Money

Attention: In our initial episode we erroneously stated that the 12 Federal Banks print money, that is not accurate. The money is printed at two factories in DC and Fort Knox, and sent to those 12 banks. Civics 101 deeply regrets the error!

What do the little green rectangles in your pocket even mean? Why are we talking about the peso? And what happens when you trade a cow for a teapot? Today we embark on a brief history of American money, from silver certificates to a greenback dollar to a freshly-struck penny.

Our guides are Stephen Mihm, professor at the University of Georgia and author of A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men, and the Making of the United States, Ellen Feingold, curator at the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian, and Todd Martin from the U.S. Mint.

Episode Resources and Lesson Plans

Graphic Organizer for episode

Parts of a Coin: from the US Mint

Symbols and numbers on the dollar bill: from The Bureau of Engraving and Printing

Field Trip to the Money Factory: See how our bills are made, from usa.gov.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT 

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors. 

Civics 101: Money

Adia Samba-Quee: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:03] OK, your levels sound good, professor, Are you ready to jump in?

Stephen Mihm: [00:00:07] Absolutely. Absolutely.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:09] So my first question, and maybe it's foolish to start with this one, but what is money?

Stephen Mihm: [00:00:21] (laughs) Do you really want me to try to answer that?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:48] This is Civics 101, the podcast refresher course on the basics of how our democracy works. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:53] I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:55] And yeah, today we're talking about it. Talking about money. American money [00:01:00]. Its history, bills, coins, the Mint, you name it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:06] Did you get an answer from him?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:08] I did. That is Stephen Mihm, by the way, he's a professor of history at the University of Georgia, and he wrote a book called A Nation of Counterfeiters, Capitalists, Con Men and the Making of the United States. And he is the first guest on Civics 101 to deal with natural disaster.

Stephen Mihm: [00:01:24] I don't mean to be trouble here, but Athens, Clark County is under a tornado warning. Tornado warning for us means that there is a likelihood there is a tornado in our area...

Nick Capodice: [00:01:34] And Stephen stuck it out through a tornado warning so he could tell me about money. And sometimes in this episode, you're going to hear him talking and you'll hear a little siren in the background. But back to my broad question. So money is this thing we all have or we want to have. It's something we need to carry out our daily life. But have you ever just wondered what it is?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:56] Stephen told me that money, in its classic sense, consists of three [00:02:00] things. Number one, it has to store value. It has to hold its value over time. It can't rot like a banana. Two, unit of account. That means its value is measurable. It's countable and it's the same everywhere, right. No dollars worth more than any other dollar. And three medium of exchange. That means it is something that is generally accepted to be exchanged for goods and services.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:23] All right. Gotcha.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:24] But Stephen also said.

Stephen Mihm: [00:02:25] That question, what is money, the answer will tell you a great deal about the person answering it and less about what money actually is. Anthropologists might invest money with cultural significance. That money originated not to meet economic needs, but rather originated out of something like either religious ritual or kinship relations or some way of creating reciprocity between social groups. Money, in other words, is is is [00:03:00] what you make of it. And what you make of it depends very much if you're asking an academic on your academic training.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:07] And I asked that same question to Ellen Feingold. She is the curator of the National Numismatic Collection at Smithsonian.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:13] And what does numismatic mean?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:15] A numismatist is somebody who collects and studies money.

Ellen Feingold: [00:03:18] I prefer a simpler definition of money, and that is money is anything that can be used to make a payment. And really, any object can serve that purpose as long as it has an agreed upon value and is trusted for use in transactions.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:32] And in the past in world history, that's been shells, beads, giant stones with holes in them. And in America today, we're talking about coins, bills, credit cards, cryptocurrency and any of the myriad ways that banks electronically handle our accounts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:46] How did we start using money in America? Was a dollar always this green thing with George Washington on it?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:53] No. Oh, not by a long shot.

Stephen Mihm: [00:03:55] Before the United States was created as an actual bonafide independent nation, [00:04:00] America and the colonies that would become the United States experimented with monetary substitutes in ways that actually marked the United States, or what became the United States, as very unusual. In other words, one of the first and really arguably the first state issued paper currencies in the Western world at least came in Massachusetts.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:23] So Massachusetts had no way to pay its soldiers.

Stephen Mihm: [00:04:27] And ultimately hit upon this very interesting idea of issuing what were effectively IOUs that would derive their value, interestingly enough, from the fact that they could be used down the line to pay taxes.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:42] But when we just started out as a nation, we used other people's money.

Stephen Mihm: [00:04:48] A motley assortment of coins made in other countries, either Spain or more likely Spanish colonies like Mexico or Bolivia, [00:05:00] what have you. To compound this confusion from our modern day perspective, if you were in Massachusetts, a Massachusetts pound might not be the same as a British pound.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:16] This sounds impossible.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:17] It does. And it was. And that's why we started to make some changes in 1776.

Stephen Mihm: [00:05:22] During the American Revolution, though, there was there was a desire to create a new currency. So that's really where it dates to. And this was a currency known as the dollar. But again, this dollar was not a truly novel creation. It was a dollar pegged to the Spanish peso. That is one reason why the American dollar is divided in the way that it's divided say, in quarters and originally also in 8ths and in halves, because the Spanish peso is divided into 8ths. And this made total sense. I mean, it was. Basically, we were lazy [00:06:00] and we're like, look, there's already a currency out there, most of us handle these silver coins. Let's just roll with this.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:06] The peso.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:09] I never knew the peso was to thank for the dollar.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:12] Right. But speaking of the dollar, let's get back to the paper currency. It caught on really quickly with merchants because there wasn't a lot of money around.

Stephen Mihm: [00:06:22] It's hard for us to understand now this problem which bedeviled the colonies. And that problem was that there was literally a shortage of money. Not a shortage of wealth, but a shortage of things that could be used as tokens to move between people and economic transactions. So people might have huge amounts of silver in the form of, say, plates and teapots and the like sitting on their mantel. But they had no money. The paper money solved this problem. It was a way [00:07:00] of making economic transactions move smoothly and operate, you know, with less friction than they would when you have to engage in barter or try to pay for a cow with a teapot. In which case, you know, there's a problem making change and and so on and so forth.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:18] But the biggest problem with all these paper bills at the time was forgery.

Ellen Feingold: [00:07:23] The colonial notes were, were were were often targets for counterfeiting. And that could be by American colonists. That could be by British troops, that could be by anyone who had an interest in taking advantage of those banknotes. Many of the notes had a statement on them that stated the legal penalty for counterfeiting, they said "to counterfeit is death." Many states went to, well, early colonies, went to great lengths to try to make their notes hard to copy. And one of the most famous examples of this comes from Benjamin Franklin.

Stephen Mihm: [00:07:54] Ben Franklin, who is the kind of where's Waldo of colonial America, he's everywhere, he devised [00:08:00] these paper notes that used a very kind of proprietary process to take a leaf and turn it into an engraving. And every leaf's veins are unique. So it was kind of this nature looking like a nature print on the back of his currency.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:19] Were counterfeiters actually killed?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:22] No. I mean, it was the technical penalty in a lot of states. But Stephen said it very rarely happened. Sometimes colonial authorities later hired counterfeiters to make bills for them. And the Secret Service, which today we think of their primary function as protecting the president, that agency was created specifically to deal with forgeries. It was that massive of a threat to our economy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:43] Do they still do that?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:44] They do. If you're making some funny money, the Secret Service just might show up at your door. But it's harder today than it was even in Franklin's time. We've got color changing ink, watermarks, thread that glows in ultraviolet light. It's very sophisticated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:05] All [00:09:00] right, when did we start to print a federal greenback dollar?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:11]  Civil war.

Ellen Feingold: [00:09:16] So in 1861, beginning of the Civil War, the federal government decides to get into the business of printing money mainly to pay for the war. So, they produce what are called demand notes. And they have this vibrant greenback. And they have an intricate design, though not nearly as intricate as the designs become over time. And that quickly evolves into a variety of types of notes, over the decades that follow. And what really unites the design of these notes is a consistent use of... Of green ink.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:51] And Ellen told me an interesting story about George Washington's face being printed on these.

Ellen Feingold: [00:09:56] George Washington is currently on the $1 bill. And the predecessor [00:10:00] of that bill is a $1 silver certificate. George Washington, when he first appears on that note, does not appear by himself. He actually appears alongside Martha Washington in 1896. And in fact, 10 years earlier, that same denomination, the 1886 silver certificate, actually featured Martha Washington by herself. It's the only example of a... Of a historic American woman being featured on a federal banknote in a portrait on her own.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:31] That's the last time there was a woman on our paper currency. But in 2016, then Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew announced that Harriet Tubman was going to replace Andrew Jackson, a slave owner, on the front of the $20 bill. It actually initially was going to replace Hamilton on the $10 bill but after the musical his popularity skyrocketed and they put an end to that. Today, Steven Mnuchin, our current Secretary of the Treasury, has not yet committed to the Harriet [00:11:00] Tubman change.

Ellen Feingold: [00:11:00] Something I collected recently, that's now on display in our gallery The Value of Money, is a 3-D stamp produced by a man named Dano Wall. And it is a stamp of Harriet Tubman. And individuals can use this stamp to stamp Harriet's portrait on $20 bills, thereby replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:27] Is that legal?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:28] Good question. Did you grew up hearing that it's illegal to deface money? Like you're not allowed to mess with money.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:34] Yeah, I always had a sense that you like...You shouldn't rip a dollar bill in half or something like that.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:38] Right. Right. It's not legal to rip a dollar bill in half because that's defacing or destroying currency. It's it's in the U.S. code that you're not allowed to do that.But to Ellen's knowledge, nobody has been reprimanded for stamping money or writing on money because scholars are currently debating what defacing means.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:56]  And who is actually making our money today?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:59] Starting [00:12:00] in 1913, the Congress put the Federal Reserve in charge of money production and the value of the bills produced was tied to a specific amount of gold. This is called the gold standard. We don't do this anymore. I'll talk more about that a little bit. The Federal Reserve is in charge of money, but the bills are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Whose web site is the delightfully named moneyfactory. gov. Do you have any dollars on you?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:25]  I can go get one.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:25] I don't have any cash on me! We're a cashless society. Oh, thank you. What's this?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:30] A nice fresh dollar bill.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:30] Look at this dollar bill.`I've never been to either a place that prints bills or a Mint.Have you visited one of these?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:39] I think I have.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:41] Where?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:41] In Massachusetts.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:43] So the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has two locations that print money, those are in DC and Fort Knox. They send that money to 12 federal banks. If you were in Boton, that’s the A bank. So if you look at this dollar bill on the left side, to the left of George Washington, it has a big A on it. That says which of the 12 banks it came from. [00:13:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:59] No way!

[00:13:00] Yeah, so A is Boston. B is New York. C is Philadelphia. You could look up the whole list online. And when it comes to the Mint, I spoke with Todd Martin. He's the Chief of Corporate Communications at the U.S. Mint. He told me the six things that are on every coin-.

Todd Martin: [00:13:14] Which are liberty, in God we trust, United States of America, E Pluribus Unum- which is Latin for " out of many, one"-the domination, and the year that the coin was produced.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:29] And there's one more feature to look for. It's the Mint mark. This is like that letter on the dollar bill. It's a tiny letter on the head side that tells you where it was made-.

Todd Martin: [00:13:37] P for Philadelphia and D for Denver.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:42] The Federal Reserve, our National Bank, decides how many bills and coins to make every year. That's what puts money into circulation so you can have it in your wallet and your back pocket. But far and away, the most fascinating thing I learned about the Mint from Todd- and this doesn't happen with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, by [00:14:00] the way- is that the Mint makes coins and they shipped them to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys them from the U.S. Mint at the rate of a penny for a penny. Five cents for a nickel. Twenty five cents for a quarter. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:19] No. They make a penny.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:22] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:23] And then they sell it for a penny?

Nick Capodice: [00:14:25] Right. They sell the Federal Reserve a copper-ish piece of metal. That's a penny. And the Federal Reserve pays them a cent for it. So- and that's how the Mint pays for itself.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:37] Ok. I want to get back to this. Right? This dollar bill in my hand here. Does it represent anything? Is there like a piece of gold in a vault somewhere? Do you know what I mean- like what does this mean?

Ellen Feingold: [00:14:52] It means that you trust the federal government.So it's fiduciary or fiat currency, which [00:15:00] means that it's money because the law says it is. And because you choose to trust the federal government and trust the law that establishes our national currency system.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:09] When did that change happen? When did we stop using notes to represent silver or gold, and start using fiat currency, and just trust that this dollar is what it says it is? Who did that?

Stephen Mihm: [00:15:21] FDR did- Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: [00:15:24] Therefore, the United States must take firmly in it's own hands the control of the gold value of our dollar.

Stephen Mihm: [00:15:32] You know, when people think about FDR and the New Deal, they always think about like Civilian Conservation Corps, you know, public works projects and WPA or what have you. But one of the most momentous revolutionary things he did was to sever and put an end to the gold standard. And he did that quite dramatically. It became illegal to own gold. In order for a currency that  [00:16:00]is a fiat currency to work you've got to stamp out other- the competition. And in this case, holding gold would have been a very potent way of competing with the nation's currency. So it became illegal. There was a executive order. Gold was confiscated. And you got paper money in return at a fixed rate.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:20] But we kept using gold to represent the value of the dollar internationally until-.

[00:16:26] I directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets-

Nick Capodice: [00:16:33] President Richard Nixon.In 1971, he announced that the U.S. would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value. And that ended all official ties to the gold standard. Now, we have to be careful with fiat currency, because now that our money isn't tied to a gold standard, inflation- which means our money is worth less- can happen if you print too much of it. If you're making too much money. And finally, in 1975, it became legal to own [00:17:00] gold again.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:00] So this dollar only means a dollar because I believe that it does?

Nick Capodice: [00:17:08] You got it right on the money. So the next time you look at the number in your bank account remember that it only has value because everyone else agrees that it does. Are the levels okay? They seem fine they seem fine.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:19] They seem fine to me.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:19] Alright let's go! Let's go! Five, six, seven, eight Put it in the bank. Today's episode is produced by me, Nick Capodice, with you Hannah McCarthy, thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:29] You're welcome.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:29] Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton, who asked if blue jeans are used to make our dollars and we all laughed and it turns out it was TRUE.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:29] Erika Janik is our Executive Producer and has been waiting to do an episode on the Mint for two years.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:34] Maureen McMurray is a hip hip hip hip lady.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:38] Music in this episode by South London, Hi Fi, Broke for Free, Blue Dot Sessions, Matt Harris, Sara the Instrumentalist- no-.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:44] Sarah the Illstrumentalist.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:45] Yep. Sarah the Illstrumentalist. Rachel Collier, RKVC, and that wonderful 1910s band, the Weems.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:52] There is just so much, good heavens, to learn about our bills and our coins. What is on them and why it's addictive. And now I can't stop [00:18:00] looking at serial numbers on my dollars. To join my newfound obsession visit our website Civic101podcast.org where we put links to our favorite explainers on money.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:10] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And it is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Independents

What prevents someone from affiliating with a political party? What is the ideology of an independent? And how can these voters exist in a two party system?

Walking us through the world of the party outsiders is political scientist Samara Klar, head of IndependentVoting.org, Jacqueline Salit and president of New Hampshire Independent Voters, Tiani Coleman.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Resources and Lesson Plans

Graphic Organizer

The latest data on independent voters by the Pew Research Center

A quick video explainer on independents by The Washington Post

Independent voters explain themselves to CNN

The issues independent voters care about most, tracked by the New York Times.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

Ben Henry: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:05] I want to run a super quick experiment on you, Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:08] Alright. Let me have it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:13] For this to work, let's just say that you are either a Republican or you're a Democrat. OK?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:17] Hypothetically, okay, yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:20] You're moving into a new neighborhood and you're looking at two different houses. One is next to a person who shares your party affiliation. OK? Your neighbor is the same party as you. The other house is next to someone who identifies as a member of the opposing party. The houses being otherwise alike in dignity, which one do you pick?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:46] This seems like you're pulling one over on me. But of course, I would like to live somebody who shares my party affiliation and beliefs.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:53] Ok, now let's throw a third house into the mix. But this house is next to an unaffiliated [00:01:00] voter. Someone who identifies as an Independent- they don't have a party. Does that change your pick?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:10] Yeah. Honestly, it does, because I feel like I could learn something from that person and thus about myself. Why do you ask?

Samara Klar: [00:01:21] If there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on, it's that Independents are the best.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:26] This is  Samara Klar. She's an associate professor of political science at the University of Arizona. And I bring this question up because Samara made this discovery while researching her book on Independent voters.

Samara Klar: [00:01:39] When we ask them who they want to live next door to? Who they want to work with? People, you know, if they're given a choice between someone from their own party and someone from the other party. They'll, of course, choose somebody from their own party. But if we add the option, "What about living next to an Independent?" Well, that's what they really want. People really like Independents.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:55] By the way, because I really want to hammer home the American love [00:02:00] for Independent voters...It isn't just that we want to live next to them. We want to date them.

Samara Klar: [00:02:07] I ran an experiment with my co-author, Yanna, where we showed people a series of faces. They were computer generated faces. They weren't real people. These were sort of robotic, formulaic faces. And we would randomly tell people that the face was either somebody who was a Republican, or a Democrat, or an Independent. And we would ask people to evaluate these characters that they were looking at. And we found that this- there's a broad consensus across all partisans that Independents are more physically attractive. Independents are more likable. And Independents are more trustworthy. And again, these were- this was an experiment. They were randomly assigned partisanships. And frankly, neither of them were particularly attractive- if I'm gonna be totally honest with you.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:49] All right. Wow. So Americans really love Independents.But I want to know what is an Independent? And is it even possible to have no party affiliation? [00:03:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:00] Right. There is a degree to which the Independent voter feels almost like a myth. Like trying to pin down something intangible. Well today, we are going to try to pin down the un-pin-downable. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:16] And I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:18] And first thing first, what is an independent voter?

Jacqueline Salit: [00:03:21] So this a constituency, or a community of voters, that are enormously distressed with the status quo. That are willing to move all over the spectrum without regard to political correctness or party loyalty.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:38] This is Jackie Salit. She's the president of Independent Voters dot org. She became an Independent, in the 1970s, after being raised in a very progressive, left leaning family. And she still identifies with a lot of that ideology. She just doesn't see the Democratic Party as being the vehicle for it.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:56] So when Jackie says "move all over the spectrum" does she means [00:04:00] swing voters? Like we think of swing states that can go for one party or the other? Is that the thing that makes an Independent an Independent?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:06] Well it can. You might call a true swing voter a pure Independent. Right? A voter who isn't just not registered with the Democratic, or Republican Party, or some third party- but who truly votes for the person over their party affiliation. They can vote for a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Libertarian, or a Green Party candidate- whatever.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:30] Are there really, though, even voters out there who vote Democrat one year and Republican the next?

News Anchor: [00:04:36] Show of hands, how many of you have at times voted for Republicans and at times Democrats? All of you.

Independent Voter: [00:04:44] I really wish I could pull a number of things from a number of candidates to create an ideal candidate.

News Anchor: [00:04:48] In 2016 she supported Marco Rubio, but this time around-.

Independent Voter: [00:04:53] Tuesday I am going to be voting for Pete.

News Anchor: [00:04:55] Independent voter, Chris Davis, supported Trump in 2016, but now [00:05:00] he's leaning towards Joe Biden.

Independent Voter: [00:05:02] I am always on the fence until I make the decision.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:05] Do Independent swing voters actually exist? Yeah.

Jacqueline Salit: [00:05:10] Obama's margin of victory over Mrs. Clinton in 2008 came from Independent Voters. His margin of victory over John McCain came from Independent Voters. And then flash forward to 2016, Independent Voters swung towards Trump. And you had that kind of really fascinating and very misunderstood, in my opinion, phenomena of something like- I don't know- it's estimated 9, 10, 11 million Americans who had voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. Which you can't account for in, strictly speaking, ideological or partisan terms.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:50] The swing vote is a major element of the Independent ethos. But for an Independent like Jackie, and the work that her organization does [00:06:00], reform of the election system itself is paramount. Being a true Independent means dissatisfaction with the limitations of a two party system.

Tiani Coleman: [00:06:10] In 2016, we actually saw a pretty big phenomenon in the candidacies of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, who also... I think... earned the support of quite a few Independents. It was not just Libertarians and Green Party members, but a lot of Independents also chose to go that direction if they didn't want to go with either Trump or Clinton.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:32] This is Tiani Coleman. She was actually in the interview with Jackie and I. Back in the early aughts Tiani was actually the chair of the Salt Lake City County Republican Party. And now she is the president of the New Hampshire Independent Voters. So 2016, you've got these Independent voters who are eyeing Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and putting their support behind them. But of course, ultimately, those campaigns and candidacies tanked. Part of what really happened was that people could [00:07:00] see that the system wouldn't allow them to express a vote for a third party, or for someone else other than someone in the two major parties, because we have created a system where people fear the other party so much that they won't take a risk on a third party candidacy. Because they're afraid that by voting third party they might actually, in effect, end up helping to elect the person that they most do not want. So, part of the- what we're trying to do as Independents is change that system. So that people are able to truly express the choice that they want without the system, kind of, telling them they only have one choice or two choices.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:44] This is especially an issue for Independent Voters in the primary. Ina lot of states you can't even vote without declaring a party affiliation. And this idea of wasting a vote, Samara Klar says that is the reason why Independent candidates do not succeed.

Samara Klar: [00:08:00] And [00:08:00] there's this sort of nightmare scenario that the party you prefer is going to lose by one vote. And it's because you gave your vote to the Independent Party who you knew was never going to win in the first place. So that really tends to drive people apart...and that...that...that hurts Independents.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:16] Take Bernie Sanders, for example. He's the longest serving Independent in Congress and he's already filed to be an Independent candidate in the 2024 Senate race. But he's running for president as a Democrat, just as he did in 2016.

News Anchor: [00:08:31] So I guess my question to you is, do you... do you consider yourself a Democrat?

Bernie Sanders: [00:08:36] No, I'm an Independent. And I think if the Democratic Party is going to succeed- and I want to see it succeed- it's going to have to open its doors to Independents. Who are probably... there are probably more Independents in this country than either Democrats or Republicans.

Samara Klar: [00:08:51] And he had to spend a lot of that primary trying to convince people he was electable. They weren't going to waste their vote. He was an electable guy. But he didn't run as I did as an Independent. I think that was really key. [00:09:00] He ran as a Democrat. When we see these sort of Independents leaning characters- Bernie Sanders is one done. Donald Trump is certainly one. I mean, he doesn't have a very partisan background. He's donated to Democrats. It's not really clear if he's voted in the past. We don't really know what his political background is. These people who are... who tend to be Independent, they succeed when they run as a Partisan. They don't succeed when they run as an Independent.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:25] Ok. OK. All right. Huh. This is just like when you've got an Independent voter, who ultimately feels that pressure in the voting booth and concedes to one major party candidate or the other. Because we are a two party system and to win you got to pick a side.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:40] So yes, that's true. Most voters do eventually pick a side. Still, Samara says that ever since we started measuring how many Independent voters there are in the United States, the number has been climbing.

Samara Klar: [00:09:51] The percentage of Independents has increased dramatically. 2016, to my knowledge, was the first election year where a plurality of Americans identified [00:10:00] as Independent even in the week following up to the election. Which is really unusual. Normally as a presidential election approaches most people will tell a survey researcher which party the identify with. That's the period of time where you're most likely to identify with a party. You've been thinking about it a lot. You've decided who you're going to vote for. If you don't identify as a partisan in the week before the election then you never will. In the week before 2016, we still had more Americans saying, "no, no, I'm an Independent".

Nick Capodice: [00:10:32] To what degree, though, was that just voters feeling like they really didn't like either option for a presidential candidate?

Samara Klar: [00:10:38] Now, partially that could be because Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were both historically disliked by their own- by their own voters. These were two candidates that really did not garner a lot of enthusiasm from most mainstream Democrats and Republicans. But it also could be that we had reached this unprecedented level of fighting bitter vitriol attacks. [00:11:00] I mean...I have a book on Independent Voters with with my co-author Yanna. And what we found is that over time the percentage of sentences in presidential debates that convey insurmountable conflict increases exponentially every year. Presidential debates become more and more about fighting and attacking each other than about actually debating policy issues. And these are the kinds of signals people are getting when they're looking at the TV to figure, out "What is a Democrat? What is a Republican?" and they see all this fighting and they say, "well, that is not me".

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:34] Now, I should be totally clear, the majority of people who Samara and her co-author identified as Independents, did admit to leaning Republican or leaning Democrat. And that was ultimately the way that they voted. Identifying as an Independent does not mean being non-ideological. There are liberal Independents and conservative Independents and moderate Independents. But on that point, Jackie Salit, [00:12:00] it brings it back to the system itself.

Jacqueline Salit: [00:12:02] And my experience is from talking to Independents across the spectrum is that the decision to identify yourself as an Independent is an act of non-compliance with the system in like ninety eight-percent of the elections? Those are the only choices. So if you want to vote, you have to vote for either Democrat or Republican. But even beyond that, frankly, in a two party system like ours, in a system which is so controlled at the top by the parties in every way, at the electoral level, at the policy level, at the national dialogue level, at the level of rules, etc. and so forth for set forth for so many Americans to be saying, well, I'm not part of that. I'm an Independent, I think is a political statement of great importance, actually. [00:13:00] Frankly, I think it's of greater importance than who anyone decides to vote for in any given cycle. And I think that is the process and that's the moment that we're living through. And I think it's a very big test of the country. I also, by the way, think it's a very big test for progressives who, in my opinion, can oftentimes be less than fully responsive to that statement of noncompliance.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:37] So even if it is kind of semantics, like even if it's symbolic to declare yourself an Independent, that's symbolism does actually mean something. It's signifying to political scientist and activist groups and candidates that you are fed up with the partisanship. So then I have to ask, why is there not a capital by Independent party [00:14:00] if across the spectrum Independents can agree with noncompliance? Why not form the Independents Party with a platform all about being free to choose whomever you want?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:10] Well, for one thing, there are parties in some states that call themselves the Independent or the Independence Party. In the case of the New York Independence Party, which Jackie helped to found, the platform is in fact reform. So this is the kind of true independent voter-minded party that you are talking about. But word to the wise, there are parties like the California Independent Party that are conservative leaning on abortion, gun rights, same-sex marriage. And then there's the Alaska Independence Party. And that's all about states rights and has this kind of libertarian bent. Many people who identify as Independents actually accidentally register with these parties and don't realize they've become affiliated with the party. But anyway, back to your question. Why not forming national [00:15:00] reform based party?

Jacqueline Salit: [00:15:02] Here's some different ways that I think about this. First of all, I don't think at the moment.

[00:15:10] I don't think that independents as a whole are looking to aggregate themselves into a third party. I think what's happening with independent voters right now is that they're swinging all over the place.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:24] Basically

[00:15:24] Jackie brings it back to the unpredictability that independents represent. Independent voters don't necessarily want to establish themselves as this unified voting bloc. They also don't want to eliminate the party system entirely. The independent identifier represents weariness with hyper partisanship and a desire for more than two options.

Jacqueline Salit: [00:15:49] Look, I think in general, if you asked independents, you know, should we ban political parties in the United States of America, most independents would say no. But I think independents would like [00:16:00] to have more choices. They'd like to not be restricted in the political process. And they would like to see a culture change that does not enforce the idea that at the end of the day, there are only two parties. There's only two ways of thinking about things. There's only two choices. And that's where you have to live. I think I think independents experience that as completely out of step with what is happening in actual life.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:32] This idea of what is happening "in actual life" is, I think, a really useful lens for understanding an independent voter. Samara made this point about partisanship versus the average American. And the reason why she and her co-author might be encountering more and more people who identify as independent.

Samara Klar: [00:16:52] What we found is that there's a real stigma against being a partisan. I mean, if you turn on the news, you listen to the radio while you hear [00:17:00] are angry Democrats and angry Republicans, particularly in Congress, yelling at each other, fighting with each other, unable to have any sort of compromise.

[00:17:09] Most Americans aren't like that. They're actually pretty nice people. They want to get along with their neighbors and they don't want to be associated with that kind of anger and that kind of vitriol. So as we see the sort of stigma against partisanship increase, more and more people say they're independents. And there's actually a sort of a sort of what we call social desirability bias could have seen as more socially desirable to say you're independent because people then don't associate you with all these things.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:36] So do you think, Hannah, that this rise in the number of people who identify as an independent is maybe a sign that lots of Americans prefer functioning relationships and healthy communication to bitter partisan arguing at the Thanksgiving dinner table?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:51] As the co-host of Civics 101,

[00:17:53] I have to believe that.

[00:18:01] Civics [00:18:00] 101 is produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice and help from Jackie Fulton. Erica Janik is our executive producer. Maureen McMurry would never be part of any political party that would have her as a member. Music in this episode by Chad Crouch, Diamond Ortiz, KieLoKaz, Spazz Cardigan, Chris Zabriskie and Wild Light. You can find loads more resources, including educational materials and transcripts at Civics101podcast.org. Special thanks to Chad Peace of the Independent Voter Project for all of his help on this episode. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The Stump Speech: Student Contest

What’s wrong in America today? What would you do to fix it? Today we share the winners of our third annual Student Contest. Hailey Cheng, Tigist Murch, and Vijay Damerla give us their minute-long pitch for what America needs. Political Science professor Dan Cassino weighs in on the tactics used in these three speeches, and whether or not they’re shared with the current presidential candidates.

To hear all the finalists, visit civics101podcast.org/contest.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Resources and Lesson Plans

The Perfect Presidential Stump Speech: By the folks at FiveThirtyEight, two professional speechwriters demonstrate every trope for a surefire stump.

Address America: from the Constitution Center; A lesson plan about creating a stump speech in only six words!

Breakdown of Trump and Clinton’s 2016 Stump Speeches by NPR

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101

Stump Speech: Student Contest

Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:04] What is the biggest problem in America today? What would you do if elected the head of our democratic republic? In short, what's your stump speech?

Bernie Sanders: [00:00:15] -A government that works for all and not just the one percent.

Elizabeth Warren: [00:00:18] -but on your 50 millionth and first dollar you've got to pitch in.  and  one million first dollar. You've got to pitch in two cents.

Donald Trump: [00:00:26] -We are building the wall, 100%... 100% -

Nick Capodice: [00:00:33] That was the task for our third annual student contest and we received over 100 submissions from across the country.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:38] This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:40] And I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:41] And today we are bringing you the winners of our student contest.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:45] One of the only stipulations is that these stump speeches had to be a minute long. And we received a huge diversity of topics. We got gun control.

Student: [00:00:52] I would raise the age requirement for purchasing a gun to be at least 21 years old.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:56] Hyperpartisanship.

Student: [00:00:58] In America's political climate of polarization and even factionalism, that seems to reflect Dante's portrayal of Florence, unity as the most rational solution to our problems.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:06] And a lot about immigration.

Student: [00:01:08] Overall, I consider that the government should try and help the immigrants as much as possible.

Student: [00:01:12] Enforce Border Patrol and continued the border wall construction.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:15] And there are things that just plain work when it comes to these. The team at the Website FiveThirtyEight, they have a wonderful project called the "perfect presidential stump" speech where they lay out some tips like, "repetition can be good" or "always do things in threes".

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:32] Yeah, and you're always supposed to say "this is the most important election of our lifetime." And yet, to end with "and it's not about me. It's not about this election. It's about- this other thing that I've been talking about."

Nick Capodice: [00:01:44] Right. So the entire Civics 101 team met and we deliberated at length, and then we finally voted, and we selected three stump speeches as this years winners. But we've put all the finalists on our website and you can listen to them at civics101podcast.org/contest.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:59] We didn't just want to air the speeches without understanding their broader political context. So we brought in someone who lives and breathes politics.

Dan Cassino: [00:02:11] Hi there Nick!

Nick Capodice: [00:02:11] Dan!

Dan Cassino: [00:02:11] I'm doctor Dan Cassino. I'm a professor of government and law at Fairly Dickinson University.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:18] Did you know he was a doctor?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:19] I didn't!

Dan Cassino: [00:02:21] You know Nick, scientists have been PHD's since the 12th century. Doctors only start being called "doctors"," medical doctors", in the sixteen hundreds. So we're the OG doctors. 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:28] Well, that is a little news you can use. So Hannah and the OG Dr. Dan, let's do this! First contest winner Hailey Cheng from Arcadia High School, in California.

Hailey Cheng: [00:02:42] Giant corporations are responsible for the majority of global emissions, and they must be held legally accountable for their actions. When businesses make decisions about manufacturing, they do not consider the environment because they hardly feel the consequences. And if these companies can still make more profit by ignoring environmental implications, they will do so. Corporations should not get away with making a profit at the expense of our planet. We simply cannot stop the path of climate change if America does not take the drastic measures to regulate colossal corporations who are the brunt of the problem. Climate change is a threat on the planetary scale and a warrants a solution on the planetary scale. So as president, I would make sure big businesses are held accountable and uphold the government's ultimate responsibility to protect their citizens.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:41] All right.So, Dan, what do you think of Hailey Cheng's speech?

Dan Cassino: [00:03:45] So Hailey is really, I think doing something really smart, which is focusing on big corporations. When we talk about climate change, what we can do about climate change, we're talking at the individual level, right? "Well, don't throw out your plastic straw." But Hailey, I think, has gotten really at the heart of the matter, which is it's not individuals that are going to save the world from climate change. It is large corporations and governments. There has to be structural changes. She's also talking about, you know, though she doesn't use this terminology. She's talking about what economists have talked about for a long time. And that is the idea of "negative externalities." That is when somebody does something, if it affects somebody else, they should be made to pay for all those negative externalities.That's a really smart argument and one that is not just going to appeal to liberals, but also appeal to conservatives. I mean, this is Chicago school economists who are making these sort of arguments.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:30] Dan, are there any 2020 candidates that Haley reminds you of?

Dan Cassino: [00:04:35] Well, we have had candidates who were talking a lot about climate change. Michael Bennett, for instance...

Michael Bennet: [00:04:40] When I woke up this morning here, blossoms in my backyard were blooming a month before they should. That's the third or fourth year that's happened...

Dan Cassino: [00:04:49] But they haven't been able to get as much traction in the Democratic primary as candidates who either have more broader set of policy proposals.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:58] It's interesting, that climate change hasn't gotten all that much traction in this election because a significant number of our submissions featured that as like their primary focus.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:07] I think it was a greater percentage than any other topic of these submissions. Number two, Tigist Murch from Brewster Academy in New Hampshire.

Tigist Murch: [00:05:19] How is it fair that men get paid more money than women for doing the same job? Hi. My name's Tigist Murch. And here's why you should vote for me for president. I will personally take action to make sure there's equal pay by putting in place laws for women all around. Aren't you guys sick and tired of seeing the same thing? For example, the U.S. women's soccer team, thier salary is one hundred thousand a year, while the men's soccer teams base salary is 387,500 a year. Another example is in Hollywood. Men tend to make double what the women make. You can also see this in basketball players and hockey players. My plan will work. We pass a law and then penalize those who don't abide by the rules. Last but not least, women will finally get the equal pay they deserve. Poverty rate amongst working women will also go down. Vote for me as your president. I will bring this country what it needs. Equal pay for all. Just as it should have been from the beginning. Thank you.

Dan Cassino: [00:06:19] So Tigis is making a really focused case about gender equity and especially about equal pay for women.Now, it's not a bad idea to make an appeal to women because women, of course, are a majority of the electorate. So if you have to appeal to a group of women, there's not a bad group to be appealing to.  A lot of the examples she gives of men being paid more than women for the same work are really potent. The idea that the U.S. women's soccer team doesn't get paid much as the men's soccer team, despite the fact that the merchandise makes more, more people watch them, they're actually good...

Whoopi Goldberg: [00:06:52] The Women's Cup. World Cup soccer final in 2015 was the most-watched soccer game in United States history for that. They get paid 38 cents on the dollar compared to mount players.

Dan Cassino: [00:07:05] And the most popular laws about trying to create equal pay for men and women are actually laws, regulations really that force companies to disclose pay. That is once you...once companies have to tell everybody, here's how much you're making here's how much everyone else in your office is making, once you do that, you're not telling companies what they have to pay. But you're rather empowering workers to go to their boss and say, hey, you're paying this other guy a thousand or ten thousand dollars a year more than I am? What gives? Also she does make one really cool linkage and that is the link to poverty. Most of the households that are in poverty are female headed households. So we got single mothers who are working and they're not being paid as much. And that forces them and their children into poverty. They would be, of course, much better off if they get equal pay.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:50] So Dan, have we heard any messaging like targets in the 2020 election?

Dan Cassino: [00:07:54] Sure. We actually have seen Elizabeth Warren talk quite a bit about gender equality and the way women are treated in the workforce.

Elizabeth Warren: [00:08:01] The game is rigged when women earn less than men for doing the same work. It's rigged when women can be fired for asking how much the guy down the hall makes for doing the same job.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:16] All right. Last but definitely not least from Arcadia High School in California, Vijay Damerla.

Vijay Damerla: [00:08:21] I think that the main idea of my presidency can be summed up in one word. Invest. My priority will be tackling the daunting enemy that is climate change, because we need to invest in our future. We need to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions immediately. One way would be to reinstate the Obama-era auto policy that regulates cars to 55 miles per gallon, while companies like Honda have agreed to continue this, even though it's not the law, others like Toyota have simply refused. We need to invest in gigafactories. And with just one hundred of these, the entire world's energy needs could be theoretically met. But only if we invest in it. We need to invest in renewable energies such as electric, solar, hydroelectric and wind. We need to invest in our middle class. We need to tax those above the one million dollar tax bracket at a very high rate because the top 400 Americans are richer than the bottom 150 million. That can't be the case. Now is the future and we need to start investing in it. Thank you.

Vijay Damerla: [00:09:37] So Vijay has some really good ideas, ones that are actually going to appeal to a large segment of the American population. A lot of what Vijay is saying is based on this idea of technological optimism, the idea that really whatever problem we have, we can invest and we can build our way out of it. We can find new technologies for whatever is the problem we're facing. And those new technologies will help everybody. And that's a really popular appeal because allows us to avoid tradeoffs, much same way that supply side economics for a long time let people say, oh, we'll cut taxes and raise revenue, we'll avoid the tradeoff. Technological optimism, let's say, well, this is a problem, but we don't actually have to fix it. We just have to give a bunch of money to very smart people and they'll fix it for us. Vijay makes a very strong appeal to inequality, saying, look, there are rich people who are not paying enough in taxes and we should tax them. And that feels like it should be a popular appeal in American politics because after all, most of us are not very rich people. But it turns out the American public doesn't actually like that argument very much. They don't like this argument that, well, rich people are, have too much money. So if you want to make the argument that we should tax the rich more and more progressive taxation system, it really helps to frame it in terms of equity. That is, rich people get all these tax breaks that you and I don't, or rich people should pay their fair share. And those appeals to equity do a better job of bringing everybody along on this idea of a more progressive taxation system.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:01] Dan, who does Veejay remind you of?

Dan Cassino: [00:11:03] Oh, Veejay sounds a lot like Andrew Yang, actually.

Andrew Yang: [00:11:06] Efficiency because trucks can convoy together and lower wind resistance. And so robot trucks really get places with less fuel.

Dan Cassino: [00:11:13] Andrew Yang is doing very much the same thing with the technological optimism saying we have to get rid of these old solutions and just bring in totally new solutions and trust in technology and science. We think that they can save us.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:27] All right. Thank you so much, Dan.. And even more. Thank you, Hailey. Thank you. Tigist. Thank you, Vijay.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:33] And to all who entered, it was the best part of our job to listen to these and the hardest part of our job to pick only three.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:40] Again, you can listen to all the finalist speeches at civics101podcast.org/contest. We're going to continue our series on political parties in our next episode. And to any educators out there. Be sure to visit our education page civics101podcast.org/info, where you can get free graphic organizers for each episode and join our new education newsletter, for our monthly digest of not only what we've been up to in the education world, but picks of our favorite civics and U.S. history lesson plans from across the nation.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:11] This episode was produced by you Nick Capodice with me Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:14] Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton, Erika Janik is our executive producer and cutter of cloth and expressions like "chicago-style Economics".

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:21] And you know what? It's not about Maureen McMurry. It's not even about this election. It's about something else.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:26] Music in this episode by Scott Granton, Scott Holmes, Audio Hertz and Rachel Collier.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:31] Civics 101is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR. New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The Republican Party

What role did slavery play in the formation of the Republican Party? How did a scrappy third party coalition create what became known as the Grand Old Party? And how did the party of Lincoln become the party of Trump?

Taking us on the journey from 1854 Wisconsin to the present day Republican party is political columnist and author George Will and political scientists Keneshia Grant, Kathryn Depalo-Gould and William Adler.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Resources and Lesson Plans

Graphic Organizer for this episode

The History of the Political Parties by C-SPAN Classroom

Party Systems by iCivics. Does every country have a two-party system? Compare ourselves to other systems around the world.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump: A seven minute history from Vox.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101

The Republican Party

CPB: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is brought to you in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:05] I grew up in a George Will household as I'm sure a good many people who are listeners did too.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:14] Way back when we decided to finally do episodes about the parties. What is the Republican Party? What is the Democratic Party? I think that this was your first suggested guest, Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:27] Yeah. George Will is a conservative journalist who played a major role in the Capodice home when I was a kid. I was the only one who didn't get sick when reading in the car so I would read George Will to my dad in the backseat.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:40] Did you know what he's talking about?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:41] I had no idea what he was talking about.

George Will: [00:00:44] Hello?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:44] Hello. Is this Mr. George?

George Will: [00:00:46] Well, this is me.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:47] Hello. This is Hannah McCarthy at New Hampshire Public Radio. How are you doing this afternoon?

George Will: [00:00:52] I thrive.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:53] George Will, conservative political commentator, writer of many columns and many books most recently The Conservative Sensibility.

George Will: [00:01:02] I wrote the book precisely because I felt the Republican Party and hence the conservative movement had become untethered from its serious intellectual pedigree, and the founders thinking. And I like to think that it's a path back to that.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:18] Right. The thing you need to know about George Will is that this lifelong Republican is not a Republican at the current time.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:25] He severed ties after the 2016 election. He is now unaffiliated.

George Will: [00:01:28] You know, leaving the Republican-political party is not leaving a church or like leaving your family. It's not a wrench to your identity. Political parties are useful until they're not. And I decided the Republican Party wasn't useful to me anymore.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:44] George Will is discontented at the moment. Which is kind of perfect because discontentment- the writing of a new political philosophy, the sloughing off of the old and no longer useful-that is where the Republican Party all started. And that is why it has changed over time.

George Will: [00:02:04] People ought to remember that the Republican Party started as a third party. Americans periodically say," Gee, can't we break up the... the duopoly of our two-party system?" Well, we did once. And that is the Whigs were there and then suddenly they weren't there. They were replaced by this insurgent third party, The Republicans, founded in 1854 in Wisconsin.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:25] So how did we get from that party in Wisconsin in 1854 to the party that George Will has just left in 2020?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:32] Well, that is a long messy story so let's get started. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:37] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:38] And this is Civics 101 and today we are talking the Republican Party. And the Republican Party that started in Wisconsin in 1854 looked dramatically different from the party today.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:53] Right, before we dive back into the history of the Republican Party can we just together establish what is the Republican platform right now?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:02] So the last time the party published an official platform was 2016. And keep in mind, few members of the party outside of politicians and pundits actually read platforms. But lawmakers do tend to vote along the lines established there. So the Republican platform reflects social conservatism. It supports restrictions on abortion and immigration but fewer restrictions on gun rights and corporations. It's big on states' rights, as well. And choice, when it comes to health care and school. It's about what the individual wants rather than what the government says is good for you or not. And fiscally, the GOP is all about low taxes and free-market capitalism.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:54] What does that mean? Because I hear that so often with the Republican Party, what is free-market capitalism?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:59] Right. Most basically it means a system where the market regulates itself and government stays out of it.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:05] OK. Socially conservative, generally opposed to government interference with economics and state lawmaking, and that's the brand of the GOP.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:15] Right.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:16] Wait, where- why do we call them the GOP?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:18] Oh, yeah. GOP stands for Grand Old Party, which used to be a moniker used by the Democrats but the Republicans kind of took it over following the civil war and it just stuck.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:33] Ok. And despite them being the Grand Old Party the Republican Party is, in fact, younger than the Democratic Party.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:39] It is indeed. For a few decades in the 19th century, it was the Democrats and the Whigs. And they're holding down the fort trading the presidency back and forth.

