(lively music) - [Announcer] A production of PBS Charlotte.

- Tonight on "Unspun," Washington is stuck, and Americans are asking a simple question, "Who's actually going to fix it?"

From spending and debt to energy and war, not to mention border security and a divided Congress, the path forward feels more uncertain than ever.

We'll unpack why it might be time to shift power to the people and not the party.

And what is it that makes politicians primed for scandal?

I'll tell you my theory.

In today's America, welcome to the spin game.

Believe me, I know.

I'm Pat McCrory.

When I was governor and mayor, I played the spin game.

I was played by the spin game.

But aren't we all done being spun?

Let's take the spin out of the world in here on "Unspun."

(lively music) Good evening, I'm Pat McCrory.

As divides deepen in Washington, many are asking whether the solutions will come from party leadership or from a different kind of politics altogether.

My guest tonight is known for speaking his mind, even when it doesn't fit the party line.

Former U.S.

Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, and I were both governors, and we both worked with the No Labels movement.

Most recently, we appeared on C-SPAN together to talk about the Iran War and the problem with our two-party system.

Tonight we'll talk about what's broken, what can be fixed, and who he believes is actually capable of doing it.

Joe Manchin, senator, governor, welcome on "Unspun" and PBS Charlotte.

- Pat, my friend.

Thank you for having me.

- Well, it's great to have you.

Listen, right now, Washington seems to be so broken.

Why, based upon your experience in both Washington and as a governor?

- Pat, in life, we like relationships.

We like to know each other.

We get to know our families, and we meet our spouses, our children, what they do, our hobbies, things of that sort.

You build relationships.

There's no relationship-building at all in Washington.

They're not there long enough to even know the other side's spouse or anything about them.

And you have to work hard at relationships up there, 'cause they're only there from Monday at 5:30 until Thursday, about two o'clock, and everything's happening so quick.

So I made it a point to try to bring people together when I could, bring them down to the boat.

We have a big old trawler that we live on when I'm there, and try to get the Ds and Rs together.

And it's hard to say no to your friends.

So the first thing is just building relationships.

Here's what people would be astonished to understand and hear about.

There's only one time a year that the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, 100 senators, sit down at lunch together in a bipartisan way, only one time.

- Why is that?

Why doesn't leadership wanna go back to the environment where you disagree on policy, but you can have respectful relationships, and even friendships for life?

- Pat, leadership has gotten total control.

That's all they care about, total control.

The committee chairman, and everybody else down the pecking order because of seniority, it doesn't have a thing to say about what happens, what goes on in the calendar, what's voted on, why it's not voted on, this and that.

When I got there in 2010, that had already been dissipated.

It had been done.

I was chairman of the Energy Committee and I was pushing things out in bipartisan ways.

Then you had to fight like the dickens to get it on the floor to vote on, and they would play all different types of games.

So that's with both sides.

Leadership has basically, and they call it Four Corners.

You have the House Speaker and the Minority Leader in the House.

You have the Majority Leader in the Senate and a Minority Leader in the Senate.

Those four staffs and those four people pretty much control, and that's what's wrong.

And the same amount of power that basically, that the legislators in there, my friends, have basically given to the Executive Office.

You know, they're just kowtowing to whatever the President.

And it's been done under the Democrats when Joe Biden was there, it's being done now under Donald Trump's.

And I said, you know, I told Harry Reid one time, I said, "Harry, you didn't hire me, and you can't fire me.

I don't work for you, Harry.

I don't work for the President.

I took an oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.

And on top of that, I work for the people in West Virginia.

And if I can't come home and explain it, I'm not gonna vote for it," Pat.

I told Harry that, and they got all fluffed up, like, "You're breaking the honor code."

What honor code?

Some of this stuff doesn't make sense for West Virginia and North Carolina.

Why would you vote for it?

Because of the party?

The party basically is a vehicle.

And now the parties, these are two duopoly businesses, they are big business, and all they care about is having total control, and their business plan, to get more money coming in.

That's it.

- So give us some insight on what a caucus does inside.

You were part of the Democratic Caucus.

And we have a Republican Caucus in D.C.

