>> WELCOME TO THIS "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD."

TEST.

TECHT TEST.

TEST TEST TEST.

TEMPERATURE TEST TEST TEST.

YOU >> A LONG HISTORY OF POLARIZATION.

>> WELCOME TO THIS "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD" SPECIAL.

NO DOUBT, WE ARE IN A PERIOD OF DEEP POLITICAL POLARIZATION THAT THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY.

AS PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS SERIES WITH THE COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN CLUB, I SPOKE WITH "NEW REPUBLIC" EDITOR MICHAEL TOMASKY.

WE TRACE THE ROOTS OF OUR POLARIZATION.

HERE IS THAT CONVERSATION.

>> AT THE START OF THE PANDEMIC, IF YOU REMEMBER BACK IN MARCH OF 2020, I WAS READING TWO BOOKS.

ONE WAS "THE GREAT INFLUENZA," THAT DOCUMENTS THE 1918 FLU, AND "THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA," AN AUTHORITARIAN RULER TAKING OVER THE UNITED STATES IN 1940.

I HAD TROUBLE SLEEPING THAT SPRING.

I READ YOUR BOOK LAST MONTH, AND A SIMILAR FEELING OVERCAME ME IN MY SLEEP.

>> IT DIDN'T HELP.

>> WE'LL GET INTO THAT.

HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO SLEEP BETTER AFTER THIS DISCUSSION.

>> I WOULDN'T COUNT ON IT.

>> YOU KNOW, WE AS AMERICANS, MAYBE AS HUMAN BEINGS, THINK EVERYTHING IS BRAND NEW.

THIS HAS NEVER, EVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

AND EITHER THAT OR LIKE IN 1918, WE FORGET THE LESSONS WE HAVE LEARNED FROM SOMETHING LIKE INFLUENZA AND MOVE ON WITH OUR LIVES.

WE ARE CERTAINLY POLARIZED RIGHT NOW.

VERY POLARIZED.

WE ALL AGREE ON THAT.

BUT WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE.

IN FACT, YOU ARGUE WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

>> PRETTY MUCH.

THE BOOK CAME OUT IN EARLY 2019, AND I WILL A NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THE BOOK, AND I HAD SORT OF A STANDARD LITTLE TALK, WHICH ALWAYS STARTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

PEOPLE THINK WE HAVE BEEN POLARIZED SINCE THE '90s AND THEY'RE RIGHT.

THE 1790s.

YEAH, PEOPLE CHUCKLE NERVOUSLY THEN TOO.

AND SO THAT'S, MIKE, WHERE THE BOOK STARTS.

AND HOW IT OPENS.

AND IT'S REALLY TRUE.

AND YES, IT'S GOTTEN WORSE SINCE THE 1990s.

WE ALL KNOW THAT.

MANY OF US HAVE LIVED THROUGH THAT.

BUT THE ROOTS OF THE TWO AMERICAS THAT ARE TODAY AT LAGER HEADS, WAR WITH EACH OTHER, GO BACK TO THE REPUBLIC.

SHORT HAND LABELS FOR THE GROUP WERE THE JEFFERSONIANS VERSUS THE HAMILTONIANS.

JEFFERSONIANS VERSUS THE HAMILTONIANS.

OR THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY OF JEFFERSON VERSUS THE FEDERALIST PARTY OF HAMILTON.

THEY DON'T MAP EXACTLY ON TODAY'S REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES.

BUT CERTAIN TRAITS DO CERTAINLY STAND OUT.

THE JEFFERSONIANS WERE THE FARMERS, THE RURAL PEOPLE.

THE INFANTRY MEN IN THE CONTINENTAL ARMY, AND THE PEOPLE WHO, LIKE RURAL PEOPLE TODAY, WERE SUSPICIOUS OF LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OF CENTRAL POWER.

DIDN'T LIKE TAXES VERY MUCH.

THE FEDERALIST HAMILTONIANS WERE CITY SLICKERS.

THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IN MANUFACTURING.

THE EDUCATED ELITES, THE OFFICERS IN THE CONTINENTAL ARMY.

THE MEMBERS OF THE HIGH EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE QUOTE UNQUOTE CLASSIER DENOMINATIONS, AND THEY HAVE EXISTED THEN, AND HAVE EXISTED IN MANY WAYS EVER SINCE, AND THE DIVISIONS WERE DEEP IN THE 1790s AND EARLY 1800s AND THEY DISAGREED ABOUT EVERYTHING.

FIRST OF ALL, MANY DISAGREED ABOUT WHETHER INDEPENDENCE WAS DESIRABLE.

THERE WERE FEDERALISTS AND ANTI-FEDERALISTS TOO.

THE FEDERALISTS, OF COURSE, WROTE THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS AGITATED AGAINST RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND MADE IMPRESSIVE ARGUMENTS ACTUALLY.

I READ A LOT OF THEIR PAMPHLETS AND THEY SAID, LOOK, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

THIS IS TOO BIG AND TOO VARIED AND TOO DIVERSE OF A PLACE TO TURN INTO ONE COUNTRY.

WE JUST DISAGREE ABOUT TOO MUCH.

THE ARGUMENT FOR A REPUBLIC HELD TODAY BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM TOOK THE CONSENSUS THAT TO BREAK AWAY FROM ENGLAND AND TO FORM OUR OWN COUNTRY, 13 COLONIES NEEDED TO FORM A UNITED FRONT, AND INDEPENDENCE WAS THE FIRST PRIORITY.

SLAVERY, A LOT OF THEM DIDN'T LIKE, BUT WE WILL SETTLE THAT QUESTION LATER.

THAT QUESTION GOT SETTLED AT THE BARREL OF A GUN SOME DECADES LATER.

ANY WAY THAT'S HOW IT STARTED AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT'S BEEN.

>> YOU WRITE THAT THE FOUNDERS WERE HUMAN.

THEY MADE LOTS OF MISTAKES IN HOW THEY SET UP THE GOVERNMENT, AND THIS REPUBLIC.

IS THERE ANY ONE MISTAKE THAT THEY MADE THAT YOU THINK HAS COST US THE MOST RIGHT NOW?

>> THE SENATE.

SO WHEN WE WERE IN SCHOOL, WE WERE TAUGHT THAT THE SENATE WAS THE RESULT OF WHAT WAS KNOWN BY TWO NAMES, THE CONNECTICUT COMPROMISE BECAUSE IT WAS CRAFTED BY ROGER SHERMAN OF CONNECTICUT, CHIEFLY.

OTHERS AS WELL BUT CHIEFLY SHERMAN, AND THEN IT'S CALLED THE GREAT COMPROMISE.

WE LEARNED THAT IN SCHOOL.

WHAT IS THE PHRASE THE GREAT COMPROMISE GOING TO TELL US, MAKE US THINK?

IT'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE US THINK IT WAS GREAT AND EVERYBODY WAS PLEASED BY IT, AND THAT IT ENDED SOME DEBATE AND EVERYBODY SHOOK HANDS AND HUGGED AND DRANK CHAMPAGNE AND WAS HAPPY.

NOBODY WAS HAPPY.

NOBODY WAS HAPPY.

THE CONNECTICUT COMPROMISE PASSED, THE VOTE WAS 5-4-2, TWO OBSTENTIONS, AND THIS IS ANOTHER -- YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEGINNING WEIRD QUESTIONS LIKE WHY.

WHY DID EACH OF THE 13 STATES HAVE AN EQUAL VOTE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHEN THEY WERE SO DIFFERENT IN POPULATION?

THAT'S A WEIRD ONE TOO.

BUT ANY WAY, 5-4-2.

NEW YORK WAS ABSENCE THAT DAY, AND THERE IS A LONG RUNNING DEBATE AMONG SCHOLARS ABOUT HOW NEW YORK MIGHT HAVE VOTED.

SO THE WHOLE THING MIGHT HAVE FAILED IF NEW YORK HAD SHOWN UP.

AARE THE LOT OF THESE GUYS -- THERE WERE 55 GUYS AND THEY COULDN'T BE THERE THE WHOLE TIME.

IT WENT FROM JUNE TO SEPTEMBER OF 1787 AND THEY HAD TO GET BACK TO TEND THEIR CROPS AND THEY WOULD GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THEIR HOME STATES AND PHILADELPHIA.

THE DAY AFTER IT PASSED, THE FOUR STATES THAT VOTED AGAINST IT, THEY SAID, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

THIS IS A DISASTER, THIS IS INSANE TO HAVE VIRGINIA AND RHODE ISLAND BOTH HAVE TWO SENATORS.

THIS IS CRAZY.

AT THE TIME, VIRGINIA WAS THE MOST POPULOUS.

I BELIEVE RHODE ISLAND WAS THE LEAST POPULOUS, AND VIRGINIA HAD 14 TIMES THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS THAT RHODE ISLAND HAD.

TODAY, CALIFORNIA HAS 70 TIMES THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS THAT WYOMING HAS.

SO A WYOMINGAN HAS 70 TIMES THE VOTING POWER IN THE SENATE THAT A CALIFORNIAN DOES.

SO THEY WERE AWARE THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM.

THIS WASN'T A GREAT COMPROMISE.

THIS WAS A LOUSY COMPROMISE.

>> WHAT IS THE REASON?

WHY THE ADVOCATES FOR THE SYSTEM?

WAS IT BASED ON MAINTAINING SLAVERY?

WAS IT THE SOUTHERN COLONIES THAT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD ENOUGH VOTES TO MAINTAIN IT?

>> YEAH, IT WAS PARTLY SLAVERY AND PARTLY THE SMALL STATES.

THE SMALL STATES SAYING BIG STATES WERE GOING TO OVERRUN US, AND IT HOLDS A LOT OF SWAY.

ANY STATE WITH BIG CITIES IN RURAL AREAS, PEOPLE COMPLAIN THE BIG CITY IS GOING TO OVERWHELM US.

I'M SURE THAT HAPPENS HERE.

>> WHAT MAKES OUR POLARIZATION NOW DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE EXPERIENCED BEFORE?

>> WELL, UM -- THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

LET ME LOOK AT THIS -- ANSWER THIS IN TWO WAYS.

THE FIRST IN TERMS OF CONGRESS AND OUR POLITICS AND THE SECOND JUST IN TERMS OF THE BROADER COUNTRY AND OUR CULTURE.

IN CONGRESS, THERE'S VERY LITTLE EFFORT TO COMPROMISE ANYMORE.

AND THIS HAS HAPPENED -- THIS HAPPENED SINCE THE '60s AND IT'S HAPPENED FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

AS THE COUNTRY GREW, DIFFERENT REGIONS THAT HAD DIFFERENT INTERESTS HAD TO MAKE ALLIANCES WITH THE ALREADY-EXISTS PORTIONS OF THE COUNTRY, AND THIS MADE FOR PARTIES THAT WERE A REAL IDEOLOGICAL MISHMASH.

SO THE REPUBLICANS WERE YANKEE MODERATES FROM THE NEW ENGLAND STATES, FREE SOILERS FROM OHIO AND WISCONSIN AND THE MIDWEST AND SO ON.

ALL OF THEM KIND OF DIFFERENT.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS EVEN WORSE.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS THE PARTY OF URBAN MACHINES OF THE NORTH.

THE PARTY OF BOSS TWEED AND THE APARTHEID PARTY IN THE SOUTH.

AND THEY STAYED IN THE SAME PARTY TO WIN ELECTIONS.

TO WIN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

SO, AS A RESULT, THROUGH THE MID 20th CENTURY, THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES HAD A TON OF OVERLAP, AND THE NATIONAL JOURNAL, THE PUBLICATION BASED IN WASHINGTON, USED TO DO IT EVERY YEAR.

I THINK THEY STOPPED BOTHERING.

THERE IS NO POINT ANYMORE.

THEY USED TO MEASURE THIS OVERLAP.

AND HOW MANY LIBERAL REPUBLICANS WERE THERE AND HOW MANY CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS WERE THERE AND THERE WERE ALWAYS 15, 18, 22 SENATORS IN THIS OVERLAP AREA.

THAT STOPPED HAPPENING IN 2010 AND NOW THERE IS NO OVERLAP.

EVEN JOE MANCHIN IS MORE LIBERAL THAN THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICAN SENATOR.

I FORGET WHO THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICAN SENATOR IS.

PROBABLY MITT ROMNEY.

HE IS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN JOE MANCHIN.

SO THERE'S ZERO OVERLAP AND THERE IS ZERO OVERLAP IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 435 PEOPLE.

THAT IS ONE THING THAT HAPPENED, AND MORE BROADLY, I WOULD SAY JUST OUR POLITICS HAS BECOME SO CULTURAL AND SO CONSUMING ABOUT EVERYTHING WE DO.

YOU KNOW, DO YOU SHOP AT WHOLE FOODS?

YOU ARE PROBABLY A DEMOCRAT.

DO YOU DRIVE A VOLVO, YOU ARE PROBABLY A DEMOCRAT.

DO YOU DRIVE A FORD F-150, YOU ARE PROBABLY A REPUBLICAN.

SO ON AND SO ON.

AND WHAT TV SHOWS YOU WATCH AND THE TEAM YOU ROOT FOR, IT'S ALL NOW INFUSED IN A POLITICAL SIEVE THAT HEIGHTENS DIVISIONS.

>> CAN YOU BLAME EITHER PARTY?

IN THE BOOK, YOU TAKE AIM AT REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THEY HAVE REALLY BECOME MORE UNIFIED AND IDEOLOGICAL.

AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL MORE OF A COALITION, DISORGANIZED, AS WILL ROGERS WOULD SAY.

CAN YOU BLAME EITHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS?

DO THEY SHARE THE BLAME?

DOES ONE GET MORE BLAME?

>> NO, THE REPUBLICANS GET MORE BLAME IN MY EYES AND IT GOES BACK -- GINGRICH I THINK WAS THE FIRST ACTOR HERE.

AND HE EXPLICITLY SAID THAT HE WANTED TO HEIGHTEN THE DISTINCTIONS.

AND MAKE WASHINGTON MORE PARTISAN.

THERE'S A FAMOUS QUOTE FROM HIM THAT'S IN THE BOOK -- I CAN'T REMEMBER IT EXACTLY.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE, A REPORTER ASKED HIM WHY HE NEVER SERVED IN VIETNAM.

HE GOT A DEFERMENT, OF COURSE.

AND HE SAID, I GUESS I FELT THAT I HAD A DIFFERENT WAR TO FIGHT HERE AT HOME.

WAR.

OKAY?

HE USED THE WAR METAPHOR IN TALKING ABOUT MEMBERS OF A DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTY.

THIS WAS REALLY DIFFERENT.

REMEMBER, AT THE TIME, WASHINGTON NOT ONLY WAS THERE ALL THIS OVERLAP, BUT IT WAS RUN BY MEN, MOSTLY MEN THEN, AND TODAY, STILL, BUT MOSTLY MEN THEN.

WHO CAME OF AGE IN THE DEPRESSION AND DURING WORLD WAR II, TWO EVENTS THAT REALLY MADE THE COUNTRY PULL TOGETHER AND MADE PEOPLE -- MADE FOR A MORE COMMUNAL ETHOS THAT EXTENDED IN THE POST WAR AREA, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE GREAT SENATORS AND HOUSE LEADERS AND PRESIDENTS TOO OF THE '50s AND '60s, THEY ALL LIVED THROUGH BOTH EXPERIENCES AND THEY KNEW THAT HARDSHIP.

ONE STORY I LOVE, THAT I TELL IN THE BOOK IS THAT BOB DOLE AND -- A REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM KANSAS AND TWO REPUBLICAN SENATORS, CONVALESCED FROM THE WAR, RECOVERING FROM THEIR INJURIES IN BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN, AND WHEN YOU GET TO KNOW SOMEONE LIKE THAT, YOU DON'T USE WAR METAPHORS AGAINST THEM.

YOU KNOW?

>> ON THE REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION, NEWT GINGRICH, THAT WAS IN RESPONSE ON SOME OF THE WAR ON POVERTY, TO USE THE TERM FROM LYNDON JOHNSON.

SOME OF THOSE PROGRAMS WERE VERY GOOD.

MEDICARE, MEDICAID, PUBLIC HOUSING, NOT SO GOOD.

DO DEMOCRATS BEAR RESPONSIBILITY THERE?

THEY DID CONTROL THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR SOME TIME LEADING UP TO THE 1990s?

>> YEAH, THEY BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY.

THEY RAN THE SHOW IN THE '60s AND '70s AND THEY DIDN'T DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.

I WOULD ARGUE IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS IN THE GREAT SOCIETY PROGRAMS, THEY REALLY DO REDUCE POVERTY.

ELDERLY POVERTY, IN PARTICULAR, WENT WAY, WAY DOWN AFTER THE PASSAGE OF MEDICARE.

CHILD POVERTY WENT DOWN AFTER THE PASSAGE OF MEDICAID.

AND I WOULD DEFEND THE PROGRAMS AND THERE WERE FAILURES AND THE WELFARE STATE BECAME SPORADIC, AND THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH WELFARE POLICY, AND CRIME WAS A BIG PROBLEM THAT THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T SEEM TO RESPOND TO.

SO THERE WAS -- THOSE WERE THE ROOTS OF THE BACKLASH, BUT I THINK THE BACKLASH ALSO CONTAINED -- YOU KNOW, IT CAME FROM THE ROE DECISION AND THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH, WHICH UP TO THAT POINT HAD BEEN PRETTY RESOLUTELY NONPOLITICAL.

SO YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.

>> WE WILL PICK ON THE MEDIA IN A MOMENT.

BUT -- WE LIKE TO PICK ON POLITICIANS AS WELL.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

POLITICS IS A LAGGING INDICATOR THAT POLITICIANS FOLLOW THE PEOPLE.

SO HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM HAS NOT WORKED BUT WE THE PEOPLE, TO COIN A PHRASE, PUT THAT SYSTEM IN PLACE.

>> YEAH.

YEAH, WE DID.

AND -- I THINK WHEN I WRITE THAT, WHAT I MEAN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, POLITICIANS -- YOU KNOW, THEY WAIT TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE THINK.

THERE'S THE FAMOUS QUOTE FROM THE FRENCH POLITICIAN OF THE MID 19th CENTURY.

THERE GO MY PEOPLE.

I MUST FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE GOING SO I CAN LEAD THEM.

YEAH, YOU KNOW, POLITICIANS GENERALLY FOLLOW BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS -- I WOULD ALSO SAY STARTING IN THE '70s, A VERY CONCERTED EFFORT AMONG AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES TO INVEST MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN POLITICS.

IN A WAY THEY HADN'T BEFORE.

YOU ALL KNOW HOW MANY BILLIONS CORPORATIONS SPEND ON LOBBYING NOW.

THEY DIDN'T DO THAT IN THE 1960s AND '70s.

THEY DIDN'T DO IT.

IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO THEM.

THE CONSERVATIVE ESTABLISHMENT, AND WE KNOW TODAY THE COAX AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND THINGS DIDN'T EXIST.

SO ALL THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS EFFORT BEGUN IN 1971 TO -- YOU KNOW, TO CHANGE THE POLITICAL DYNAMIC AND THEY HAVE BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL.

>> TURNING BACK TO THE MEDIA, AND THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA.

AND I REMEMBER THEY PUT RUSH LIMBAUGH ON THE RADIO STATION WHERE I WORKED IN CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS AT THE TIME.

AND MIKE DUKAKIS WAS LOSING OR HAD JUST LOST BUT IT WAS A SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM.

HE SAVED A.M. RADIO.

AND FOX NEWS OF COURSE SOON FOLLOWED.

WE DON'T HAVE ONE OR TWO CHANNELS ANYMORE.

WE HAVE HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS, AND FEEDS ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.

HOW DOES THAT LEAD TO POLARIZATION?

>> OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE GET THE NEWS THEY WANT AND LISTEN TO THE SOURCES THEY WANT, AND LIBERALS MOSTLY WATCH MSNBC AND CNN AND READ "THE NEW YORK TIMES" AND FOLLOW TWITTER FEEDS THEY WANT TO FOLLOW, AND CONSERVATIVES WATCH FOX AND NEWS MAX AND LISTEN TO SINCLAIR RADIO STATIONS AND LOCAL BROADCAST STATIONS AND READ FACEBOOK FEEDS THEY WANT TO READ.

AND, YOU KNOW, I SAW SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN SHORTLY AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT, AN INTERVIEW WITH A WOMAN WHO ONLY WATCHED FOX, AND SHE HAD NO IDEA THERE WAS A SINGLE CRITICAL SENTENCE IN THE MUELLER REPORT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.

SHE JUST DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THERE, SO -- AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU COMPARE MSNBC AND CNN ON ONE HAND, WHICH DO BASICALLY THE SAME THING, MSNBC MORE VALID BY LIBERAL IN PRIME TIME, AND COMPARE WHAT THEY PRESENT TO WHAT FOX PRESENTS, THEY ARE DIFFERENT WORLDS.

IT'S NOT JUST THERE'S A FACT AND WE DISAGREE ABOUT IT.

ARE TWO DIFFERENT FACT SETS.

>> WE HAVE, IN THE NEWSROOM, WE HAVE MANY MORE TVS.

WE HAVE CNN AND FOX NEXT TO EACH OTHER.

I USED TO WATCH FOX BUT NOT ALL DAY, I CAN'T MONITOR IT ALL DAY, BUT IT'S A VERY -- I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD DYSTOPIAN, BUT FOX HAS A DISTAUPEAN VIEW OF THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

BIDEN'S GAS PRICE GOES UP AND NEVER COME DOWN.

CNN, DOWN THE MIDDLE.

HOW DO YOU GET FOLKS TO WATCH THE OTHER TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEIGHBOR IS LISTENING TO.

HOW DO YOU GET A FOX VIEWER TO WATCH MSNBC?

HOW DO YOU GET A MSNBC VIEWER TO WATCH FOX?

CAN YOU?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN.

STILL IN THIS COUNTRY WITH, I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE GOOD, CLOSE FRIENDS FROM THE OTHER POLITICAL PARTY OR YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT POLITICS, OR YOU TALK ABOUT IT GINGERLY AND POLITELY.

I TOO HAVE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS, PARTICULARLY FROM MY HOMETOWN, MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA, GUYS I WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL WITH AND STUFF, AND YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE POINTS OF COMMONALTY, WE LOVE OUR MOUNTAINEERS AND WE HAVE OUR SHARED MEMORIES AND STUFF -- >> IS THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM?

WE AVOID -- WE HAVE FRIENDS WE KNOW WE DISAGREE WITH.

FAMILY REMEMBERS WE DISAGREE WITH.

BUT WE DON'T WANT TO RUIN THE THANKSGIVING DINNER, IS THAT A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR AS WELL?

>> YEAH, IT PROBABLY IS, BUT DO YOU WANT TO RUIN YOUR THANKSGIVING DINNER?

>> YOU KNOW, WE JUST AVOID -- I MEAN, WE MID WESTERNERS ARE GREAT AT AVOIDING THINGS BUT WE AVOID ANYTHING THAT WILL CAUSE TROUBLE.

LET'S GET TO SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS.

IF YOU CAN CHANGE ONE THING TODAY, AGAIN, BACK TO THE ONE MISTAKE THAT THE FOUNDERS MADE.

IF YOU WITH CHANGE ONE THING TODAY THAT YOU THINK WOULD HELP CLOSE THIS GAP, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO LIMIT IT TO ONE THING, SO I'M GOING TO CHEAT AND GIVE ONE MORE ONE THING.

THE FIRST THING, I WOULD GET RID OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

I MEAN -- THANK YOU.

I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT GOT APPLAUSE, NOT FOR MY SAKE BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE IDEA.

JOHN DINGLE WROTE A COVER STORY -- THE CONGRESSMAN FROM MICHIGAN, THE LATE CONGRESSMAN FROM MICHIGAN WROTE AN ARTICLE, ABOLISH THE SENATE.

IT DOESN'T SERVE ANY GOOD PURPOSE, AND YOU KNOW, MOST OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE LEGISLATURES, ENGLAND, HAS A HOUSE OF LORDS BUT WHAT YEAR DID THEY PASS THE REFORM ACT THAT DEFANGED THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND MADE IT CEREMONIAL?

ANYBODY KNOW?

SOME OF YOU KNOW, I'M SURE.

1909.

OKAY, SO MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO, THEY REALIZED THIS WASN'T WORK A SENATE.

ANOTHER THING I WOULD DO, MIKE, AND IN IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET APPLAUSE, EXPAND -- YES, EXPAND, THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

NO ONE?

NO TAKERS?

OKAY.

>> THOSE ARE THE FOLKS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS, WHO WANT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS.

>> WE HAVE 435 FOR A COUNTRY OF 330 MILLION.

ENGLAND -- 90 MILLION PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS?

600 SOMETHING.

>> WOW.

>> I DID A STUDY WHILE I WAS RESEARCHING THE BOOK.

I JUST WENT FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY, HOW LARGE ARE THE CON CONSTITUENCIES OF EACH OF THESE PARLIAMENTS AND THEY TEND TO BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 100,000 TO 130,000 CONSTITUENTS.

OUR REMEMBERS OF CONGRESS REPRESENT 750,000 PEOPLE.

THAT IS NOT TENABLE.

THAT IS NOT CLOSE TO THE GROUND DEMOCRACY.

NOW, IF YOU PRORATED IT OUT AND MADE IT 130,000, WE WOULD HAVE 3,000 PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO QUITE THAT.

BUT I THINK WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT WAYS TO EXPAND THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT THAT.

AND NOT ONLY EXPAND THE SIZE BUT CHANGE THE WAY SOME OF THEM ARE ELECTED.

SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS ARE BAD.

THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT MULTILEVEL DISTRICTS AND RANKED VOTING.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT OVER TIME MIGHT PRODUCE MORE MODERATE WINNERS.

RANK CHOICE, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO -- IF YOU'RE NOT THE VOTER'S NUMBER ONE CHOICE, YOU HAVE TO WORK TO TRY TO BE THE NUMBER TWO CHOICE.

>> THOSE CHANGES WOULD REQUIRE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

ONE CHANGE WOULD NOT BE THAT DIFFICULT IN THEORY.

IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, THEY EQUATE GOING TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE TO NUCLEAR AM GETTEN AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE FILIBUSTER.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE FILIBUSTER?

>> I'M AGAINST THE FILIBUSTER, HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.

FIRST, IT VIOLATES A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF WHAT WE ARE TAUGHT FROM THE TIME WE ARE LITTLE KIDS, IS FAIR PLAY.

THE MAJORITY RULES.

RIGHT?

MAJORITY RULES, YOU KNOW.

IF NINE FRIENDS ARE TOGETHER AND THEY ARE VOTING ON SOMETHING AND THE VOTE COMES 5-4 IN FAVOR OF AN OUTCOME, NOBODY DISPUTES THAT THAT OUTCOME CARRIES THE DAY.

BUT THAT IS NOT HOW THE UNITED STATES SENATE WORKS AT ALL.

THE UNITED STATES SENATE, TO EXTEND THE ANALOGY, I WOULD TAKE SIX, SEVEN OF THE NINE TO MAKE SURE SOMETHING PASSES, GIVEN THREE THE EFFECTIVE RIGHT OF THE MAJORITY, AND THAT IS HOW THE SENATE WORKS.

41 PEOPLE ARE THE MAJORITY IN THE IS NOT.

BECAUSE 41 PEOPLE CAN BLOCK ANYTHING.

>> LET'S DO AN END RUN SCENARIO.

HOW DO WE GET OUT OF IT?

GIVE ME A BEST CASE SCENARIO AND WORST-CASE SCENARIO?

>> REPUBLICANS MAY BE PEELING AWAY FROM DONALD TRUMP TO SOME EXTEND.

IF THEY NOMINATE SOMEONE ELSE, I THINK AT LEAST THAT PERSON, IF HE LOSES, WILL ABIDE BY THE RESULT.

SO -- I THINK.

I THINK.

>> SMALL VICTORIES, I GUESS.

>> THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO IS THAT -- IT'S VERY CLEAR.

IT'S THAT TRUMP RUNS, IS THE NOMINEE IN 2024, LOSES.

YOU KNOW, BY 8 MILLION POPULAR VOTES, 10 MILLION POPULAR VOTES, BUT NARROWLY ENOUGH IN FIVE STATES THAT HE CAN CONTEST IT AND THAT THIS TIME, HE SUCCEEDS AND OVERTURNS IT.

SO THEN, HOW MUCH OF A DEMOCRACY ARE WE IF THAT HAPPENS?

AND THEN HE GETS INTO OFFICE -- IN JANUARY OF 2017, HE DIDN'T KNOW THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

HE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE WEAK POINTS WERE.

NOW HE KNOWS.

WHAT'S HE GOING TO DO WITH HIS POWER THIS TIME?

>> PLENTY TO THINK ABOUT.

THAT IS "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD."

I'M MIKE THOMPSON.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK.