Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: When you have more and more control of the

  • media in the hands of a few of these giant billion-dollar corporations, I think you're

  • not going to have the kind of debate and discussion and information that makes our democracy the

  • kind of democracy it should be.

  • BILL MOYERS: And

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: There's a reason to have political parties.

  • But to give them the control they have over our political system is just wrong.

  • ANNOUNCER: Funding is provided by:

  • Carnegie Corporation of New York, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to

  • doing real and permanent good in the world.

  • The Kohlberg Foundation.

  • Independent Production Fund, with support from The Partridge Foundation, a John and

  • Polly Guth Charitable Fund.

  • The Clements Foundation.

  • Park Foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues.

  • The Herb Alpert Foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and

  • creativity in our society.

  • The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation.

  • The John D. And Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant,

  • and peaceful world. More information at Macfound.Org.”

  • Anne Gumowitz.

  • The Betsy And Jesse Fink Foundation.

  • The HKH Foundation.

  • Barbara G. Fleischman.

  • And by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing customized individual

  • and group retirement products. That’s why were your retirement company.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Welcome. Sometimes we can see the universe in a grain of sand, as the old

  • saying goes, but nowadays a graphic chart more vividly reveals the world we live in.

  • Take a look at this statistical snapshot of the media ecology that largely determines

  • what you and I see, read, and hear.

  • In 1983, 50 corporations controlled a majority of media in America. In 1990 the number had

  • dropped to 23. In 1997, 10. And today, six.

  • There you have it. The fistful of multinational conglomerates that own the majority of media

  • in America. What do we call it when a few firms dominate the market? Oligopoly. Doesn’t

  • quite rhyme with democracy. But today, believe it or not, big media is about to get even

  • bigger, unless the public stands up and saysNo!” Here’s the story.

  • The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission -- the FCC, the agency of government

  • created by Congress to protect the public’s rightful ownership of the airwaves -- is reportedly

  • asking the other four commissioners to suspend the rule preventing a company from owning

  • a newspaper and radio and TV stations in the same big city. Thus he would give the massive

  • media companies free rein to devour more of the competition. The chairman is Julius Genachowski,

  • appointed to the job by President Barack Obama. Now, the FCC tried to pull this same stunt

  • under a Republican chairman back in the second term of George W. Bush, but at hearings held

  • around the country an angry public fought back.

  • WOMAN: We told you a year ago when you came to Seattle

  • that media consolidation is a patently bad idea. No ifs ands or buts about it. So with

  • all due respect I ask you, what part of that didn’t you understand?

  • MAN: I’m a Republican and I’m a capitalist,

  • but some areas of our private sector must be regulated. Freedom of information is too

  • important, we must be proactive in protecting that fundamental freedom.

  • WOMAN #2: If the FCC is here wanting to know if Chicago’s

  • residents are being well served, the answer is no. If local talent is being covered, the

  • answer is no. If community issues are being treated sensitively, the answer is no. If

  • minority groups are getting the coverage and input that they need, the answer is no. The

  • answer is no.

  • WOMAN #3: If you will not stand up for we the people,

  • then I have news for you. We the people are standing up for ourselves. This is our media,

  • and we are taking it back.

  • BILL MOYERS: An estimated three million Americans wrote

  • the FCC and Congress to protest giving big media more power, and the Senate passed a

  • resolution against the proposal. When the FCC tried again, a federal court of appeals

  • blocked it, demanding the Commission report on how the new rule would impact media ownership

  • by minorities and women. Back then, Senator Barack Obama opposed the FCC’s proposal.

  • So did Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. But now, President Obama’s man at the FCC

  • they were friends in law schoolapparently wants to do what the Republicans couldn’t

  • do under President Bush, and to do it behind the scenes, out of sight, with no public hearings.

  • Several public interest groups, civil rights organizations and labor unions opposed the

  • move, and last week, Senator Bernie Sanders and several of his colleagues called on Chairman

  • Genachowski to hold off. Bernie Sanders is an outspoken opponent of media consolidation.

  • He sees it as a threat to democracy. Once the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he served

  • l6 years in the House of Representatives and was recently re-elected to his second term

  • in the Senate. He’s the longest serving independent in the history of Congress. He

  • was in New York earlier this week and we met for this interview.

  • Welcome. Good to see you again.

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Good to be with you, Bill.

  • BILL MOYERS:
This is a strong letter, inspired one of your colleagues in the Senate says,

  • by you. What's the beef?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
What the chairman of the FCC is now talking about is making

  • a bad situation much worse by loosening up the cross-ownership rules, which means now

  • that a media giant, one of the big companies, whether it's Murdoch's News Corp. or anyone

  • else, will be able to own major television stations, a newspaper, and radio stations

  • within a given community. And that means people are just not going to be hearing different

  • points of view.

  • BILL MOYERS:
I brought with me a story fromThe New York Timesthat drives home

  • the point you're making. It begins with a dateline out of San Angelo, Texas. "Call a

  • reporter at the CBS television station here, and it might be an anchor for the NBC station

  • who calls back. Or it might be the news director who runs both stationsnews operations.

  • The stations here compete for viewers, but they cooperate in gathering the news -- maintaining

  • technically separate ownership, [and] sharing office space, news video, and even the scripts

  • written for their nightly news anchors.”

  • And here's this, "The same kind of sharing takes place in dozens of other cities, from

  • Burlington, Vermont,” your home state, “where the Fox and ABC stations sometimes share anchors,

  • to Honolulu, where the NBC and CBS stations broadcast the same morning [news]." Is that

  • what you're talking about?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I can tell you that when

  • I was mayor of that same city, Burlington, Vermont, we used to hold press conferences.

  • You would have four or five or six different radio stations showing up. You know, we'd

  • be talking about the school board or the city council local issues. Now if we're lucky we'll

  • have one radio station showing up. And that's true all over the United States

  • of America. And the point here is not right wing or even left wing. The point is that

  • the tendency of corporate America is not to discuss at length the real issues that impact

  • ordinary people. If you owned a television station, for example, do you think you'd be

  • talking about the impact that Citizens United has on the American political system, when

  • you're receiving huge amounts of money because of Citizens United? If you are General Electric,

  • which has been a major outsourcer of jobs to China and other countries, do you think

  • you're going to be talking about trade policy in the United States of America or maybe nuclear

  • power in the United States of America?

  • BILL MOYERS:
But this puzzles me. The FCC tried to do essentially the same thing four

  • years ago, as you know, in the last year of the Bush Administration. And the Senate went

  • on record against it. You passed a strong resolution to say, "This far and no further."

  • Why would President Obama's FCC chairman, try to do now what the Republicans couldn't

  • do then?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
That is a very good question, Bill. And I don't have the answer.

  • And it's not only that the Senate passed a strong resolution. There were public hearings.

  • And there was the opportunity for the public to give input into this decision making process.

  • And huge numbers of people said, "Wait a second, we do not need more media consolidation in

  • America." Senate came on record. So why the Obama Administration is doing something that

  • the Bush Administration failed to do is beyond my understanding. And we're going to do everything

  • we can to prevent it from happening.

  • BILL MOYERS:
You may remember that back in 2007, your then senatorial colleague, Barack

  • Obama wrote a strong letter to the Republican chairman of the FCC who wanted to change the

  • rules, just like Genachowski is doing now. And he condemned the very tactics that his

  • own FCC chairman is employing today.

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Absolutely. And we hope the president will get involved in

  • this issue. So I don't-- to be honest with you, I don't know the internal dynamics of

  • why what is happening is happening. I know you got a couple of Republicans on the board,

  • who are very sympathetic to moving forward toward more consolidation. But why Genachowski

  • is taking the position he is, I don't know. But I think it would be very helpful. And

  • we will try to get the president to remember what he said four or five years ago.

  • BILL MOYERS:
You said a moment ago that you recall these hearings that were held across

  • the country. There was a lot of people, there were a lot of people attending. There was

  • a lot of anger at those hearings. Three million of those folks wrote letters to the Senate

  • and the FCC. There doesn't seem to be the opposition this time. What has changed?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, what's changed is they're moving quickly and quietly and

  • secretly. And I think there has not been the kind of attention that we need to focus on

  • this issue. And I think Genachowski is smart enough to know that that is not what he wants.

  • What the Bush people learned is that when you open this up to public discussion, very

  • few people in America think it's a good idea for fewer and fewer conglomerates to own more

  • and more of the media, especially in a number of cities. So they're apparently trying to

  • move this under the radar screen. And that's something we're going to try to halt.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Are you calling for public hearings on this?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Absolutely. No, we're going to do everything that we can to

  • involve the public in this. The idea, I mean, even, let's give credit to the Bush administration.

  • They came up with a terrible idea, but at least I think they had about a half a dozen

  • public meetings. They allowed the public to write into the FCC.

  • BILL MOYERS:
And the last time the FCC tried to do this, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

  • the Third Circuit ordered the commission to hold up, that it should first evaluate the

  • impact of any rule changes on the ownership by females and minority. What impact do you

  • think this new rule would have on minority and women in the media?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, the truth is that right now, in terms of minorities

  • and women, there is relatively, an embarrassing little amount of ownership. No one doubts

  • that if you move to a situation where corporate America, the big guys, own more and more of

  • the media, it will mean that minorities and women and those folks who don't have big bucks

  • are going to be squeezed even further to the periphery. So it will be bad for minorities.

  • It will be bad for women. And most significantly, it will be bad for American democracy.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Some people argue that newspapers are failing anyway. That they're going under,

  • losing advertising, cutting their staffs, losing their readership. And that it would

  • be a good thing for these big, profitable corporations like GE and Murdoch's News Corporation

  • to take them over and subsidize them, the same way Rupert Murdoch does the tabloidNew

  • York Posthere in New York. How do you respond to that?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think the issue that the FCC has got to worry about

  • is not the economics of newspapers but what media means and does for the American people.

  • And if you talk about cost effectiveness, yes, I suppose it is true that if you have

  • one company that owns dozens of television stations and newspapers and radio stations,

  • they could do it more, quote unquote, "cost effectively."

  • What's the logical conclusion of that argument? Maybe we should have one entity, maybe Rupert

  • Murdoch should own all media in America. He can do it very, very cost effectively. Is

  • that what we want? The FCC is not dealing with widget production. It is dealing with

  • the issue of how we create a vibrant democracy, where people hear all points of view and can

  • come up with the best decisions that we can as a nation.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Would that be your response to the argument that the other side makes

  • that the FCC is strangling, with slow regulations, America's competitiveness in the world? And

  • that if we continue to tighten these regulations, they will not be able to find their places

  • in the in the world market?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Bill, do you know where I heard that exact same explanation,

  • defense? I heard it when Wall Street wanted deregulation. "We have to be competitive in

  • the entire global economy. Let's deregulate Wall Street so we can compete internationally."

  • I don't believe that for a second. Look, the issue is we live in a country where millions

  • of people really have not had the opportunity to learn about the dynamics of what goes on

  • in American society. Major, major issues literally, get very, very little discussion. So the bottom

  • line for the FCC has got to be, "How do we create a situation in which the American people

  • are hearing a diverse range of ideas so that our public world has the kind of debate that

  • it needs?"

  • BILL MOYERS:
But what about the argument that people make that the internet, the thriving

  • of the internet, let a billion opinions bloom diminishes the tyranny of monopoly?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Let me respond to that in two ways. A) The internet is enormously

  • important. It is growing. But the bottom line is that most people today still get their

  • information from television and from radio.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Seventy-four percent, I believe--

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
There you go. So maybe-- second of all, when you go to the

  • internet, what websites do you think people are going to? They're going to the same websites

  • owned byThe New York Timesor CNN or Time Warner. Those are the largest websites

  • in the country. And people are getting their information from the same folks. So yes, I

  • think it's the internet plays an important role, but that is not a valid reason to allow

  • for more media consolidation.

  • BILL MOYERS:
In a practical sense, Rupert Murdoch ownsThe Wall Street Journal,”

  • the "New York Post,” which he subsidizes, $50 to $60 million a year, we read. What would

  • it mean if he were able, under this rule, to buy the "Chicago Tribuneand the "Los

  • Angeles Times”?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
And he owns Fox Television, of course.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Of course.

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
I think, I mean again, it's not to just pick on Murdoch. I

  • think the idea that one person, who, in this case, happens to be a right-wing billionaire,

  • can have that much influence in media is very dangerous for our democracy. And by the way,

  • of course, in terms of Murdoch he owns a lot of media in Australia, in the United Kingdom.

  • I believe he owns media in Eastern Europe.

  • I think this is a pretty dangerous trend. You know, the bottom line is that when you

  • have a situation like that, it really influences not just what the American people think and

  • feel, how they vote, but the issues that the United States Congress deal with every day.

  • Let me give you an example, all right? Is deficit reduction a serious issue? It is.

  • I'm in the middle of that debate right now.

  • But you know what is a more serious issue according to the American people? The need

  • to create millions and millions of jobs. Now how often are you turning on TV and saying,

  • "Hey, we're in the middle of a terrible recession. It is, we have 15 percent real unemployment

  • or underemployment in America. We've got to create millions of jobs." That's what working

  • people are saying, but the big money interests are saying, "Oh, we've got to cut Social Security.

  • We've got to cut Medicare. We've got to cut Medicaid." There is no other option. So I

  • give you that just as an example of how corporate media throws out one set of ideas, where the

  • American people are thinking that jobs are probably more important.

  • BILL MOYERS:
It has probably not escaped your attention that the mantra "fiscal cliff,

  • fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff" is played out every night on the evening news and the corporate

  • news. What does that say to you? That you'd get "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff," but not

  • "job crisis, job crisis, job crisis"?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
It tells me, quite frankly, that many of these people, who by

  • the way did not have much to say about the deficit when we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan

  • and didn't pay for it, I didn't hear from any people in the media complaining about

  • that. What it tells me is that behind the corporate drive for deficit reduction is a

  • significant effort to try to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and other programs

  • that working families need, not so much because of deficit reduction, because this has been

  • the agenda of Republicans and right wingers for a very long time.

  • BILL MOYERS:
So how do you see this fiscal debate playing out in the next couple of weeks?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
We have, those of us who say that deficit reduction is a serious

  • issue, I believe it is. But believe very strongly that at a time when we have the most unequal

  • distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, people on top doing phenomenally

  • well, middleclass is disappearing. That most Americans agree with many of us

  • in the Senate, who say, "Yes, we are going to ask the wealthiest people to see an increase

  • in their tax rates. They are going to have to pay more in taxes. We have to end the absurdity

  • of one out of four corporations in America not paying a nickel in taxes. And that we

  • can do deficit reduction in a way that is fair, not on the backs of the elderly, the

  • children, the sick, and the poor." That is my view. That's the view of the vast majority

  • of the American people. Do I think that view is being reflected in the corporate media

  • today? No, I don't think it is.

  • BILL MOYERS: 
Quickly, I have been around even longer than you in numbers of years.

  • And I've never seen even a good program that can't be made better by careful and intelligent

  • reform. Isn't there something to be done about Medicare that would meet the other side and

  • say, "Yes, we're willing to make these changes because we think these changes are justified"?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
The answer is yes if the challenge was, "How do you make Medicare

  • more efficient and save money for the taxpayers?" For example, the Veterans Administration negotiates

  • drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Medicare Part D does not. We can save substantial

  • sums of money. There are other ways that you can do it.

  • Frankly, I'm not quite so sure that given a choice of standing up to the drug companies

  • to lower the cost of Medicare or simply raising the age of Medicare eligibility or cutting

  • back on Medicare, my guess is the Republicans will stand with the drug companies and not

  • with the needs of ordinary people.

BILL MOYERS:
What I hear you saying is that whatever

  • your major concern as a citizen, whether it's deficit reduction or Medicare and Medicaid

  • and Social Security or the environment, global climate change, it all comes back to how we

  • receive information. And that this issue you're addressing in this letter is at the heart

  • of your--

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Bill, many of the viewers there are concerned about the growing

  • gap, unequal distribution of wealth and income. They're concerned about health care, concerned

  • about global warming, concerned about women's rights, health, and many, many other issues.

  • If you are concerned about those issues, you must be concerned about media and the increased

  • concentration of ownership in the media. Because unless we get ordinary people involved in

  • that discussion. Unless we make media relevant to the lives of ordinary people and not use

  • it as a distraction, we are not going to resolve many of these serious crisis, global warming

  • being one. There are scientists who will come on your show and say, "Hey, forget everything

  • else. If we don't get a handle on global warming, there's not going to be much less of this

  • planet in a hundred years." Do you see that often being portrayed in the corporate media?

  • I fear not.

  • BILL MOYERS:
But it seems unstoppable, Senator. Comcast took over NBC-Universal last year,

  • as you know. And Sinclair Broadcasting just bought seven TV stations, bringing their total

  • to 84 stations in 46 markets. I mean, it seems unstoppable.

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, it's part of the trend in America, not only in media

  • but in industry after industry, where fewer and fewer large conglomerates own those industries.

  • It is a very dangerous trend.

  • BILL MOYERS:
What do you want the FCC to do next?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, for a start, open up the process, get some public discussion,

  • and ultimately rule against this cross-ownership type of approach.

  • BILL MOYERS:
And what do you want ordinary citizens to do? What are you asking the people

  • in Vermont, your home state? You run a lot of town meetings. You do a lot of hearings

  • up there. What do you want ordinary people to do about this?

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I want Vermonters and everyone else around this country is to

  • write to the FCC now and say two things. I mean, voice your opinion, but if you think

  • that this is a bad idea, let them know it. And second of all, tell them that under no

  • circumstances can they pass without public input and giving the public the time to get

  • involved in this debate. Look, it is very hard as a public official to go forward and

  • pass the laugh test, when 99 percent of the people who are writing in say, "Hey, you're

  • proposing a dumb idea." And when in public hearings, people are coming out in outrage.

  • So I certainly do believe that had a significant impact.

  • BILL MOYERS:
We covered those hearings several years ago. It was amazing the out turning,

  • a thousand people in different cities around the country, at one hearing.

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Bill, I mean, despite the lack of media coverage on this issue of

  • media concentration, in people's guts, people know that this is a huge issue. That we can't

  • be the democracy we want to be when so few people control what people read, see, and

  • hear. So I think viscerally people know how important it is. And we've got to do everything

  • we can to prevent the FCC from moving in the wrong direction.

  • BILL MOYERS:
Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you for being with me and well be after

  • this story, in the weeks to come.

  • SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS:
Thank you.

  • BILL MOYERS: Youve no doubt been following the maneuvers

  • in Washington over the country’s finances. Well, theyre heading now toward a showdown.

  • Unless someone blinks, the collision of irresistible forces with immoveable objects will be felt

  • around the world. President Obama says he won’t budge when it comes to ending the

  • Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. And as rumors mount that some Republicans may be willing

  • to give ground on taxes, conservatives in the party are shouting, “Remember the Alamo!”

  • and demanding their leaders in Congress yield not an inch.

  • Dozens of conservative activists, outraged at the prospect of compromise, have sent an

  • open letter to Republicans in the House and Senateto stand firm and not surrender

  • your conservative principles.” Their hero, of course, is this man, known around town

  • simply as Grover. No, not the Muppet, but chief enforcer of the notorious Norquist Pledge

  • against taxes. Republican candidates for office must sign or risk defeat by right-wing candidates

  • in primaries where a turnout of die-hard partisans can decide the outcome. Among Republican politicians,

  • fear of Grover has been greater even than fear of God, and such fear has kept Republicans

  • in Congress from voting to raise taxes for 22 years, all the way back to 1990.

  • Mickey Edwards was still in Congress then. An eight-term representative from Oklahoma,

  • and a formidable leader among conservatives who nonetheless knew how to work with opponents

  • to get things done. He chaired the Republican Policy Committee, was a founding trustee of

  • the conservative Heritage Foundation, and served as national chairman of the American

  • Conservative Union. After redistricting by Democrats cost him his seat in 1993, he taught

  • at Harvard and Princeton, became Vice President of the Aspen Institute, and wrote this book:

  • Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can

  • Find Its Way Back.” Now he’s out with another book, one calling for real, even radical,

  • change: “The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into

  • Americans.”

  • Mickey Edwards, welcome.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Thanks, Bill. It's good to see you again.

  • BILL MOYERS: And congratulations on the book, although

  • I can't imagine it's made you the most popular visitor to the House Republican Caucus.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Not at all. But it wouldn't make me popular

  • in the Democratic Caucus either, you know. It's a problem with the entire system, both

  • parties.

  • BILL MOYERS: Because you believe in compromise. You advocate

  • bipartisanship. Which means, in effect, that you are a man without a party.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Basically, right. But you know, there's 310

  • million of us now. And we're very diverse people. You can stand up for your principles.

  • You can stand up for what you believe in. You get as far as you can go. But then at

  • the end, you have to compromise or you can't keep the bridges from falling down, you can't

  • pay off your debts, you know, you can't provide the troops with-- you can't do anything unless,

  • finally, you compromise. And we seem to have lost the ability to do that.

  • BILL MOYERS: Your story, more than anyone I know, epitomizes

  • the change in our politics over the last quarter of a century. Once upon a time, you were considered

  • by political scientists, one of the most conservative members of the Republican Party in the Congress

  • .

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Right.

  • BILL MOYERS: But as you yourself have said, if you were

  • still in Congress, if you were still voting exactly the same way you did then on the issues,

  • you'd now be considered

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah, one of the most liberal. Absolutely.

  • Without changing at all. You know, with having been a conservative, staying true to those

  • exact same beliefs, voting the same way, today I would be considered one of the more liberal

  • members. The party has completely lost its roots.

  • BILL MOYERS: What about being a conservative then is out

  • of date about being a conservative now?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, one of the things, and let's use Ronald

  • Reagan as an example. Ronald Reagan stood for principles that conservatives have long

  • believed in. But he believed in the country. He believed in solving problems. He believed

  • in government.

