-Welcome back to the show.
-Thank you. I'm glad to be here.
So, uh, this is a very simple
title on the book--
Why We're Polarized.
Donald Trump, right? No?
Yes? Maybe?
No, Donald Trump is symptom,
not cause.
So Donald Trump comes
as part of a long period
where you lose the ability
to actually have parties act
in a way that hold themselves
accountable.
So back in the day,
if you nominated somebody
like Donald Trump, what would
happen is one of two things.
-One, they don't get
to a party convention. -Right.
That's back
when parties actually
control who they nominate.
But later on,
or even both before
and after that for some period,
if you nominate somebody
who's out of the norms,
what will happen is, people will
switch over to the other party.
It happened at Barry Goldwater,
-happened at George McGovern.
-Right.
But as the parties become
much more different
ideologically, demographically,
you get locked in place
by what's called
"negative partisanship."
So the fear of the other side
winning becomes big enough
that you will accept anything
your side does.
So a majority
of Donald Trump voters say
they were actually voting
against Hillary Clinton.
And so Donald Trump can only win
in American politics
in a time of super-high
polarization, which is why
I think it's actually important
to go before him
to try to understand
what's gonna come after him.
It's interesting
that you say that,
because the conversation
in America for a while has been,
you know, if we can just get rid
of Donald Trump, you know,
then we can go back
to the way things were.
You know, a time
when Republicans and Democrats
could speak to one another.
A time when people could handle
opposing views.
Was there such a time,
and when was it?
So, there was,
but it wasn't as good
as people now like to pretend.
So, Joe Biden speaks
about the time
when he could work
with segregationists.
There was actually a lot
packed into that anecdote.
Because we did have
a depolarized political system
for some time.
What you had were
basically four parties
in the 20th century:
the Democrats;
Southern Dixiecrats,
which were a conservative,
very racist party;
Liberal Republicans;
and Conservative Republicans.
And in that world,
where you had conservatives in
the Democratic Party, liberals,
liberals in the Republican
Party, conservatives,
you had a lot
of cross-party coalitions,
people working together,
but all that was built
on this legacy of the Civil War,
where the liberal party
of this country
had this rump conservative wing,
and that actually was built on
a compromise around segregation.
But the fact that it's hard to
get compromise in that system,
it's rational, because the
parties are much further apart.
They disagree much more deeply.
But-but is that something
that's unique to America
because of the two-party system?
Was it always going to be
this way, because, as you said,
there was a time when it was
essentially four parties.
-Now it's gone down to two.
-Mm-hmm.
And so one thing
I've always noticed is:
if there are two, then you
always have to choose the one.
Which seems like a dumb thing
to say, but unfortunately,
it locks you into a,
like, a fixed polarization.
You can't...
you can't move between ideas.
Is this something
that can be fixed in America,
or is this just
where the two-party system
-takes the country?
-You could fix it in part.
So here's, I think,
one of the keys.
I don't think
polarization itself
is necessarily a bad thing, and
we see it in other countries,
both in two-party systems
and in multi-party systems.
There's an argument that
multi-party democracy is better.
I more or less buy
that argument.
But you don't have
to have what we have,
which is a system where,
when you actually win power,
it does not mean
you win the power to govern.
The American system is
internationally quite unique.
We're the only system like ours
that has not collapsed
into total chaos.
-Because the way
we elect people... -It hasn't?
Eh, fair enough.
You can elect a president,
and then a majority leader
in the Senate,
-Right.
-say, of the other party,
and there's no way to actually
resolve that difference.
So in other systems,
when you get elected,
even if you're polarized,
you have the power to govern.
So the problem really isn't that
we have parties that disagree.
The problem is that when parties
win elections in this system,
they need bipartisanship
that the other party
does not want to provide.
I think we should have a system
where public majorities,
popular majorities, actually
take power and then can govern.
It's of note about our system.
White House is run by the guy
who won fewer votes.
The Senate is run by the party
that won fewer votes.
The Supreme Court,
because of that,
is run by the party
that won fewer votes
-in the relevant
nominating elections. -Right.
We are not in any way
a democracy,
and that means one party
actually has a path to power
with minority rule.
It's not a great
incentive structure.
Here's a question, though.
Some may argue, you know,
many conservatives might say,
"Of course you would say that,
"Ezra, you lean, uh, liberal,
you know, as a cofounder of Vox;
"of course
you would want this to change,
because you want liberals
to have more of a voice."
I've seen... I've seen this,
um, you know, idea shared
amongst many people-- online,
on TV-- where people say:
That's why the Founders
created this system.
That's why it
was created this way.
To make sure that
the liberal elites on the coast
couldn't dictate how the country
was run by those who grew up
in the middle of America
and on the farms.
The Founders were very concerned
about California.
They did not like those
liberal California elites.
-(laughter)
-Two things.
One, the Founders
did not create this system,
or, really, anything like it.
They wanted a system that
did not have political parties.
The other point you bring up,
which is totally fair
and people do bring it up, is,
this idea that democracy,
the idea that
we should run the country
-based on who represents
the people, -Mm-hmm.
has now become associated
with liberalism.
It wasn't always that way,
it doesn't need to be that way,
and it's very dangerous
for it to become that way.
Like, there were times
in this country
when the Republican Party
rapidly expanded the franchise.
The Civil Rights Act itself
had a higher proportion
of Republicans voting for it
in Congress than Democrats.
The idea that one party now sees
its future in democracy
and the other party
has become committed
to a version of minority rule
that requires restricting
the franchise,
that's very dangerous
for a political system.
If you actually opened it up--
and, by the way,
I don't think we're going to,
so this is a somewhat
pessimistic analysis--
but if you
actually opened it up,
it's not like Republicans
couldn't compete--
you have Republican governors
in blue states
who are very popular.
The point is, if you don't
open it up, they don't have to.
People don't have to compete,
and if they
don't have to compete,
then they're not serving
the constituents in the areas
who didn't vote for them,
essentially.
Exactly. Or even the people
who would need to vote for them.
Look, it would be a better...
If we had had an election
in 2016,
and the Republican Party had
lost it in a winnable election
because Donald Trump got
three million fewer votes
than Hillary Clinton,
the people who had been fighting
in the Republican Party
to open it up,
to make it more inclusive,
to reach out to people
who don't already vote for it,
they would have been empowered,
and the Trumpist wing
of the party
-would have been discredited.
-Right.
Instead we got the opposite
because of the weird
deformations of the system.
So... what you're saying is,
America's screwed?
(laughter)
What I am saying is,
the political system does not
function under these conditions.
-Uh-huh.
-And yeah, basically, for now,
-America's a bit screwed.
-That makes a lot of sense.
So you're saying
America is screwed,
but you're also explaining
why America is screwed.
Yes, and what
could be done about it
if people were willing
to focus on it.
Which won't happen,
because America is screwed.
-Right. Thank you. -Thank you
so much for being on the show.
-(applause, cheering)
-Painful but true.
Why We're Polarized
is available now.
A fascinating read.
Ezra Klein, everybody.
