though, what about that? How much of that
is the problems these safe seats, the jerrymandering and and
that sort of thing.
Speaker 13 (23:24):
Yeah, what a legacy with the end here? Well, hey,
North Carolina, we have just experienced a redistricting process. And
I want to explain this to everyone because it's not
just North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. We can go
on across the Union. But here in North Carolina, many
(23:45):
of our elections are extremely competitive, come down to just
a few thousand of votes. But we had a court
using special masters to draw the map, and we landed
with fourteen districts, seven Democrats, seven Republicans. And now under
the new plan, we're going to ten Republicans, three Democrats,
(24:10):
and one toss up. Now, just so happened, I'm the
toss up seat.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Uh huh, that's why you're in the middle. You got
to appeal everybody.
Speaker 13 (24:19):
But to to calls point, I've been in the elected
office from mayor to state Senate, now in the US House,
and Jeremy I'm still trying to figure out what a
safe seat is like. But we've operated in this space
for a long time, and I can definitely tell you
that as you move towards competition in our elections, as
(24:39):
we move beyond political partisan jerimanders and even yet still
racial ger manders, that we tend to see this out there.
It really forced, It forces more conversation, competitiveness, and really
it inspires members to go and seek an opportunity to
(25:00):
the work across the island, reach out to others.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Hey, Jeremy, Yeah, go ahead, Adam.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
I think John's asked such an important question, and I
really appreciate the Congressman's response. Likewise, I take a lot
of heart, by the way, from what I understand about
the congressman, I hope he's the first of many, maybe
a new generation that has greater appreciation for the problems
that our bipolarity is causing. But a couple quick points.
(25:31):
I think it's it's noteworthy that the Congressman has had
experience as a mayor and has had experience in genuinely
competitive district and politics that's increasingly rare, and whereas it
was clearly assignable a lot of it to partisan jeremandering
by both parties in different places. It's less so these days, unfortunately,
(25:56):
we have begun to cluster and and to be more
homogeneous geographically, such that in some places I could a
lot of places I could show you'd almost have to
reverse jerrymander if you wanted a genuinely competitive politics.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
In other words, you'd have to draw.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Not compact districts that respect the existing lines, but you'd
have to actively reach out to diversify the place politically. So,
you know, thirty nine of our states we've never had this.
Thirty nine states today have the same party in charge
of both houses and the governorship. Right North Carolina notably
(26:38):
is one of the exceptions, and that may explain why
they've had a little more bipartisan tradition.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Do you think, Governor that the model that some places
like California use with a committee that figures out the
districts instead of the parties that are in power, does
that make more sense to you?
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Well, I don't know that. Yeah, maybe I don't know.
I'm in favor of that.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
I'm just saying that that at this point you could
draw lines that are sensible, that that don't presspass existing
boundaries the kind that we've always thought would give us
less partisan politics, and you might not succeed them.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
In California is a one party state. I don't care
how you draw the lines.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
People of the Democrats and people of sometimes from the.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Far left of that party are going to be in
charge there.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Right, Let's go to Len, who's calling from Massachusetts. Len,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 8 (27:40):
Go ahead, Oh great, thanks. The first thing, you know,
I'm really glad that there's a talk till finally that
deals with takes the stand of being in the middle,
because there are just too many cocktails that are on
one friend or the other. And you know, I think
that exactly the some of the hostility that we have,
(28:04):
you know, going on in this country. You know, just
another little personal note. You know, I ran for Congress
myself in twenty eighteen as a Democrat, and I didn't,
you know, vaked when I read about some of the
things going on in Congress. Now, I think maybe the
voters did me a favor, you know.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
All.
Speaker 8 (28:25):
Yes, I've been following Congress. I have never seen such
such stack fighting. And I know a number of people
have called in and say they want a third party,
and I don't think that's the answer, right. You know,
when the Framers developed, well, the way our constitution was
set up. Originally, the Framers never thought of any parties.
They didn't want any parties. But the system was set
(28:48):
up and touch away that it encouraged two parties. And
the way our whole electoral system works now it's really binary.
You had a third party to get you know, people
getting elected siightening off votes some other candidates and the
voters might get a result that they don't want. I
(29:09):
think what needs to be done, hopefully is to get
the moderates in both parties to form a more formal
coalition and work on issues together. I know it's been
done at art I don't think it needs to be
done on a permanent basis.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Congressman, let me go to you with that. You're in
the problem Solvers Caucus. Is that solving problems? I mean,
are you? Are you having results.
Speaker 13 (29:34):
The problem Solvers Caucuses? To let everyone know, we are
caucus of Democrats Republicans equal number, thirty two Democrats thirty
two Republicans. And I can tell you there's been a
lot of positive you know, to come out of the
problem solvers. You know, inspiring dialogue. I can tell you
(29:55):
it became a little challenging even as we were dealing
with the speaker election and Va Caden the speaker. But
you know, we're still moving forward to forge, you know,
those relationships and continue to keep the problem solvers moving forward.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
At Tolliver. There's an interesting stat from the Pew Research Center.
Americans who follow government most of the time are generally
less likely than other Americans to perceive common ground between
Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
That is interesting, and yet people are drawn to the idea.
Listen here to former President Barack Obama using the promise
of bipartisanship to help launch his presidential campaign. Here he
is invoking Abraham Lincoln, who famously said a house divided
against his self cannot stand by ourselves.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
This change will not happen.
Speaker 12 (30:40):
Divided, we are bound to faire.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
But the life of a tall.
Speaker 15 (30:45):
Gangly, self made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different
future as possible.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
I'm pretty gangly myself.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
I relate to that.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
More of the middle coming up after this break.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
This is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're talking about.
Bipartisanship is it still possible. My guests are Mitch Daniels,
a Republican and a two term governor of Indiana, and
Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina. Our number is
eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four four
six four three three five three. You can also reach
out to us at Listen to the Middle dot com
where Tolliver what are we seeing right now?
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Alan from Longmont, Colorado rights Personally. I used to be
able to understand the other side of the island budget
and keeping the debt down. But when I see speakers
of the RNC saying trans people shouldn't exist and open
bigoty being allowed without anyone saying anything, I don't think
I'll be able to see eye to eye with them.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Governor Daniels, let me go to you on just sort
of that idea, because this is something that comes up
not just on the issue of trans rights or but
on many issues where people feel like they can't possibly
even talk to the other side because their very existence
feels like it is being denied by the other side.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
Well, I don't quarrel.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
If that's their impression, then it's certainly injurious to getting
things done. People think that, and by the way, I'm
going to insist that there are people of a very
different value set who feel equally threatened, put upon, disparaged,
and look down on.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
And so I think that.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
Some resumption of a sense of tolerance. I say, again,
tolerance doesn't imply endorsement. But you know, we really need
as a starting point to buy partisanship. I think an
acceptance that we're not going to agree on some of
these questions. We've got questions we better agree on. Somebody
(32:40):
just mentioned the debt. It's going to crush this country
economically and lead to enormous social betrayal when we can't
keep the promises we've made in our safety net programs.
You know, that's one example among others. I could offer
that we share in common, and I hope for leadership
from either side.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Vote that says, Look, we're.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Just gonna have to understand that on some of these
values and social questions, they're too personal, they're too deeply felt.
We're not going to be rate each other into agreement.
