"US Politics in 2020" SwatTalk

with Michael Dukakis '55, Carl Levin '56, and Chris Van Hollen '83. Moderated by Richter Professor of Political Science Carol Nackenoff.

Recorded on Thursday, May 28, 2020

TRANSCRIPT

Carol Nackenoff:

Good evening everybody. I'm Carol Nackenoff, professor of political science at Swarthmore college, where I teach American elections, constitutional law and American politics. And it's my great pleasure to join in this evening for this wonderful event. Us politics in 2020. One of the SWAT talks, as you know. We have an attendance of about 1,000 this evening. You have been muted upon entry and this event is being recorded. So when you have questions, please use the chat feature of Zoom which is down at the bottom. And I will be watching questions. We have some questions that were submitted in advance. And you can hear the recording later if you wish on the college web page, it will be posted in a couple of weeks.

So I know you're all excited to hear from our extremely distinguished alumni panelists. And I will introduce Chris and he will, in turn, introduce the other guests.

Chris Van Hollen Jr, from the class of '83, who received an honorary degree in 2014 is Maryland's junior Senator. Senator Hollen, a Democrat, previously served in the Maryland house of delegates. And then in the Maryland state Senate. From 2002 to 2016, he was a member of the US house of representatives, representing Maryland's eighth district which includes most of the suburbs of Washington, DC. The Maryland suburbs.

In the house, Chris became ranking member of the house budget committee. In 2007, he was chosen to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the Senate, Chris has chaired the democratic... Let me change... Let me see if I can change the microphone. Let me see if that's better. You can tell me if that's better. I don't think it is.

He was chosen to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and in the Senate he has chaired the Democratic Senate Candidate Campaign Committee. He serves on the Senate committees on banking, housing, and urban affairs. He is the ranking member of its subcommittee on securities' insurance and investment. He serves, as well, on the Senate committee on appropriations, the Senate committee on budget, and the Senate committee on environment and public works.

Senator Van Hollen was an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war. Has been a dedicated proponent of campaign finance reform. He filed a lawsuit in 2013 to force the internal revenue service to block tax exempt social welfare organizations from engaging in overt political activity aimed at electing or defeating political candidates. Some of the issues he's been concerned with, growing inequality in America, protecting the health of the Chesapeake Bay with protecting social security and Medicare, creating more good jobs, increasing educational and job training opportunities, strengthening small businesses and much more.

Senator Van Hollen was born in Karachi, Pakistan where his father served in the foreign service. He spent parts of his youth outside the United States. After graduating from Swarthmore college with a major in philosophy after a serious flirtation with physics, he did take a couple of courses in my department, political science, Senator Van Hollen studied at the JFK school at Harvard and graduated from Georgetown University Law Center. As I said, he received an honorary degree from Swarthmore as did all of our guests tonight.

So Chris, I'll let you take over.

You're muted, Chris. You're muted.

Senator Chris Van Hollen:

Okay. Can you hear me now?

All right. Well, thank you professor, and thank all of you for joining us. It's great to be here with the Swarthmore alumni group, anchored by the classes of 1955 and 1956. And the professor mentioned that I was part of the class, I graduated originally in Swarthmore as part of the class of 1983, but I actually enrolled as the class of 1981. So it just took me a little while and four changes in majors to get through Swarthmore college. But it was a special place for me and, I know, for all of us. And I'm really grateful for the opportunity to be here this evening with all of you and especially to be here with our special guests. And I am going to introduce them in a moment, but just to say that these are two individuals that I had great respect for and great admiration for. And that was even before I knew that they had been graduates of Swarthmore college. It was based on their records in one case, Michael Dukakis as governor and his other public service, and in the case of Carl Levin his service in the United States Senate.

When I later learned that both of these gentlemen had been Swarthmore grads, I knew why I liked them so much. So I'm going to introduce them. And then we're going to have some questions, some of which came in earlier online, and I think some that the professor is getting as well. And we look forward to this conversation going forward.

So first I'm going to introduce Michael Dukakis, born and raised in Brookline, Massachusetts. Swarthmore graduate class of 1955. Harvard Law School, 1960. He served in the Massachusetts legislature starting in 1962. He was elected governor of Massachusetts three times, he served. And he of course, he was the democratic party nominee for president in 1988. I was proud at that time to participate on his campaign. He may not remember, but I'm sure he remembers Frank Sieverts, who was a good friend of his. And Frank at the time was on the Senate foreign relations committee staff and as was I. And we worked on the campaign, and we were proud to do so during that period of time.

Governor Dukakis has taught political leadership and health policy and has encouraged students to think about entering into elected politics and political careers. I'm going to share a story from one of the alumni who registered for today. Frank Leichter of the class of 1952, who wrote, and I quote, "I was a delegate for Dukakis to the democratic convention in Atlanta in 1988. We organized a lunch for some seven or eight Swarthmore alumni who were attending the convention in various capacities, including Congressman Jim Short. We expressed our collective pride that, for the first time, a Swarthmore alumni was about to be nominated as a candidate for president of one of the two major parties.

Then someone mentioned that Mike had graduated with highest honors. Now that elicited exclamations and admiration, for this was an achievement that really made us proud of Mike." So now that's the spirit of a Swarthmore alum.

Carl Levin is of course also with us. And as I said, I was proud of him as a role model in the United States Senate. Carl was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. He graduated Swarthmore in 1956 and Harvard Law School in 1959. Served as the Assistant Attorney General and the general counsel for the Michigan civil rights commission. He was a member of them and then president of the Detroit city council. He was elected to the Senate in 1978 and appointed to the Armed Services Committee. He would go on to become chairman of that committee. He has many accomplishments in the Senate, including the bill establishing the Office of Government Ethics as an independent agency.

He probably has a few things to say about the attack on ethics and government watchdogs that are going on right now. He opposed the war in Iraq and passed legislation with John McCain to prevent the inhuman treatment of detainees in US custody. He helped save the auto makers and the auto industry in the 2008 recession, and was really someone persistent about oversight and led a number of investigations, including in the Enron offshore banking and torture of detainees. He retired as the longest serving Senate Senator in Michigan's history. We still miss him on the hill, although I'm sure he does not feel the same about the hill.

And now we will get started. I'm going to start asking questions and, I think, the professor's going to ask some that are coming in live and I'm going to exercise a great restraint here in being the moderator and trying not to jump in myself.

I'm looking forward to the advice from these veterans of American politics who have served our country with such great distinction. So here's the first question, and we're going to start with the questions that came in from members of the class of 1955 or 1956. Here's the question. "We all know what enormous damage Trump has done to our nations' institutions, and by simply walking away from its international agreements, it's credibility among the nations of the world. What can Congress try to do? And what are the chances of success given Republican obstruction to prevent some future president from being so propitiously disruptive? And how difficult might it be to overcome residual distrust of the United States? Because no matter how highly other nations might regard the President Biden, might they not be reluctant to count on the United States living up to its commitments if someday, some future president, might feel a similar lack of compunction and abandoned its treaties and other commitments?" That's a question from Bob Adler, the class of 1956.

So gentlemen, Governor Dukakis, do you want to lead off on that?

Governor Michael Dukakis:

Well, the obvious first answer is to beat the guy and get him out of there. Because without that, another four years of this would be catastrophic. But there are some lessons to be learned here. And I'd be particularly addressed it in Carl's thoughts on this. How do we try to strengthen whatever internal safeguards we have to make sure this doesn't happen again? I mean you've mentioned Chris, Carl's leadership when it came to ethics in the Congress and in government generally. And I'd be particularly interested in his thoughts about this. Because going through this again would be really catastrophic. And I'm not sure there's a surefire way to avoid it, but I suspect he's got some pretty solid ideas about how to get close to that. So what'd you say my friend?

Senator Chris Van Hollen:

Carl?

Carl Levin:

First it's... Excuse me. Great to be with Mike. Chris, we're so proud of you. Mike was my mentor at Swarthmore. And when he came back to Harvard, after he served two years in the army, I did not serve so I was a year ahead of him at Harvard, and he still was my mentor then. He's been a real-

Governor Michael Dukakis:

He would beat me on the squash court.

Carl Levin:

Yeah. Well.

Governor Michael Dukakis:

At Harvard law school from time to time.

Carl Levin:

It didn't make up for the mentorship, I don't think. Anyway. And it's too bad we can't see our classmates, but that's the way it is. They're relegated to seeing us when we can't see them. And we miss them.

The answer that I would give to the question, the first answer is the same that Mike just gave. The first answer is to do everything in our power to defeat him, to end his reign of error, and to end what is, I consider to be, the worst imaginable representative of the people of the United States, for the reasons given in the question. The number of deals that he's broken, his arrogance, his cockiness, is America first. Which hearkens back to some of the pre-war II America Firsters. And we've got to work with others in the world if we're going to pass, we make the world a safer place. How do you do it now?

For those who are a little discouraged, you wanted to feed Trump, and obviously there'll be some in the audience who don't, but for the most part probably people are ready to move on from this president. The most important thing anybody could do is to get discouraged about this election. And to remember how individual votes count now. In my state, they really count. We lost Michigan to Trump by 10,000 votes. That's a few votes per precinct. So don't get discouraged, folks, about persuading people who are leaning towards leaving Trump or who are independent, or who are thinking of voting for a third party, which is a vote for Trump in effect.

And the second thing is what can the Congress do now? The house is surely doing everything it can under democratic control, including going to court on many issues. The Senate Republicans control is a much more difficult task for Chris and his democratic colleagues, but that's the way it is. And so I would say hold the oversight hearings that you can, find the media outlets that you can to respond. But not in kind. Not with his petty personal attacks, but on issues on facts on truth.

Truth has taken a big hit from Trump. It's one of the greatest victims of this Trump presidency, is a commitment simply to facts and the truth. He says anything at any time, he can say opposite things in the same day, in the same speech, but that's also demeaned the relevance of facts. And with the advent of social media, it makes the effort to put facts in front even more difficult. And the other thing inside holding hearings where you can, is to go to court as you've done and the house has done, to try to enforce the right to have access to witnesses and documents. The attack on oversight by Trump will be a lasting attack if the courts uphold it. It goes to the heart of congressional efforts. The oversight effort to look into, to be the check and the balance on the executive branch. And now we have to rely more on the courts. A lot of lower courts have come through. The Supreme court could come through. It's going to be, probably, a close decision, but I wish I had a better answer.

Governor Michael Dukakis:

Chris, let me add a few words to this. This is not the first time folks. I don't want to sound like old granddad, but this was not the first time we've gone through very, very difficult times in our government. Carl and I were at Swarthmore and graduated in '55 and '56. Those were the McCarthy years. Another madman. And a terrible threat to American civil liberties.

Swarthmore was not McCarthy country, needless to say, and I, and Carl and many others were actively involved in politics even at that time. And I graduated in '55 and was drafted six weeks later. And in those days, when you were drafted from New England, you went to Fort Dix, New Jersey and did your first eight weeks of basic training.

And Carl, I don't think I ever told you about this. Three days after we got there we all had one pass for an interview, which lasted about five minutes. And then another draftee who was a personnel specialist decided what you would do for the rest of your tour. Except my guy had a file on me with every single political activity I'd ever engaged in at Swarthmore college.

So the interview began like this, "So I see you ran a fundraising drive for the American civil liberties union? You were the chairman," as were you, "Chairman of the students for democratic action, the student wing of the FDA." All of this in this file. And in those days, folks, they were discharging people other than honorably if they had been associated with certain organizations that the government didn't like. Fortunately for me, that didn't happen. And I ended up in Korea, which was fine.

Where do you think they got that information? Where do you think they got that information? It took us 10 years to find out that they had a tap on the Swarthmore switchboard. It was paying somebody. Were paying somebody to record our conversations. This is in 1955. So it was a very difficult time. Our civil liberties were threatened. This guy was running around accusing people of being disloyal and crypto-communists. It was a whole vocabulary. Pinkos, crypto-communists, and so forth. And we made it through there. So I'm pretty confident-

Mike:

So I'm pretty confident if we do what Carl is talking about and get rid of this guy in November, I'm pretty confident that we can get back to something much closer to normal within a relatively short period of time. Part of the question was, well, can we somehow, what, repair this Chris or so forth? Yeah, I think we can. I think we can, but folks, we've got to get out there and beat him and it's not going to happen by looking at polls. It's going to happen because we organize every goddamn precinct in the United States and turn folks out. That's the way we've got to do it. I didn't do it anywhere near as well as I should have in 1988. But I think the country will be ready for this, but we've got to have an army of folks and you all have to be part of it that are working those precincts hard and making sure that this is the last we hear of this guy. But we've gone through this before and I'm confident we can do it again if we do the work between now and November.

Chris:

Well, thanks. Thank you, Mike. And thank you for that perspective and it took too long, but of course, McCarthy was ultimately exposed for the demagogue that he was. Let's just hope the country reaches the same conclusion quickly about the current occupant in the White House.

Carl:

Chris, can I just add quickly about McCarthy?

Chris:

Yeah.

Carl:

Because we, in our class of 56, about six of us went to Washington with a petition with about 900 signatures on it of Swarthmore students and faculty supporting the censure of Joe McCarthy. And we actually, because we arrived on the day of the vote, got as much press as the supporters of McCarthy with their million and a half signatures arriving in an armored truck, by the way. And so the only other comment I would add to what Mike said is we not only have the strength to come back and the values to come back if we try to live up to them that this country likes to think we believe in and sometimes do, but we've got to come back stronger and come back also fairer. And that's really what the struggle is going to be to get out some of the so-called progressive votes who were discouraged by Bernie's unsuccessful run.

The contrast is so great it shouldn't take this. It shouldn't take much to bring out a huge vote against Trump and for Biden. But all I can say is that in this regard is that we've got to also dedicate ourselves to being a better people, a fairer people, less racist, less misogynist, less sexist, with a smaller gap of income. I mean, the income gap is unconscionable in this country. The racial divisions and hatred which has remained and increased by Trump's language and racism, we've got to determine to not just rid ourselves of this but to come back stronger and fairer.

Mike:

And we've made progress on this, but nowhere near enough. But as Kyle will tell you, I became the campus barber because the barber shops in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania would not cut the hair of about the 10 or 12 African American kids who were in your class, couldn't go and get a haircut in the village because they were black. That was okay for me. It's how I made my walking around money, cutting hair on the third floor of Wharton Hall. But it'll give you some sense of just how horrible things were in those days. Are they better? Yeah. But nowhere near what they ought to be. And this has got to be one of our priorities, folks.

Chris:

Right. We have to both continue to expose Trump for the fraud he is and for all the fact that he's taken the country in the opposite direction from where we all want to head. But we also, I think as both of you say, have to put forward that positive vision about a country where we have much more inclusive participation, we deal with the criminal justice issues, we deal with the racial issues, and we deal with the huge wealth gaps and income gaps. So I think we might have another question that's come in over the line here. Professor, do you have that?

Fester:

Probably about 30 of them. So I'm going to pick one that I think you all might want to speak to. This is from Michael Wing. "What do you think are the prospects for progressive globalization? At the moment we're seeing the global retreat into xenophobia and mercantilism? Can Bretton Woods be saved or do we need some new kind of global institutions? What would those be?"

Mike:

I yield to the distinguished former Senator, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Carl:

Yeah. I'm sorry that I don't have a particularly responsive answer to this other than to say that there's been so much damage done, that the first thing we have to do is have a President who will talk about the need for a global coming together, who will try to put together the pieces which have been just destroyed almost, but not permanently, the pieces that have been the wreckage of this administration, and that goes to everything. That goes to the U.N., even the European union, his attack on the European Union, where we ought to be supporting it. I'm very proud of the Chancellor of Germany for, again, taking a position, a strong courageous position when she's done on immigration, in which she just did the other day in terms of taxing.

Germans are going to pay more taxes in order that poorer countries in the European Union are able to come out of this. And she made that decision, it was a courageous decision, and what it takes basically is leaders who are willing to do unpopular things, just as I won't invoke Lincoln, but he did a lot of unpopular things in order to win a war he had to. And it takes courage to do unpopular things, and too many of our leaders, I believe, take a short term partisan view as to what will enhance their prospects for their own re-election, and instead of taking a longer term view as to what is good for the country. And I found out that if you're really, if you're trustworthy, if people trust you, they will forgive you for deviating from policy positions when you deviate from their particular policy position if they think that you're speaking what you really believe, if you're authentic, and that's what is so important that our leadership.

And the nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of, it's an outrage. It is an outrage that he pulled out of that deal. We're less safe. There's going to be more nuclear weapons and it builds up every week. There's another dent that he's putting into our nuclear agreements. So I believe from an international point of view, the next President has got to restore, go back into the climate accord, by the way. How do you pull out of a climate accord when the whole rest of the world is signed onto it accept us? Who are we joining? A bunch of dictators. So we have to go back into, we have to restore our presence in a lot of treaties, including the nuclear accord, which was so vital, the rest of the world joined in, but also the climate agreement and the other international organizations that have been abandoned. Go back into them. Rejoin them.

Chris:

Right. I mean, what we've seen from this President, of course, is an entire tire retreat from American leadership in the world. And to that first question, I think Biden's got his work cut out for him in terms of restoring confidence and faith. I think we can do it, but it's going to require Herculean effort. So I'm looking at a number of questions and they relate to the upcoming election. And Carl, of course, you represent Michigan, which is a swing state, and Mike, you understand the Presidential electoral map. I'm sure you've heard this kind of question before, but the question is, "Does the Democratic candidate, in order to win, especially in the swing states, do they need to focus more on voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 in the African American community who may not have come out in 2016 or focus on the other voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008, 2012, but then voted for Donald Trump or is it some combination?"

But as you look at this electoral map in the battleground states, what do you think Joe Biden and his Vice Presidential pick, what do you think they need to focus, his core issues, that will win in those key states?

Mike:

Well, first, Chris, I think we, they, all of us, have got to focus on the job of organizing this country politically. And I'm serious about this. Dukakis' two minute speech to folks who want advice, very simple, you need a precinct captain and six block captains in every single precinct in whatever jurisdiction you're running for, no exceptions, and their job is to make personal contact on an ongoing basis with every single voting household, period. And I mean that. Now, I didn't do that very well in '88, it's one of the reasons I lost. I spent too much time talking to people said, "Well, maybe for city council, but not for a Presidential race." Took Barack Obama to prove to us that that's the way you win Presidential elections. But I'm deadly serious about this. Enough of this trying to read polls and all this kind of stuff. I don't want to hear about Reds, Blues, and Purples.

