      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Is the Nation in Transformation? main page    Transcript for: Is the Nation in Transformation?Think Tank Transcript: Is the Nation in Transformation ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen,recipient of the Presidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen,helping cancer patients through cellular and molecular biology,improving lives today and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundationand the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. The pundits, thejunkies, the politicians, the spinners have all been heard from aboutthe elections of 1996. Those elections are now history. And so weturn to historians to find out where we have been and where we arenow. Joining us to ponder these celestial historical questions aretwo eminent scholars: Robert Dallek, professor at Boston Universityand author of 'Hail to the Chief: The Making and Unmaking of AmericanPresidents' and 'Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times'; andSeymour Martin Lipset, fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center forInternational Scholars and author of over 20 books, including mostrecently, 'American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.' The topic before this house: Is the nation in transformation? This week on 'Think Tank.' For about a quarter of a century, political scientists have been asking whether we are living through a transformative politicalmoment, sometimes called a realignment. Simpler folk ask, is thisthe end of an era? It is said that these realignments are caused by big-bangelections linked to major events or issues. Thus, in 1860, slaverydivided the nation and the political parties. The candidate of thenewly formed Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, ran against theexpansion of slavery. His victory established Republicans as acompetitive major party. The financial panic of 1893 triggered a severe depression. In1896, Republican William McKinley was elected president, beating backa radical populist, William Jennings Bryan. A new Republican era ofgovernment was born. In 1932, another depression scarred America and changed theelectoral map. Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency for fourconsecutive terms. Roosevelt ushered in a new era of dominance forthe Democratic Party and for liberal government. More recently, the situation has been muddled. Republicanshave done well in presidential contests. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagandecisively won the presidency twice as a conservative, but he neverhad a unified Republican Congress. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president, but with only 43percent of the vote. He did have a Democratic Congress for his firsttwo years, but that didn't last. In 1994, Republicans carried theHouse, the Senate and the state houses. Had Clinton lost in 1996,the realignment advocates would have declared the Republicanrevolution complete. But Clinton won and the Republicans held ontothe Congress. Interpretations abound. Is it just the status quo? Is it justa pause in the conservative era? Has liberalism reemerged. DavidKusnet says Democrats are on their way back. DAVID KUSNET (Economic Policy Institute): (From videotape.) President Clinton's victory this year I think was part of a freshstart for American liberalism that began in 1992. Then and now,President Clinton ran as a champion of middle-class interests andmiddle-class values. This year, his campaign message was oftenreduced to the shorthand 'E2, M2': eduction, the environment,Medicare, and Medicaid. The other part of his fresh start is taking a centrist positionon social issues, emphasizing the need to protect and strengthenfamilies and communities, emphasizing the need for higher standardsfor behavior and achievement in the schools. And this is part ofstanding for the middle class, standing for their values as well asfor their economic interests. MR. WATTENBERG: David Brooks argues, conservatives came out ontop. DAVID BROOKS ('The Weekly Standard'): (From videotape.) Theresults from 1994 were basically ratified. What happened in '94 wasthat nine million new people voted for Republicans on thecongressional level. The question for this election on thecongressional level was will that vote drop back to the old pattern,or will the new 1994 level be the floor from which all future debatestake place? And the 1996 results show that this is the floor, that theRepublican congressional realignment is so strong, even theRepublicans couldn't screw it up. They had a terrible 1995, they dideverything wrong. They ran basically bad campaigns, and still theykept their majority, they entrenched their majority. And in theSenate, the Senate is markedly more conservative than the previousSenate, with more -- the Republicans who kept seats are moreconservative than the Republicans they replaced, and they picked uptwo seats. MR. WATTENBERG: Welcome, eminent historians. We have beenhearing a lot of commentary about big change in the air in Americanelections. How does the big change come about historically inAmerica? MR. DALLEK: Big changes come when there are big developments-- you know, a depression, a war, a dramatic change in technology --something that's going to alter the political landscape. And I don'tthink we're passing through that now. I think what's striking about the current situation is howfamiliar it is in terms of the American political experience, interms of American political history. It reminds me a lot of the late19th century, when there was an awful lot of division in the country,but not that wide a division. Presidential elections, for example,you had nine million votes and they'd be settled by 10 (thousand) or20,000 votes on one side. MR. WATTENBERG: But then in 1896, you did have the big bangelection. That's -- in theory, is that right? I mean, so it issaid. MR. DALLEK: Well, so it is said, but I'm not so sure. Afterall, what was the big bang? You end up with William McKinley. McKinley is as much a continuum of Republican Party politics andleadership as anyone could imagine. He was as conventional apolitician as you could find. MR. WATTENBERG: But he won by a substantial majority asopposed to the very small majorities that had been -- MR. DALLEK: True, true. MR. LIPSET: And he replaced Grover Cleveland, who actually hadhad a majority for three elections. MR. DALLEK: Well, yeah, that's -- no, not a majority. He hada plurality. MR. LIPSET: But he led in three elections. MR. DALLEK: Right, he led in three elections. But of course,what you get -- I think the dividing line is when you get a TheodoreRoosevelt, who really consolidates the leadership of the RepublicanParty. And yet after that, of course, you get Woodrow Wilson becauseyou get that sharp break in the Republican Party. MR. WATTENBERG: Between Teddy Roosevelt and William HowardTaft. MR. DALLEK: And William Howard Taft. MR. WATTENBERG: Allowing Wilson to be elected with a minority. MR. DALLEK: Twice, right. MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MR. DALLEK: But I think muddle -- you used the word muddle. And I think that describes it more accurately. See, I think what'sgoing on in the country is not a decisive shift to the Republicans,not a comeback of liberalism, but I think a kind of cynicism aboutall politicians. MR. WATTENBERG: All right, let's come back to that. Let'sjust explore the nature of change as seen through a historian's view. Marty Lipset, how does a historian or a historically mindedpolitical scientist see big moments of change, and is there any wayto predict them and say, well, we're headed for one? Or as RobertDallek seems to say, maybe we're not headed for some big politicalchange. MR. LIPSET: You know, things like depressions and wars havebeen the catalytic event, the stimulus for major change. And wehaven't had one. In fact, economic conditions -- people may want tohang me for this, but basically, economic conditions since World WarII have been reasonably good. We've had recessions, but therecessions have been relatively mild compared to past ones, and we'vehad a low rate of growth, but we've had a rate of growth. And if youlook at the rate of growth in the 19th century, it wasn't much higherthan we had in the -- MR. WATTENBERG: But more volatile. MR. LIPSET: Yeah, more volatile. In fact, the big thing wasperhaps the -- was that 19 -- from the end of World War I to '73 wasthe abnormal period. That is, that was the period -- MR. WATTENBERG: Mm-hmm -- the end of World War II. MR. LIPSET: II, rather, yeah, because that was a period ofhigher growth than we ever had. But -- so we went back, really, moreto what has been the American normal pattern. You mentioned Teddy Roosevelt. But Teddy Roosevelt was able toget a tremendous victory because his predecessor had been aconservative, or appealed to traditional Republican bases of support. MR. WATTENBERG: McKinley. MR. LIPSET: McKinley. MR. WATTENBERG: He took over after McKinley's assassination. MR. LIPSET: Right. Now, but Teddy -- MR. WATTENBERG: In the beginning of his second term. MR. LIPSET: Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive Republican. SoTeddy Roosevelt brought to the Republicans a lot of people who hadvoted Democratic or Socialist. And that gave the Republicans an evengreater majority. And then 1912 was kind of confused. You had a -- except forTaft, you had sort of three candidates on the left. And then thepostwar -- the post World War I era, this Republican dominationcontinued. And while today, you know, we think of the Republicans asconservative and solidly conservative, Democrats liberal, that wasn'ttrue earlier. There were a lot of very left-wing people who wereRepublicans, and there were a lot of very conservative people whowere Democrats. The closest thing we've ever had to a socialist government in aU.S. state was under the Republicans in North Dakota, where theNonpartisan League, which was very Social Democratic, won. In fact,William Langer, who was governor and senator of North Dakota,supported Adlai Stevenson in 1952. And Stevenson tells the storythat when he came to North Dakota on a campaign train, which they hadthen, that Langer told him, 'I want you to know that you're the firstDemocrat I've ever supported for president. Previously I've alwaysvoted for Norman Thomas.' (Laughter.) MR. WATTENBERG: And this is a Republican. MR. LIPSET: And this is a Republican senator. MR. WATTENBERG: From the mid-continent. MR. LIPSET: Yeah, right. And there were a lot