By the way, the same thing happens in our state capitals where all the Republicans get together, all the Democrats get together, and develop strategy.

But tell me what really happens in, for example, the Democratic Caucus, when you would meet there.

Are you given direct orders, or are people threatening you?

What's the pressure like?

- Well, there's not direct orders, but they basically say, "This is what we're going to do."

And Schumer will get up, and they give a little overview of what's going on, what to expect, this, that, and everything.

I was also on leadership, because Chuck probably wanted me inside the tent more than he wanted me outside the tent.

And I just, I could tell, I said, "Some of this stuff doesn't make sense."

I was, myself and Mark Warner were two of the most centrist people there on leadership.

And that was every Monday night at 5:30.

We had meetings after the first vote.

But the Caucus, you go in there and they start talking, but the same people get up and talk.

"This is awful what's happening.

This is what the Republicans do, this is what we gotta do."

And I says, "Has anybody thought about talking to the other side?

Has anyone ever tried to go over and sit down and work this out?"

And like, when's the last time you heard that the two leaders, whether it would be Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell, or now Chuck Schumer, and now John Thune?

John Thune's a good guy, and I get along great with Chuck too, but, you know, they're just basically catering to the extremes.

That's where their resources, that's where their money comes from.

So you never see them getting together to where we're gonna work this problem out.

It's usually people like myself that would break, and I'd call Susan Collins, and I'd call Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski, and then I'd get Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen and a few of our Democrats and say, "Guys, we gotta break this logjam."

And we'd start talking.

And you know what, when we'd start talking, we could force the logjam to be broken, because they needed our vote so bad.

But they're not going to do it, because if they do it, it's a sign of weakness in today's atmosphere, which is horrible.

You know, this country was not designed to work on absolute rule from one party.

It was designed to basically, we could have conflicts, we could have disagreements, but it was designed to work on compromise, Pat, compromise.

- Well, I watched the news just recently where the Minority Leader of the House, and the Speaker and so forth, were threatening each other on votes, on, you name it.

It was on redistricting, you know, Virginia, California, all this gerrymandering that we're doing.

And they were literally going on the press conferences saying, "If you do this, we're gonna fight back."

No one was talking about solving problems.

They were just talking about power.

- Hey Pat, no one's in this whole stupid redistricting thing.

President Trump started, and he says, "I need five more Republicans in Texas."

Then it goes crazy.

It goes to California, then now it goes to Virginia, it's going down into Florida, and it'll probably be in North Carolina.

Who knows?

And you know, I kept thinking, not one time have I heard... The purpose of districts is this, you know, we have an, what was still an experimental government that we have, which we thought we could, you know, we thought we could govern ourselves.

We thought we could choose representatives who are like-minded and represent me.

I wanted someone that thought like me, that came from the same background, and was understanding what the economics were, and how people were making a living.

And that's who I wanted to represent me.

They're drawing lines now that I don't even know where the lines are.

Some people don't even know who they're voting for, because the person they had last year is not the person they have this year.

No one's talked about this redistricting can be better for people to be represented more fairly and accurately.

That's what Thomas Jefferson wanted.

- It's a stain in our democracy, no doubt.

You talk about big money.

The pressure on the caucuses, and the leaders in both the Republican and Democratic Caucuses is about the big money.

Why does the big money wanna keep the status quo of this separation when on the camera, the big money says, "Why don't they work together?"

Is there a conflict or hypocrisy here?

- Pat, you're talking about big money as far as the big companies and corporations that really want the place to work.

But what they want more than that is the power and people that they think that'll work more on what they want than what the other side will do.

So that's what happens.

And they can put unlimited amounts of money.

When Elon Musk can put $270 million of his own money into a Presidential campaign, I'll guarantee he's gonna get more than just his phone calls returned.

Might get a key to the front door.

This is not what we were intended.

This is not who we are, and it's not the country we have, 'cause money was not supposed to be able to buy it or control it.

And right now we have to get that genie back in the box.

The biggest thing is, Pat, 45% of us are like me, no party affiliation.

I'm an independent, no party affiliation.

I cannot vote for my friends in the Republican primary that I think should be there, that I like, because Republicans closed their primary in West Virginia.