So let's agree to disagree and get busy on the
things that threaten us.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
All.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Well, let's go to Lee in Wilsonville, Alabama. Lee welcome
to the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 12 (33:26):
Thank you. True by parisanship can only occur if two
or more sides are negotiating in good faith to try
and do something to improve their country or their particular jurisdiction. Unfortunately, today,
and I've been a Republican all my life, now before
I say this, now, the Republican Party is not negotiating
(33:48):
good faith. They're lying about everything, including elections. They don't
have policies that are winners these days, so they've gone
anti democratic just to return in power. So true by
a partnership is dead until the Republican Party as it
is currently configured just gets shellacked at the national level.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
How do your fellow Republicans in Alabama feel when you
tell them.
Speaker 12 (34:13):
That, they get really really angry.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Well maybe some of them are listening right now, getting
very angry that you said that.
Speaker 12 (34:23):
Lead.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Thank you for that call. Let's let's squeeze in another one. Here,
Amy is calling from Chicago, Illinois. Hi, Amy, welcome to
the Middle.
Speaker 19 (34:32):
Hi, thank you so much for your program. Ask for
the question of the days by partisanship still possible? I
believe it is. I look at the history of our country.
I'm a national Parks, Boss, and have heard so many
situations where in this country, in our very country, by
(34:53):
partisanship was crazy and we survived pendulum swing. So I
say thank you so much for your two guests who
are both in my view, moving us toward a solution,
and that we need to just keep putting one foot
in front of the other and being polite and trying
to work things out. And thank you for.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Your thank you, thank you today, Thank you Amy, Congress.
I'm going to go to you on that because Amy
brings up the history. Obviously, when you think about and
you know you're an African American member of Congress, when
you think about the Civil War in this country, when
you think about the Civil Rights era in this country,
things have been a lot worse it seems than they
are now.
Speaker 12 (35:33):
Oh.
Speaker 13 (35:33):
Absolutely, when you look at the strength of the American
people over time, historically, we tend to pull together and
come together. You know, we may not see it right now,
we may not totally feel it right now. I mean,
just think the one hundred and eighteenth Congress, well, the
first time in the history of the Union we vacated
(35:58):
a speaker. But I would say that we will come
out stronger look at where we are today. I just
want to point the finger at this. For instance, you know,
when I'm not going to say the Texas two step here,
but the Louisiana two step. We wrote out a continuing
resolution that had two steps in which we would phase in.
(36:22):
That was not a preference of the Democratic Caucus. At
the same time, you know, there was still concerns within
the Republican Caucus conference regarding spending levels.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
But here we are.
Speaker 13 (36:37):
We are the day after and the government is still operating,
and we're preparing now for families to come together and
enjoy I would hopefully great Thanksgiving together.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Yeah, you're you're joining us from North Carolina rather than
being in Washington as you wait to see if you
know you need to vote leading right up to Thanksgiving,
which you know you may have to do in the future.
Let's see. Kevin is with us from Saint Louis, Missouri. Hi, Kevin,
welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 16 (37:06):
Thank you. I really appreciate this show that you're doing.
I am responding to a comment that suggested that the
reason that we have fringes, fringe candidates from each party
is because of the way the system was built. But
I would point out that that's only true if we
have winner takes all voting. So, for instance, you have
(37:30):
let's say twenty sixteen Republican primaries in many of the
early states, you had say, three quarters of people not
voting for Trump, and yet he would win states because
he had, say, twenty five percent of the vote and
other candidates had fifteen, twelve, ten, nine percent of the vote.
And at the party primary level, would be the easiest
way to make a change without requiring legislation to be passed.
(37:53):
If the say the RNC and DNC decided to implement
choice voting for primaries or approval voting, one of these
other methods, and it would favor a more moderate candidate
from that from within the party, and then you'd have,
you know, you wouldn't have an election where the great
majority of the people didn't like either of the candidates
that were on the ballot that had any chance of winning.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
Okay, rank choice voting, let's go to Mitch Daniels on
that one does something like that, Mitch Daniels, sound like
it would go a long way toward helping bipartisanship in
this country, or even just changes to the systems of
how we vote.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
I appreciate the question. I thought and hope that it
would that this idea would come up.
Speaker 12 (38:32):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (38:33):
I think my own answer is that I'm not sure.
I'm not sure any of us is I.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
You know, a great.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
Advantage of our federal system is the is that our
ability to experiment on less than a national level and
find things that work or identify things that sound good
but don't work. And I'm very glad without without being
sure that it will work well and would work well nationally,
and in practice, I'm very glad that several states are
(39:03):
experimenting with it or have attempted it, and here and
there I think.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
It does show promise.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
So if there's a structural way out, let me put
it this way. I already said that I'm just not
sure that even the most fair minded of redistricting will
anymore make a sufficient difference, giving the demographic trends that
we've seen, the clustering and so forth. But if there's
(39:29):
a structural change that might materially alter where the status quo,
that might well be it.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
You know, Kathy in New Mexico writes into us at
Listen to the middle dot com. If it's true that
over half of Americans are not happy about the candidates
for twenty twenty four? Why can we not move toward
ranked choice voting to reach a middle And by the way,
ranked choice voting is what propelled Alaska's bipartisan Senate leadership
system that is now in place. Congressman, what do you
(39:59):
think about ranked choice voting?
Speaker 13 (40:02):
We think about ranked choice voting? I would tend to
align with the governor. It's good to continue to explore
and look at ways that we can make meaningful reforms.
But I think there's still a lot for us to
learn and to still, you know, evaluate an assess there
(40:23):
could be true merit in that process.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Let's get back to the phones. Susannah is with us
from Silverthorne, Colorado. Susannah welcome, Thank you, go ahead.
Speaker 9 (40:36):
What do you think my comments?
Speaker 1 (40:38):
I'm ready?
Speaker 20 (40:39):
Well, I just want to apologize I'm not an eloquent speaker.
But I think that the one of the byproducts of
the jury manadering is where are the jury mandering where
you have the dominant party, you know, trying to create
the most advantageous voting systems for them, and then essentially
(41:01):
dividing them between democratic and Republican areas. Has led to
the bipartisanship because it does not give you much of
a choice. If you have mixed areas with both parties
represented fairly equally, I think people are more likely to
look at the actual candidates, the character of the candidates,
(41:21):
the leadership qualities of the candidates, and not just which party.
Speaker 9 (41:26):
They belonged to.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
Susanna, that was ver. That was very eloquent. Thank you
for calling it was you were good. Let me let
me ask the governor actually about about that. What you
just said there, Governor, what are your thoughts? We talked
about jerry mandering a bit, but what do you think.
Speaker 4 (41:46):
I think in an ideal world we would have competitive politics.
The congressman would put it well a few minutes ago.
Competitive politics incentivizes those in or seeking public offer.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Us to.
Speaker 4 (42:03):
Seek out or at least to avoid those position statements,
postures that antagonize or drive away people, and to seek
out those that might bring people together. And you know,
I'm back to saying that if one's goal in public
life is simply self preservation, in the world we're in now,
(42:25):
you know you can your definition of success is to
get off a snappy tweet that breaks through the clutter. Well,
that's not hard to do if your goal really is
to make change, especially big change. Everything in my experience
has taught me that big change requires big majorities. You've
(42:46):
got to look for ways to bring disparate people together,
and that does require settling, almost always settling for less
than you less than one hundred percent of what you
hope for. You know, it doesn't once again, you can
pursue firm principles and should vigorously, but you if you
(43:11):
really want to produce change in the end, you have
to recognize that almost never is any victory total, or
probably should be in a pluralistic society.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Tommy is with us from Saint Paul, Minnesota. Hi Tommy,
go ahead, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 5 (43:30):
Yeah, thank you for having me on the show. I
just wanted to comment that, you know, I believe that
my partisanship will forever have to exit because it is
the only way to continue to have TANDEMA results and
you know, gridlock like currently. You know, the Republicans had
(43:51):
to counteract the narrative that they're just obstructionists, it seems
like because if they continue to shut down the government,
you know, they would have suffered from political consequences when
it came to reelection. And so you know, previously they
made a huge think when the Carty decided to work
(44:11):
with Democrats to teake the government open. But now you're
seeing the same thing not happening with you know, a
Speaker Johnson.
