(00:00:00) Today is you look out over this crowd. You can see a lot of smiles and you can see a lot of frowns. Everybody Knows by now what happened in yesterday's election and it's the Republicans who are smiling. We are pleased today to have with US Representative Tim penny in former representative Ben Weber discussing the issues and outcomes of yesterday's election. As you know, Congressman penny a fiscal conservative who emphasized budget concerns during his 12 years in Congress left office frustrated with the inability of Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement on reducing the deficit then Weber Minnesota Second District representative from 1980 to 1992 now serves as Vice chairman of Empower America a nonprofit organization founded to Advocate policies that emphasizes individual responsibility and accountability in approaching the problems of the economy social welfare and education. Penny and Weber have recently joined forces as co-directors of the Humphrey Institute policy Forum at the University of Minnesota today. We'll start with 15 to 20 minutes of conversation between mr. Penny and mr. Weber and then we'll go to you for questions and comments genma Rasik and Ken darling of Minnesota meeting will move among you to manage the question and answer session. You may use the slips of paper on your table to jot down questions for discussion. Let's start with a fairly simple question. What happened? And why well, I'll start Tim. I think it's your last meeting Walter Mondale was your speaker and he warned about violence in America. And yesterday we found out what he was referring to there. There was a great violence done to the Democratic party simply, but let me take it a little further than that in all seriousness. I think you have to look at yesterday's election as really the third election in a row in which the public has sent a strong message of discontent to Washington. You got to First glimmer of that in 1990. In fact, you got really the first glimmer of that right here in Minnesota with the victory of Paul wellstone over Rudy boschwitz in 1990 to 1992. You had an incumbent Republican president thrown out who just a few months before had a 90% approval rating and the highest vote for a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. And now in 1994. We have seen the biggest Republican victory in over 40 years. Really a Historical midterm election Victory. So the public is clearly demanding change very substantially. I think in the short run what happened yesterday was a rejection and if I can be so bold really a final burial of liberal welfare state problem solving. It relates back to the Public's perception of the Clinton health care plan and other things the Clinton ministration did of the public simply said, we don't want after 60 years of this anymore growing the size of government in Washington. I think the interesting question is what happens next. I don't think that either party has yet invented problem-solving that's appropriate to the 21st century that will regain the confidence of the American people and I don't think that this simply returns us to a state of normalcy only with the Republicans and domination. They dominated because Clinton administration did not produce on their promises to be new Democrats. Tim (00:03:37) well first was not on the ballot this year. So I am one of the few Democrats that came through this election unscathed. Vin's assessment that that the voters have been trying to send a message is I believe on target. It was a much stronger message than almost any of us in either party were prepared to predict it seats picked up in the Senate by the Republicans that this morning Senator Shelby of Alabama announced that he switching parties. I think that now brings it to a 47:53 majority for the Republicans 52 seat pick up in the house. No Republican incumbent lost anywhere in the country and of the open seats those seats were members have either retired voluntarily or or chose to run for higher office a Republicans. Only lost four seats total of 56 Democratic losses, 21 of those in open seats in that was 60% No, really. Thirds of all of our open seats went to the Republican party and then when you factor in the major shift at the gubernatorial level where Republicans went I think from a 20 seats 229 c-czar's at 3131. I believe. Yeah XI and XI seat pick up. It's it's the magnitude of this shift that I think is the most telling and it indicates that at every level Americans are trying to send a message for new approaches because Democrats had been in positions of power at both the state and the federal level. The only way they felt they could send a message was to vote against Democrats up and down the line. I would I would add this caveat and that's that. I don't believe it was so much an endorsement of a republican agenda as it was. An endorsement of change they thought that they were going to get change in 1992 and they give them they gave Democrats the benefit of the doubt at that time. They didn't see business as usual transformed with Democrats in power. And so this vote was that to give the Republicans a chance to change business as usual. So it's not so much an endorsement of a republican agenda down the line as it is an opportunity for the Republicans to show that they can get it right. I want to come back to that (00:06:18) point. But first of all you both said that people want to send a message. What is that message? What kind of change do they want? What are people so darn angry about I just I think you have to just put into the historical context that we in the 1930s. We embarked on something relatively new in this country in the Western World, which was central government problem-solving at the domestic level the New Deal followed by the Fair Deal Great Society and the principles of all of those programs centralization. Action hierarchy hierarchical structure bureaucracy, which was not always a dirty word. We're very popular Notions and made a lot of sense to people you identify a problem you