TERRY GROSS, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. The new book “One Nation After Trump” opens with this judgment – American democracy was never ostensible to give a republic a boss like Trump. The book goes on to explain a ways in that Donald Trump is conflicting from any boss who came before him and to advise how a protests and inhabitant soul-searching he has disturbed could lead to an epoch of Democratic renewal. My guest are dual of a 3 book’s authors.
E.J. Dionne is a columnist for The Washington Post, a comparison associate during a Brookings Institution, a visiting highbrow during Harvard and a commentator on All Things Considered, on that he and David Brooks plead a week in politics. Norm Ornstein is a proprietor academician during a American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor and columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic. We available a speak yesterday afternoon.
E.J. Dionne, Norm Ornstein, acquire to FRESH AIR. So let me get to a initial judgment of a book, that is, American democracy was never ostensible to give a republic a boss like Donald Trump. So what do we meant by that?
E J DIONNE, BYLINE: The thought is that we have had presidents that conflicting people have disagreed with ideologically. We’ve had some-more or reduction efficient presidents. But we cruise we never had a boss who daily raises such surpassing questions about his elementary competence, his psychological ability to take on a job. we don’t cruise we’ve ever had a boss who spoke some-more tenderly of dictators than of Democratic allies. And we don’t cruise we’ve ever had a boss who uttered influence so openly. And that’s given we cruise a lot of Americans who aren’t indispensably liberal, many of whom are also assuage and even now an augmenting array of conservatives, contend this is not a male who has any business being boss of a United States.
GROSS: Norm Ornstein, in what clarity was American democracy designed to forestall someone like Donald Trump from apropos president?
NORMAN ORNSTEIN: It was unequivocally deliberately designed that way. And it’s so distinguished now to go behind and examination what Alexander Hamilton wrote, mostly referring to Aaron Burr – and we don’t have to have seen a low-pitched to conclude all of this – his fear that we could finish adult with a boss who was a demagogue, a boss who had no genuine values other than his possess refuge and encouragement of power. And so a strange inclination, a strange support of a Electoral College was that we would have a organisation of people, elites in a society, who could make certain that if electorate responded to a manipulator in some conform we could shade that chairman out.
And during a same time, a complement of checks and balances, 3 eccentric branches of government, were in partial designed to make certain that if we ever did make a mistake and get a boss who exhibited some of a characteristics that E.J. described, that a other institutions, starting essentially with a initial bend of supervision – an eccentric Congress – would put bounds around that president, would constrain behavior. And a same would be constant of a courts. And that’s worked in a past when we’ve had presidents who strayed. Just demeanour during a unanimous opinion in a Supreme Court on Nixon’s tapes. But during slightest when it comes to a Congress, it’s not operative now.
GROSS: You report Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, who’s no longer in a administration, as carrying embraced ideas from a European far-right and that they seemed prepared to desert an American patriotism. What ideas come from a European far-right? And how would we examination American nationalism to other forms of patriotism?
DIONNE: The thought that Bannon and Trump have visitor ideas from a European far-right comes from a thought that there’s been a good chronological disproportion between what it meant to be an American and what it meant to be a citizen in many European countries. You had that chilling impulse with a far-right demonstrations in Charlottesville where some of a demonstrators started yelling blood and soil. And a clarification of citizenship in other countries has always been formed on blood and either you’re tied to this sold land.
American citizenship has always been formed on a fasten to ideas. It didn’t matter where we were from. It didn’t matter what a tone of your skin was, even nonetheless it took us a prolonged time from a strange essay of a Constitution to scold elemental injustice in it. But we did scold it. And so what’s a antithesis is they contend America first, nonetheless these ideas have many some-more in common with, say, a National Front in France or far-right movements in a Netherlands or Austria than they do with normal Americanism.
And we speak about a need for a new nationalism in a nation given we cruise we should applaud a country. We should applaud a United States. But we should applaud ourselves in sold given we have stood adult for a thought that supervision is formed on we a people and all organisation and women are total equal. And that’s a kind of patriotism.
GROSS: You besiege dual moments as being defining moments in Donald Trump’s arise to power. One of them is in Mar of 2011 when he started to be a birther and started articulate about how Obama was unequivocally innate in Kenya, severe Obama’s birth certificate, observant he was a Muslim. Why do we see that as a defining moment?
ORNSTEIN: So we cruise what happened with that is Donald Trump altered from being a speak uncover barker and luminary billionaire right into a domestic arena, nonetheless into a domestic locus in a approach that was going to squeeze a courtesy and maybe build a devotion of a core organisation of people who were happy to delegitimize Barack Obama. There was no feedback or pushback given from a Republican investiture in Congress or within a party, that was happy to have Obama put on a defensive in this way.
And for a immeasurable array of people – Steve Bannon, Breitbart and others enclosed – Trump unexpected became a viable figure. If we demeanour to a impulse when a presidential discuss or during slightest a probability of regulating strike Donald Trump or was used to emanate a grounds for doing that, his welcome and caring in that birther transformation is key.
GROSS: So another defining moment, we say, in a arise of Donald Trump was Jun 10, 2014, when in a Republican primary outcome that roughly no one approaching Eric Cantor, a House infancy leader, was suspended by a little-known college highbrow named Dave Brat. And Brat was a Tea Party leader. And Cantor had upheld a Tea Party. So given is this a defining moment, Norm Ornstein?
ORNSTEIN: So Eric Cantor, who led a unequivocally obstructionist efforts in Congress conflicting Barack Obama, who indeed went out in 2009 and 2010, recruited Tea Party people and exploited them, was afterwards brought down by this movement. And it was a integrate of things. One, it was a stroke of snub conflicting a Republican investiture that a immeasurable share of electorate – populous Tea-Party forms and others total – of beating in their possess caring given Eric Cantor and others had betrothed them that if they were brought into power, they would pierce Barack Obama to his knees and dissolution Obamacare and dissolution Dodd-Frank financial law and blow adult supervision as we know it. And nothing of that happened.
And during a same time, bolstered by an unusual discuss by radio speak uncover hosts like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin who came down to discuss conflicting Eric Cantor, he was portrayed as one of a strongest supporters of immigration reform. And that nativist component emerged as a recoil conflicting a leadership. And that also, of course, as we know, unequivocally significantly propelled Donald Trump to a front of that 17-person Republican primary container as he got to a right of everybody else on immigration, personification off that recoil conflicting a personality Eric Cantor.
GROSS: OK, let’s take a brief mangle here and afterwards we’ll speak some more. If you’re usually fasten us, my guest are E.J. Dionne, who is a columnist for The Washington Post and a commentator on All Things Considered, and Norm Ornstein, who’s a proprietor academician during a American Enterprise Institute and has worked with and complicated Congress for decades. They’ve collaborated on a new book “One Nation After Trump.” We’ll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF SYNTAX SONG, “PRIDE”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you’re usually fasten us, my guest are E.J. Dionne and Norm Ornstein, dual of a 3 authors of a new book “One Nation after Trump.” And E.J. Dionne is a Washington Post columnist and a commentator for All Things Considered. Norm Ornstein has been study Congress and essay about Congress for several decades.
Norm Ornstein, given you’ve been essay about Congress and operative with Congress for such a prolonged time, we wish to ask we about this. You contend in a book a radicalization of a Republican Party began 3 decades ago. And we snippet it to when Newt Gingrich came to Congress when he was inaugurated in a late ’70s. What are some of a ways he altered a House? And he became a House speaker. So what instruction did he set a House in?
ORNSTEIN: So Newt Gingrich came to Congress with a 1978 election. It was his third attempt. He was a parochial story highbrow in Georgia. But he came in with a entirely (unintelligible) about given a Republican Party had not been in a infancy for what was, during that point, 24 uninterrupted years and how to get there and a set of strategy to pierce in that direction. And it was essentially a faith that a Democrats, who had been in a majority, were unequivocally clever. They parlayed a advantages of being in a infancy and executives to get some-more money, to have a name recognition, nonetheless also unequivocally deftly could divided go out there no matter what a inhabitant domestic trends and apart themselves out from it. It’s not me. It’s them.
And he indispensable to blow that up. And his thought was, we have to remonstrate people eventually that this is so awful, so outrageous and a people there are so bad that anything would be better. Nationalize a process. Tribalize a country, starting by radicalizing his possess members, Republicans who’d left along with a Democrats, and eventually find a choosing where a call could occur. It took 16 years. He recruited people to come to office. He gave them denunciation to use. He blocked as many as he could. He used a ethics routine as a arms to criminalize routine differences.
And all of that worked, ultimately, in bringing that infancy in 1994. But he brought with him a immeasurable organisation of people who unequivocally believed all of that, who wanted to destroy their institution, destroy government. They infected, we think, a immeasurable array of actors outside, from a rising genealogical media to a lot of electorate out there, that a other side was not usually adversaries, nonetheless a enemy. And that began a downward spiral, we think, that eventually culminated, generally after 8 years of Barack Obama, with a kind of demonization and secular characterizations that we had in primary domain for a Donald Trump to emerge.
GROSS: OK, so you’re articulate about what Newt Gingrich did, like, years ago when he was in Congress. Here’s what Newt Gingrich wrote some-more recently. And this usually published on a FOX News website on May 18, 2017. And Gingrich writes, (reading) we are currently in a biased informative polite war. The left has picked a terrain and tangible a terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, infrequently disturbed feeling from a left with confusion, doubt and appeasement, we are guaranteed to remove a onslaught to empty a engulf and remodel Washington. Further, surrendering will destroy America as we know it. Far from creation America good again, we will have yielded a nation to severe thugs, liars and intimidators.
I’d adore to hear your response to discussion Newt Gingrich contend that.
DIONNE: The irony of Gingrich is that there are moments when he can be an impossibly constrained chairman who creates engaging arguments and doesn’t sound like that during all. And afterwards there’s a Newt Gingrich who’s creation all these fights, who unequivocally wants to act as if we all hatred any other, we have visitor values on a conflicting side. It is an awful approach to demeanour during a nation where a immeasurable infancy of Americans, actually, on so many of these informative and eremite questions are essentially moderate. They don’t wish to hatred any other. They know that somebody down a travel from them whom they unequivocally adore competence be happy or lesbian. They know somebody else down a travel from them competence have a conflicting sacrament or competence be a nonbeliever. As – America has always been about vital with them, profiting from a differences and, yes, arguing about them, nonetheless not in a approach that casts one side with a demon and one side with a Lord.
GROSS: And, Norm Ornstein, behind to you. You contend that, we know, after Newt Gingrich, afterwards Denny Hastert became a orator of a House and that he built and took serve a radicalization that Newt Gingrich had started. So where do we see him as contributing to a radicalization of a Republican Party?
ORNSTEIN: So Dennis Hastert becomes a orator and we have, before unequivocally long, an fondness between Hastert and a Republican president, George W. Bush. And Hastert saw himself not as an eccentric orator of a House nonetheless as a constant feet infantryman in a president’s army, nonetheless also came to conclude what we now know as a Hastert rule, that a approach to oversee underneath those resources was to oversee with your celebration alone and not pierce adult measures that didn’t have a support of a infancy – of a majority, and positively not try to pass things that would rest on a votes of Democrats.
And in a routine of doing that, Hastert went serve than Gingrich had to blow adult a approach a House of Representatives had operated with a set of norms and procedures of discuss and deliberation, operative by committees and subcommittees, responding to and relying on expertise, going to discussion committees, giving a purpose for a minority. He eroded all of those.
And, of course, a many poignant or signature impulse was an try to pass in a center of a night a unequivocally narrow-minded chronicle of a Bush devise to pierce medication drugs to Medicare recipients in that his arch vital and primary mover, Tom DeLay, got chastised, ultimately, for perplexing to offer a discuss provocation to one of his possess members to change his vote.
GROSS: Let’s demeanour during a Senate for a moment. Mitch McConnell was a Senate minority personality when Barack Obama was inaugurated president. And McConnell, now famously, said, a singular many vicious thing we wish to grasp is for President Obama to be a one-term president. McConnell is now a infancy personality in a Senate. And we credit him with radicalizing a Senate. So give us an instance or dual of that.
DIONNE: we cruise a primary instance of Mitch McConnell radicalizing a Senate is what happened with President Obama’s assignment of Merrick Garland to a Supreme Court. There have been fights over Supreme Court justices going behind a unequivocally prolonged way, nonetheless not to give Merrick Garland even a hearing, let alone a opinion on a speculation that, well, we’re going to let a people decide. Well, a people motionless in a final choosing this was an appointment for President Obama to make and that this is an instance of regulating energy not usually to change something today, nonetheless to change something for 20 years going brazen given by restraint Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell non-stop a approach for appointing Neil Gorsuch. And that approach Neil Gorsuch is going to send a justice in a very, unequivocally conflicting direction. That’s a primary example, nonetheless there are many others that we know Norm has combined about a lot over a years.
ORNSTEIN: So if we demeanour now during what’s been function on a health caring front – floating adult a unchanging order, as it were – not a singular cabinet discussion or impasse by a experts in his possess celebration in a devise to dissolution Obamacare and reinstate it that eventually unsuccessful in a Senate. And now relocating brazen with a Sep 30 deadline to try and jam by another devise in that they’re perplexing to damp John McCain, who’s called for a lapse to cabinet hearings in a unchanging sequence by holding one discussion 4 days before a opinion not in a financial cabinet or a health cabinet that have a expertise, nonetheless of all things in a homeland confidence committee. This is essentially saying, never mind how we’ve operated a Senate. We’re going to use beast force. And that’s a unequivocally discouraging long-term problem that even goes over what competence occur in a ultimate predestine of Donald Trump.
GROSS: And vocalization of a ultimate predestine of Donald Trump and looking during that, we examination a legislature that Trump faces with a legislature that Nixon faced when he was forced from office. You wish to make that comparison for us?
DIONNE: Yes. we cruise that initial of all, we tend to romanticize a past. And we try to be unequivocally clever about this. Republicans stranded with Nixon for a good prolonged time before they incited on him. We remember a good bipartisan moments. We forget that are of partisanship. It’s also value remembering it’s a elementary fact that a Congress was underneath approved control, so they were some-more prone to reason Nixon accountable. But what we saw in a Nixon epoch eventually is that a lot of Republicans pronounced a abuses of Watergate were usually too many to take.
In a impeachment vote, a whole organisation – over a half-dozen Republicans – finished adult voting to impeach. There were a lot of other Republicans in a Senate who were unequivocally dissapoint with Nixon and said, this can’t be what a celebration stands for. And ultimately, it was Barry Goldwater, a heading regressive who went to Richard Nixon and said, we usually can’t stay in bureau anymore. And that’s when Nixon knew a finish was near. In this Congress, adult to now we have seen unequivocally small eagerness on a partial of Republicans to reason Trump accountable on a extended array of fronts, either it’s his financial conflicts of seductiveness – he’s doing things that we haven’t seen presidents do in a longest time – releasing his taxation returns, that presidents have been doing for a unequivocally prolonged time – and of march on a Russia story, where we had quite in a House – a small reduction so in a Senate – some genuine games being played with what should be an honest examination into what happened there. And so there is – we cruise there’s been one infrequently certain outcome of a Republicans boring their feet.
One of a points we make in a book is that we have a certain confidence about – cheerfulness about a destiny of a nation given a lot of Americans have been mobilized into politics and open movement and into movement in polite multitude given of their fear of Trump, nonetheless also given they know that while a courts might eventually reason him accountable – we’ll see – a Congress has not been doing that. And so renouned movements have taken it on themselves to emanate vigour on Congress to act, and also to support a examination of Robert Mueller so that he’s not fired. But this is unequivocally conflicting than a suggestion we saw quite in a final stages of Watergate.
GROSS: My guest are E.J. Dionne and Norm Ornstein, co-authors of a new book “One Nation after Trump.” We’ll speak about how Trump won a devout opinion after we take a brief break. I’m Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF SEAN HUTCHINSON’S “BLISS, REJECTION”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross behind with a co-authors of a new book “One Nation after Trump.” E.J. Dionne is a columnist for The Washington Post and a commentator on NPR’s All Things Considered. Norm Ornstein is a proprietor academician during a American Enterprise Institute and a columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic. Their book starts with a grounds that we’ve never had a boss who has disturbed such grave doubts about his fasten to a institutions of self-government and a norms democracy requires. They inspect how we got here and offer skeleton for assisting families and workers, skeleton they cruise Americans can combine behind.
E.J. Dionne, given you’ve combined in a past about a devout right in America, we wish to lift with we a doubt we ask in a book, that is, we know, Trump won a largest domain among white devout electorate of any Republican claimant given exit polling began. So he won 81-16 percent conflicting Hillary Clinton. And, E.J., we write one of a many vicious stories of a discuss is Trump’s success in winning over white devout Christians in annoy of a ways in that he disregarded a personal values they hold. So given do we cruise he was so successful in annoy of a fact that – in annoy of, usually to name one example, a “Access Hollywood” fasten about grabbing women by their private tools and afterwards all a women who came brazen and pronounced that he intimately tormented them?