Speaker 1 (44:20):
With Speaker Johnson. Yeah, sorry, Tommy, I'm just gonna let
you go there, because I think we've got your point there.
And and the phone is a little hard to hear, Congressman,
let me ask you. You know, there's a little bit
of hope in what we just heard there from him.
I mean that it sort of it has to happen
because that's what that's the only way it's going to work.
Speaker 13 (44:39):
That is the only way it'll work. Just think of
where we are right now in the one hundred and
eighteen Congress. You have a Republican Ledhouse, Democratic led Senate,
and obviously in the White House a Democratic president.
Speaker 17 (44:56):
Uh.
Speaker 13 (44:56):
It's impossible with that dynamic, with the vodic government so
to speak, for anything to take place. So it takes effort,
at the end of the day, all of us pulling
together to some extent to make it happen. And I
want to go back to an earlier caller pointed out
and the earlier caller talked about the policy as opposed
(45:21):
to the individual And I want to come back to
represent Representative Chip Roy, you know when and kind of
called out the Republican Conference, you know, by having not
significantly accomplished much this Congress, you know, So I would
(45:41):
say absolutely, the only pathway forward is through by partisanship.
And what part by partisanship looks like at the end
of the day, no one's going to be one hundred
percent happy.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
Well, and let me ask let me ask you Congressmans,
because just briefly, is there something big that you see
happening in the next year that you think they'll be
bipartisan support for now with this new speaker in the House,
will will there be any you know, something like the
infrastructure bill that passed a couple of years ago or
something big.
Speaker 13 (46:11):
I would definitely be hopeful and optimistic that we could
get leaks through the budget. I'm sorry, the appropriations process.
I think that would be huge for the country and
just as it was, and I mean this is not
underscoring the significance of just getting through another continue stop gap,
(46:33):
another continuing resolution. So I'm optimistic there there's some possibility
in all of this. And let me if I may
have one emphasis on one landmark that is important to
me and I think the American people. If anything, it
should be the farm bill. Making sure we get a
good bipartisan farm bill out the door.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
You can be sure that the middle is going to
do an episode on the farm. Bell Erica and Utah
rights to us. I believe bipartisanship is possible, but it
can't happen without individual citizens being brave and listening to
folks whose views they might consider dangerous, immoral, or repugnant.
Governor just twenty seconds your thoughts on that and hope
for the future, if you have.
Speaker 4 (47:12):
Any bravo Erica, that would be the best way, you know.
I've resisted the idea that there's a cliche that says
that we'll only act on our big problems in bipartisan
way when we're forced to by crisis. I'm afraid that
might be right. But we're going to have a crisis
or two, and when it happens, I hope that we
will rally as we've seen our Americans, despite our differences,
(47:34):
do so often in the past.
Speaker 1 (47:36):
Okay, before we close out this hour, Tolliver has a
quiz question for our guests.
Speaker 2 (47:41):
Talissolutely have a multiple choice question for you. The winner
gets a hat from the middle.
Speaker 1 (47:45):
Now we're making hats exactly every single week.
Speaker 2 (47:48):
Thomas Nast, a German immigrant and political cartoonist, conceived of
the Democrat donkey and Republican elephant in what years seventeen
seventy six to seventeen eighty, eighteen seventy to eighteen seventy four,
eighteen eighty six to eighteen ninety or nineteen thirty three
to nineteen thirty seven, Donkey elephant seventeen seventy six to
seventeen seventy, eighteen seventy to eighteen seventy four, eighteen eighty
(48:11):
six to eighteen ninety or nineteen thirty three to nineteen thirty.
Speaker 1 (48:14):
Seven Governor, Congressman any answer there?
Speaker 3 (48:17):
Yeah, Well it's B or C and I'll go with see.
Speaker 1 (48:19):
You're going to see eighteen eighty six Congressman, what about you?
Speaker 13 (48:22):
I was going to go with me?
Speaker 1 (48:24):
Well, he is correct, he is corrects. All right, Well,
thank you so much. I want to thank my guest.
Mitch Daniels, a former two term Republican governor of Indiana
and former president of Purdue University and beautiful West Lafayette, Indiana. Governor,
thank you so much for.
Speaker 3 (48:40):
Joining us, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (48:42):
And Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina, a member
of the Problem Solvers Caucus. Congressman, thanks to you.
Speaker 13 (48:49):
Hey, Jeremy, thank you so much for having me, and
I think I'm much share that head with the governor tonight.
Speaker 1 (48:54):
Amazing. Okay, and by the way, Tolliver, as you know,
we have a weekly newsletter that is free and people
can sign up to get it every week at listen
to themiddle dot com.
Speaker 2 (49:04):
Yet we also have a podcast. It's available in partnership
with iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app or wherever you
listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
The Middle is brought to you by LONGNOK Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
joe Ane Jennings, John Barth, Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, and
Charlie Little. Our technical director is Jason Croft. Our theme
music was composed by Andrew Haig. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio,
iHeartMedia and the more than three hundred and seventy public
radio stations that are making it possible for people across
(49:31):
the country to listen to the middle I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Talk to you next week.
Welcome to the middle, Jeremy Hobson. Is bipartisanship still possible?
Our number is eight four four four middle. That's eight
four four four six four three three five three. Tolliver
is here. Hih Tolliver.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hey, Jeremy, Hey, listen man. I've always been bipartisan. I
like the Cubs in the White Sox, the Stones and
the Beatles sleeping and napping, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Having grown up in Champagne Orbanna. By the way, it
was very difficult to figure out whether you should be
a Cubs fan or a Cardinals fan. The cities are
all anyway, that's pretty tough. You're bipartisan. Well, I've been
paying a lot of attention to the news this week,
and sometimes it looks like bipartisanship is definitely not possible anymore.
Like when former President Trump referred to his political opponents
(00:47):
as vermin, echoing Adolf Hitler, Or when two members of Congress,
Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat and James Comer, a Republican, got
into it in a committee hearing.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Wing stopped the clock.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
You all continue, Do you look like a smurf here
just going around and all this stuff?
Speaker 5 (01:04):
Now, look, mister Chairman, you have hold on if we're
we're not on time.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We you this information you have done on Hill.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
You had, the press did something, you you're doing stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
It gets to a point, I think at some point.
But but the thing is Tolliver. When it came down
to it, the House of Representatives and the Senate ended
up passing a bill this week to keep the government open,
with members of both parties on board. In the end,
almost all Democrats voted for it, Republicans were split. So
again our question, is bipartisanship still possible? Our number eight
(01:38):
four four four six four three three five three and
before we meet our panel guest Tolliver. Last week we
asked what role abortion could play and how people vote
in the next election. So many voicemails, as always, take
a listen.
Speaker 6 (01:52):
My name is Heather. I'm calling from Please go to Ohio.