And all over the country, you know, you have 13 states, Pat, that absolutely you have to belong to a party.

So if I would ask people, "Do you believe you have the right to vote because that you're an American citizen, or because you belong to a party?"

They're gonna say, "Oh no, it's because I'm an American citizen."

I says, "No, it's not.

No, it's not.

If you don't belong to one of the parties, you cannot vote in a primary."

How can you have a representative form of democracy when you can't participate?

And over 20 million Americans in those 13 states can't vote in any primary.

- Well, in North Carolina we can, but we also make it almost impossible to get a third-party ballot on in North Carolina.

We found that out through No Labels.

They stalled us for three months and pulled every trick in the book.

- If we could have gotten on 50 ballots, we would've been able to have a, not only a megaphone, we'd have had a megaphone, not just a microphone.

We'd have been able to talk about common-sense things, where we would've able to show how Republicans and Democrats can work together and put the country before their party.

And the party basically was just a means of facilitating.

But now parties have total control.

They're controlling basically the laws of how you're governed, how you vote, and things of this sort.

And it's just awful.

Until that's changed, the process, a third party doesn't have a chance.

Because of the control.

- So right now, between now and the Midterms, name some names in the Senate, since that's where you come from, who are the problem solvers that really wanna get things done that are bucking the system on both sides of the aisle, who are really trying to go against their Caucus occasionally and go, "Is there a compromise here?"

- Yeah, Pat, I would say, okay, on the Democratic side, you know, there's quite a few.

And anytime you have a former governor, that person's gonna be more open-minded than anybody else coming.

If someone just basically never ran for politics before and ran for the House, they get in the House and it's strictly majority rule.

If you're in the party that has 218, you have control.

You don't even have to pay attention to the other side.

So your mentality is the strength, we are the strength, we're the majority.

We can do what we wanna do.

They pass whatever they want, and they send it to the Senate, and they wonder why it's watered down or changed.

Well, the Senate works off the filibuster, and basically it says you have to have a 60-vote threshold if you can't get on the ballot.

So to get a bill on the agenda, you have to have a cloture vote, that's a 60-vote threshold.

And if you can't get 60 votes, you're in trouble.

And they don't wanna work.

Now, they wanna get rid of that.

You get rid of that, we'll become a swing, like the parliaments and things of this sort.

We will have no standing whatsoever for the deliberative body, because then it's just absolute control.

- In the remaining minute that we have, what's the biggest issue that no one is talking about that we must solve in Congress and the Executive Branch?

- They're not talking about the finances of our country.

I'll never forget my first Armed Services meeting in early January of 2011.

Mike Mullen had all the Joint Chiefs of Staff, head of all our military, and the question was asked to him, "What's the greatest threat the United States of America faces?"

We've been talking about China, we've been talking about Russia, Iran, North Korea, those who have the ability to have nuclear armaments.

And I thought that's what I would hear.

He never hesitated, Pat.

He said, "Let me tell you, in your lifetime there's not gonna be another military power that'll take the United States of America down.

They won't be able to do that, but they won't have to do that.

We'll take ourselves down by the weight of our debt."

And the Ferguson rule is this, the Ferguson's Law is when you have the interest on your debt that exceeds what you spend on your military, that's the first downward spiral that you start to, which never, ever ends well.

You had dynasties, you had empires, you've had the Roman Empire.

All of them have failed because of excessive debt.

And no one's talking about debt.

- Senator, I could talk to you for another hour, but our time is up.

I just wanna thank you for your leadership as governor and senator, and for willing to walk across party lines despite the pressure of partisan politics.

And it's great being a friend of yours too.

You take care now.

Bye-bye.

- Take care, my friend.

Bye-bye.

(lively music) - Alright, it's time for the "Unspun Countdown" in today's Top Five.

And the question is, reasons politicians don't seem to wanna fix our problems, or your problems.

Let's start out with number five.

The fact of the matter is, some politicians just don't have the talent to fix problems.

They're really good at campaigning, and telling you what the problems are.

But in solving the problems, they've never had to do that before in their life.

Number four, they don't have the votes.

Right now, there's a filibuster problem in the Senate.