DIONNE: The support of white evangelicals for Donald Trump is unequivocally disturbing. we think, fortunately, for relocating forward, it was unfortunate to a lot of white evangelicals themselves. There was – a bold voice in this discuss was Russell Moore, a boss of a Ethics Religious Liberty Commission of a Southern Baptist Convention, who pronounced not usually that his personal probity lifted vicious problems, nonetheless also, as Russell Moore said, in a time when secular tensions run high opposite a country, Mr. Trump incites multiplication with slurs conflicting Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon. And he was unequivocally station adult conflicting prejudice. But a immeasurable infancy of evangelicals voted for Trump. And we cruise it was for a array of reasons.
One is a genuine annoy and fear during liberals. Their politics was some-more tangible by annoy during liberals in a clarity that liberals were impinging on their prerogatives – a prerogatives of eremite people – than they were fortifying eremite liberty. we cruise what’s unfortunate for a devout friends is that they unequivocally had to change their mind on some elemental questions in sequence to justify their support for Donald Trump. They were once – a pollsters have been seeking for years a question, if an inaugurated executive commits an incorrigible act in their private life, can they still act ethically and perform their duties in their open and veteran life? Only 30 percent of white evangelicals pronounced that in 2011. By 2016, 72 percent had pronounced that.
So they were peaceful to desert this given they felt underneath siege. And we cruise this was also – goes to a again in make America good again. Robbie Jones, a crony of cave who is a unequivocally good author and pollster on these matters, wrote a book final year called “The End Of White Christian America.” And what he was articulate about is simply a demographic fact that white Christians are no longer a demographic infancy in a country.
And we cruise there is, total with a dislike of liberals, a faith that liberals unequivocally can’t mount evangelicals and are perplexing to marginalize them. There is also a clarity that a enlightenment is about to go divided from them. And that’s given Donald Trump said, if we am boss you’ll be means to contend Merry Christmas again. And it was – of march we can all contend Merry Christmas. But as devout leaders said, we knew accurately what he was articulate about.
GROSS: How many do we cruise that Donald Trump’s settled position on termination during a discuss influenced a devout vote? And also, he presented a brief list of people who he would cruise fixing to a Supreme Court during – we know, for a subsequent vacancy. And those people – we trust all those people were also opposite to abortion. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.
DIONNE: No, we cruise you’re right. And we cruise what’s distinguished about a debates, quite a final one, is precisely given Donald Trump during some partial of himself knows he is not a healthy claimant for eremite conservatives, he went out of his approach to be some-more opposite to termination than any other Republican had been in a open discuss before. George W. Bush was strongly pro-life, strongly anti-abortion, nonetheless he was unequivocally clever in his choice of language. Trump went over on this issue, over in guaranteeing regressive justices given he knew that white evangelicals were executive to his feat and he was going to do anything he had to even though, by a way, once on a time, Donald Trump was pro-choice.
GROSS: we cruise a lot of people are unequivocally undetermined about Mike Pence, President Trump’s clamp president, given Pence is an devout Christian. We’ve read, we know, that Pence won’t have cooking with a lady unless his mother is there concomitant him. And for him to be a clamp boss to Donald Trump seems unequivocally kind of baffling, in a way. So we consternation what insights, E.J., we can offer into that. And also, what is he doing now? You know, Donald Trump gets all a attention. What’s Mike Pence been adult to?
DIONNE: Well, Mike Pence has been personification a clever understanding purpose to Donald Trump. And we cruise that if – we know, if Donald Trump were pushed out of bureau before a finish of his term, we cruise Mike Pence would be called on to answer for an positively unaffected support for Trump opposite a house on most everything. And we cruise that, we know, a fact that Donald Trump’s Cabinet is so regressive – that we cruise will mystify this opening, by a way, that he has to Chuck and Nancy, as he likes to call a Democratic personality in a Senate and a Democratic personality in a House.
This disturbed Cabinet – and a other thing we’re not profitable many courtesy to is a Trump deregulatory bulletin where he is throwing out all sorts of regulations from a Obama epoch to strengthen a environment, on meridian change, to strengthen workers, to strengthen consumers. This is unequivocally many a Pence-style agenda. And so Pence represents a unequivocally – a right and tough right of a Republican Party in his administration. And he helps keep a congressional Republicans on side, in a sense, and that’s a vicious purpose he’s personification for Trump.