Speaker 7 (01:54):
My name is Alan Crouch. I'm calling from Saint John's, Florida.
Speaker 8 (01:59):
My name is William.
Speaker 7 (02:00):
I'm calling from Saint Louis.
Speaker 9 (02:01):
This is not a statement from Gilbert arizonas my vote
would have been Democrat. But since in this election we're
voting over abortion, yes or note, I would be forced
to vote for Republicans.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
I certainly voted to enshrine the right to abortion in Ohio.
By the next morning, our Republican legislature was doing all
they could to figure out ways to circumvent that. I
will do everything that I can to make sure that
we vote every last one of them out.
Speaker 7 (02:30):
It is going to affect the way I vote, and
that I'm expecting politicians to represent those of us who
do are about life, and I'm hoping that there are
those who at the very least are more toward the
middle to span an abortion period.
Speaker 10 (02:47):
That's wrong and if on God leave the decision for
the people, that's all we.
Speaker 11 (02:51):
Need to do.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So many great calls. If you were listening live last week,
you heard there were some phone problems. That's because so
many of you were calling, you were overloaded the system.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Absolutely not a bad problem to have.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
I'm serious about that. Apparently the capacity has been boosted.
So fingers crossed this hour as we ask, is bipartisanship
still possible? Eight four four four six four three three
five three is our number. Let's meet our panel guests.
Mitch Daniels, a Republican, served two terms as governor of
Indiana before he went on to lead Purdue University as
its president. He left that job last year and is
now a senior advisor to the Liberty Fund. He's with
(03:24):
us from Atlanta, Georgia. Governor, welcome to the middle.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
I appreciate being included.
Speaker 12 (03:29):
Well.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina is with
us as well. He's in his first term and is
a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus. He voted to
avert the shutdown this week. He joins us from Greenville,
North Carolina. Congressman, welcome to you.
Speaker 13 (03:42):
Hey, jeremy, thank you for having us today, and look
forward to join you and the governor for a great
discussion tonight from the middle.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Well, and let me ask you, first, Congressman, the news
that actually matters to Americans this week from Washington is
that the government is not shutting down. But the headlines
were about sucker punches and swearing on Capitol Hill. Did
this week feel different to you there or business as usual?
Speaker 13 (04:06):
It was definitely a different week. Perhaps we've been in Washington,
d C. Too long. With a sucker punch that took place,
we had a ledge challenged to fight over in the Senate,
and yes, as we highlighted the wonder world of the
Smurt's return and bargarellably return here. I don't know what
was in the water in Washington, d C. But I
(04:28):
can tell you I'm definitely glad to be in eastern
North Carolina.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Mitch Daniels, you had divided government when you were governor,
and you've said that if you're interested in results as
a politician, you have to work across the aisle, especially
if you want to get big things done. So what
do you make of the current state of bipartisanship at
the federal level.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
You described my point of view very accurately. I think
if you're interested in results, in most cases maybe all
you really have to be open to the idea of
working with people who see.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Things a little differently than you do.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
If you're only interested in scoring points, there's never any
There's always the opportunity to do that. But whether we
had as half our time in office was divided government,
half we had a supportive legislature, But in both cases
I felt.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
It was really really important wherever.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
Possible to them try to find common ground. Bipartisanship is
the only way to achieve things when polities are divided,
and it's the way to achieve enduring change even if
one party has temporary control.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
So why do you think that it's so hard to
find these.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Days each party?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I think when the party's lost control their nominating process,
they drifted it. It seems to me they drifted into
the current situation in which nominations are increasingly controlled by
their fringes and their edges and leaving a lot of people.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
In the middle who bill a have limited or no choices.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I think folks who are selected in that way and
looking over their shoulder to make sure they keep their
offices when they're controlled by an avid or a passionate edge,
are much less likely. I'm afraid to think about results
or to look for a commonality with people of different viewpoints.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Let's go to the phones. Jay is with us from
Overland Park, Kansas. Jay, go ahead, Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Hi there.
Speaker 14 (06:37):
I was just explaining to the person on the phone
that I believe I work for a political nonprofit that
seeks to be nonpartisan and kind of reach across the aisle,
and as I work in politics, I share a lot
of different opinions, and I find that there are are
(07:00):
still people committed to being in the middle, that there
are people who want to find common ground with people
from different political parties. But I also hear a majority
of people saying, well, I just can't work with people
who don't see eye to eye with me on issues.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
So what do you say to those people? What do
you say to those people?
Speaker 14 (07:21):
I say to those people that I agree with them.
You know, I want to be committed to issues rather
than party, and I think that I am willing to
work with anyone who agrees with me on those issues.
So I think that bipartisanship is possible. It's just more
of a question of are people able to get past
a party label and are people able to actually work together,
(07:43):
especially if they're not agreeing on certain issues.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Jay, thanks for that call, Congressman. I'm sure that you
in a purple state like North Carolina hear from a
lot of people who you know, feel that way or
don't want to talk to somebody from the party that
that isn't theirs and that they disagree with politically.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Oh.
Speaker 13 (08:01):
Absolutely, I believe it's so important for us to bring
civility back to this process. This is about humanity and
the relative it is. I remember my grandmother always reminded
me growing up looking for the best and that best
in everybody. Somehow we forget that in this process. But
(08:23):
I'm not giving up. I look, you know, even over
the courses this week, with everything taking place, we were
still able to get at the end of the day
to a stop gap to continue to keep the government
open for the American people. And this is about putting
the people over politics.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Let's go to Bill in Central Illinois. Bill, welcome to
the middle. Go ahead, Hi, Bill, Hi.
Speaker 15 (08:55):
There just half a second when let me turn that
radio off and clip and put it on regular phone.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Okay, and go ahead.
Speaker 16 (09:04):
Can you hear me better?
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Can you hear you? Yes? Please go forward, Thank you.
Speaker 15 (09:11):
I was just making the point that I thought the
Overton window had shifted so far to the right with
the advent of Donald Trump and other politicians that I'm
not sure by partisanship is possible anymore. The things that
they are now espousing and saying, you know, camps to
(09:34):
put all the illegals in and to port eleven million people,
that your political opponents are vermin that we're going to
exact retribution on her political enemies. These things are such
anathema to anyone who is even just mildly center left,
and how can you expect cooperation?
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Uh, let let me let me take that to the
governor of Mitch Daniels. You know, this is I'm sure
something we're going to hear tonight, which is that Donald
Trump has changed the game here.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Well, the game has changed, and he's been one actor
in it.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
But I think it's not accurate to assign him all
the blame for where we are. Both both sides have
their absolutist points of view. In fact, I think what
gave rise to the Trump phenomenon more than anything was
the naked contempt that was shown by too many people
(10:35):
who would describe themselves as left or center left for
the values and the lifestyles and of those who disagreed.
You know, back to Jay's point, You know, you have
to hope that people will come to accept the notion
that tolerance of another viewpoint does not connote endorsement, and
(11:00):
that compromise does not require a forfeiture of principle. I'm
back to the term results again. But if your real
interest is the public good of the country and trying
to move it in whatever direction you believe important, and
I have respect for people who hold their view strongly,
whichever set of us those are. But if your real
(11:23):
goal is to advance those then you're very unlikely to
make much progress by, you know, hurling insults and disparagement
at the other side. And so I hope that at
some point, maybe we need things to get desperate enough,
as they were in the case of this near shutdown,
(11:44):
that people face up to that more often.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
You know, Tlliver. One of the most famous cross party
relationships was the one that existed between former President Ronald
Reagan and the House Speaker during his presidency, Tip O'Neil.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Yeah, they were famously closed despite their political differences. Here's
was Reagan speaking with William F. Buckley nineteen ninety about O'Neill.
Speaker 17 (12:03):
We got along and Nancy and I had Tipp and
his wife over for dinner. And then one day I
picked up the paper and read where he had made
a statement about me that was pretty harsh.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
And I called him and I said.
Speaker 17 (12:17):
Tip, I thought we had a relationship here where we
could do business together and all, and no I read
in the paper that you said, and he interrupted me
and said, well, old buddy, that's just politics, he said,
after six o'clock, we're buddies, we're friends.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Well to all of our buddies and friends. More of
the Middle coming right up after this break.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
This is the Middle on Jeremy Hobson. If you're just
tuning in the Middle as a national call in show,
we're focused on elevating voices from the middle geographically, politically,
and philosophically, or maybe you just want to meet in
the middle. My guests are Mitch Daniels, a Republican who
was a two term governor of Indiana and after that
president of Purdue University, and Democratic Congressman Don Davis of
North Carolina. We're asking you, is bipartisanship still possible? Perhaps
(13:03):
political leaders in your area have found a way to
work together. We want to hear from you. Tolliver, what
is that number again?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three, Go ahead and
give us a call.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Before we go back to the phones. I want to
ask our guests if this partisan ranker is opening up
a lane for a third party presidential candidate who could
actually get into double digits percentage wise and shake up
the election next year. Mitch Daniels, what do you think.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
I don't think it's impossible.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
I know folks are dismissed of some of this idea,
but they're looking in the rear view mirror only, and
we're to me an astorical moment with unprecedented percentages of
people expressing total discomfort with both of the standing parties,
(13:52):
which the parties used to compete for the middle and
that's why third parties generally fizzled out. These days, when
they are captive to their edges, it leaves a huge opening. Plus,
we've never seen a race between two octagenarians before, so
you've got to unique historic situation.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
I'm not predicting anything.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
The odds are probably still long, but I don't accept
that somehow it's out of the question.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Congressman, is this something that you and your Democratic colleagues
are worried about because it would make it easier, for example,
for Donald Trump to win the election without independent voters
if it's a three way race.
Speaker 13 (14:30):
I believe what's most important it's looking at results, looking
at what's been accomplished for the American people. When I
think about the infrastructure Plan, I think about so much
that's been accomplished right here. For instance, in eastern North Carolina,
we see real work on the ground to help get
(14:50):
broadband out across rural communities. That makes a huge difference.
So I believe at the end of the day, the
American people will decide what has taken place. They can
see through a lot of you know, these things and
sift through who's who and what's what, and who's actually
delivered for them, and I believe the people will show up,
(15:12):
they'll cast those votes for who will deliver or they
feel that have delivered for them. And we know the
challenges before the American people right now. Inflation is still real,
many people struggling to put food on the table. So
you know, these are real issues. These are issues that
I hear every day from constituents. And I also hear
(15:35):
interestingly increasingly more people saying they want me to go
to DC and work to get along. And that's what
I've tried to do. And I just want to be
clear here when we talk about the middle and what's happening,
is it possible here's a reality which is not reported
in the media right now on the most contentious votes.
(15:55):
Look at my voting record fifty three percent actually with
Republicans on fifty five contentious bills three hundred and two
bills that haveve co sponsored out of three hundred and
eighty six, seventy eight percent or bipartisan have worked. For instance,
with Zach Nunn, we've worked on nine pieces of legislation together,
and that record expands. And these are issues and topics
(16:19):
and policy issues that are not often picked up in
the media. So we just have to be honest and
real about that as well. There are many who are talking,
having meaningful conversations and are not looking to just go
drop bombs. And the unfortunate reality and I just want
to pick in touch on this point is somehow we've
(16:41):
gotten to the point that we are rewarding those who
show up to drop bombs and run, you know, to
the media and have the loudest.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Voices, right, I mean, and it's true, it's true what
you're saying that as you know, as you watch as
you watch the news these days, that often the loudest
voices are the ones that get the clips over and
over and over and over again. Let's get to our
phones and hear from some of our callers and listeners
that are calling in Robert in North Carolina is with us. Hi, Robert,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 12 (17:11):
Hey, hey, Dan.
Speaker 10 (17:12):
My answer to the question is, I do kind of
think biparty by partisnership is dead, but it can be
good in my opinion, if it leads to something else
besides our two party system. To me, that would be
a good thing. And when y'all y'all mentioned earlier there's
(17:33):
talk of a mainstream, maybe more centrist third party, you know,
called No Labels. If we just had another option besides
you know, team A fighting team B and it's just mudslinging.
I think the media kind of feeds the whole negative cycle,
and so I just think things are broken if we
had more valuable options. You know, we have Dean Phillips
(17:55):
is actually going against Joe Biden and Mark Kennedy No Labels,
right right?
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Are you going to Are you going to vote for
a third party candidate next year in twenty twenty four?
Speaker 10 (18:07):
Yeah, I mean I'm going to wait to see who
they run. You know, I know they're supposed to run
a split ticket Democrat and Republican. But I've been like
salivating over the idea of having a third choice for
decade at least fifteen years. And that last thing. Our
current system is definitely broken, like the gentleman said earlier,
mainly because of the primaries that we have, so the
(18:29):
far fringes of the parties end up running against against
each other. But right now they say two thirds of
the country does not want to see Trump versus Biden,
and the fact that it's going to be Trump versus
Biden just shows you what a broken system that we have.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
You know, Robert, thank you for that call. Let's get
to another call. Carly is with us from Salt Lake City, Utah. Hi. Carly,
welcome to the middle.
Speaker 12 (18:51):
Hi, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Do you think bipartisanship is still possible?
Speaker 18 (18:58):
Well, I think one of the concerning that the caller
brought up previously when they were speaking about just how
far right with Donald Trump politics have swung, and how
it's difficult to find that middle ground because it's weird
the pendulum has swung so far. I think one of
the things I'm really concerned about, and I feel like
the governor avaded the question a little bit of that
(19:20):
caller was that when we talk about the people on
the far right extremes, they tend to attack the individuals
in politics as opposed to creating policy and idea that represents.
And one of my big concerns is that if we
are just attacking the people involved in politics and we
never actually get to the policy and ideas because we're
(19:43):
tearing them down, then we're never going to get to
the medal. And I feel like the at least on
the left side, we tend to hear more conversation about
the policies and ideas of the right and finding issues
with them.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Carly, thank you for that call, Governor. She invoked your name,
so I'm going to go back to you on this one.
What about the point that she makes though about Republicans,
She says, going after the character of their political opponents
as opposed to the policies.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
Well, first, let me point out that I haven't had
a thing to do with partisan politics for eleven years.
Out of respect for the public institution at which I worked.
I stopped, as a matter of fact, was six months
ago in the previous job. So to an extent, I'm,
you know, like I've been a spectator to this, but
I understand what the caller's saying. But believe me, and
(20:36):
I looking from a third party's perspective. There's plenty of
horrible invective, insulting, and again contemptuous outlook that's been directed
at people who of more traditional outlook, and I think
Trump took it as became the expression of their frustration
(20:58):
and their to a large extent, their sense of that
they had been looked down on by not just the
people on the leftist political persuasion, but the national media
and the higher institutions of this country. So, you know,
I'm a little more charitable then than she might be
(21:20):
about the way they have reacted. So I'm not excusing
anything that has happened that Trump has said or done,
but it's it's too simplistic in my judgment to assert
that somehow he's the cause of all our current difficulty.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Let's go to John in Illinois. John, if you can
turn your radio down and tell us what you think
is by partisanship still possible.