establish a program in Washington to solve it redistribute income through the tax code. That's that's what we did for many years. I think the Striking thing about health care is that it was not that much different than previous programs that Democrat presidents might have put forward and yet it was rejected overwhelmingly by the American people. Now that makes sense to me and is important to me because it says the government cannot look to solving problems in the way traditionally did are all of our politics are sort of divided and have been since the thirties between the Democrats who are advocating solutions to those problems in the way. I just described and the Republicans are saying no and that politics increasingly doesn't make much sense to people and the politics of the future has to involve some different approach to leadership to solve problems involving local units of government involving the private sector involving non-governmental entities neighborhood. Churches and things like that. I don't know exactly what it looks like. But I somebody is going to figure it out and that somebody or movement or party is going to be the wave of the future. I agree. By the way with with Tim that it was not an endorsement of the Republican agenda at the federal level. However, if you want to see where you saw the Republican agenda and Doris look at some of the governors who were re-elected Governor Carlson here in this state, obviously Governor Thompson and Wisconsin, governor Engler and Michigan the governor's Republican Democrats, like a particular these Republican Governors did have an agenda welfare reform education reform hold the line on taxes and spending their agendas were endorsed and that's a clue to the Future. It (00:08:27) seems to me I think there's more to that point than simply the agenda these Governors pursue it and that is the way in which they pursued that agenda in almost every circumstance that these Republican Governors had to work with either a majority Democratic legislature or a legislature in which Democrats were a significant force and so whether it was education reform or welfare reform or Property tax reform they they delivered in a way that required bipartisan cooperation. And and I think the American public long ago figured out that regardless which reforms you adopt at the national level, whether they be term limits or limits on committee chairs or bringing Congress under the laws that apply to the private private sector are passing a balanced budget amendment. None of those reforms will will solve what ails our system unless and until we have more leaders in both parties that are really willing to reach out and work with leaders in the other party. So I think is the bipartisan approach that was often in play in Michigan in Ohio in Illinois and Wisconsin that led to people rewarding those Republican Governors with with sizable victories and they didn't unfortunately see that bipartisanship at play on very many issues at the national level over the last (00:09:49) Well, you're raising the million dollar question. What what happens now with President Clinton and a republican Congress. Are we (00:09:59) facing gridlock? Will (00:10:01) we see constructive action? (00:10:03) Well, it's a it's going to be a balancing act for both the president and the Republican leadership. I'm pleased that they met right away today. I think you need to start building those bridges. I think it's going to be a huge challenge for them to find common ground because very little was done in the last two years to build relationships across party lines, but I think the first thing they have to agree on is a list of issues where both the president and the Republican party share an interest first and foremost welfare comes to mind. I think that there's a lot of common ground between Clinton's welfare reform proposals and and those being put forward by Republicans in the Congress. There's a possibility They could they could agree on some minimalist reforms in the health care area. It's not going to be anything as far-reaching as Clinton proposed. But I think it would be a mistake to do nothing on the health care issue over the next two years and maybe they could agree on a small list there some some of the reforms like line-item veto, you know, President Clinton had that as a governor. He's always claimed that he wants that power as president. Maybe the Republicans are positioned to give him that Republicans going to have to be very careful to set aside a lot of the rhetoric that they used against Clinton during this campaign because if they feel that they can just continue to bash the president and obstruct the president's agenda and in play sort of a grenade lobbying game for the next two years. They're going to discipline this point the electorate and we'll have another election in which a strong message is going to be sent but I hope there are people in both camps that are smart enough to realize that Partisanship is is the enemy that the that the public is trying to slay with the with their votes. And and if they if they understand that message there there is a ray of hope that we may see some cooperation in this next session in spite of the bitter and acrimonious nature of the (00:12:10) campaign. Well, possibly I have to tell you though all those newly elected Republicans did not get a message in the voters and said go to Washington and help out Bill Clinton just the opposite, you know, and and I'd like to see some cooperation on a whole range of areas in some I think are absolutely vital but it's important to recognize that that the message of the that those newly elected Republicans particularly bring to Washington is very negative toward the present and the and the president has to be very careful particularly in these next few weeks not to ignite the fire storm that most of them are quite ready to engage in right now. I think that there are some opportunities first of all the Have to deal with The Gap treaty which they should have dealt with last summer, but they