of theseprogressives. You know, the La Follottes, and so on, and whereas inthe Democratic Party you had, you know, people who the wordreactionary applied, racist and so forth. And this made the wholequestion of the strength of the parties, the votes for the partiesmuch more confusing than today. MR. WATTENBERG: All right, but -- go ahead. MR. DALLEK: Well, what I was going to say is I think animportant distinction that needs to be made here. It's not so muchbetween right and left as between those who had a faith in an activefederal government and those who were reluctant to see the governmentused to intervene in public affairs. The Democrats historically, from Jefferson's day almost toRoosevelt's election in '32, were the small government party, theless activist party. The Republican -- MR. DALLEK: But again, it gets muddled. MR. LIPSET: Oh, sure. Nothing is -- MR. DALLEK: Muddled by the fact that Woodrow Wilson in 1916,when he runs for reelection, takes over Theodore Roosevelt's newnationalism. MR. LIPSET: Right. MR. DALLEK: And he adopts a much more activist approachbecause he wants to bring into the Democratic Party, or to the side,to his side, those Roosevelt progressives who he needs in order towin even with a minority vote. So, you know, it gets muddled. Itgets mixed up here. MR. LIPSET: Well, you know, to show how confusing things are,however, Woodrow Wilson introduced Jim Crow into Washington, D.C. Hewas a Southerner; he came originally from Virginia. Whereas under theRepublicans, Theodore Roosevelt invited all sorts of major blackleaders to the White House, so that you had an inversion of -- and itwasn't until the mid-'30s that you got a shift with the blacks goingDemocratic. MR. DALLEK: And even then, Roosevelt was not such a greatadvocate of civil rights. I mean, he was very cautious aboutalienating his Southern -- MR. WATTENBERG: Because he had to keep the Southern -- thesolid South -- MR. DALLEK: Right, and of course the -- MR. WATTENBERG: -- of the Democratic Party. MR. LIPSET: You're talking about Franklin Roosevelt. MR. WATTENBERG: Franklin Roosevelt. MR. DALLEK: Franklin Roosevelt, sure. Well, then the greatirony, of course, is that it's Lyndon Johnson who does so much forcivil rights. Kennedy is very cautious and Lyndon Johnson is thegreat activist on behalf of civil rights, voting rights. Again, it'sa Southerner, a Texan. MR. WATTENBERG: We're talking about realignment theory. Thetheory, if it's valid or not, is kind of that at periodic moments,there is sort of a big bang election: Abraham Lincoln, 1860; WilliamMcKinley, 1896; Franklin Roosevelt, 1932. Now, since 1978, as I recall it, with the passage ofProposition 13 in California, there have been a lot of conservativeswho have been saying, Now we're getting another big bang, realigningshift. And then another group of people say, No, it's not arealigning, it's a de-aligning into sort of a mess. Clinton wins and a Democratic Congress comes in 1992. And thenhe suffers this catastrophic loss in 1994 where he loses the controlof the House, the Democrats do, loses control of the Senate. Thegovernors, which in recent decades had been principally Democratic,become Republican. Now we have 1996. That is not a clean line, isit? I mean, my question is, is there a realignment bubbling? MR. LIPSET: No, I don't think there's a realignment bubbling,though one kind of realignment took place. The two parties becamemuch more consistent. That is, the Republicans -- the left -- whathad been the left in the Republicans, or the more activist, movedout. In the Democratic Party, the more conservative elements, whowere mainly in the South, moved out, so that the Democrats are moreconsistently liberal than they've ever been. The Republicans aremore consistently conservative than they've ever been. And so we have, if you will, cleaner national alternativesbetween the two parties, and that's something that occurred -- MR. WATTENBERG: Ironically, a lot of good government peoplehad been saying all along, wouldn't it be nice if we had a liberalparty and a conservative party? Now you have it, and people aresaying the parties are too ideological. MR. LIPSET: Right, but the public thinks that. And you see,the -- and the interesting thing, you know, the main characteristic,to my mind, of the postwar era, though things like this happenedearlier, is the situation that the president and at least one houseof Congress most of the time have been of different parties. Now, if you look at the opinion polls, Gallup has asked thequestion repeatedly, 'Would you like the president and the Congressto be of the same party or of different parties?' And repeatedly,Americans say different parties. They want the -- in other words,they're not looking for one party to dominate. They're really -- itreflects in large part their distrust of politics and distrust ofpoliticians, and they want them to control each other. MR. DALLEK: Marty, what it reflects also is the point you madebefore, the general prosperity that the country has enjoyed. Andpeople don't invest that much in politics. They don't see it as allthat important. They're alienated from politicians. They don't likethem, they don't find them particularly attractive, they don't trustthem. And they don't want to give any one group or any