Speaker 11 (21:47):
Particiansanship is very difficult and maybe maybe almost impossible because
the House of Representatives has been polarized because by because
the majority of the People's members the House of Representatives
have safe seats and therefore unwilling to engage in bipartisan
solutions to legislative problems. This is a result of partisan
(22:12):
jerry mandarin. I live in a district that's been Republican
solid for thirty years and will be republic for another
ten years. I am deprived of the meaningful election day experience,
not because there's no Democrats living around me, but because
the city has been split in half, where Democrats on
one side of the seat and Republicans on the other
side of the street, and we're stuck. I think if
there were less partisan jerry managers. Right now, there's only
(22:35):
about thirty seats in the House of Representatives that are
truly competitive. If there were three hundred and fifty or
four hundred seats that were truly competitive, then the extremists
wouldn't be able to behave as they do without being
accountable to the people that elected to office the next
time the election cycle comes around.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
John a great point. I want to bring that to
the congressman, and I'll just say, Congressman, that one of
my favorite quotes from the late Anne Richards, the former
governor of Texas. She was on Larry King Live, and
she said, she said about the jerrymandering, Larry, some of
these districts are so Jerry Mannard, you could drive down
the street with both your car doors open and hit
every house. So to the put the point that John
(23:17):
was making though, what about that? How much of that
is the problems these safe seats, the jerrymandering and and
that sort of thing.
Speaker 13 (23:24):
Yeah, what a legacy with the end here? Well, hey,
North Carolina, we have just experienced a redistricting process. And
I want to explain this to everyone because it's not
just North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. We can go
on across the Union. But here in North Carolina, many
(23:45):
of our elections are extremely competitive, come down to just
a few thousand of votes. But we had a court
using special masters to draw the map, and we landed
with fourteen districts, seven Democrats, seven Republicans. And now under
the new plan, we're going to ten Republicans, three Democrats,
(24:10):
and one toss up. Now, just so happened, I'm the
toss up seat.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Uh huh, that's why you're in the middle. You got
to appeal everybody.
Speaker 13 (24:19):
But to to calls point, I've been in the elected
office from mayor to state Senate, now in the US House,
and Jeremy I'm still trying to figure out what a
safe seat is like. But we've operated in this space
for a long time, and I can definitely tell you
that as you move towards competition in our elections, as
(24:39):
we move beyond political partisan jerimanders and even yet still
racial ger manders, that we tend to see this out there.
It really forced, It forces more conversation, competitiveness, and really
it inspires members to go and seek an opportunity to
(25:00):
the work across the island, reach out to others.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Hey, Jeremy, Yeah, go ahead, Adam.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
I think John's asked such an important question, and I
really appreciate the Congressman's response. Likewise, I take a lot
of heart, by the way, from what I understand about
the congressman, I hope he's the first of many, maybe
a new generation that has greater appreciation for the problems
that our bipolarity is causing. But a couple quick points.
(25:31):
I think it's it's noteworthy that the Congressman has had
experience as a mayor and has had experience in genuinely
competitive district and politics that's increasingly rare, and whereas it
was clearly assignable a lot of it to partisan jeremandering
by both parties in different places. It's less so these days, unfortunately,
(25:56):
we have begun to cluster and and to be more
homogeneous geographically, such that in some places I could a
lot of places I could show you'd almost have to
reverse jerrymander if you wanted a genuinely competitive politics.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
In other words, you'd have to draw.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Not compact districts that respect the existing lines, but you'd
have to actively reach out to diversify the place politically. So,
you know, thirty nine of our states we've never had this.
Thirty nine states today have the same party in charge
of both houses and the governorship. Right North Carolina notably
(26:38):
is one of the exceptions, and that may explain why
they've had a little more bipartisan tradition.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Do you think, Governor that the model that some places
like California use with a committee that figures out the
districts instead of the parties that are in power, does
that make more sense to you?
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Well, I don't know that. Yeah, maybe I don't know.
I'm in favor of that.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
I'm just saying that that at this point you could
draw lines that are sensible, that that don't presspass existing
boundaries the kind that we've always thought would give us
less partisan politics, and you might not succeed them.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
In California is a one party state. I don't care
how you draw the lines.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
People of the Democrats and people of sometimes from the.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Far left of that party are going to be in
charge there.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Right, Let's go to Len, who's calling from Massachusetts. Len,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 8 (27:40):
Go ahead, Oh great, thanks. The first thing, you know,
I'm really glad that there's a talk till finally that
deals with takes the stand of being in the middle,
because there are just too many cocktails that are on
one friend or the other. And you know, I think
that exactly the some of the hostility that we have,
(28:04):
you know, going on in this country. You know, just
another little personal note. You know, I ran for Congress
myself in twenty eighteen as a Democrat, and I didn't,
you know, vaked when I read about some of the
things going on in Congress. Now, I think maybe the
voters did me a favor, you know.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
All.
Speaker 8 (28:25):
Yes, I've been following Congress. I have never seen such
such stack fighting. And I know a number of people
have called in and say they want a third party,
and I don't think that's the answer, right. You know,
when the Framers developed, well, the way our constitution was
set up. Originally, the Framers never thought of any parties.
They didn't want any parties. But the system was set
(28:48):
up and touch away that it encouraged two parties. And
the way our whole electoral system works now it's really binary.
You had a third party to get you know, people
getting elected siightening off votes some other candidates and the
voters might get a result that they don't want. I
(29:09):
think what needs to be done, hopefully is to get
the moderates in both parties to form a more formal
coalition and work on issues together. I know it's been
done at art I don't think it needs to be
done on a permanent basis.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Congressman, let me go to you with that. You're in
the problem Solvers Caucus. Is that solving problems? I mean,
are you? Are you having results.
Speaker 13 (29:34):
The problem Solvers Caucuses? To let everyone know, we are
caucus of Democrats Republicans equal number, thirty two Democrats thirty
two Republicans. And I can tell you there's been a
lot of positive you know, to come out of the
problem solvers. You know, inspiring dialogue. I can tell you
(29:55):
it became a little challenging even as we were dealing
with the speaker election and Va Caden the speaker. But
you know, we're still moving forward to forge, you know,
those relationships and continue to keep the problem solvers moving forward.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
At Tolliver. There's an interesting stat from the Pew Research Center.
Americans who follow government most of the time are generally
less likely than other Americans to perceive common ground between
Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
That is interesting, and yet people are drawn to the idea.
Listen here to former President Barack Obama using the promise
of bipartisanship to help launch his presidential campaign. Here he
is invoking Abraham Lincoln, who famously said a house divided
against his self cannot stand by ourselves.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
This change will not happen.
Speaker 12 (30:40):
Divided, we are bound to faire.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
But the life of a tall.
Speaker 15 (30:45):
Gangly, self made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different
future as possible.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
I'm pretty gangly myself.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
I relate to that.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
More of the middle coming up after this break.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
This is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're talking about.