have to deal with that in the lame duck session. And that's the first opportunity even though the new Congress isn't going to deal with it. It's an opportunity to show very publicly some cooperation with Gingrich and Dole both of whom back at or will back at and it's an important issue besides and then they've got to sit down and decide how they're going to deal with fiscal policy for the country. Now, the Republicans are at least in the house are sort of locked into some of the first things they're going to do with the contract with America, but at least three of those items really don't require the president's involvement their Constitutional Amendments on balancing the budget and the line-item veto on term limits that are either going to be passed through and sent to the states for ratification or not, but they don't require presidential signature and president sort of ought to just let them do their thing on those issues. I suspect the balanced budget amendment will pass. I don't know about the other two, but they ought to be working. I would think on a bipartisan budget over time right now. It's one of the area, you know, you have to sort of divide there are areas where bipartisanship Would be very very nice and could accomplish a lot welfare. Reform Health Care reform come to mind. Then there are areas where bipartisanship is really absolutely critical and that's I would say trade and fiscal policy. If you see a breakdown of the ability of the government to conduct fiscal policy because you for instance to have gridlock over the reconciliation bill, in other words the tax bill and spending reduction measure that's designed to bring us into line with the budget resolution. Then the markets here and across the world are correctly going to say nobody's in charge the United States. We have no idea what's going to happen with your deficits because there's no ability of this President and this Congress to work together. They got to avoid that somehow even if the solution is fairly minimalist from the standpoint of those of us that would like to see some significant change in fiscal (00:14:32) policy. I'll admit that. My answer earlier was was a best-case scenario. I agree with then that there are many pitfalls that could result in a repeat of the the partisanship and the gridlock that Dominated the Washington scene for the past Dozen Years and part of that is driven by the fact it's been said that that there's more ideological slant to the new legislators that are coming to Congress this year and it's going to make it difficult to lead them toward consensus on any issues when they they feel that their election was a mandate for a more right-leaning agenda on a whole range of issues including social issues. And that doesn't lend itself to compromise the middle ground. The other thing is that in the Democratic party the same thing happened most of the open seats were in competitive districts, which is to say they could go either way and Democrats lost a good share of those districts, but these Democrats who retired tended to be moderate to conservative Democrats of the freshmen Democrats who lost re-election all of the freshmen Democrats to lose and I think About a dozen were moderate conservatives. And so the Democratic party will have more idia logically left or liberal complexion in the new Congress and that's going to make it different difficult for the president and the Democratic Party leaders in the Congress to bring those folks to the table for bipartisan (00:16:09) cooperation. I think about just briefly add to it. I think I agree with that. There's also a populist cast particularly to the new Republicans, but to a certain extent of the Democrats to that is not fit easily into a left-right continue at least in my view because all these voter these candidates are out there competing for Ross Perot support in their own districts and on some things that might not be bad. I think it makes them all very deficit conscious and might be helpful in that regard. But at least on trade policy and again on immigration policy. I think it might lead us to some fairly nasty outcomes and then is not helpful in either case. It seems to me before we go to the audience. I'd like to ask one philosophical question you both have said That we need a fundamental change in the system and the way people approach politics and yet both of you have been talking (00:16:57) about situations that sound very much like Politics as (00:17:01) Usual who makes the change who leads that charge to say, we have to approach lawmaking in a very different way. Is that going to happen (00:17:12) but let me offer this answer. I think it starts with the president. I don't think there's any individual on the national National scene that can do more to set the tone than the president and I will I will say this since I'm the Democratic spokesman here Clinton talks a good line on bipartisanship, but there was there was really no serious effort toward bipartisanship on most of the issues that came through Congress in the last two years and you know, It seems to me that the president by and large sets the agenda and and creates the environment in which issues are addressed and and no other leader at the national level can compete with the president in that regard. If the president is sincerely interested in bipartisan coalition's it's difficult for the opposing party to stay away from the table of the president invites you in there's an obligation to to go and and to meet with the president and work toward consensus. And so I really think that the president holds the key. (00:18:23) Let me answer the question differently. I agree with him on that but let me answer the question differently in terms of problem solving. I really believe in a very non-ideological sense that problem solving has got to shift right down to the community level. I think we have found and I do mean this not in the traditional Republican sense of about simply the proper role of government. I probably believe there's a very limited proper role for government. That's not my point my point. The country has looked at the government's approach to poverty and a whole range of other problems and said we simply can't manage the solutions to those problems from Washington. All right, A lot of my friends in the Republican Party would simply say as a traditional Republican might that means there's no governmental role the answer to your question. Tim seems me in a different way than Tenpenny answered it is there has to be some kind of a Revival of the concept of citizenship at the Grassroots level in the communities, whether it's in nonprofit organizations and churches or local government. I don't know what and then utilize the federal government and perhaps a state government as well to serve as a catalyst to provide incentives to help leverage resources. I think as we think it through there there is a different way of solving problems that can engage the citizenry much more actively and probably have more success than at least in some of these areas the federal government said I'm federal government has done some things that no one else could do civil rights being the To them but in some areas they've been miserable failures poverty being the best of them and we ought not to resist finding a different level of problem solving there and that requires a different concept of citizenship. It seems to me let's hear what the audience has to say. Okay. (00:20:04) Yes. Thank you. You were listening to representative timpani and former representative Vin Weber talking with Tim Maguire who's the editor of the Star Tribune and a member of the Minnesota meeting board three of them were talking about what truly was a historic election yesterday to the Minnesota meeting on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio. We have a first question from Sarah Hernandez who's manager and volunteer programs at Honeywell. (00:20:28) Well, yesterday's result impact the timing our results of the upcoming vote. The upcoming. Well the Gap vote. Oh, well, that's that's a very good question. Both both Dole and Gingrich have made the clear that they intend to pass Gap. I've been very involved in that myself. I hope that that that happens quickly. But as I mentioned we're going to find out fairly soon how strong the the populist protectionist message is that has been sent by really the pro voters and others as well in the course of the selection. I'm kind of fearful about what that'll mean. I hope that it won't mean anything for terms of the GATT agreement because that's the old congress not the new one. But it but I expect Gap to pass. I think the bigger question is are we going to be able to enact The fast-track Authority under which we conduct trade negotiations successfully because if we can't do that then the next steps after Gat are going to be very difficult to take we have a Chilean free trade agreement for instance, which is the next. Up in trade liberalization the Chileans are waiting for it. And we hope to move from there to a number of other free trade agreements. It's going to be very difficult. If we can't pass the fast-track authority under which Congress considers and we negotiate those treaties. (00:21:47) I think it will pass will have a one-day special session on November 29th in which a lame duck congress will deal with this issue bear in mind. The reason it was put off or one of the reasons. There were there were several was the because Democrats were not anxious to cast a vote on the trade treaty that labor opposed and Republicans were not anxious in the in the context of the fall campaign to cast a vote on a trade treaty that parole and his supporters opposed. The assumption is that most of these people will vote for it. Now that the election is behind us, but bear in mind a lot of these folks had to make a promises in order to get reelected and some of them may have been put on the spot in the course of the last few weeks, so I haven't seen a recent poll. Of the membership to identify how many took an anti Gap position in the course of their campaigns, but that's the wild card here. I think there are enough votes to pass it. I think it's it's important that we move forward with that. But the intervening campaign may have cost us a few votes. (00:22:51) Thank you very much Congressman. We have a question now from Jerry Miller who's with tunheim Century Sosa minneapolis-based public relations firm. I'm looking at my watch tick tick tick in about an hour. The president is going to do a news conference. What should he say to the country? Is there anything he can say? Yeah, they say he's a good politician. He knows how to read the turns and he got his party got beat and I don't think that there's anything to be accomplished by this President trying to gloss over what happened in the elections yesterday. Furthermore. I think he ought to say we got a message and you know, we've if I were the president say we work very hard the last two years we tried to do what was right. We weren't too happy with Republicans for stopping a number of the things we thought would be good for America. But we also got a message out of this election and I want to sit down with Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich in the Democratic Leadership of the Congress right now and figure out how we can work together on welfare reform and tax reform and fiscal policy. He ought to be totally conciliatory in my view. And again, I say that because I come back to the mindset of all these newly elected members who will not take much urging to go to war with this white house and if he wants to start that war right now today, which I don't think he does but if he does he's going to get it so he ought to not do that. He had to try to calm things over as much as he can. And and indicate that he's ready to move toward the center on some issues and see if they and then and then challenge the Republicans to reciprocate. (00:24:18) Yeah, I think he's receiving a lot of advice at this very moment from (00:24:27) and some of it is going to (00:24:29) come from political operatives who are attempting to persuade him that this election had mostly to do with delayed effects of the 1990 redistricting and the the large number of open seats in which a Democrat retired and gave a republican newcomer an opportunity to win and we went through this two years ago in which we sort of redefine the message of the 1992 vote and I'm sure he's getting some of that advice but I trust that he will reject that and and step forward and acknowledge that a strong message was sent and and then proceed to sincerely offer a hand of cooperation to the Republican leaders and and stress that we need to put the nation's interest before. Listen interest is the president looks at his last couple of years. Some of the the issues that that I think demonstrated his commitment to change were a national service as a way of earning Student Financial Aid which is in place now, very marginal level work there as opposed to welfare, which was back-burnered. But but it was certainly a major campaign theme for him downsizing the federal Workforce, which is now being implemented as a 10% reduction in the federal Workforce. Thanks to the president's leadership and procurement reform which will save billions of dollars as we finally streamline our federal procurement process the problem for the president is that these issues which resonated with so much of the electorate which identified him as a new democrat and the different Democrat and would have invited significant bipartisan cooperation were the issues. He stressed the least over the last two years and and he put most of his time and his Into a stimulus spending bill which increase the deficit a budget plan that had a heavy tax component and a health care bill that looked to most Americans as being heavily bureaucratic and probably a budget Buster and he has to recognize that he put the emphasis in the wrong area over the last two years because while you can dispute the details of the message that was being sent this year. There was clearly a sense all across the country that voters were asking for political leaders who would find a way to do better with less. Thank you Congressman the next question from John Anderson from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, (00:27:03) Tim and Vin. Do you think that this election will (00:27:07) send a wake-up call to the monolithic group such as the National Education Association and CIO are the AFL-CIO from the standpoint at least of their hierarchy. They're going to have to be more conciliatory and their positions before the Congress. Maybe maybe not but I think it also sent a I think it also gave a shot in the arm to monolithic groups like the National Rifle Association and others who feel like they had a major role to play in in defeating incumbents, particularly Democratic incumbents and in electing Republicans who are more more closely identified with their agenda. So I mean we might be sending a message to the dominant interest groups on the left, but we've only emboldened the dominant interest groups on the right and I'm waiting For both the right and the left to be rejected and it seems like when the voters send these messages they jump over the middle and at some point we've got to send a message in which the left-leaning and the right-leaning interest groups feel like they got their ears pinned back and this time the liberal groups got their ears pinned back, but but it may have only emboldened the the groups on the more conservative Side Of The Ledger (00:28:44) John John. Let me let me respond to a question with by telling you a little story about a conversation. I had yesterday with a liberal Democrat friend of mine in the Congress. I actually have a few liberal friends besides Tim McGuire, of course, but this this fellow who's good. Good good person. Good member Congress liberal. There we go. We're discussing election. I said, I've got to give a few speeches in Minnesota any insights that I could share. Maybe I would thought when he said well one of the things going to happen tonight. This is before the election that you can say is the good news for Clint. President Clinton is going to be the defeat of people like Dave McCurdy in Oklahoma and Jim Cooper in Tennessee. Both moderate Democrats runs the United States Senate. I stopped for a second. I said I thought he was joking and I said, well, what do you mean by that and said that's those two guys are going to go down and it's going to send a strong signal that you can't walk away from the heart and soul of the democratic party in order to get elected now that to me doesn't make any sense at all. But then you know, I'm not a Democrat. I don't always understand what makes sense to Democrats and my fear is that that will make sense to a lot of Democrats and they'll say, you know, we're going to go back to Our Roots. We need look no further than Massachusetts where Senator Kennedy was down at one point and fought back vigorously by you know, putting forward the on distilled version of liberalism. And and the thing to do is to go to war with all these Congressional Republicans for two years as Truman did. 1948 I don't think that's good for the country. I don't think good for the Democratic party either but you know, they're not going to take their advice from me on that. But I think that that's a potential outcome. I hope not. (00:30:24) Going to take that one to him. That's okay have next question here from Allen Show levski who's an independent computer consultant. (00:30:31) Yes, after that analysis of what will happen to the (00:30:34) Democrats. Maybe you could speak to the (00:30:36) Republicans in particular with this election lead to a major realignment in the parties. And you think that possibly (00:30:43) moderate Democrats and independents may decide to move into the (00:30:46) Republican party and then lead to a fight for the heart of the Republican Party. Well if dick Shelby from Alabama already came over today, they might be some indication that that's already beginning a little bit certainly the Coalition that re-elected Governor Carlson in this state and I'm sure it's similar to the coalition's that re-elected the other Governors across the Midwest included a lot of Independents and moderate and conservative Democrats and the big tent that we've heard about for many years really was achieved on the other hand. You know as Tim Penny pointed out you're going to have a more ideological Caucus in the Congress and there's there's going to be less moderate Democrats and less moderate Republicans and and we'll see how long that works and my observation of moderates in both parties is that they're a little bit more programmatic than any logical in other words. They want to they want to go to work and solve a problem. And from the Republican standpoint. That means we got to engage in this process of thinking about how do we approach problems Republicans have not defined of concept a vision of activist leadership with which they feel comfortable yet. In other words, you know, we know we're against big government liberalism. Like we've been since the 30s, we don't know really what we're for some individuals do with the party as a whole doesn't unless the party can come up with that kind of a concept and I don't mean the same thing as the Democrats want but a way of, you know using Market mechanisms to help solve problems and decentralized decision making and leveraging private sector resources, unless we can come up with that. We're not going to engage the enthusiasm of Democrats and independents who are not Idiot logs, but who want to get involved in solving problems in a in the right way. I'm hopeful I think that there's a chance that that's going to happen. And I think that Newt Gingrich really to me is the hopeful figure in that regard. I'm sure that he's going to get vilified a lot and I'm sure he's going to make some mistakes but he also understands the need to create a new Republican party to govern into the 21st century. And I Look to House Republicans more to give us the framework within which we can construct a broad majority Coalition for the for the Republican party than I do to the Senate frankly. (00:33:01) I think first of all it's important to acknowledge that the south is now solidly Republican. This has been trending it's been trending in this direction for a number of years. Clearly that was part of Nixon's Coalition. But at the Congressional level Democrats remained surprisingly strong in the South throughout the past couple of decades Democrats have now been blown away in in the South we lost a couple seats in Texas. We lost a couple in Georgia. We lost I think four seats in North Carolina, we had problems in Tennessee, you know, all throughout the South the Republicans were riding High (00:33:43) beyond that (00:33:45) yesterday's election that demonstrated that there's a competitive situation in every region of the country. Well the Democrats took their biggest drubbing in the South that we had problems everywhere and I think that that is not going to change I think regardless of the state regardless of the tradition of the state. Either party has a shot at leadership at both the national level with senators and congressmen at the state level with the governors and the state legislature. I think it also indicates that there will no in the foreseeable future. There will no longer be a Congress that enjoys a lopsided majority for either party. I think that there will be no in addition to that. There will be no long-term dominance by any one party. I think we're entering a period in which the marginal majority will be relatively small and from election to election. We may see the majority of party switch back and forth. And and last I think it does pose the challenge that VIN just referenced and that's what does each party do to broaden its base and particularly. What do they do to reach the mainstream and middle income voters that have been the deciding factor and always have been the deciding factor in American elections. We've done that with the Leadership Council, in fact most of Clinton's most successful initiatives stemmed from that moderate mainstream group within the Democratic party and the Republican party needs to think about a proactive agenda as well and one that resonates with mainstream America, but but it seems to be both parties need to do some soul-searching on that score (00:35:22) just just briefly to underscore a point that Tim May which is very important and we've talked about the broad philosophical ramifications of the selection. One of the most important ones is just as Tim said the Congress is going to be competitive for the foreseeable future. It's not just that for the last 40 years. The Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives. It's for the last 40 years there really was never an election in which Republicans could go to the country and say we legitimately have a chance to take control in this election. We never quite made it if we had we gain and we got to 192 seats in 1980. If we'd made gains again in 82 we could have said legitimately. Hey now we're going to take control but we didn't we lost 26 seats and First off here. We're now going to be in a position where for the foreseeable future each party is going to go into the election and more importantly conduct themselves in the Congress leading up to the election with the knowledge that control of the Congress is at stake and that's going to change our political life in this country at least at the federal level as profound as profoundly as any of the philosophical issues were discussing here the construct. Both of you are using is a democratic Republican construct. Is there any possibility that we're moving to another place that someone else might emerge Independence some kind of other Coalition? Well, I I believe that the third party new Party Movement is a significant one in this country. And I think that there's a good chance that there could be a third party challenge again in nineteen Nineteen Ninety Six. I tend to think at the end of the day it works itself out through one of the two major parties, but it's you know, I just restate the things I've been saying here the most of the noon hour it. Hands on the ability of a party to to really figure out a new way of approaching problems that makes sense to the American people and that can start a capture their enthusiasm and their imagination in addition to that. If you want to talk about changes in our system Tim, it seems to me that one of the things we all have to think a lot about is the rush of technology that is going to make direct democracy highly possible in a very short period of time all of us political junkies are aware of the Federalist Papers and other arguments against direct democracy, but the fact is the reason that we haven't had it is it hasn't been practically possible. You couldn't have people voting on issues day after day after day in a very short period of time you're going to have interactive telecommunication possibilities people are going to be able to vote from their living room and they're not going to say except the notion says simply philosophically. We don't believe in that kind of democracy. They're going to demand a greater say and we should figure out in advance how we structure that so that it's a positive not a (00:37:58) negative. I think there's a greater potential now than ever for a serious third party but the difficulty of establishing a successful third party is is impossible to overstate especially if you're trying to construct a third party in the middle of the spectrum, it's tough to define a moderate agenda and and it's even more difficult to energize people behind a moderate agenda. I think we've had some success again with this at the Democratic Leadership Council. That's where some of Clinton's best ideas germinated national service as a way of learning Student Financial Aid workfare as opposed to welfare, but that's the key pero largely produced a 20 percent nineteen twenty percent the national Vote total based on personality and and a lot of anger and and it wasn't a serious third-party effort. While most of the folks that found appeal in his candidacy were in the radical middle. They were basically energized by a negative agenda. They were against NAFTA they were against tax increases and and you couldn't find the same consensus on the solution the alternative and that's that's while I think the potential is there. I think I think defining articulating and energizing voters behind a third way is is a tall order and besides that the political system is stacked against third-party movements. Berkeley may have made a strong enough showing yesterday to do a trigger. That access in future elections here in Minnesota, but it's tough to get on the ballot. That's why I've sponsored in the last few years legislation that would make uniform ballot access requirements all across the country because we're stacked in favor of a two-party system right now, and I'm not sure that that's the best way to stimulate debate some of the best ideas that have come along have been ideas that the major parties have absorbed from third-party groups and we don't have enough diversity in the public debate right now because the system is stacked against third-party movements. (00:40:36) Thank you very much. Congressman will go back to the audience. Now. You're listening to Congressman Tim Penny and retired Congressman. Vin Weber. Speaking on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio. This is the Minnesota meeting. It's being held at the Minneapolis Marriott in Downtown Minneapolis. This is milled ahead Blom a practicing lawyer and law professor at Augsburg. Buy today, of course, we're a well into presidential politics. And so I want to ask you to talk a little bit about that. The Republicans have now rather a large umbrella. The question is can they unite and specifically I'd like you to address what each of you think to be the flash points that might produce. Well, let's say a flaming family fight before the next Presidential season is over you can speak about the Democratic side as well if you like, but I'm particularly interested in the Republican side. (00:41:23) I think we can start right here in Minnesota and suggests that even though it was a big win for the governor yesterday and even though he and mr. Graham's certainly proceeded in the closing weeks of the campaign to present a united front that there are serious problems within the Republican party and there's a strong likelihood that that split will resurface when we get back to the caucus and Convention process that two years down the line, you know it nothing succeeds like success. And you know, I'm sure the governor will work hard to convey to the party faithful that when we get together we win but but there are there are issues very divisive issues that motivate a very large segment of the Republican vote and they may have to accept that this wasn't their year but I don't think they're going to go away and if anything they will probably come back and work even harder to have their say and have their way the next time around having said that the same probably applies to democratic party even in defeat there will be a lot of people that will try to put their own spin on the defeat and and we could have some problems of uniting even though our experience as of yesterday should focus our minds. We still may have trouble sorting things out and Common Ground within our party. (00:42:57) Well, I'm as you might expect a lot more optimistic than Tim about the Republican party's ability to manage the conflicts particularly over social issues to which he eluded. I mean, we had a very bitter fight in this in this state a lot of painful moments. I experienced more than my share of them over the Governor's Primary, but at the end of the day the party did unite behind both a moderate Republican governor and a more Conservative Republican candidate for the Senate as well as legislative candidates sort of span the Spectrum and we did very well in Minnesota furthermore. That's really the case across the country. There have been fights in the Republican party all across the country over these issues. But at the end of the day, there are very few cases where the party broke apart over those issues or fail to win elections over those issues and I think that that is a problem but it is a problem that can be successfully managed if we have the right kind of leadership at the presidential. A level that's not to say there aren't some serious fissures within the party that have to be hammered out and one of them certainly is over the abortion issue and social issues more generally, but I would say the don't think that that's the only place or maybe even the most significant place. I think we could have a real fight over immigration in the Republican Party my friends Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett went out to California to oppose Proposition 187 three weeks before the election and and came in for a torrent of criticism from Republicans in that state that wanted to just about anything regardless of the Constitution to try to restrict immigration immigration could be a big fight within the Republican party. Uh, Pat Buchanan isn't going to get anywhere as a presidential candidate, but I'm afraid his protectionist message on trade is resonating a little bit more at the Grassroots level in the Republican party than I would like to see and we could have a big fight in the Republican party over trade and traditionally it has been a battle between the more populist Republicans and more establishment Republicans over taxes that The the problem Senator Dole had running for the presidential nomination Back in 88 was that he was more willing than other Republicans to compromise on the issue of taxes as a part of the solution to our fiscal problem that could re-emerge in the in the next year or two. So there are a lot of debates within the within the party. I just have to say though that you know, if you look at the success of great parties particular success of the democratic party in the most of this Century, they are wild unwieldy large coalition's and and they somehow are held together by common interests, you know, if you look back and say how in the world could the Democratic party hold together a liberal reformers and the black vote and a lot of Southern segregationists sand corrupt machine politicians all in the same party and it wasn't easy, but they managed to do it pretty much and at least Republicans would like the opportunity to try to manage that problem. (00:45:50) Thank you Congressman we have time for one last question will let that UV be you Tom trip. former executive director of the Minnesota Business Partnership, and now with a green Benson Law Firm One of the most important traditional plums of having the majority in the Congress is the ability to select committee chairs. Can you give us a sense of what the dynamic is going to be about that selection? Will it automatically be the ranking minority member or will it be more complex (00:46:17) in the in the house? I believe that when we start in the Senate, I think it'll simply be the ranking member. There may be a occasional scuffle, but they're very gentlemanly in the Senate and I don't think that they'll end up getting any dirt on their sleeves in the house. It's a little more fluid situation. I think that Gingrich and the new majority in the house want to send the message that it's not business as usual. I think that they would like to send that message in part by not simply ratifying every ranking member as the new committee chairman. Now when you actually get to the point of putting that in practice, it's very difficult because you're talking about dumping an individual which who moves Film the leadership of served for maybe 10 years or more, but I know that they would like to not just rubber-stamp every ranking member. I don't know if that will end up happening or not. If you're going to bet you'd have to bet that all the ranking members will simply become chairman. But then the house there's at least a question mark over that I don't think there's any question about that in the Senate when our party on the verge of achieving majority has the opportunity to take a young Dynamic leader like Strom Thurmond and make him a committee chairman. We're going to do it. (00:47:35) I think the Republicans May skip over seniority in a few instances, but by and large they'll they'll go with a well established a system. Although I believe they will Implement a rotation system so that no one can chair a committee for more than four or six years. And I think that that would be healthy. Frankly. The Democrats should have done that and we may not have availed become so rigid and and and intransigent on so many (00:48:10) issues. I think that's a much more significant reform than term (00:48:13) limits myself. Yeah, and and I and so I think it to their credit they're likely to do that. So while initially they may go by and large with the most senior members there will be a rotation if they stay in power there will be a rotation in the future and if they implement this policy change, I think it will be tough to go back to the old way. I don't think anyone will rise to the Chairmanship and stay there until they die or are indicted and and so that that would be healthy. That would be healthy for the system long term. I think the the other question that relates to this is how are these Democrats who have chaired these committees going to feel about being a ranking minority member on these committees as Carlos Moorhead takes over Energy and Commerce John Dingell who's been a powerhouse on Capitol Hill for 30 years is gonna have to sit in a second chair and be second fiddle and that's going to be an interesting (00:49:03) Dynamic call somebody else. Mr. Chairman when he thinks that that's what's on his birth certificate. It's going to be very difficult for John Dingell. Thank you both for your excellent commentary. You've enriched us with your (00:49:15) Insight.