one politicalfaction exclusive control. And so it's the classic checks andbalances. MR. WATTENBERG: Robert Dallek, I asked Marty Lipset if we arein a moment of realignment or rolling realignment or major change. And he was very emphatic. He said no. Do you agree with that? MR. DALLEK: Well, I'd be a little more tentative because Ithink we have to see what's going to happen in the next -- MR. WATTENBERG: Well, obviously, right. MR. DALLEK: Because before we know, I mean, you know, this isthe historian's refuge -- MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MR. DALLEK: -- you're going to have to look back and see whereit's all leading. And so for the moment, one can say yes, no. Imean, we can be on either side of the question because I don't thinkit's all that clear. MR. WATTENBERG: But let me -- I mean, a lot of people fromacross the spectrum are saying there is sort of a conservatizingtendency, a move to the center right. It's not some radical thing,but that the nose of the ocean liner has kind of moved a bit. Do youbuy that? MR. DALLEK: No, because, Ben, this is a conservative society. This is generally where the country is throughout its history. It'scentrist, it's moderate. It's -- see, I mean, the point about thepublic didn't like Reagan or Carter all that much, same exact thingin this election. They didn't find either Bill Clinton or Bob Dolesuch compelling figures. And I think this is typical rather thanatypical. MR. WATTENBERG: But hold on. Suppose -- let us stipulate thatyou are correct, it's basically a moderate or conservative, mildlyconservative country. MR. DALLEK: Yep. MR. WATTENBERG: But didn't we have, say, take it from wherepeople normally mark it, McGovern in 1972, a tendency, as perceived,in any event, for liberalism to go overboard? And this is acorrection, which -- I mean, you can call it a realignment, you cancall it anything you want. But is that a fair way of viewing thiselectorate, that there is a correction, people thought that theliberal tendency was going too far and -- MR. DALLEK: Yeah, I think that's true. And I think what BillClinton has done is moved the Democratic Party very much back to thecenter of the political spectrum. And look what he's trying to donow with bipartisanship. The whole idea is to knit together somekind of coalition which will allow him to govern effectively indealing with the Congress. So I think there has been a shift back towards the center, butI think it's the more traditional way in which the party hasoperated. MR. LIPSET: There is a realignment within the parties. Yousee, if you look at it the way the realignment people have looked atit, has there been a shift from Democrats to Republicans in terms ofelections and is this a permanent commitment to the parties? No. But the two parties have changed dramatically. And this has happenedelsewhere, too. And -- MR. WATTENBERG: In what direction? MR. LIPSET: Well, the Democrats have clearly -- and the SocialDemocrats in Europe have clearly moved to what we call the right. There isn't a single -- I did a study of this a couple years ago--there's not a single Social Democratic or Socialist Party inWestern Europe or Australia who today advocates socialism. Every oneof them says explicitly they favor a market economy. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. So the left has moved to the rightcenter or to the -- MR. LIPSET: Yeah. MR. WATTENBERG: -- or toward the center. MR. LIPSET: Now, the right, however, in this -- in some placeshave moved further right. You know, in Britain, Margaret Thatcherand Ronald Reagan represented a shift to the right. But it hasn'theld. The Conservative Party in England is not a Thatcherite party,only partially. Major represents a compromise. MR. WATTENBERG: Prime Minister Major, right. MR. LIPSET: Prime Minister Major of Great Britain. ChancellorKohl of Germany -- in fact, I was with a German Social Democrat lastnight who was complaining that they can't beat Kohl because he'staken -- he's introduced all the things the Social Democrats havewanted in terms of -- MR. WATTENBERG: It's what Republicans say about Clinton. Theystole -- he stole -- MR. LIPSET: Right. MR. WATTENBERG: He ate my lunch. MR. LIPSET: Now, the Republicans, you see, went -- what '96meant, the Republicans misunderstood the election of '94. Peopledidn't vote to go as far -- they didn't like what Clinton had done in'92 to '94, but they also didn't like what the Republicans had donein -- what they wanted was a moderate, what we call a moderatecentrist position. And in fact, this has been great. The '96election, to my mind, and '94, is a great victory for democracybecause the people have told -- MR. WATTENBERG: The '96 election? MR. LIPSET: Yeah. MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MR. LIPSET: Because the people have told the leaders of bothparties, we don't like what you are doing. We don't like you to beas anti-statist as the Republicans were; we don't like you to be asstatist as Clinton was with the health plan. We want a kind ofmoderate welfare state, and if you go too far in one direction oranother, we're going to slap you down. MR. WATTENBERG: Now, we have the beginning of a thesisbubbling here. Would you sign on to that? MR. DALLEK: Well, yes and