You have to have at least 60 votes to get anything through the Senate.

Well, they can't get 60 votes, so why bother solving the problem?

Number three, big money likes the status quo.

Big money really likes what's happening in Congress right now.

I know they talk about wanting to solve the problems, and Congress isn't solving the problems, but actually, the lobbyists like things just the way they are.

And big money has a big influence on the politicians who are supposed to be solving our problems.

Number two, too much political risk.

You know, when you solve problems, you step on someone's toes.

I used to be a basketball official, and I had to call either block or charge.

Sometimes it was best to call nothing.

Then you irritate everybody.

But in Congress, they're basically now irritating everybody.

Like not calling a charge call in basketball.

Number one, it's just too much work.

You know, "Why do I wanna put in that work?"

As you know, in the work environment, a lot of people like activity, but they don't like the actual work.

The same thing is true in Congress and with politicians.

(upbeat music) Time now for One-on-One.

And we welcome back political writer Andrew Dunn.

Andrew, it's great to have you back.

- Oh, it's great to be back, and honored to be on a show with both yourself and Senator Manchin.

- Well, he and I have become good friends.

We got to know each other very well through No Labels.

And now we continually stay in communications 'cause we both have similar goals of solving our nation's problems.

- Yeah, I mean, and to that point, you know, we talk about Senator Manchin as, you know, the last of a dying breed.

Do you think that's accurate, or are there more politicians out there who want to solve problems, and just don't have the skills, like you were pointing out, to make it happen?

- I think there are a lot of politicians out there that wanna solve the problems, but they might not be able to get elected in the primary.

In fact, Joe Manchin was gonna have a tough time getting reelected as senator from West Virginia.

Even though he was a very popular senator, even though he was a very popular two-term governor, he would've had a tough road getting elected again, because he didn't play the political game for either party.

And that works against you, especially in a primary.

And he might even been primaried, but generally probably would've lost the General Election.

- Yeah, speaking of primaries, you know, there's a lot of different states that are trying out new formats for primaries.

You look at California, they're, you know, throwing everybody in together.

Here in North Carolina, do you think we should try something different with our primary system?

- That's a great question.

I think there's a breakdown in the primary system.

By the way, not just for the state elections, but also for local elections.

Because right now there are too many elections that are determined in the primary.

And the thought process may be is to have a primary election and then do the top two vote getters in a primary election and then move to a general election, so everyone has the chance to vote for the two top candidates.

And, you know, what might make sense?

In fact, in California it might even give a Republican a chance to win, as the Democrats shoot each other.

And by the way, in red states, it might give a chance for the Democrats to win.

- Yeah, it's fascinating.

I mean, all I really hear about is the move to close off the primaries to, you know, right now in North Carolina, unaffiliated voters can choose the primary to vote in.

Do you think that would be a good idea to close it off and just have party voters?

- It'd be terrible.

In fact, Joe Manchin and I agree on this.

In fact, many states have closed primaries.

That means the independent voters has no say so in most elections, whether it be a City Council, County Commission, State Legislature, or a federal congressional race or Senate race.

Those elections primarily are almost over once the primary is done.

And that means in North Carolina, we'd be leaving out the majority of people registered to vote, and there are independent voters right now are outnumbering both Republicans and Democrats.

I think that would be a terrible slap in the face to the independent voter, the majority of voters down in North Carolina.

- That's right.

And growing, the fastest growing group of voters- - But the parties, they wanna hold onto power, and they wanna hold onto the extremes and onto the money.

And I hope that doesn't happen in North Carolina.

- Yeah.

You know, the other thing I think about when I listen to you and Senator Manchin is kind of the concept of being politically independent on one side, and then politically homeless on the other.

Can you do one without the other?

Can you be independent without eventually becoming politically homeless?

- Well, another person to ask right now is Thom Tillis.

I mean here he was, a top Republican, Speaker of the House in North Carolina, very popular at the time, became a U.S.

Senator, won two elections.

And now, right now his ratings are very low among Republicans, and Democrats too.

So a large percentage would not vote for the guy, but he's very popular now with the independent voter.

So would he have a chance to win?