Bipartisanship is it still possible. My guests are Mitch Daniels,
a Republican and a two term governor of Indiana, and
Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina. Our number is
eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four four
six four three three five three. You can also reach
out to us at Listen to the Middle dot com
where Tolliver what are we seeing right now?
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Alan from Longmont, Colorado rights Personally. I used to be
able to understand the other side of the island budget
and keeping the debt down. But when I see speakers
of the RNC saying trans people shouldn't exist and open
bigoty being allowed without anyone saying anything, I don't think
I'll be able to see eye to eye with them.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Governor Daniels, let me go to you on just sort
of that idea, because this is something that comes up
not just on the issue of trans rights or but
on many issues where people feel like they can't possibly
even talk to the other side because their very existence
feels like it is being denied by the other side.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
Well, I don't quarrel.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
If that's their impression, then it's certainly injurious to getting
things done. People think that, and by the way, I'm
going to insist that there are people of a very
different value set who feel equally threatened, put upon, disparaged,
and look down on.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
And so I think that.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
Some resumption of a sense of tolerance. I say, again,
tolerance doesn't imply endorsement. But you know, we really need
as a starting point to buy partisanship. I think an
acceptance that we're not going to agree on some of
these questions. We've got questions we better agree on. Somebody
(32:40):
just mentioned the debt. It's going to crush this country
economically and lead to enormous social betrayal when we can't
keep the promises we've made in our safety net programs.
You know, that's one example among others. I could offer
that we share in common, and I hope for leadership
from either side.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Vote that says, Look, we're.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Just gonna have to understand that on some of these
values and social questions, they're too personal, they're too deeply felt.
We're not going to be rate each other into agreement.
So let's agree to disagree and get busy on the
things that threaten us.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
All.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Well, let's go to Lee in Wilsonville, Alabama. Lee welcome
to the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 12 (33:26):
Thank you. True by parisanship can only occur if two
or more sides are negotiating in good faith to try
and do something to improve their country or their particular jurisdiction. Unfortunately, today,
and I've been a Republican all my life, now before
I say this, now, the Republican Party is not negotiating
(33:48):
good faith. They're lying about everything, including elections. They don't
have policies that are winners these days, so they've gone
anti democratic just to return in power. So true by
a partnership is dead until the Republican Party as it
is currently configured just gets shellacked at the national level.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
How do your fellow Republicans in Alabama feel when you
tell them.
Speaker 12 (34:13):
That, they get really really angry.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Well maybe some of them are listening right now, getting
very angry that you said that.
Speaker 12 (34:23):
Lead.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Thank you for that call. Let's let's squeeze in another one. Here,
Amy is calling from Chicago, Illinois. Hi, Amy, welcome to
the Middle.
Speaker 19 (34:32):
Hi, thank you so much for your program. Ask for
the question of the days by partisanship still possible? I
believe it is. I look at the history of our country.
I'm a national Parks, Boss, and have heard so many
situations where in this country, in our very country, by
(34:53):
partisanship was crazy and we survived pendulum swing. So I
say thank you so much for your two guests who
are both in my view, moving us toward a solution,
and that we need to just keep putting one foot
in front of the other and being polite and trying
to work things out. And thank you for.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Your thank you, thank you today, Thank you Amy, Congress.
I'm going to go to you on that because Amy
brings up the history. Obviously, when you think about and
you know you're an African American member of Congress, when
you think about the Civil War in this country, when
you think about the Civil Rights era in this country,
things have been a lot worse it seems than they
are now.
Speaker 12 (35:33):
Oh.
Speaker 13 (35:33):
Absolutely, when you look at the strength of the American
people over time, historically, we tend to pull together and
come together. You know, we may not see it right now,
we may not totally feel it right now. I mean,
just think the one hundred and eighteenth Congress, well, the
first time in the history of the Union we vacated
(35:58):
a speaker. But I would say that we will come
out stronger look at where we are today. I just
want to point the finger at this. For instance, you know,
when I'm not going to say the Texas two step here,
but the Louisiana two step. We wrote out a continuing
resolution that had two steps in which we would phase in.
(36:22):
That was not a preference of the Democratic Caucus. At
the same time, you know, there was still concerns within
the Republican Caucus conference regarding spending levels.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
But here we are.
Speaker 13 (36:37):
We are the day after and the government is still operating,
and we're preparing now for families to come together and
enjoy I would hopefully great Thanksgiving together.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Yeah, you're you're joining us from North Carolina rather than
being in Washington as you wait to see if you
know you need to vote leading right up to Thanksgiving,
which you know you may have to do in the future.
Let's see. Kevin is with us from Saint Louis, Missouri. Hi, Kevin,
welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 16 (37:06):
Thank you. I really appreciate this show that you're doing.
I am responding to a comment that suggested that the
reason that we have fringes, fringe candidates from each party
is because of the way the system was built. But
I would point out that that's only true if we
have winner takes all voting. So, for instance, you have
(37:30):
let's say twenty sixteen Republican primaries in many of the
early states, you had say, three quarters of people not
voting for Trump, and yet he would win states because
he had, say, twenty five percent of the vote and
other candidates had fifteen, twelve, ten, nine percent of the vote.
And at the party primary level, would be the easiest
way to make a change without requiring legislation to be passed.
(37:53):
If the say the RNC and DNC decided to implement
choice voting for primaries or approval voting, one of these
other methods, and it would favor a more moderate candidate
from that from within the party, and then you'd have,
you know, you wouldn't have an election where the great
majority of the people didn't like either of the candidates
that were on the ballot that had any chance of winning.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
Okay, rank choice voting, let's go to Mitch Daniels on
that one does something like that, Mitch Daniels, sound like
it would go a long way toward helping bipartisanship in
this country, or even just changes to the systems of
how we vote.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
I appreciate the question. I thought and hope that it
would that this idea would come up.
Speaker 12 (38:32):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (38:33):
I think my own answer is that I'm not sure.
I'm not sure any of us is I.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
You know, a great.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
Advantage of our federal system is the is that our
ability to experiment on less than a national level and
find things that work or identify things that sound good
but don't work. And I'm very glad without without being
sure that it will work well and would work well nationally,
and in practice, I'm very glad that several states are
(39:03):
experimenting with it or have attempted it, and here and
there I think.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
It does show promise.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
So if there's a structural way out, let me put
it this way. I already said that I'm just not
sure that even the most fair minded of redistricting will
anymore make a sufficient difference, giving the demographic trends that
we've seen, the clustering and so forth. But if there's
(39:29):
a structural change that might materially alter where the status quo,
that might well be it.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
You know, Kathy in New Mexico writes into us at
Listen to the middle dot com. If it's true that
over half of Americans are not happy about the candidates
for twenty twenty four? Why can we not move toward
ranked choice voting to reach a middle And by the way,
ranked choice voting is what propelled Alaska's bipartisan Senate leadership
system that is now in place. Congressman, what do you
(39:59):
think about ranked choice voting?
Speaker 13 (40:02):
We think about ranked choice voting? I would tend to
align with the governor. It's good to continue to explore
and look at ways that we can make meaningful reforms.
But I think there's still a lot for us to
learn and to still, you know, evaluate an assess there
(40:23):
could be true merit in that process.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Let's get back to the phones. Susannah is with us
from Silverthorne, Colorado. Susannah welcome, Thank you, go ahead.
Speaker 9 (40:36):
What do you think my comments?
Speaker 1 (40:38):
I'm ready?
Speaker 20 (40:39):
Well, I just want to apologize I'm not an eloquent speaker.
But I think that the one of the byproducts of
the jury manadering is where are the jury mandering where
you have the dominant party, you know, trying to create
the most advantageous voting systems for them, and then essentially
(41:01):
dividing them between democratic and Republican areas. Has led to
the bipartisanship because it does not give you much of
a choice. If you have mixed areas with both parties
represented fairly equally, I think people are more likely to
look at the actual candidates, the character of the candidates,
(41:21):
the leadership qualities of the candidates, and not just which party.
Speaker 9 (41:26):
They belonged to.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
Susanna, that was ver. That was very eloquent. Thank you
for calling it was you were good. Let me let
me ask the governor actually about about that. What you
just said there, Governor, what are your thoughts? We talked
about jerry mandering a bit, but what do you think.
Speaker 4 (41:46):
I think in an ideal world we would have competitive politics.
The congressman would put it well a few minutes ago.
Competitive politics incentivizes those in or seeking public offer.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Us to.
Speaker 4 (42:03):
Seek out or at least to avoid those position statements,
postures that antagonize or drive away people, and to seek
out those that might bring people together. And you know,
I'm back to saying that if one's goal in public
life is simply self preservation, in the world we're in now,
(42:25):
you know you can your definition of success is to
get off a snappy tweet that breaks through the clutter. Well,
that's not hard to do if your goal really is
to make change, especially big change. Everything in my experience
has taught me that big change requires big majorities. You've
(42:46):
got to look for ways to bring disparate people together,
and that does require settling, almost always settling for less
than you less than one hundred percent of what you
hope for. You know, it doesn't once again, you can
pursue firm principles and should vigorously, but you if you
(43:11):
really want to produce change in the end, you have
to recognize that almost never is any victory total, or
probably should be in a pluralistic society.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Tommy is with us from Saint Paul, Minnesota. Hi Tommy,
go ahead, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 5 (43:30):
Yeah, thank you for having me on the show. I
just wanted to comment that, you know, I believe that
my partisanship will forever have to exit because it is
the only way to continue to have TANDEMA results and
you know, gridlock like currently. You know, the Republicans had
(43:51):
to counteract the narrative that they're just obstructionists, it seems
like because if they continue to shut down the government,
you know, they would have suffered from political consequences when
it came to reelection. And so you know, previously they
made a huge think when the Carty decided to work
(44:11):
with Democrats to teake the government open. But now you're
seeing the same thing not happening with you know, a
Speaker Johnson.
Speaker 1 (44:20):
With Speaker Johnson. Yeah, sorry, Tommy, I'm just gonna let
you go there, because I think we've got your point there.
And and the phone is a little hard to hear, Congressman,
let me ask you. You know, there's a little bit
of hope in what we just heard there from him.
I mean that it sort of it has to happen
because that's what that's the only way it's going to work.
Speaker 13 (44:39):
That is the only way it'll work. Just think of
where we are right now in the one hundred and
eighteen Congress. You have a Republican Ledhouse, Democratic led Senate,
and obviously in the White House a Democratic president.
Speaker 17 (44:56):
Uh.
Speaker 13 (44:56):
It's impossible with that dynamic, with the vodic government so
to speak, for anything to take place. So it takes effort,
at the end of the day, all of us pulling
together to some extent to make it happen. And I
want to go back to an earlier caller pointed out
and the earlier caller talked about the policy as opposed
(45:21):
to the individual And I want to come back to
represent Representative Chip Roy, you know when and kind of
called out the Republican Conference, you know, by having not
significantly accomplished much this Congress, you know, So I would
(45:41):
say absolutely, the only pathway forward is through by partisanship.
And what part by partisanship looks like at the end
of the day, no one's going to be one hundred
percent happy.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
Well, and let me ask let me ask you Congressmans,
because just briefly, is there something big that you see
happening in the next year that you think they'll be
bipartisan support for now with this new speaker in the House,
will will there be any you know, something like the
infrastructure bill that passed a couple of years ago or
something big.
Speaker 13 (46:11):
I would definitely be hopeful and optimistic that we could
get leaks through the budget. I'm sorry, the appropriations process.
I think that would be huge for the country and
just as it was, and I mean this is not
underscoring the significance of just getting through another continue stop gap,
(46:33):
another continuing resolution. So I'm optimistic there there's some possibility
in all of this. And let me if I may
have one emphasis on one landmark that is important to
me and I think the American people. If anything, it
should be the farm bill. Making sure we get a
good bipartisan farm bill out the door.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
You can be sure that the middle is going to
do an episode on the farm. Bell Erica and Utah
rights to us. I believe bipartisanship is possible, but it
can't happen without individual citizens being brave and listening to
folks whose views they might consider dangerous, immoral, or repugnant.
Governor just twenty seconds your thoughts on that and hope
for the future, if you have.
Speaker 4 (47:12):
Any bravo Erica, that would be the best way, you know.
I've resisted the idea that there's a cliche that says
that we'll only act on our big problems in bipartisan
way when we're forced to by crisis. I'm afraid that
might be right. But we're going to have a crisis
or two, and when it happens, I hope that we
will rally as we've seen our Americans, despite our differences,
(47:34):
do so often in the past.
Speaker 1 (47:36):
Okay, before we close out this hour, Tolliver has a
quiz question for our guests.
Speaker 2 (47:41):
Talissolutely have a multiple choice question for you. The winner
gets a hat from the middle.
Speaker 1 (47:45):
Now we're making hats exactly every single week.
Speaker 2 (47:48):
Thomas Nast, a German immigrant and political cartoonist, conceived of
the Democrat donkey and Republican elephant in what years seventeen
seventy six to seventeen eighty, eighteen seventy to eighteen seventy four,
eighteen eighty six to eighteen ninety or nineteen thirty three
to nineteen thirty seven, Donkey elephant seventeen seventy six to
seventeen seventy, eighteen seventy to eighteen seventy four, eighteen eighty
(48:11):
six to eighteen ninety or nineteen thirty three to nineteen thirty.
Speaker 1 (48:14):
Seven Governor, Congressman any answer there?
Speaker 3 (48:17):
Yeah, Well it's B or C and I'll go with see.
Speaker 1 (48:19):
You're going to see eighteen eighty six Congressman, what about you?
Speaker 13 (48:22):
I was going to go with me?
Speaker 1 (48:24):
Well, he is correct, he is corrects. All right, Well,
thank you so much. I want to thank my guest.
Mitch Daniels, a former two term Republican governor of Indiana
and former president of Purdue University and beautiful West Lafayette, Indiana. Governor,
thank you so much for.
Speaker 3 (48:40):
Joining us, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (48:42):
And Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina, a member
of the Problem Solvers Caucus. Congressman, thanks to you.
Speaker 13 (48:49):
Hey, Jeremy, thank you so much for having me, and
I think I'm much share that head with the governor tonight.
Speaker 1 (48:54):
Amazing. Okay, and by the way, Tolliver, as you know,
we have a weekly newsletter that is free and people
can sign up to get it every week at listen
to themiddle dot com.
Speaker 2 (49:04):
Yet we also have a podcast. It's available in partnership
with iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app or wherever you
listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
The Middle is brought to you by LONGNOK Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
joe Ane Jennings, John Barth, Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, and
Charlie Little. Our technical director is Jason Croft. Our theme
music was composed by Andrew Haig. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio,
iHeartMedia and the more than three hundred and seventy public
radio stations that are making it possible for people across
(49:31):
the country to listen to the middle I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Talk to you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.