Every household, every household, deeply and actively involved in this. And I think we can do this this time, because I think there's that much anger, happiness, or whatever you want to call it. But that's where we have to begin, and if we do that, and if folks had done it in the so called swing states, if Hillary had done it, I think we wouldn't be talking about this these days. So that's where it begins, the sooner, the better. Now we've got some problems here because we've got an epidemic which is making it very difficult for us to walk up to people's door and knock on it. And so we'll have to devise some way of dealing with this, but we can still do it. I'm seeing it at the local level here where candidates are in fact organizing in a very interesting way, but they are making contact on an ongoing basis with every household.

And I mean, every household. I don't want to slice and dice the electorate here. I think we've got to get out there and connect with people in that way. Now, there are a lot of other things we've got to do, and obviously the current situation is going to be required to do it, but I think there's enough enthusiasm and enough commitment out there to do this. And I'm just not talking about the so called swing states. We should be in every single state doing this. Even if you lose in Idaho, it helps. And doing what we have done, which is to say, "Well, hey, that's a red state, so we don't spend any time there," is just a terrible mistake. Because what you basically do to the opposition is say, "You don't have to worry about your state. You can come into Maryland and work Maryland or Michigan or whatever." This has got to be a 50 state operation, and I think we're in a position to do it.

Chris:

Good. Carl.

Carl:

I think your question is, is there an either or where your focus should be? I am very confident that Joe Biden does not recognize either or. You've got to do both. Without any doubt you must do things which will bring out the people who are already persuaded and with you, in general, the large geography that works for you already and the demographic that works for you already. But you've also got to persuade the persuadables, the people who are not sure, the independents, even if some of the former Trump voters, believe me. I know a few, who are troubled. Don't give up on them. And I'm sure that Biden is very, very well aware that he's got to show the so called moderates or independence as that he can govern fairly, represent all of the people. But that to me is really what is in the cards and what has to be in the cards.

Chris:

Thank you. And I agree, you've got to do all of that and speak to everybody as both you and Mike said. Fester, do you have a question on your end?

Fester:

I'm going to combine several, partly from Mariana Tomasic, John Crosby, Lisa Jenkins, and Belle Brett. How do the Democrats put forward stronger candidates? They've lost three of the last five Presidential elections to what one person calls lackluster candidates such as George W. Bush and Donald Trump. John Crosby asks, "It seems likely like Vice President widen will quite a challenge finding a running mate who can inspire voter turnout by younger voters and people of color who are rather disaffected versus turnout for Democrats by swing voters in swing states? What are the most important considerations in choosing that running mate? Is it more important to appeal to younger and minority voters or to upper Midwestern moderates?"

Mike:

How about the upper Midwest, Carl?

Carl:

Well, I would say that you have to do both. Obviously, you want to appeal to the younger voters who are strongly for Biden, but to turn them out. They historically have not turned out in the same numbers as older voters. But you also have to, at the same time, in candidates that run on a ticket and in your Vice Presidential choice have somebody who will appeal to the moderates as well, who will come to the Democratic ticket if they don't feel that the Democratic ticket goes too far. It's a dilemma. There's no easy solution. Biden's struggling with it, I'm sure, as to what the right person is that will appeal to both. But that's the challenge. That's what Presidential races are all about and he's up to it. I mean, he is proven. He's proven how close he is to minority communities in this country, particularly the African American community.

I mean, he's extremely close to them. And so I think he has to appeal to people who have been left out. And that's a broader category than just African Americans, although it obviously includes them. It includes people who've been left out because the lost their jobs. That can be White 50 year olds who've lost their automotive jobs who voted in many cases for Trump because they thought, you can't imagine why they thought, it's hard to imagine, that he was authentic. Why was he authentic in their eyes? Because he beat up on the press and because Hillary did not come across as authentic. You can't just take huge speaking fees from some people on Wall Street at the same time you're talking about reforms on Wall Street, which by the way, are also very much needed. You're not authentic if you do that, even though you're a real person.

And I thought Hillary was terrific. She made a mistake in that one word she used. I think that the deplorables or whatever that word was that she used, which really turned off a whole lot of people. No American citizen is to be denigrated or to be categorized in some way which is negative. We just can't treat people that way. So when we do treat people that way or appear to, it works right into the Trump attack which he makes on the elites. That is a very conscious word, which is selected and driven home all the time. The elites, the elites, the elites. Americans have a principle, at least a goal, of being an egalitarian society. We're not. We've made strides as Mike points out in that direction. We've got a long way to go.

But we nonetheless believe, it's a value, an American value to believe we're an egalitarian society. And so we've got to understand that a lot of people have felt left out, and some have more reason for feeling left out than others, but nonetheless, that feeling has got to be overcome and addressed by a Democratic candidate and Vice Presidential candidate.

Mike:

I'd say one other thing, and Chris, I'd be in your thoughts on this. Look at the midterms, look at the midterms. I mean, we skunked the opposition, just skunked them, and it's made a huge difference to have a Democratic House, right?

Chris:

Oh yes.

Mike:

And it'll make a hell of a difference if we can have a Democratic Senate as well as somebody in the White House. But take a look at that. How did it happen? It wasn't ideological. Lots of folks, many of them women, by the way, running for the first time. We need more of that. The more the better, because we're not going to win the Senate unless we do. And we want to not only maintain but expand those gains in the House. Another reason why it seems to me getting out in the field, grassroots organizing is so important. But that was a huge victory, and there's no reason why we can't, especially given what's going on and how crazy this guy is, there's no reason why we can't do it again only more so. But it was people out in the street working their heads off to get good candidates elected.

Mike:

... working their heads off to get good candidates elected. And that's what we're going to have to do in November.

Chris:

Well, that's right. If you look at 2018, Mike, it was really two things, I think. One was an enormous turnout in response to Donald Trump, and of course we'd be-

Mike:

Especially among young people.

Chris:

... Yep. Yep.

Mike:

The percentage of young people that turned out was huge compared to what had been in 2016. Huge.

Chris:

That's true. Younger voter turnout in midterms is notoriously low and it was much higher than normal. And part of it began with that women's march right after the inaugural. But in terms of an issue, it wasn't just an anti-Trump vote, it was also a, we need to protect affordable healthcare vote, and we need to expand access to universal healthcare. If there was one single issue that dominated the majority of those House races, whether they were in progressive districts or in so-called moderate districts, it was the fact that Donald Trump was going to take away people's affordable healthcare. And of course, we only prevented the defeat and getting rid of Obamacare in the Senate by that one vote. Right?

Mike:

Right.

Chris:

Three Democrats plus three Republicans, Collins, Murkowski, and then of course, McCain. So that highlighted to a lot of people how important those congressional votes were on an issue that was central. I do think that when we talk about all the states, but we look at those battleground states, those core issues that appeal to every single American voter, about affordable healthcare, equal access to a great education, these are fundamental core issues that can really [crosstalk 00:00:45:55].

Mike:

Thanks to Trump, they are still out there.

Chris:

That's right.

Mike:

Only more so.

Chris:

Right.

Mike:

On this healthcare thing, we should kill him. Doing everything he can to kill the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Chris:

Yeah. So [crosstalk 00:46:12] here's a question, just to change direction a little bit, of course it's all related. The question is, what is political courage in a democracy? And before we got online, we were talking about the fact that in the United States Senate, for example, you have all these Republican senators who claimed they were independent, but these days, whenever Trump says something, they fall into line. So how do you each define political courage? And can you point to an experience in your own decision making, where you had to take on a lot of your supporters in making it a tough decision that you believed was the right decision, but it ran counter to where a lot of your supporters were?

Mike:

What are you thinking?

Carl:

Mike, I'm just finishing a memoir. And I write a lot about this subject in my memoir, which I now finished. And I read a lot about [inaudible 00:47:23] by the way too. But anyway, I define it as our role is as a fiduciary. We are elected not to put our fingers up to the wind to see what's popular, but to do what's right in our best opinion, being open and accessible and not arrogant, but thinking through issues, the complexity of issues, and then doing what is best for our constituents, even though it might be very unpopular at the time. And that is something which is key, I believe. And one of the things I write about is how you can survive that.

Most people who have taken courageous positions, don't lose like the ones written in Kennedy's book, Profile and Courage. Senator Bellmon couldn't even run for reelection in Oklahoma, because he voted for the Panama Canal Treaty. He knew he wouldn't be elected, but it was the right thing to do. He voted for it. And by the way, he was rewarded 10 years later when he was elected governor of Oklahoma, why? Because they trusted him. They thought he was authentic. Authenticity is absolutely essential.

And there were a couple instances in my life which, my political life, probably the first one was when I voted against the Reagan tax cut, it had 80% popularity. I thought it was, again, heavily tilted towards wealthy and would help put us in a deficit situation. I voted against it, and we weren't sure I would survive by the way, because the polling numbers were very, very close. But it was the right vote and I'd always proud to point to that vote and point to it as a way in which people thinking about running for office should be fiduciaries, do what's right for the public good. That's what you're there for. It's not to get reelected. It's to do what's right for the public good.

Number of other votes. I voted against the Iraq war, it was a very popular war to begin with. I spent a lot of time offering alternatives and hearings and so forth to try to show that there was no imminent threat against us, and there was no justification for going to war. And that we were also misled by a lot of false information from mainly the president, President Bush and from Cheney and a few others in the White House about the intelligence. We were misled about it. Not just about whether there were weapons of mass destruction, but even more importantly in my book, whether or not there was a connection between the people who attacked us 9/11, and Saddam Hussein. They made out a connection which wasn't there. Heck if I thought Saddam Hussein had attacked us or participated in the 9/11 attack, I would have voted for the Iraq war. But he didn't, and the intelligence showed it and they knew it in the White House, but they misled us.

So yeah, you not only should cast unpopular votes when it's the right vote, but you could also survive most of the time. And if you have to pay the price, just be ready to do something else you want to do.

Chris:

Good advice. Mike?

Mike:

Let me say one other thing, Chris. I was a pretty good talker when I first got elected governor, but I wasn't a very good listener. I was the leader of the reformists and all this kind of stuff. And even though I thought we'd made great progress in bringing a state which was in terrible shape economically, back to something a lot closer to decent condition, I got defeated my first time for reelection. And I was 40 points ahead in the polls with five weeks to go. Well, I don't recommend defeat as a regular, a routine for you guys, but that was a wake up call for me. And I decided I would run against the guy that beat me and do a lot more listening. In fact, what'd you discover is that listening is a lot less tiring than talking. And developed an approach, which was quite successful in my second two terms, in which I never went down the policy road with creating what I called a working group. A group of folks with a real interest in the issue, maybe 20, 25, 30 people, some of them didn't agree with me. But I don't remember anybody saying, "Screw you Governor, I'm not going to be part of your working group, because I don't choose to do that."

And I got to tell you that once we worked that through, I almost never lost an issue or a vote in my legislature, no matter how contentious it might've been. And even when occasionally I didn't get everything I wanted, the process resulted in a lot of goodwill on the part of folks who, in many cases, were not great supporters of mine. And I teach this stuff these days. How do you create a working group? How do you bring people together? Even folks that hate each other's guts when you start the process. And it's really quite remarkable, that when you ask people, I don't remember anybody saying, "Screw your Governor. I don't choose to participate." Never remembered that. And it produced a pretty remarkable ... I signed the second universal healthcare bill in the country. Now fair enough, Massachusetts, liberal state, this, that, and the other thing, but that was not easy.

So I think process is important. And if you do bring people together and listen, the chances are you're going to be pretty successful and you're not going to face these knock down, drag out conflicts, which I imagine just in my second two terms, to not only avoid, but you learn from listening to folks and bringing them into the process and making it a part of it. So, I think there are ways to do this which, not only are much more successful, but produce a much better policy. And it worked for me, I got to tell you. But it took a defeat, and a very painful one, to wake me up to the fact that there were other ways to approach this, and fortunately, second time around, they worked well.

Chris:

Thank you, Mike. Carol, do you have a question on your end?

Carol:

Going to bundle a couple more, yes. I'm going to piggyback off of Chris [Edly's 00:55:05] question and [Patrina 00:55:08] Dawson's question. What do you think accounts for the devaluing of science and evidence in our politics, which of course is not limited to the president? What is to be done and what would happen if Trump cites election irregularities, fraud, and refuses to leave the White House? And Patrina asks, "How can we bring truth to politics? Too many people lie."

Mike:

Say it again. The second one.

Carol:

How can we bring truth to politics? Too many people lie. It's altogether. In other words, it's about facts and science and evidence-based discourse.

Mike:

I'll turn to my pal from Michigan.

Carl:

Everybody should go to Swarthmore first of all. Where truth and facts count and science counts. But I think probably if I had to over-simplify, and I want to just add one thing to Mike's last comment. What the listening leads to is compromise, or willingness to willingness to compromise. Now in terms of the truth, how do you try to promote truth telling and fact is number one, you've got to be willing to admit mistakes. I think it's important to be willing to admit mistakes. Secondly is of course, to listen. As Mike says, you'll listen and learn. But also in terms of the social media, I'm very much worried about the social media and what goes on in the social media. Anything goes. And the decline of the general media so-called. The major networks which people used to listen to in much greater numbers for the news, so that we were all kind of getting news from a legitimate source that was trying to be honest. We had a lot of faith in Walter Cronkite and his colleagues. And when you heard something on the news and everybody heard the same story. And it wasn't a distorted and it wasn't slanted. Then you had a common base of understanding as to what was going on.

The social media has fragmented this dramatically. There's so many sources of news now, that people tend to, I think, more and more to listen to the news they agree with. And I'd say that, by the way, too. Try to resist just listening to the news broadcast that you agree with. Try to listen to what the other side is saying, so that you'll be in a position to respond factually to what is going on. But I view the social media as something which is an effort made that you guys are making to see if you could bring some kind of truth telling and responsiveness. All of a sudden today he says, by executive order, he's going to make them subject to a lawsuit. Okay. He thinks he's king. He can just do whatever he wants to. He thinks he's Putin. He admires these guys. He admires these dictators and he envies them. And so he emulates him.

But anyway, I view that the effort on the part of Congress, and perhaps in the courts, to find some way to balance the freedom that we want in this social media and the freedom of speech, with the excesses in the lies that pass for truth, I guess, if you listen to whatever social media. I view that as a major challenge of the day.

Mike:

I agree with Carl on that, but I'm not sure I accept the premise of the person that's asking the question. Who do the American people admire more? Tony Fauci or Donald Trump? I think it's a question that answers itself. Why? Because Fauci, by the way, graduate of Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, just wanted to throw that in. Because Fauci is who he is. Yes, he's a scientist, but he's credible. And the vast majority of Americans admire him and believe him. That is not true the guy in the White House. So I think we begin with an electorate that does respect the truth. Oh yeah, there'll be some people that won't, and they'll be some people that will be out there waving signs in Michigan and other places, Carl.

But, I think truth telling is still very, very important. And I think it's going to be very important in this campaign. And I expect Joe Biden to emphasize it in his campaign. Because he's a truth teller. And he reflects this. The guy in the White House does not. [crosstalk 01:00:45] and I think we have to make sure we understand that.

Carl:

... and admitted a mistake that he made the other day immediately. And [inaudible 01:00:52] said, "I made a mistake."

Mike:

Yeah.

Carl:

And it's important.

Mike:

No question.

Carl:

And the other thing which Mike's comment really leads me to is having faith in the American people. And it's really important that we have faith, at least in the values that we uphold and try to move closer to. I have a lot of faith in the people and that would have been true if they voted me out of office, by the way, I hope it would have been true just the way it was with Mike, with his experience. History proves that we've come through a lot of bad times and you got to just keep faith that the American people will somehow or other get it right. I have that faith.

Chris:

So, here's another question. This one we'll start with Carl, because it is a question related to the Senate, but obviously, Mike should address it too. But, the question indicates that, in the best case scenario, from the perspective of large majority of people on this call would be, President Biden in the White House. Continuing the Democratic majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. But, there's no realistic scenario where even if the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, they have enough to overcome the filibuster of 60 votes. And if we really want to make progress on key progressive initiatives, would you support getting rid of the filibuster in order to move a progressive agenda?

Carl:

The answer is I would not favor getting rid of the filibuster on legislation. We've gotten, I'm afraid, and we instigated Democrats getting rid of the filibuster on lower court judges. And then McConnell extended that, getting rid of the filibuster, to Supreme Court. And because we lost the filibuster on Supreme Court, look what we got. But more important, again it's something I'm writing a lot about, the new so-called nuclear option was a mistake. It broke the rules and it just changed the nature of the debate in the Senate, the filibuster, and I won't make an argument for it. To maintain it on legislation only, not necessarily on lower court judges, I think that's a done deal. But keep it for Supreme Court Justices and for laws that are being considered. It's one of the few things that brings us together in the Senate.

What brings us together, is that we have to work together if there's a filibuster. We're forced to do it. You got to get 60 votes. And it forces compromise in the Senate, and without it, it would be, I believe, if you could imagine, a more partisan place than it is now. It would become even more partisan, more divisive. And hanging on to that, I shouldn't be lobbing you on in front of hundreds of my colleagues. It's an unpopular position among progressives.

The one example I would use as progressive. We passed a Right to Work law in Michigan. A terrible law, from my point of view. It allowed people who benefit from unions not to contribute to the support of union. It's a terrible law, we never should have passed in Michigan. How about if there's a national right to work law? It's proposed in the Senate? And the Republicans have a majority to pass it? Do we think all the progressive's would now oppose the filibuster? I don't think so. It depends on what it's being used for.

It's been used for some terrible things. It was used to filibuster civil rights laws, a horrific thing, on my judgment. But the way to beat the filibuster is to do what LBJ did. You beat it. You put together enough people to beat it. And we should have done that, by the way, and I told your caucus now, Chris, my caucus then, for God's sake, make them filibuster. Filibusters aren't one way streets. Just because someone threatens to filibuster, you don't give in. And that's what we did. We weren't willing to give up our holidays and weekends, and I know I got kids and grandkids. It's not easy. You plan on going home and doing what we do back home. But if you want to beat the filibusters, you beat them. You beat them. You have to be just as tough, just as determined as they are, and you-

Carl:

just as tough, just as determined as they are, and you say you want to filibuster. Go ahead. You stand up all day, all night for week after week. You go ahead filibuster, but we're not going to let you get away with that just because you threatened the filibuster, so called gentle men's filibuster, which now is taking the place of a real filibuster. Make them filibuster, put them to the test. They will fail. If you got 58 votes or 55 votes, they will fail. You'll get to 60, if they look like real providers and people who don't want progress at all. So that's my advice. I know it's not popular with a lot of my progressive friends, but that's what I believe in.

Chris:

No, I appreciate it. No, thank you, Carl. And as you say, there are very powerful arguments that you made in terms of preserving that protection. The right to work law is a good one. There are a number of other examples. On the other hand, it obviously is an impediment to trying to move a lot of important legislation, and so we're going to... What I can say is, I hope we're in a position to have a meaningful debate on this issue, which means we'd have a majority in the United States Senate. Mike, do you have a view on this?

Mike:

Well, I'm going to have to listen to my friend from Michigan for a while on this one, particularly because if I understand Senate procedure, there's a way of getting around it by using the budget. You guys know a lot more about this than I do, obviously, but we did get the affordable care act through the place, not withstanding the fact that it was facing filibuster. I assume that had something to do with including the budget resolution or something, so maybe that's that's okay in that sense, that a majority of the Senate will use the budget to get stuff through when it's facing a filibuster. I got to learn a little bit more from...

Chris:

Well, you got some of that Senate procedure down. There is a way using this process called budget reconciliation.

Mike:

Right.

Chris:

That you can pass certain things, so the affordable care act was able to be shaped into that form. On the other side of the ledger, of course, Republican tax cuts, including the most recent round of tax cuts were also jiggered into that form. On the other hand, there are important things that we'd want to do when it comes to electoral reform, when it comes to campaign finance reform that don't fit into that budget. So that's why it's a continuing debate.

Mike:

I'm persuadable. I'm persuadable.

Chris:

All right. Carol, do you have one on your end?

Carol:

I do, and then I think that it may be wise that the one afterwards, the one that you picked might be our last question. We'll see how long it takes to do this. I'm compiling a couple from Wilburn Boykin, Michael Westgate, and someone else. Is there anything that we can do, in your view, to assure the nationalization of mail-in ballot opportunities? Is that a good idea? And also, what else would you recommend to ensure the right to vote?

Carl:

Can I kick that off?

Mike:

What do you think?

Carl:

There's a lot of efforts out there to try to thwart voting. They all come from the same direction, people who don't want big turnouts. Those have got to be fought. You got a great new secretary of state here, Jocelyn Benson in Michigan, who's an expert on voting. We've just adopted a constitutional amendment to allow anybody to vote absentee. You don't have to have an excuse, anybody can vote.

And then, I think we ought to, if we can, most important thing we can do in the short-term is to fund the, and this is in your hands, Chris, part of the budget, put funds to help states overcome the shortfall in turnout, which may result from the virus that we're all facing in every state. This is a funding issue that Congress is facing, which can help promote absentee voting, and help promote voting in a number of other ways. And that's the most important, short-term thing we can do.

But then the fight against the efforts to try to restrict voting and to promote absentee voting, whenever we can, vote-by-mail, there's no reason not to. The argument that some Republicans automatically make, it'll promote fraud, is another lie. There's no evidence it promotes fraud. You may find one case in one state, somewhere where it does, but that's it. Their argument that this is something which will lead to fraud has got no basis in fact. Again, you got to fight these false claims with facts, and promote the voting-by-mail to the extent you possibly can in every state. That's what we now are doing in Michigan.

We also put more funds in hopefully to shorten lines. We have longest lines in the places where there's the most people, which automatically discriminates, by the way, against poor people who live in cities and older cities like Detroit, who face longer lines when they go to vote. We have to try to have more people at the polls doing the poll work, more places to vote to reduce that impediment to people voting. Anything we can do to promote voting and to shorten lines, and to answer lies will be a real gift to democracy, which will be under attack again.

Mike:

I agree with all of that, and I think we ought to use it as a campaign issue. Go to those folks who clearly are being targeted by these anti-voting moves, and use this as a way to organize them and get them out there. And I think this is exactly the right time to do it. I'm all for what Carl has to say, but in those places... And look what happened in Georgia, closing polling places in predominantly black neighbors last time around. Unbelievable. I think this can be a very powerful issue for us, and we ought to use it.

Chris:

You're right, we need to remind people why some forces on the right are working so hard to reduce access to the ballot box. It's because they're afraid of the results if a lot of people come out and vote, in terms of diminishing their power. I will say that The CARES Act that was passed by the House and Senate did contain a $400 million to come to states to upgrade voting systems, and to allow them to do vote-by-mail. That said, we need to do more.

And the House passed HEROES Act, which passed just a little while ago, contains substantial additional resources in addition to establishing national voting standards like, 15 day early vote periods, and for this election requires every voter who's registered to be able to vote-by-mail. But as you know, Mitch McConnell was fighting that tooth and nail, and the President's been tweeting about it.

Mike:

All right, but we want to make that an issue.

Chris:

We will.

Mike:

By the way, I want to see a lot more activity in the Latino community as well, by us. Obviously, very committed to doing what we're doing to turn out a big turnout in the African American community. But the Latino community is sitting there waiting for us, and we've got to go after these folks hard.

Chris:

Yeah, we need to energize, so that's... I'm pulling together a couple of questions here, and it kind of pulls together some of the threads that you're talking about, it says that despite the economy's current condition where it's been hit hard by the pandemic, while Joe Biden leads Trump in lots of measures, for example, who do you trust on healthcare? Who would you trust with respect to handling the pandemic? Trump continues to lead by about 10 points in terms of who would be better on the economy. So how do you explain that, and what advice would you give to Joe Biden to turn that around, because that's obviously a very important measure for voters, how they think the president's going to perform on the economy?

Mike:

Carl, what do you think.

Carl:

Well, the bill that passed the House is a lot of money, as I understand it, which will go to where it needs to go, not to the largest corporations which have built up a huge cash reserves, which clearly should not be given grants or loans in my judgment, but it ought to be focused on, it could be large businesses, but the ones that are in trouble and have lots of employees, and the small businesses, the ones that hire most of the people in this country that are small businesses. And that's what the new bill that passed the House puts its focus, it puts it on employees, and on getting pay to the people who have lost their pay. It's very, very fundamental stuff. If you have lost your pay, and you can't make your mortgage and buy enough food that you, you got real trouble, and obviously pain.

We've got to address that pain at its source, and that's the small people. That's the people who have lost their jobs, and the unemployment may not even be available or may be totally inadequate. To get the economy back going, that's what it's going to take, I think, in the short-term. I got a bunch of other ideas, but they're too too detailed, I think, for this particular moment, including some Wall Street reforms, by the way, which I won't go into, but we ought to be investing in America.

To shorten this as much as I can, we've got some folks on Wall Street who focus on high frequency trading, which is not investment in America. It's just trades which take place in seconds, and where some of these high frequency traders are just, they get in the way of, they hijack offers to buy and offers to sell. It's much more detailed than that, but there's, it's like a private tax, which is collected, a nickel, a dime on every share by people who aren't investing.

These are the folks who are in the pension funds or who represent pension funds, who invest for pension funds. These are people who have this specialty of basically just hijacking like highway robbers, as far as I'm concerned, you want to pass this roadblock, you got to pay us a dollar in the old days, hundreds of years ago. Well now they're paying nickels and dimes on hundreds of millions of shares a day, which are not investments in America. You're not buying stock to hold onto your bid.

They're interfering with the actual trades, and Wall Street ought to be opposed to this. A lot of Wall Street is by the way, I've talked to enough. I don't want to generalize about Wall Street, I think we make a mistake if we generalize about anything, frankly, except Trump, but we shouldn't generalize. A lot of people on Wall Street hate this as much as I do and would like to change it. But it's going to take a new President that appoints a new Securities and Exchange Commission that will take this on, which has been "under study" for years, under study sounds like Chuck Grassley.

Chris:

Mike?

Mike:

Well, I think the economy may be doing this for us, and I don't want to sound overconfident, because I'm not. Anybody's who's overconfident after what happened in 2016 is crazy. This guy who talks about the great economy he produced, which of course had nothing to do with him, before the pandemic had a trillion dollar deficit. Now, if you're the son of Greek immigrants, deficits or not things that you like. You're supposed to pay your bills, that kind of stuff. I understand we're talking national fiscal policy, but I think we can do a number on this guy when it comes to the economy. And it just so happens that the pandemic is helping us to do that.

I see no reason why we shouldn't take him on, on this thing. He's as responsible for these deaths as anybody around. Our performance in comparison with Greece of all things, which has done a hell of a job, and in many other countries is important. I think we ought to ride this thing hard, and he deserves as much of the blame for this as anybody on the planet Earth. I don't see us in a defensive position here at all, I think things are moving in our direction when it comes to this, and we should take advantage of it.

Chris:

And of course, today we passed that solemn mark of 100,000 Americans who have died because of COVID-19. I think we all recognize we would have faced a tough situation no matter what, but there is no doubt, no doubt that the gross negligence of this President and this administration have made it much worse. This virus got a six to eight week head start in the United States. We have the highest death toll in the world, and that has made the economic wreckage even worse than it would have otherwise been if we'd taken-

Mike:

Not only that, Chris, but now we're, at his urging, we're opening things up again, and we know exactly what's going to happen. The folks that know about this have told us that's all we need.

Chris:

Yeah, it's important that the voters that you and Carl and others have talked about, all voters, we need to make sure that they know that we're there for them in terms of these pocketbook issues, healthcare issues, economic security, social security issues. It's outraging that Trump has been able to hang on to that in the national polling. I think we can change it, and-

Mike:

He's losing. He's losing. Look at the elderly vote, which for some reason stuck with him.

Chris:

Yeah. And the fact that he continued to push tax cuts for the rich, even in this pandemic.

Mike:

Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely

Carl:

One place where he is lost huge ground is among women, who really are the story, as far as I'm concerned, of 2016. We elected two new Democratic women to Congress to take Republican seats. They are extraordinary, but it represents something that's going on significantly among a group, which is always, at least in recent years, lean Democratic, but now is extremely important in terms of the vision for our future in the democratic party, future lead played a major role in 2016. Look at how many new women members in The house do you know, off the hand, Chris?

Chris:

I don't have the exact number, but as you say, it was the defining sort of piece of the 2018.

Mike:

And it was a majority of the winners, wasn't it?

Carl:

Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I said, and I meant 2018. yeah.

Chris:

Yeah.

Mike:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that's great.

Chris:

So, Carol, do you want to-

Carol:

I think that we need to pull this to a close. Unfortunately, there were lots and lots of interesting questions that we could not get to. Every question spurred quite a bit of discussion, but I've been reading a lot of these provocative questions, and they are preserved. I would like to thank the classes of 55' and 56' for coming up with this plan, and to Senator Van Hollen, and Senator Levin, and Governor Dukakis for agreeing to do it. It was a real pleasure. I think you understand, those of you who are listening, what some of our challenges are trying to teach remotely with some of the technological glitches, the difficulty hearing from time to time. I hope that will get better if we have to do it again.

Chris:

If I could just, also, if I could in closing, thank Gretchen Handwerger who I know contacted me. I think she's the-

Mike:

And me.

Carl:

And me, thank you, Gretchen.

Chris:

Gretchen, thank you for reaching out to all of us. To all of you tuning in, I think Swarthmore's a very special place for all of us, as you can see. And we're grateful for the opportunity. I don't know if my colleagues have any closing remarks to their classmates.

Carl:

Thanks for thanking Gretchen notion.

Mike:

Yeah, she's great. My calendar, I do it a lot here. And look, what can I say? Swarthmore, for me, was a transforming experience. I'd never been out of New England. I didn't know a Quaker from a shaker. All of a sudden I'm down there, and it's a different place, but it made a huge difference in my life, as I'm sure it did for you guys and for all of us. I've never regretted it, still writing letters of recommendation and a few other things to make sure that good people keep going there.

Carl:

Yeah, well amen to that. Some of the best friends I'll ever make were Swarthmore friends, and some of the best professors I could even imagine were at Swarthmore. Learned an awful lot about a lot of things that are important, values that are important. And we always have held Swarthmore and the friends we made there, high up in our hearts.

Chris:

Thank you. Thank you all for joining us.

Carol:

Thank you all very much.

Mike:

Thank you