no. (Laughter.) MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MR. DALLEK: Always the scholar, always the scholar. Yes inthe sense that I think there's no question that this is an era ofmoderation in politics. The conservatives have moved more to thecenter as well. Think back to Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964. Howdid the Republicans, how did the conservatives overcome that? Bybecoming more moderate, by moving more to the center, you see. Byoperating in the context of American traditional political life. The thing that's left out of this, I think, is the fact thatthere is a tremendous yearning, I believe, in this country forstronger leadership. And what people want is a leader they cantrust, someone they're comfortable with, someone they findattractive, with whom they can identify. I think this has a lot to do with why Colin Powell, despite thefact that he doesn't run, despite the fact that he's not a candidatefor anything, he's seemed like the ideal candidate to many people. They were flocking to his banner. MR. LIPSET: I think what people want is not a -- what supportfor Colin Powell represented, like the support for Perot, is ananti-politics. He wasn't a politician. MR. DALLEK: True. MR. LIPSET: They don't want people with political backgrounds,with political experience. They don't trust politicians. And Powellis -- and so they turn to a general. MR. WATTENBERG: But if he ran, of course he would immediatelybecome a political figure. MR. LIPSET: Sure, sure. MR. WATTENBERG: And then they'd start chipping away and -- MR. LIPSET: Right. And you see, when you say strong leader, astrong leader has to push --be a person who's taking the country insome direction. And I don't think they want that. They don't wantsomebody who -- they want somebody who will be an ethical,principled, honest leader of the country and -- MR. DALLEK: True, but Marty -- MR. LIPSET: -- who stands for the country. MR. DALLEK: Well, but they want certain things. If you go andlook at the polling data during Clinton's first term over the healthcare issue, over health insurance, there was a massive outpouring ata certain point in time of sentiment for a dramatic change in thehealth care system in this country. Now, Clinton flubbed it, I think. They stumbled, they didn'tcarry that ball across the line. They couldn't come up with a planthat was all that effective. MR. WATTENBERG: Well, that's the argument against nationalhealth care is it sounds great until you get into the gizmos. MR. DALLEK: Fair enough. MR. WATTENBERG: And then it doesn't work very well. MR. DALLEK: But I think what's so striking is the extent towhich the polls were showing a desire for some significant change,that they're not comfortable with that institution in our society. They're comfortable with most institutions. They don't want tochange the Constitution. They don't want to change to a primeminister system or -- MR. WATTENBERG: Let me see if I can put a -- wrap this up,what you're saying here. In the context of what Robert Dallek says,that we do want some leadership, some real leadership, you have apolity where, as Marty Lipset says, the left has moved rightwardtoward the center. MR. LIPSET: Mm-hmm. MR. WATTENBERG: The right has moved leftward toward thecenter. And I would add, and see if you accept this, that if you --and the totality, while these two things are happening, is movinggently in a center rightward direction because it is compensating forthe previous liberal tendency. Would you accept that? MR. LIPSET: I think overall that is true. But as I say, whatthe -- as we both have said, in doing this, the rightovercompensated. MR. DALLEK: Sure. MR. LIPSET: And they got slapped down for it. And I think theAmerican public as of now, and I think the politicians of bothparties understand this, that they have to be moderate or they'regoing to be slapped down. If you have a right-wing Republicanagainst a centrist Democrat, the centrist Democrat will win. MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MR. LIPSET: If you have a left-wing Democrat against acentrist Republican, the centrist Republican will win. MR. WATTENBERG: All right. Now, Robert Dallek, will you, sowe can get out on a note of harmony -- the left is moving to theright -- the left is moving rightward toward the center, the right ismoving leftward to the center, the whole kit and caboodle, followinga liberal tendency, is moving somewhat to the right. Do you buythat? MR. DALLEK: I do buy it. MR. WATTENBERG: Stop. (Laughter.) Okay, thank you all very much. MR. DALLEK: But not forever. MR. WATTENBERG: But not forever. You got it. Thank you,Seymour Martin Lipset and Robert Dallek. And thank you. As always, we enjoy hearing comments andquestions from our viewers. Please contact us via e-mail atthinktank@pbs.org; on the World Wide Web at www.pbs.org; by fax at(202) 862-4885; or by phone, toll-free, at 1-888-87-THINK; or by theold-fashioned snail mail at New River Media, 1150 17th Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20036. Regardless of which way you communicate withus, please do let us know where you are from. For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content. 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundationand the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |