>> AND NOW AN ARIZONA PBS ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

>> FREE SPEECH CHALLENGE OF OUR TIMES PRESENTED BY THE A.S.U.

SCHOOL OF CIVIC AND THOUGHT OF LEADER AND THE WALTER CRONKITE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND THE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW.

EXPLORING MATTERS OF FREE SPEECH AND CIVIL DIALOGUE IN SOCIETY TODAY.

[ APPLAUSE ] >> THE SCHOOL OF CIVIC AND ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND LEADERSHIP IS DEDICATED TO REVIVING THE LINK BETWEEN CIVIC EDUCATION AND LIBERAL EDUCATION, IN ORDER TO PREPARE THOUGHTFUL LEADERS FOR SOCIETY AND FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.

WE THINK THAT STUDYING GREAT WORKS AND GREAT DEBATES OF OUR INTELLECTUAL TRADITION, CIVIC, ECONOMIC, MORAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT SUPPLEMENTED BY INTERNALSHIPS AND BROADER PUBLIC EXPERIENCES, EVENTS LIKE THIS, IS A GREAT FOUNDATION FOR PREPARING LEADERS NOT ONLY FOR AMERICA, BUT FOR OUR GLOBALIZED WORLD.

WE ALSO THINK THAT A RETURN TO SOME FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS AND DEBATES MIGHT PROVIDE A BROADER AND CALMING PERSPECTIVE IN OUR POLARIZED AND DIVIDED TIMES.

SO THAT LEADS US TO TONIGHT'S EVENT AND TO OUR TWO DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME IS IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND AMERICAN LIFE GENERALLY, HOW WE EXERCISE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

SO THAT IT SERVES THE HIGHER PURPOSE OF HELPING US TO BE SELF-GOVERNING AS A PEOPLE.

THAT HIGHER AIM SEEMS TO REQUIRE THAT WE TOLERATE AND INDEED RESPECT FELLOW CITIZENS WHO HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS, OFTEN FEWED DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR OWN.

IT WOULD ALSO SEEM THAT THIS ETHIC OF CIVIL DISAGREEMENT SHOULD BE ESPECIALLY RESPECTED AND ULTIMATE ELEVATORRED ON OUR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY -- CULTIVATED ON OUR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.

WITH US TONIGHT TO PROVIDE A MODEL OF THIS KIND OF DISAGREEMENT BUT CIVIL DISAGREEMENT, AND TO EXPLORE THE CAUSES OF OUR CURRENT POLARIZATION AND CIVIC STRIFE BUT ALSO TO DISCUSS SOME POSSIBLE REMEDIES WE HAVE TWO DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVANTS.

THEY HAVE STRONGLY DIFFERENT POLICY VIEWS.

ONE A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN AND ANOTHER A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

BUT THEY ARE HERE FOR DIALOGUE, AS WELL AS DEBATE.

I WANTED TO ASK EACH OF YOU TO START, AND I WILL START WITH SENATOR DASCHLE.

WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAS BEEN THIS RECENT TURN TOWARD AN ANGRY KIND OF POLARIZATION AND PARTISANSHIP?

>> I THINK AT ITS CORE, A BIG PART OF IT IS A DEBATE ABOUT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN MODERN SOCIETY.

A DEBATE THAT HAS BECOME IDEAL LOGICAL AND TACTICAL.

IDEOLOGICAL, CLEARLY.

IT'S NOT VERY STEREO PHONIC.

IT'S VERY HARD TO LISTEN TO, BUT IT SURE BEATS THE ALTERNATIVES, THE NOISE OF VIOLENCE IN SYRIA OR NO NOISE AT ALL IN COUNTRIES WHERE YOU ARE ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING OUT.

SO THE NOISE OF DEMOCRACY IS PLAYING ITSELF OUT IN FULL VOLUME.

UNFORTUNATELY, IN MY VIEW, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE AS WE LOOK AT THE TACTICAL SIDE OF THIS WHO BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIND COMMON GROUND, BECAUSE IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE OF A TEST TO THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THIS NOISE OF DEMOCRACY, TO STAND YOUR GROUND, THAT COMPROMISES CAPITULATION.

AND THAT TO ME IS A TROUBLING ASPECT TO ALL OF THIS.

SECOND, I THINK THERE'S A -- THERE'S A GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT FATIGUE GOING ON.

15 YEARS OF WAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ, $2.7 TRILLION.

A PERCEPTION THAT TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION IS THE -- IS THE BASIS FOR THE LOSS OF MILLIONS OF GOOD JOBS AND THEN THE THIRD THING I THINK IS INCOME INEQUALITY AND INCOME STAGNATION.

THERE ARE THOSE AT THE TOP THAT ARE BENEFITING MORE THAN THE OTHERS IS DRIVING A TREMENDOUS FRUSTRATION AND ANIMOSITY DIRECTED TOWARDS WASHINGTON.

>> PART OF THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF THE COUNTRY, I BELIEVE, IS CAUSED BY A -- AN EMERGING CULTURAL DIVIDE.

MARGARET THATCHER USED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT CULTURE DRIVES POLITICS AND YOU THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY THE CASE.

WE NO LONGER HAVE THE SAME BASIS OF VALUE OR THE SAME BELIEF IN KEY FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT USED TO UNIFY US.

AND THAT DIVISION THEN TRANSLATES INTO PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND EVENTUALLY INTO POLITICS.

I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT.

PART OF IT IS ALSO EXACERBATED BY THOSE WHO AMPLIFY, MEDIA, HOLLYWOOD.

YOU CANNOT CUT BACK ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, PART OF THE PROBLEM IS DRIVEN BY PEOPLE ON TALK RADIO AND TELEVISION, WHO CONSTANTLY FAN THE FLAMES.

>> I WOULD ADD THE SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA, IN PARTICULAR.

THE TRUTH IS JUST AN OPTION TODAY.

AND UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS JUST AN OPTION, IT'S VERY HARD TO DISCERN, WHAT IS TRUTH AND WHAT IS NOT.

AND IT'S INCUMBENT UPON ALL OF US TO TRY TO FIGURE THAT OUT, BUT WE ARE GETTING INUNDATED AND BECAUSE IT'S SO EASY TO TWEET OR TO FACEBOOK OR DO WHATEVER YOU ARE GOING TO DO ON SOCIAL MEDIA TODAY, EVERYTHING IS MUCH MORE SPONTANEOUS.

NOT MUCH THOUGHT IS GIVEN SOMETIMES TO THE EXPRESSIONS IN SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THAT ADDS, I THINK, EVEN MORE TO THIS INCREDIBLE CONFRONTATIONAL ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ARE LIVING WITH TODAY.

>> JUST IN GENERAL, WHAT ARE THE STAKES, IF THERE'S THIS KIND OF RANCOR AND DEMONIZING AND FRUSTRATION AND ANGER, WHAT IS IT WE ARE NOT GETTING DONE OR NOT ABLE TO ADDRESS?

>> THE ABILITY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS FROM THE VERY -- THE MOST GRASS ROOTS LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, ALL THE WAY UP IS IMPACTED BY THIS, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF VIEWING YOURSELF AS A FELLOW CITIZEN OF TEMPE, LOOKING AT SOME KIND OF ZONING CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT KIND OF DIVIDES UP INTO DIFFERENT CAMPS BECAUSE YOUR MOTIVES, OBVIOUSLY ARE SUSPECT BECAUSE YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF X AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THESE BAD ACTORS.

AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE A CIVIL DEBATE WITH ANYBODY ANYMORE.

IT'S NOT JUST IN WASHINGTON, D.C.. IT AFFECTS FAMILIES.

>> AS THE TONE ESCALATES AND AS THE CONFRONTATIONAL ENVIRONMENT CONTINUES, THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD SEE CHARLOTTESVILLE AND MORE VIOLENCE, IS VERY, VERY TROUBLING TO ME AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ESCALATING CONFRONTATIONAL TONE THAT BOTH SIDES SEEM TO BE TAKING.

>> WHAT ARE SOME SPECIFIC IDEAS EACH OF YOU HAVE ABOUT HOW WE COULD TURN THE CORNER, SOME SPECIFIC REMEDIES FOR FINDING REASONABLE CIVIL DEBATE AND FINDING SOME WAY TO GET THE COMPROMISE INTO GOVERNING.

>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES OUR INVOLVEMENT, AND I -- I WORRY.

VOTER TURNOUT IS NOT WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO WANT MORE CIVIL DISCOURSE ARE KIND OF LETTING THE OTHERS TAKE THE STAGE.

I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO SHOW REAL ENGAGEMENT AND WORK AT IT.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER TWO, LEADERSHIP STARTS AT THE TOP.

AND OUR POLITICAL LEADERS HAVE TO HELP SET THE TONE.

>> AT THEN OF THE DAY, IT TAKES THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK.

BASIC CIVICS, WHAT ARE THE TWO KEY THINGS ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THAT EVERYBODY IN AMERICA SHOULD KNOW?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR.

HOW DO YOU TEACH KIDS WHAT IS IMPORTANT, NOT TO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER ON, BUT AT LEAST TO ANALYZE THE PROBLEMS AGAINST A COMMON SET OF IDEAS HERE.

IF YOU DON'T LEARN THAT IN SCHOOL, YOU ARE GOING TO BE TOO BUSY WORKING TO LEARN IT LATER PROBABLY, AND THEREFORE, I THINK IT GOES BACK TO OUR SECONDARY AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

>> OKAY.

SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO HOLD THE SENATORS TO THEIR WORD IN THEIR SECOND SEGMENT, AND SEE IF WE CAN HAVE A REASONABLE CIVIL DISAGREEMENT.

[ LAUGHTER ] ABOUT A SET OF POLICY ISSUES THAT WE AGREED TO DISCUSS IN ADVANCE, WE WILL START WITH SENATOR DASCHLE AND WE AGREED TO TALK ABOUT THE IDEA OF A CARBON TAX WHICH BRINGS IN A WHOLE RANGE OF AMERICAN POLITICAL ISSUES AND CONTENTIOUS ISSUES.

>> WE MEASURED 400 MILLION PARTS PER MILLION CO2 IN 2016.

THAT'S THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CO2 IN OUR ATMOSPHERE AT 3 MILLION YEARS.

2016 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR WE HAVE HAD IN HISTORY, AND IT'S THE THIRD OF THREE YEARS OF THE HOTTEST YEARS WE HAVE EVER HAD IN HISTORY.

800 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE AFFECTED TODAY.

194 COUNTRIES HAVE NOW AGREED THAT WE OUGHT TO SET AS A GOAL IN 2050 THAT WE KEEP OUR WARMTH, OUR INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE BY 2 DEGREES, WHICH MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO REDUCE THE LEVEL OF CO2 IN OUR ATMOSPHERE BY 95% BELOW WHAT IT WAS IN 2000 TO REACH THAT GOAL.

SO -- SO WE HAVE A MAJOR CHALLENGE.

FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE ONLY FOUR OPTIONS.

THE FIRST OPTION IS TO CAP AND TRADE.

WE HAVE DONE SOME OF THAT IN THE PAST.

CALIFORNIA HAS DONE IT.

EUROPE HAS DONE IT.

VERY COMPLICATED AND VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE, BUT CAP AND TRADE IS ONE.

THE SECOND ARE SUBSIDIES TO PAY PEOPLE NOT TO -- TO DO THE RIGHT THING OR NOT TO DO THE WRONG THIN.

THE THIRD IS REGULATION.

AND REGULATION, OF COURSE, IS AN ENACTMENT TO MANY PEOPLE, AND IT'S VERY INEFFICIENT IN MANY RESPECTS.

A CARBON TAX IS BY FAR THE SIMPLEST AND MOST EFFICIENT APPROACH YOU CAN USE.

IF YOU APPLY IT TO UPSTREAM SOURCES, LIKE COAL MINES AN REFINERIES, IT'S THE ONLY OPTION OF THOSE FOUR WHERE YOU CAN GET 95% OF THE CO2 AND AFFECT IT IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY.

RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCE FOR UTILIZATION OF FOSSIL FUELS OR FOR HOW MUCH CARBON WE PUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

WE NEED A PRICE POINT.

A PRICE POINT COULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

A PRICE POINT ON CARBON WOULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE AS MANUFACTURERS CALCULATE WHAT IS THEIR CARBON COME IN BRINGING THINGS FROM CHINA TO THE UNITED STATES.

SO IT WOULD CREATE A WHOLE NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR JOB CREATION HERE CLOSER TO THE SOURCE.

IF THE CARBON TAX WERE TAX NEUTRAL, REVENUE NEUTRAL, YOU ACTUALLY COULD SEE A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN -- IN PERSONAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAXES.

AND -- AND THAT TOO IS AN ADVANTAGE THAT NONE OF THE OTHER OPTIONS WOULD OFFER.

I THINK THE BEST ARGUMENT FOR IT, THOUGH, IS THAT IT REALLY WORKS AND WE HAVE SEEN HOW WELL IT WORKS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.

THEY PASSED A CARBON TAX IN 2008.

THEY HAVE NOW REDUCED CO2 SIGNIFICANTLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE.

THEY HAVE REDUCED THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.

INTERESTINGLY, THEY REDUCED THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX TO 10%.

THEY HAVE THE LOWEST PERSONAL INCOME TAX IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, AND THE FASTEST GROWING ECONOMY.

>> THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT IT DOESN'T WORK.

THAT IS TO SAY, IT WON'T REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO IMPOSE THIS KIND OF COST ON AMERICAN SOCIETY, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE.

THERE IS A LOT OF MATERIAL ON IT AND THERE'S EXPERTS WHO WILL GIVE YOU A LOT OF DIFFERENT STATISTICS BUT THE IDEA HERE IS TO MEASURE THE EFFECT THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS TAX WOULD HAVE.

NOW, AL GORE IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY PROPONENTS OF A TAX LIKE THIS.

HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT A TAX THAT HE WOULD PROPOSE AT $140 PER CUBIC -- PER METRIC TON.

HE WOULD ALSO IMPOSE $1.25 GAS TAX.

NOW, THE $140 IS PRETTY MUCH AT THE TOP END OF WHAT PEOPLE SAY THE COST OF CARBON IS.

SO THAT TAX SHOULD MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE.

AND THEN YOU ADD THE $1.25 GAS TAX, WHICH WILL NEVER PASS BUT NEVERTHELESS, YOU ADD THAT ON, IT SHOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

WELL, ACCORDING TO EXPERTS, IT WON'T.

IN FACT, THE MOST IT WILL DO, IT WILL ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF A 25% REDUCTION BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY, WHICH WOULD HAVE AT VERY MOST, UNDER THE MOST OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, IT COULD REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES BY .2 OF 1 DEGREE.

NOW, IF YOU WANT TO READ AN INTERESTING BOOK ABOUT WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH THE COST THAT IT IMPOSES, BJORN LOMBOURG WHO HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF THAT MONEY, I THINK IS WORTH READING.

I QUOTED FROM LOMBOURG IN A BOOK CALLED "COOL IT."

THERE'S A FELLOW AT A.E.I., BENJAMIN ZIKER IS EVEN MORE PESSIMISTIC.

IF YOU USE THE CALCULATIONS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH AND APPLY IT TO THE U.N.

'S PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, AND YOU TRY TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF THE PARIS ACCORDS, WHICH SENATOR DASCHLE REFERRED TO, YOU RESULT -- THE RESULT IS AN IMMEDIATE CUT IN U.S.

EMISSIONS.

U.S.

EMISSIONS, NOW JUST IN THE UNITED STATES BY HALF.

AND THE -- BY THE END OF THE CENTURY AND THAT COULD REDUCE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE DEGREE, WHICH HE SAYS IS NOT REALLY EVEN MEASURABLE BECAUSE THE STANDARD DEVIATION IS .11-DEGREE.

THERE'S A LOT OF STATISTICS ON THIS.

IT'S NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH A TAX WOULD HAVE ANY MEASURABLE IMPACT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

MEANWHILE, THE COST WOULD BE ENORMOUS.

>> I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO WORK OR NOT.

I THINK THERE'S JUST SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHEN YOU PUT A PRICE POINT ON CARBON, IT WILL HAVE AN ECONOMIC EFFECT.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT MAYBE WITH GREATER DIALOGUE AND GREATER OPPORTUNITIES WE CAN FIND A COMMON GROUND THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR HERE.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK CONGRESS ITSELF IS NOT FUNCTIONING IN THE WAY IT SHOULD?

>> RULES AND NORMS.

I WOULD START WITH THAT.

RULES AND NORMS.

WE CHANGED.

IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING THE SENATE WORK BETTER, WE DID TWO THINGS WITH THE FILIBUSTER OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, THAT HAVE BOTH PROVEN TO BE, IN MY VIEW, MISTAKES.

THE FIRST IS THAT WE STARTED SOMETHING CALLED DUAL TRACKING.

IF THERE WAS A FILIBUSTER ON A BILL, WE JUST SET IT ASIDE AND TOOK UP SOMETHING ELSE THAT.

MADE IT SO MUCH EASIER TO FILIBUSTER BECAUSE THIS WAS NO PAIN IN THAT.

A SECOND THING WE DID IS WE REMOVED THE TALKING FILIBUSTER.

YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO TOLD THE FLOOR TO FILIBUSTER.

LYNDON JOHNSON WAS MAJORITY LEADER FOR SIX YEARS FROM '54 TO '60.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FILIBUSTERS HE HAD IN SIX YEARS?

ONE.

THE FILIBUSTER AROUND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FILIBUSTERS THERE'S BEEN IN THE LAST SIX YEARS?

422.

>> BY MAKING IT EASIER TO FILIBUSTER, YOU JUST ENCOURAGE IT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF AS A POLITICAL MATTER, THE TWO PARTIES ARE UNIFIED TOGETHER, AND DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER, IT'S NOT HARD TO FIND ENOUGH FRIENDS TO KEEP THE FILIBUSTER GOING.

AND THE ONLY WAY TO BREAK IT IS TO HAVE 60 SENATORS TO AGREE TO STOP IT.

TODAY IT'S 48 ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, 52 ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MITCH McCONNELL CAN DO WITH HIS 52 SENATORS FOR MOST QUESTIONS.

IF HE CAN'T GET 8 DEMOCRATS TO GO ALONG, THE AMENDMENT OR THE BILL DOESN'T PASS.

>> THAT SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER SYSTEM TODAY.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THE AIRPLANE.

THE AIRPLANE HAS CHANGED THE WAY CONGRESS FUNCTIONS.

IT'S REGRETTABLE TO ME, AND THIS ISN'T MUCH OF AN EXAGGERATION, SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN LEAVE ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS.

THEY COME BACK ON TUESDAY MORNINGS AND WE TRY TO RUN THE COUNTRY ON WEDNESDAYS.

YOU CAN'T RUN A COUNTRY THIS COMPLICATED ON A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A DAY A WEEK.

AND THAT TO ME IS A HUGE, HUGE PROBLEM.

52 MEMBERS NOW SLEEP ON THEIR SOFAS IN CONGRESS.

IT'S A FORM OF PUBLIC HOUSING I DETEST.

[ LAUGHTER ] SO THAT TOO IS AN ISSUE THAT I THINK HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.

JOHN AND I MAY DISAGREE ON THIS ONE, BUT I THINK MONEY.

THE AVERAGE SENATOR HAS TO RAISE $15,000 A DAY, EVERY DAY HE OR SHE IS IN OFFICE.

AND THE MONEY CHASE AND YOU SIT IN THESE LITTLE CUBICLES AND YOU DIAL FOR DOLLARS, HOUR AFTER HOUR, DAY AFTER DAY.

AND IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IF YOU HAVE A COMPETITIVE RACE, IT CAN MEAN UP TO 50, 60, 70% OF YOUR TIME.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH EFFORT TO SOCIALIZE.

IT USED TO BE THAT YOU COULD GET TO KNOW SOMEBODY.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW SOMEBODY, IT'S HARD TO WORK WITH THEM AND IT'S HARD TO COMPROMISE AND FIND SOME AGREEMENT.

AND THE LEVEL OF INTERACTION AMONG SENATORS TODAY ISN'T ANYWHERE NEAR THE WAY IT USED TO BE AND I WOULD FINALLY GO BACK AGAIN.

WE CAN'T EMPHASIZE THE IMPACT THAT THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE MEDIA HAS HAD ENOUGH.

ALL OF THOSE FACTORS ARE PLAYING THEMSELVES OUT.

>> ONE OF THE KEY THINGS IS THIS RADIO, TALK RADIO AND TV.

I CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH HOW TOXIC THAT HAS MADE WASHINGTON BECOME.

AS A -- IF YOU ARE NOT COURAGEOUS AS A MEMBER, YOU HAVE GOT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE TELLING YOUR CONSTITUENTS, YOUR BASE EVERY DAY HOW YOU BETTER TOE THE LINE AND DO A, B OR C, OR THEY ARE GOING TO RUN SOMEBODY AGAINST YOU.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO GET SCARED AND SO THEY JUST SORT OF TIMIDLY FOLLOW ALONG THERE.

AND THIS MAKES THE MEDIA PEOPLE MORE AND MORE AND MORE POWERFUL AND THERE ARE OTHER GROUPS.

IT'S NOT JUST MEDIA.

>> EACH OF YOU HAS MENTIONED A RANGE OF POSSIBLE CAUSES, AND I WANT TO FOCUS MAYBE ON ONE, BECAUSE EACH OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED THE POWER OF NEW FORMS OF MEDIA.

IT SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE EMPOWERED BECAUSE OF THIS PHENOMENON OF CONCERN ABOUT REELECTION AND CAMPAIGNING.

SENATORS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A SIX-YEAR TERM, NEVER HAVE SPACE AWAY FROM THE CERTAIN ABOUT REELECTION, BECAUSE SOMEONE ON TALK RADIO OR ANOTHER NEW FORM OF MEDIA OR SOMEONE CAN SAY HOW DARE YOU TALK TO SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER PARTY.

HOW DARE YOU COMPROMISE.

THE -- NOW THE PRIMARY HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A VERB.

WE WILL PRIMARY YOU, RIGHT?

IS THERE A PARADOX OF A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH FOCUS ON ELECTIONS AND THAT SORT OF BASIC DEMOCRATIC RIGHT, BUT IT'S PREVENTING THE SYSTEM FROM WORKING BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE THINK THAT THEY CAN'T SPEND TIME IN WASHINGTON, D.C.. THEY HAVE TO GET BACK TO THEIR HOME DISTRICT OR THEIR HOME STATES OR KEEP THE FIRES DOWN AND -- SO WHAT -- WHAT COULD WE DO ABOUT THAT?

OR IS THERE NO WAY TO MODIFY THE PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM?

DO WE JUST HAVE TO LOOK TO OTHER ISSUES?

>> I DON'T -- I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- I WAS SAYING EARLIER THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO BE ENGAGED.

WE HAVE TO WORK AT IT.

WELL, PART OF WORKING AT IT IS PARTICIPATING IN THE PRIMARIES.

YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE VOTER TURN OUT TODAY IN PRIMARIES IN THE COUNTRY IS A LITTLE OVER 25%.

THAT MEANS 75% OF THE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN CARE TO VOTE WHAT THAT DOES IS GIVES THOSE WHO DO VOTE ALL THE MORE POWER, AND ALL THE MORE INFLUENCE AND THE ABILITY TO THREATEN THE PRIMARIES BECAUSE THEY CAN CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF THOSE ELECTIONS AS LONG AS THE VOTER TURNOUT IS SO LOW.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS TO HOW YOU MIGHT REARRANGE A PRIMARY TOO, WHERE THE TWO TOP VOTE GETTERS VOTE -- COMPETE IN THE GENERAL, CALIFORNIA HAS THAT NOW.

I THINK WE NEED A FEW MORE ELECTIONS TO SEE IF THAT'S WORKING.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE WAY WE GERRYMANDERED THE DISTRICTS THAT YOU WILL EITHER ELECT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN IN THESE DISTRICTS MAKE PRIMARIES ALL THE MORE PROBLEM, I THINK, AS IT RELATES TO WHEN THE PRIMARY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE GENERAL, YOU WILL HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THAT BASE VOTE, AND WORRIED ABOUT GETTING PRIMARIED BECAUSE IT'S THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THE TWO ELECTIONS.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS MATTER.

>> THOSE WHO MAY FIND A -- AN INSTITUTIONAL OR SYSTEM, QUOTE, REFORM, ATTRACTIVE AS A SOLUTION TO SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS, BEWARE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

I THINK SENATOR DASCHLE AND I WOULD PROBABLY DISAGREE ABOUT A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS BUT I WILL THROW OUT MY OPINION ON SOMETHING.

MY GOOD FRIEND JOHN McCAIN AND RUSS FINEGOLD PASSED A BILL THAT IT WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO CONTRIBUTE TO A CAMPAIGN.

THE RESULT HAS BEEN BAD BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF CAMPAIGNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CANDIDATES THEMSELVES AND PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE RUNNING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES, ONE FORM OF WHICH YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THE DONORS DISCLOSED AND THEY END UP WITH MOST OF THE ADVERTISING RUNNING AND THE POOR CANDIDATE SAYING, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO CAMPAIGN ON HERE.

SO REFORMS CAN BE DETRIMENTAL.

YES, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DOING BUT THINK IT THROUGH VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES BEFORE YOU THINK THAT'S THE MAGIC SOLUTION.

>> COULD I JUST PURSUE THE QUESTION OF MEMBERS NOT KNOWING EACH OTHER AS FELLOW CITIZENS, AND FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS BECAUSE THEY SPEND SUCH LITTLE TIME IN WASHINGTON TOGETHER.

IS THERE A LEADERSHIP ROLE THEREY?

MEAN IN OUR SYSTEM -- >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THE RULES HAVE ALL BEEN IN THE SENATE SO THAT IT'S MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE MAJORITY LEADER TO SET A RULE FOR ALL SENATORS.

IT IS A UNANIMOUS CONSENT BODY.

SO THIS WILL PROBABLY BE EASIER IN THE HOUSE, BUT IS THERE A SET OF RULE CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE TO SAY, WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE A RULE THAT YOU GOT TO BE HERE ON TUESDAYS, WEDNESDAYS AND THURSDAYS, SO WE CAN HAVE THREE DAYS TO WORK.

IS THAT POSSIBLE OR WOULD THERE BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THAT?

>> I THINK JOINT CAUCUSES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

FIVE DAY WEEKS COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

HAVING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THINGS OUTSIDE THE HILL ITSELF.

YOU KNOW, JUST SOCIAL EVENTS THAT ALLOW FOR GREATER OPPORTUNITIES TO GET TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER.

REALLY COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS WELL.

AND JOHN AND I EXPERIENCED IMPEACHMENT.

WE EXPERIENCED 9/11.

WE EXPERIENCED THE ANTHRAX ATTACK IN MY OFFICE AND THE SENATE.

AND AFTER EACH ONE OF THOSE, TRENT AND I CONCLUDED THAT WE REALLY OUGHT TO HAVE JOINT SESSIONS TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WILL WORK THROUGH THIS.

THOSE JOINT SESSIONS WERE THE ONLY WAY WE GOT THROUGH IMPEACHMENT AND THE ONLY WAY WE GOT THROUGH EFFECTIVELY 9/11 AND THE ANTHRAX.

>> THOSE WERE PRIVATE SESSIONS.

>> PRIVATE SESSIONS.

>> BUT THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS CAME TOGETHER.

>> WE JUST DON'T DO THAT KIND OF THING ANYMORE.

>> WE HAD AN EXPERIMENT DURING IMPEACHMENT AND I DON'T KNOW IF JOHN REMEMBERS.

THIS WE COULDN'T DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE TELEVISED OR IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE MADE AN AGREEMENT THAT AT 6:00 EVERY NIGHT, WE WOULD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IT WOULD BE TELEVISED UNTIL 6:00, PRIVATE AFTER THAT.

THE CONTRAST IN THE DEBATE AND THE GIVE AND TAKE WAS ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL.

PEOPLE WERE VERY EMOTIONAL.

PEOPLE JUST KIND OF LAID OUT THEIR -- THEY SPILLED THEIR GUTS OUT SOMETIMES AND JUST REALLY GAVE SOME OF THE BEST SPEECHES I EVER HEARD IN THE SENATE, WHERE DURING THE NIGHT TIME, WHEN PEOPLE COULD BE THAT HONEST AND HOP.

NOWADAYS, THEY HAVE GOT TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT CAMERA AND THE SCRUTINY THAT COMES WITH IT.

EVERY WORD THAT IS UTTERED AND BROADCAST.

IT USED TO BE IN THE OLD DAYS, THAT SENATORS CAME TO THE FLOOR TO TALK TO THE OTHER MEMBERS.

NOW SENATORS COME TO THE FLOOR TO TALK TO THAT CAMERA.

AND IT CHANGES THE WAY -- THEY ARE TALKING TO THAT BASE.

THEY ARE TALKING TO -- YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR BASE HEARS WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY ARE SAYING.

SO THAT ALSO ADDS TO THE POLARIZATION.

>> TO ME, THE BIGGEST BOTTOM LINE PROBLEM IS MEMBERS BEING VILIFIED FOR COMPROMISING, FOR EVEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE OTHER SIDE.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S PEOPLE.

PEOPLE HAVE TO DECIDE.

THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING.

THE CONSTITUENTS NEED TO KNOW THAT AND DECIDE IT AND THE MEMBERS EITHER NEED TO BE TAUGHT THE LESSON BY THE CONSTITUENTS THROUGH ELECTIONS OR COME TO THAT REALIZATION THEMSELVES.

BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO BE WILLING TO AND HAVE THE POLITICAL ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH EACH OTHER.

>> YOU HAVE HAD VERY GOOD RAPPORTS THIS EVENING.

THE WORD I HEARD MOST THIS EVENING IS "I AGREE."

WHAT HAS ALLOWED BOTH OF YOU TO SPEAK SO KINDLY AND WORK WELL WITH EACH OTHER THAT SENATORS TODAY IN CONGRESS LACK?

>> WELL, FOR ONE THING, WE ARE NOT IN THE GAME RIGHT NOW.

THAT HELPS.

[ LAUGHTER ] >> SECONDLY, WE NEVER HAD OCCASION TO HAVE A FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER.

AND I THINK WE HAVE PERSONALITIES THAT TEND TO TRY TO FIND AGREEMENT OR COMMON GROUND THAN NOT.

>> WHAT ROLE CAN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PLAY IN HELPING TO 23069ER BETTER CIVIC EDUCATION -- FOSTER BETTER CIVIC EDUCATION AS OPPOSED TO FULLY FOCUSING, WHICH IS WONDERFUL, BUT ONLY FOCUSING ON STEM EDUCATION.

>> I DON'T THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE ENTITY TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE CURRICULUM, ALTHOUGH LEADERS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL CAN LEAD IN THAT REGARD.

I HAVE THINK IT'S AN SCAM.

THAT THEY SET THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING THERE.

BUT I DO WISH THAT AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, THERE WAS MORE CONSIDERATION.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN TODAY SO THAT THEY REALLY DO REPRESENT THE DIVERSE CONSTITUENCIES IN THEIR FULL DISTRICTS AND DON'T JUST CATER TO THE 25%?

WHO VOTE?

AND DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS IS WHITE AND MALE AND SO HOW CAN THEY BE EDUCATED ON THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE REAL DEMOCRACY THAT EXISTS, THE REAL DIVERSITY?

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE TWO MOTIVATIONS THAT OFTENTIMES ASCRIBE TO POLITICIANS TO EITHER TO BE SOMETHING OR TO DO SOMETHING.

I WISH WE HAD MORE APPRECIATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF DOING SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT HAD POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.

I DON'T -- I THINK THESE DAYS WE -- THERE'S JUST SO MUCH CONCERN ABOUT REELECTION, AND SO MUCH EFFORT AROUND REELECTION THAT THE DO SOMETHING PART OF THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IS NOT GIVEN THE KIND OF PRIORITY THAT IT DESERVES.

>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN THANKING OUR TWO DISTINGUISHED GUESTS.

>> FREE SPEECH, CHALLENGE OF OUR TIMES, PRESENTED BY THE A.S.U.

SCHOOL OF CIVIC AND ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND LEADERSHIP, THE WALTER CRONKITE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATION, AND THE SANDRA