ORNSTEIN: I’ve famous Pence given his time in Congress. He’s an agreeable man. This is not a male who would use Twitter, who would expected use a kind of divisive and inflammatory denunciation that Trump has used, including in response to Charlottesville. This is not a male who would get into a kind of competition of insults with Kim Jong Un. But as E.J. said, he’s a unequivocally conflicting chairman than Donald Trump. He is a genuine, radical idealogue. He was that approach in Congress. He was that approach as a administrator of Indiana. He has had a vital impress on this administration. Many of his friends from Congress and outward are in these pivotal positions. Mick Mulvaney, who proudly calls himself a disturbed bulb job, is a bill director. Tom Price, a secretary of Health and Human Services who’s been a designer of a health caring skeleton that they’ve proposed, Ryan Zinke during Interior, Scott Pruitt during Environmental Protection Agency, Betsy DeVos – these are Pence people. And we cruise Pence is trying, as a ubiquitous matter, to travel a unequivocally formidable line that each clamp boss has.
When we would learn about this, we used to contend that there’s this vicious impulse in each presidential administration early in a tenure when a boss and clamp boss are carrying their unchanging weekly lunch in a family quarters. And they’re left alone by a stewards. And as a boss is slicing his steak, he looks opposite a list and realizes that if he starts to throttle on a square of that steak, a chairman opposite from him is going to be thinking, do we request a Heimlich maneuver?
ORNSTEIN: So faithfulness becomes a pivotal question. And for Trump, faithfulness is everything. And Pence, we cruise as E.J. pronounced unequivocally correctly, is doing all he can and doubling down on perplexing to uncover that he is definitely constant to a president. And along a way, he’s stained himself a small bit, we think, with some of that support.
GROSS: You know, in perplexing to explain Donald Trump’s presidential victory, we write that supervision isn’t deputy anymore of American demographics. And one instance of that is a Senate. So explain what we meant on that.
DIONNE: Well, by 20 – we cruise it’s by 2050 – 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. That means that 70 percent of Americans will have 30 senators and 30 percent of Americans will have 70 senators. The Senate, that unfortunately is unequivocally tough to change a approach it was combined into a Constitution, radically underrepresents populous states. And it does so some-more now than it used to. The ratio when a Republic started between a smallest and largest state was 13 to 1. Now it’s around 70 to 1 or more.
And this refracts behind into a Electoral College. One of a things we indicate out in creation this box that we’re apropos a non-majoritarian democracy, that of march is a kind of oxymoron, is that we – when we went by a story from 1824 when renouned votes unequivocally started to matter all a approach to 1996, we usually had 3 elections where a renouned opinion was out of sync with a Electoral College. And dual of those were a unequivocally rare – a four-candidate competition in 1824 and a contested competition in 1876. And no one knew how certain states unequivocally voted. There was so many rascal on both sides.
Since 2000, we have already had dual elections in that a Electoral College vote’s out of sync with a renouned vote, and this time, a biggest opening in a renouned opinion we’ve ever had in such an election. And we cruise that speaks to a fact that a nation is reorganizing itself. And some-more and some-more Americans are relocating into metro areas. We have some numbers in a book that uncover this metropolitanization of America. So a overrepresentation of non-metro America in a complement is apropos even some-more profound.
And so we unequivocally speak about stairs to democratize. If we could – and we know it’s a prolonged shot – we would get absolved of a Electoral College. But we speak about other things that we could do. Ending or reigning in gerrymandering would indeed assistance pierce about a some-more majoritarian democracy. We also speak about reforming a purpose of money. Money can lean a change conflicting majorities. And we have other reforms in there. But this is something we don’t speak about enough, we think. And we usually act as if if you’re disturbed about a Electoral College it’s ’cause your side lost. But it will emanate over a prolonged run an illegitimacy in a complement if we any time shortly have nonetheless another choosing when these are out of line. And we cruise we should do something about it before we have a array of such elections.
GROSS: we wish to appreciate we both so many for articulate with us. E.J. Dionne, Norm Ornstein, appreciate you.
ORNSTEIN: Well, appreciate you, Terry.
DIONNE: Thank we so many for carrying us.
GROSS: E.J. Dionne and Norm Ornstein co-wrote a new book “One Nation Under Trump.” The third author of a book is Thomas E. Mann. After we take a brief break, stone censor Ken Tucker will examination Matthew Sweet’s initial new manuscript of new songs in 6 years. This is FRESH AIR.
NPR transcripts are total on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and constructed regulating a exclusive transcription routine grown with NPR. This content might not be in a final form and might be updated or revised in a future. Accuracy and accessibility might vary. The lawful record of NPR’s programming is a audio record.