  • Even though he would say that in terms of the Carter Presidency, the way he saw it,

  • you know, the government was the problem, the next sentence after in his famous remark

  • were that, "But, you know, let's make it clear. We're not against government. This is self-government.

  • This is America. It's us." And he believed that. Today, you see so many people in Congress

  • who really see government as the enemy, who are unwilling to come together to do even

  • the most basic things like pay our bills. And you can't survive that way. So, the intellectual

  • basis of Conservatism seems to have disappeared. The idea that you would, you know, go to war

  • or that you would create a program or whatever else, and not pay for it, was the most anti-conservative

  • thing you could imagine.

  • BILL MOYERS: Are there any reasons to be against big government?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Oh, sure there are. Sure, there are. Government

  • can be too big. It can be too expensive. It can regulate too much. Sure, it can. But at

  • some point, you push as hard as you can, if you're a conservative, to make government

  • smaller, to make taxes lower. But you can't get it all.

  • You can't win everything all in one fight, because we're a big country and a lot of different

  • views. And you have people on the left and the right who are so full of certitude and

  • so unwilling to budge on what they think is the only right answer, that we stop functioning

  • as an American people working collectively to solve our problems.

  • BILL MOYERS: There's a very strong sentence in here, very

  • strong passage in here about how the loyalty of anybody who comes into public service,

  • any officeholder, should be to the Constitution, not to some outside independent private group

  • bringing pressure to bear on the government.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Right. And that's what the political parties

  • are. You know, they're not in the Constitution. They're private power-seeking organizations.

  • There's a reason to have political parties. But to give them the control they have over

  • our political system is just wrong.

  • BILL MOYERS: Have you become disillusioned with politics?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Oh, very much. Very much. You know, you see

  • campaigns today that are so nasty, so uncivil, so that if you and I -- and I like you a lot,

  • Billand if we were both in politics today at the same time, you know, you'd be an enemy

  • and I'd be an enemy, and we would not be able to sit and talk together. And I would think

  • because you don't agree with me on a particular issue, you must be a very bad person. That’s

  • nonsense.

  • BILL MOYERS: What do you think's going to happen in this

  • deadlock on the fiscal crisis?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: I don't think anything can happen unless both

  • parties back off of their complete intransigence. There has to be new revenue.

  • And on the other side, you've got to look at the entitlement programs, which are, in

  • fact, despite what Dick Durbin says, they are helping to drive the deficit. You've got

  • to see, how do you get that under control? What kinds of changes -- you know, don't eliminate

  • those programs, but is there a way to reform them?

  • There has to be give on both sides. And so far, both parties are saying, you know, "Compromise

  • means you giving up. You know, and we're going to stand firm.” You know, even the president

  • the president went on television and he said, "We have to work together. We have to

  • compromise."

  • And he then described how the people ought to put pressure on their members of Congress

  • to support his plan. And so-- which was not a compromising way to do it. You know, I wish

  • I were more confident, but, you know, I don't have high hopes for the people that we have

  • in Washington today.

  • BILL MOYERS: When you were in Congress, did you have to

  • sign the pledge never to raise taxes?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: The only pledgeyeah, I signed a pledge.

  • I signed a pledge to, you know, to follow the Constitution. Bill, I thought--

  • BILL MOYERS: You mean your oath of office?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah! I thought that when I was in Congress

  • my job was to decide how to vote based on three things: listening to my constituents,

  • maybe not always agreeing with them but listening seriously to my constituents, thinking about

  • the issues, you know, getting as much information as I could to decide what I thought was the

  • right thing to do, and make sure that I followed the Constitution. That was it.

  • I wasn't supposed to be following party leaders. I wasn't supposed to be following my campaign

  • contributors. I wasn't supposed to be, you know, signing pledges to do this or that before

  • I even heard a bill or knew what know circumstances were going to be at the time. You know, anybody

  • who goes to Washington having signed a pledge to do anything other than that, you know,

  • is really undercutting, you know, the whole purpose of them being part of the government.

  • BILL MOYERS: Well, that's what's disquieting, Mickey. You

  • know, Grover Norquist, who is the well-known lobbyist behind the pledge never to raise

  • taxes, boasts that no Republican has voted to increase taxes in the last 22 years. That

  • takes us all the way back to 1990. But those 22 years, Republicans led us into two wars

  • without asking us to pay for them.

  • They called for vast expenditures to fight terrorism. They gave big tax breaks to the

  • top and the richest Americans and said, "Don't worry, your kids will pay for them." Republicans

  • supported huge subsidies for agribusiness and big energy companies. Democrats did, too.

  • They passed fabulous increases in Medicare prescription benefits for the elderly. Didn't

  • raise a penny to pay for them. They advocated policies that led to the crash of 2008 -- so

  • did Democrats. Today, we're $16 trillion in debt. And they boasting that they haven't

  • raised taxes in 22 years. What's that about?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: It’s certainly not Conservatism. It's not

  • rational. And it's not adult. You know, when you create a program, you make a decision.

  • You say, "I think we should conduct this war. I think that we should expand our security

  • apparatus at home. I think that we should provide this additional benefit." Then you

  • pay for it.

  • You vote to do it. And then you say, "Here's what it's going to cost." And you pay for

  • it. You know, Republicans may complain about the federal debt, but they're as responsible

  • as the Democrats for the debt being as large as it is. And once you have already done that,

  • then you have an obligation to pay it down.

  • You know, so the idea that what you're going to do is say-- you know, "We're not going

  • to raise taxes, we're not going to close loopholes, we're not going to do anything” -- that

  • means that we're not going to pay off what we've already created. I mean, that's childish.

  • That's childish.

  • BILL MOYERS: That's very interesting you say that, because

  • Grover Norquist says he came up with this scheme for the pledge against taxes when he

  • was 12 years old. Seriously. In other words, the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt

  • and Dwight D. Eisenhower is in the grip of an ideology conceived by a pre-teenager who

  • apparently remains to this day in a state of arrested adolescence.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, you know, the fact is, the idea that,

  • you know, "No, I'm not ever going to do this no matter the circumstances, no matter if

  • we're at war," whatever, it is a 12-year-old kind of thinking.

  • You know, it's a childish way of thinking. But you can't just blame Grover. There are

  • members of the United States Senate and United States House who have signed those pledges.

  • And let me say, I mean, we're talking about taxes and that's the Norquist Pledge.

  • You know, but supporters of other positions on immigration, a lot of different issues,

  • when you're running for office ask you to sign a pledge, sign a pledge that you will

  • support this, sign a pledge that you-- you know, the right thing for a member of Congress

  • to say is, "You know the way I think. You know what my values are. I will look at the

  • issues through that lens. You know, but, you know, the oath of office I take says that

  • my job is to serve the country and the Constitution. And, you know, I'm not going to sign any pledges.

  • I'm just going to take the oath of office."

  • BILL MOYERS: Nonetheless, for the benefit of our viewers,

  • consider these figures. In the last Congress, the Congress presently leaving Washington,

  • 238 representatives and 41 senators signed the Norquist Pledge. That's a total of 279.

  • In the new incoming Congress, 219 representatives and 39 senators signed it, a total of 258.

  • That's a little over half the Congress has taken this pledge, which means deadlock in

  • the next three weeks is inevitable if they honor that pledge.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah. So, what they need to do is to say,

  • "I have two pledges here, two pledges side by side. One is to Grover Norquist. One is

  • to the Constitution of the United States. Which one am I going to honor?" And that's

  • the choice they have to make.

  • And you have to be honest about the conversation. Because on the tax raising side of it, you

  • know, the argument is, "We're going to tax the multimillionaires." But actually, the

  • proposal is $250,000. It's not millionaires and it's not multimillionaires. And so, there's

  • dishonesty coming from both sides and both sides digging in their heels and saying, you

  • know, "Were just not going to budge." And you can't operate that way.

  • That's why I say they should act as Americans, not Republicans and Democrats. This is not

  • about fixing the problems of the country. It's about the elections of 2014.

  • BILL MOYERS: Let me play for you an interview that Norquist

  • did with Politico's Mike Allen.

  • MIKE ALLEN: This president is not going to extend. He

  • knows that he loses his leverage that way.

  • GROVER NORQUIST: Okay, well, the Republicans also have other

  • leverage: continuing resolutions on spending and the debt ceiling increase. They can give

  • him debt ceiling increases once a month. They can have him on a rather short leash, on a

  • small, you know, "Here's your allowance, come back next month if you've behaved"--

  • MIKE ALLEN: Okay, okay, wait. You're proposing that the

  • debt ceiling be increased month--

  • GROVER NORQUIST: Month--

  • MIKE ALLEN: --by month?

  • GROVER NORQUIST: --monthly. Monthly, if he's good. Weekly,

  • if he's not.

  • BILL MOYERS: It does seem apparent that Norquist is prepared

  • to bring the government down if he has to, if he doesn't get his way.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah, I don't know why anybody's paying any

  • attention to him. You know, he doesn't hold any public office, he's a self-declared leader

  • who goes around saying, you know, "This is what I want you to do." But where does he

  • get his strength? Where does he get the force that makes people pay attention to him?

  • BILL MOYERS: Good question.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: It's the fact that the people who are the

  • most ideological will turn out and then even if they're a small percentage of the electorate,

  • they will decide who can go forward. That’s the weapon he's got is, "If you don't go along,

  • I can turn out enough people, not very many, but I can turn out enough people to beat you

  • in a primary and end your career."

  • BILL MOYERS: But he also gets his strength from his money.

  • Would it surprise you to learn that in one given period recently, two billionaire-backed

  • groups, one associated the Koch brothers, one with Karl Rove's network of mysterious

  • givers, these two groups donated over 60 percent of Grover Norquist's budget. I mean, isn't

  • that what's really going on with the system, that the lobbyists chiefly presenting a more--

  • preventing a more equitable tax system is beholden to the plutocrats?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Money plays way too big a part in our political

  • system today. You know, from both sides. You know, there's way too much money coming into

  • it-- that there's no control over it, that what you havewell, let me tell you -- in

  • my book, Bill, I probably have the most extreme position on this than anybody, because what

  • I have proposed in terms of political campaigns, that no money should come from any source

  • other than from individual human beings.

  • I would get rid of Political Action Committee money, political party money, labor union

  • money, corporate money. You know, I would go down to small amounts that are instantly

  • reported, all transparent. I think we have to do that, because it is this money pouring

  • in -- what comes out at the end is not representative of what the American people want.

  • You know, the system gets skewed by these super influences, you know, whether it's the

  • president PACs and the Democratic's Party PACs and the Super PACs or the Republican

  • Party Super PACs, that's got to change.

  • BILL MOYERS: Well, no ideas can make it as long as we're

  • in the grip of an undemocratic process which determines who's going to make those decisions.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: One of the lines in my book is that all I'm

  • trying to do here is put democracy back into our democracy. What our Founders did that

  • was exceptional was they decided, "We are not going to be subjects. We're going to be

  • citizens. So instead of the government telling us what to do, we'll tell the government what

  • to do." And that only works if the people themselves have the power to decide who's

  • going to be making the laws and it's not just a few, whether they're plutocrats or ideologues

  • or whatever, who are able to skew the system.

  • BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago that Ronald Reagan believed

  • in the country. Are you suggesting that -- or was it just a slip of the tongue that maybe

  • John Boehner and that Republican leadership, that they don't believe in the country?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: No. You know, the members of Congress who

  • I know in both parties are patriotic. They love the country. But we've created an incentive

  • system that gets you knocked off in your primaries, you know, unless you are willing to be intransigent

  • and to say, "I will never compromise."

  • You know, Richard Murdoch beat Dick Luger in Indiana by saying, "I will never compromise."

  • You know, Bill, thank goodness he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. We wouldn't

  • have a country today.

  • BILL MOYERS: How did we incentivize obstinacy?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, one of the things that's happened is

  • that the ideologues in both parties have really started focusing on the primaries, because

  • we have a system, you know, 46 of the 50 states, if you lose in your party's primary, your

  • name cannot be on the ballot in November.

  • After Joe Biden became vice president and Delaware had to elect a new senator, so, Mike

  • Castle, obviously, was going to be the next senator, everybody knew that, but he lost

  • the primary to a lady named Christine O'Donnell. So, there's a state of a million people--

  • BILL MOYERS: A Tea Party person--

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: In Delaware, yeah. Yeah. But with a million

  • people in Delaware, only 30,000 voted for her in the primary. And that was enough to

  • keep Mike Castle off the ballot. And the million people in Delaware couldn't choose him. And,

  • you know, and that's true in almost every state.

  • So, that's how it's happened. The ideologues have focused on using the party primaries

  • to elect people who are not representative, maybe not even representative of their own

  • party. But the other candidates now cannot be on the ballot in November.

  • You know, the Congress has most of the major power in this country about war, about taxes,

  • about spending. You know, so, when you narrow the choices that the American people have

  • as to who's going to serve in Congress, in the House or Senate, you're really undermining

  • the whole democratic system.

  • And I don't know if you noticed this example just the other day. Bill Bolling, the lieutenant

  • governor of Virginia, decided not to run, you know, for governor, because he knew that

  • he could not win in a primary against the more conservative attorney general.

  • So, it really happens. Utah, when Robert Bennett was running for reelection, two thousand of

  • the people who voted in a Republican convention in a state of three million people were able

  • to keep him off the ballot in November. You know, there's something really seriously wrong

  • with that.

  • BILL MOYERS: So, what's the simplest explanation, the clearest

  • explanation for why the ideologues, the folks who don't want to compromise, the hardliners,

  • can control the primary process? What's the reason behind that?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Part of it is the fact that American citizens

  • don't get as involved as they should in voting early. The American people are exposed, and

  • especially those who are most ideologically motivated to extreme positions, certitude.

  • There have been a lot of things written about the fact that the American people now tend

  • to talk only to people who think the way they do, you know, and not open to a civil conversation

  • with people on a different side.

  • So, all of these things have conspired that the people who are the most hardline, most

  • partisan, dominate the party conventions, dominate the primaries. But those primaries

  • and conventions are not just endorsers. The problem is, they now have the ability to keep

  • other people off the ballot. They should not have that power.

  • BILL MOYERS: So, how do you open the choices to people

  • who didn't win in the primary?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: In 2006, the people in Washington State finally

  • had, you know, over 40 percent of Americans now call themselves Independents. People are

  • fleeing from the parties. And in Washington State they said, "You know, we're tired of

  • this system." And they passed an open primary, which is, it's not a crossover primary, it's

  • a truly open primary where every candidate who's a qualified candidate is on the same

  • ballot, regardless of party, and every single registered voter in that state could vote

  • among all those candidates.

  • It's like having a general election with a runoff if you don't get over 50 percent. That

  • was 2006. California did the same thing in 2010. And both states got rid of partisan

  • control of gerrymandering, drawing district lines.

  • BILL MOYERS: I remember when they when they redrew your

  • district. Suddenly you had a big L.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Big upside-down L, right.

  • BILL MOYERS: Upside-down L that went all the way from Oklahoma

  • City up to the Kansas border.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah, and then halfway across to Arkansas.

  • Yeah. As you know, Bill, I represented Oklahoma City. I’m a city guy. You know, to me, food

  • comes from a grocery store and not, you know. I don't know anything about farming. But because

  • I was a Republican that won in a heavily Democratic district, when we had a state legislature

  • that was dominated by the Democrats, you know, they redrew my district so that I was now

  • representing wheat farmers and cattle ranchers and small town merchants. And I thought, "Well,

  • look what they did to me." But they didn't. They did it to those people who were entitled

  • to be represented by somebody who could speak for them. You have to take away the ability

  • of the parties to draw district lines in a way that take away representation from the

  • citizens.

  • BILL MOYERS: You say take away the parties' control over

  • redistricting.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Thirteen states have now done that. Thirteen

  • states have said, "We will put together non-partisan independent redistricting commissions."

  • BILL MOYERS: How?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: The independent commissions are the only way

  • to do it. Now, every state does it differently. So, what you have--

  • BILL MOYERS: Iowa does a good job of this.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Iowa does a very good job of it. And other

  • states do, too. But you've got to have the commission be large enough and balance it

  • with people from enough views that what comes out at the end is hopefully going to be fair

  • based on population, based on interests, as opposed to -- and competitive elections -- as

  • opposed to allowing a party draw the lines just to help them get more seats.

  • You know, there's kind of a revolution starting, Bill, against the concept of party control

  • of our choices. So that now we look at what's happening in Washington, and, you know, one

  • day it's Nancy Pelosi saying, "We're not going to compromise," the next day it's John Boehner

  • saying it.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: And then Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader

  • in the Senate says, you know, what my goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

  • They're supposed to be leaders of the legislative branch of the government, not party hacks.

  • And we have a system now, you know, that is all about looking toward the next election,

  • how we do that.

  • BILL MOYERS: This is a strong indictment of the polarization

  • of the two parties.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah.

  • BILL MOYERS: But isn't the country also very polarized?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: The country is very polarized in some senses.

  • But you also find the American people saying, "Solve the problem. Don't go over a fiscal

  • cliff." Or, you know, "Pay our bills," or, "Do something about the budget." Now, I think

  • even though the people tend to not be open to a lot of different views, they want the

  • people they elect to make government work.

  • BILL MOYERS: So, we have created a political system that

  • rewards intransigence.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: We've created a system that says, "We reward

  • incivility. We reward refusal to compromise. We punish people who compromise and are civil

  • and get along well with the people on the other side of the aisle." So, why are we surprised

  • that that's what we get in everything in life? You get what you reward. And you don't get

  • what you punish. And that's what we've done to our political system.

  • BILL MOYERS: What's in store for the fate of a democracy

  • that cannot be flexible enough to compromise between its strongly-held prejudices?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: You know, if you have hardening of the arteries,

  • it'll kill you as a person and it'll kill you as a country. What you have to do is to

  • be able to maintain the health of the democracy by saying, "It depends on people of different

  • perspectives to come together, have intellectual discussions, you know, listen to each other,

  • tolerate other ideas, not be so full of how right they are. You know, and then say, 'Where

  • can we come together?'"

  • You know, that's what's required. And the more we are locked into, you know, "This is

  • the only right answer," or, "This is their only right--" certitude will kill this country.

  • BILL MOYERS: Why haven't you given up?

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: I will tell you, people ask me, "So, it sounds

  • like you're a pessimist." I said, "No, I'm optimistic. I think the revolution's begun.

  • I look at Washington. I look at California. I look at the 40 percent of the people who

  • call themselves Independents. I look at the constant attacks by people against this nasty

  • partisanship. You know, so I think Congress got down to 13 percent approval, which only

  • proves there's 13 percent who are not paying attention."

  • If everybody was just happy with what's happening, I would say, "We have really lost, you know,

  • control of our system." But the thing that does concern me, Bill, is to have this kind

  • of a system of democracy, you need to have a citizenship, you know, that is capable of

  • operating in this kind of a democracy. So, we need to do a better job of teaching civics.

  • We need to do a better job of teaching critical thinking. You know, we need to do-- we need

  • to have more citizens who engage, show up in the primaries, show up in the elections.

  • We can start by fixing the political system.

  • BILL MOYERS: I would say that one way to start is to read,

  • "The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans."

  • Mickey Edwards, thank you very much for being with me.

  • MICKEY EDWARDS: Thank you. I enjoyed it.

  • BILL MOYERS: Don’t you wonder just who is this Grover

  • Norquist who has such a maniacal hold on the Republican Party? Mickey Edwards isn’t the

  • only conservative who would like to see the party free itself from his grip. Writing in

  • the "Financial Times" last week, the conservative journalist Christopher Caldwell describes

  • the Norquist Pledge as a “partisan document,” “a ratchet driving taxes down to unsustainable

  • levels,” and itsymbolizes a political system short on legitimacy.” Norquist claims

  • the pledge is something politicians make to their constituents, not to him. But Caldwell

  • wonderswho authorized him to collect politicianssignatures on their constituentsbehalf.”

  • Even this misses the main point. Norquist’s effortskeep taxes low for his donor base,

  • billionaires like the Koch brothers and the plutocrats secretly clustered around Norquist’s

  • comrade, Karl Rove. This past election, Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, spent nearly

  • $16 million to support his favored candidates; that’s according to the Center for Responsive

  • Politics. Where did that money come from, and what did it buy? Back in the 1990’s

  • it was the tobacco industry backing Norquist’s fight against cigarette taxes; now it’s

  • the pharmaceutical companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was

  • using his organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. How

  • about that for tax reform!

  • Check it out yourself in the documentary "Capitol Crimes" on our website BillMoyers.com. Youll

  • see the story of how the man who has the Republican Party under his thumb came to Washington to

  • start a revolution and wound up running a racket. Now he’s the proxy for the powerful

  • interest groups that finance him. So, not only does the Norquist Pledge symbolize a

  • "political system short on legitimacy," as Christopher Caldwell wrote, it isn’t even

  • about principle or ideology. Conservatism my foot, it’s all about the money.

  • Coming up on Moyers and Company, poet James Autry on living a life of gratitude, no matter

  • what.

  • JAMES AUTRY: The world is very much with us. And I’m

  • no Pollyanna, but I choose gratitude as an interior journey, an interior practice that

  • sort of this one that, if I can choose to be grateful for my life, love the life I have

  • in the midst of all this, then I can be grateful for other things.

  • BILL MOYERS: And at our website, BillMoyers.com, you can

  • find out more about fighting back against this current FCC attempt to let big media

  • take over even more of what we watch and read. Our Take Action page will show you how.

  • Also, take time to look at our Group Think section, where a lively and diverse collection

  • of contributors gather to discuss whether corporate giants should have so much control

  • over how citizens of a democracy get their information.

  • That’s all at BillMoyers.com. I’ll see you there, and I see you here, next time.

BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it