And the same probably applies to me and Joe Manchin.

In fact, in the C-SPAN interview, I was asked, do I have political aspirations?

And even if I did, I stated that I don't think I'd get elected dog catcher in Charlotte or within the State of North Carolina.

And that's the reflection I don't think of me, I'm proud of my stances, but it's maybe a reflection of how the political parties in the primaries dominate the process right now.

- Yeah, I mean, when you look at a primary, you're really only talking to the most engaged voters.

You know, turnout is just so low.

It's not a real true reflection of the electorate.

- And I love dogs.

(both laughing) - And yeah, so to that point on what the broader electorate wants, do you think, you know, voters, if you ask them, they'll tell you that they want independent-minded leaders, they want consensus builders, they want people who will reach across the aisle, but then when somebody does that, they get punished.

So what do you make of that?

Do voters actually want independent-minded politicians?

- They're hypocrites, just like the politicians are hypocrites.

They say, "We want independent voters, or independent-minded people."

But the minute they step on your toe, or the toes of that person who wanted an independent thinker, they turn around and say, "I'll never vote for that person again."

Because we all have this litmus test.

And the major litmus test is you better not touch the issues that have the most impact on my life.

Not the nation, not the state, not the city, on my life.

So sadly, we're all guilty of being rather selfish.

- Yes, oh, that's sure.

- So in some ways Congress represents us.

It's a very selfish state right now.

- Yeah, oh, for sure.

So when you were mayor of Charlotte, you know, sometimes you had a Republican majority on Council, sometimes you had a Democratic majority on Council.

And by the way, the mayor doesn't get a vote unless there's a tie.

- [Pat] Except for veto.

- Or the veto.

So in that environment, you've gotta build coalitions, right?

So how did you think through how to go about that?

And does that style, would that still work in politics today?

- It's going down, that type of politics, mainly because of money, and because of the power of the leaders.

The leaders hold the money, therefore they might hold your re-election status in a primary.

So they'll say, "Don't worry about consensus, you do what I say."

And that means we don't solve the problems, and we have this litmus test of what the leader, the Majority Leader, or the Speaker of the House wants, or sometimes the governor wants.

- Yeah, I struggle with how do we fix our politics, right?

You know, that's one of the big questions that I have.

It seems like so many times we're just dealing with what we have the power to do rather than what we should do.

I mean, what's the solution?

I mean, is civics education the solution?

You know, trying to raise up a new generation?

- I'm so glad you brought it up.

I think part of the problem is transparency, and the second is education.

We need to teach people how the system works, starting in elementary school through high school and through college.

That's the answer right there, frankly, is education.

Andrew, thanks for being on again.

- Thanks for having me.

- I appreciate it.

(lively music) It's becoming increasingly clear that some politicians aren't spending enough time doing the job they were elected to do, solving complex problems, at least in part because they're distracted by inappropriate, and at times even illegal, behavior.

Of course, scandals in politics are nothing new, but the problem doesn't seem to be getting any better.

Just this past month, two members of Congress were forced to resign.

One, a Republican, was linked to a past relationship with a former staffer, a situation that ended tragically with a staffer committing suicide.

The other Congressman was a Democrat who was also running for governor of California.

He faces serious allegations, including rape, and now there are additional accusers coming forward.

So why does this keep happening?

Well, here's my theory.

Once someone gets elected, the room changes.

Suddenly people treat you like your IQ went up 100 points.

They laugh at your jokes.

And yes, you even become more attractive when you're called "Honorable."

The problem is, some elected officials start believing it.

They think they're smarter, funnier, and even better-looking.

And it's that last one that gets them, and others, into real trouble.

Meanwhile, their families are back home and their jobs are left undone.

At the end of the day, these aren't just personal failures, they're failures of responsibility.

Their time and energy that should be spent serving the public is spent elsewhere, and too often lives are damaged in the process, including their own.

Being called "Honorable" isn't just a title, or at least it shouldn't be.

It's a standard, one that should mean public servants are held to a higher level of accountability.

Well, that's the truth as I see it.

I'll see you on the next "Unspun."

(upbeat music) (lively music) - [Announcer] A production of PBS Charlotte.