Kathryn Depalo-Gould: [00:04:51] Well, the Republican Party, as we know it, formed in 1856. And it was the first time that the Republicans as a party had a national convention.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:01] This is Kathryn Depalo-Gould she's a professor of political science at Florida International University.

Kathryn Depalo-Gould: [00:05:08] And really, what had happened previous to this is the Democratic Party created in 1828, really with the election of Andrew Jackson, had existed alongside the Whigs. And the Whig Party had competed with the Democrats up until about the 1850s.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:25] So mid-1850s the Civil War is on the horizon.

Kathryn Depalo-Gould: [00:05:29] At that point, slavery became such a huge issue and the Whig Party refused to take a stance. And by the 1850s, slavery wasn't something you could just sort of go "meh". So what happened was the Whigs split apart. And those that had supported slavery became Democrats. And those who wanted slavery abolished became the Republicans.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:54] So the Whig Party just vanishes?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:56] It couldn't agree on slavery, an issue powerful enough to tear the country apart. And it tore the Whigs apart as well. So the Republicans staked their platform mostly on being anti-slavery. Some of them are outright abolitionists, want to get rid of slavery entirely. Some just don't want it to expand west as the country expands west. There's a whiff of small government and states rights in there. But fighting slavery is the great unifier for this young party. Their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, loses to James Buchanan. But their next candidate is Abraham Lincoln.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:35] So a completely brand new party manages somehow to elect the guy who's later considered the greatest president of all time.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:43] Well, you can't discount the fact that this party burst onto the scene in what is essentially a perfect political storm. Because you've got the weakening of the Whigs. There's this division in the Democratic Party. And this really strong simple platform of being the anti-slavery party.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:03] Okay. But after the war is done, then what are the Republicans? Once slavery is eradicated what's their new platform?

Kathryn Depalo-Gould: [00:07:14] What is interesting is, the Republican Party really became this sort of civil rights party even during Reconstruction after the Civil War. They pushed different civil rights acts to protect these newly freed slaves from their state governments for violating their rights.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:31] For a while, after the war, the Republican Party remained the party on the side of African-Americans. They pushed for civil rights legislation. And they started the Freedman's Bureau to protect formerly enslaved people in the south. But the country is changing. And so the Republican Party begins to change too.

William Adler: [00:07:51] The beginning of it, I guess, would be the 20th century -the early 20th century- and maybe around 1912 or so.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:00] This is William Adler, associate professor of political science at Northeastern Illinois University.

William Adler: [00:08:08] And this is actually- the 1912 presidential election turns into a three-way contest between Woodrow Wilson for the Democrats. William Howard Taft, who's the president at the time, the incumbent president of the Republican Party. And then Teddy Roosevelt, who had already been president under the Republican banner, comes back in 1912- decides he wants to try to get the nomination of the Republican Party again away from Taft. With very complicated and messy drama between the two former friends. Taft ends up getting the nomination and Roosevelt and his supporters leave the Republican Party and form a new third party that they call the Progressive Party, sometimes called the Bull Moose Party because of the insignia of the party organization.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:52] Right. This is the election where Teddy Roosevelt spoils the Republican vote by running as a strong third party candidate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:00] You have the more progressive Republicans behind Teddy Roosevelt. And the more conservative Republicans behind Taft. And the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, wins. Now, the Progressive Party does not stick around. But that divide between liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans does.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:21] Wait, so is this that moment that shifts the Republican Party towards conservatism?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:27] Well, it's certainly part of it. But the shift takes a really long time. For decades, the Republican Party dances and vacillates on social and economic issues.

William Adler: [00:09:39] It's not clean because you still do have conservative Democrats representing the South, progressive Republicans representing New England in the Northeast. But it's sort of the first move towards that process. The presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt is also a step in that process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:56] Remember, the Republican Party is the party of the North, ostensibly the party of African-American rights. But as the nation is becoming more urban and more industrialized it's also the party of northern businessmen. And both parties are reassessing who it is they want to court as voters. And a few other complications arise between the 1912 election and the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933.

Keneshia Grant: [00:10:26] One of the important things that happens is the Great Depression. And in the Great Depression, the parties have to make a decision about how they are going to respond. The Republican Party suggests that it wants to respond by waiting it out. "It'll be okay. We have kind of downticks in our economy all the time."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:42] This is Keneshia Grant, assistant professor of political science at Howard University. She also happens to be a foremost scholar on the other major shift happening in the United States at the time, the Great Migration.

Keneshia Grant: [00:10:55] Black people are flooding into the cities. The Great Migration brings about six and a half million black people from the south into the north.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:03] The Republican Party is focusing on business interests and towing a different line than the Democrats in terms of the economy.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:10] Right. And all these African-Americans were moving into the north. I imagine their needs don't necessarily line up with the needs of comparatively prospering northern elites. Right?

Keneshia Grant: [00:11:21] The Republican Party and the people who are making decisions in the Republican Party are suggesting that the Great Depression is not actually that bad. You know, "It'll pass. It'll be fine". But they're making those statements because they are not impacted in the same way. Like they- they may... may lose money. But their losses are not going to look anything like the losses of the person who has just moved to Philadelphia, for example.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:47] So is this when the African-American community started to vote more Democrat when we elected FDR?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:54] Well, not the first time he was elected. Actually, the 1932 election was the last one in which a Republican candidate got the majority of African-American and person of color votes. Things began to change after that. But, you know, again it was slow.

Keneshia Grant: [00:12:09] This is not a neat transition. It's a messy transition. So whether Republicans support black political participation and how they do varies from place to place. So I went to school in Syracuse for grad school- in Syracuse, New York. Black people participated as Republicans for a long time because the Republican Party was actually friendly to black interest. So we think about Chicago, we think about New York, we think about Democrats. But there are some pockets of places where the Republican Party does kind of do the civil rights thing. And black people are thoughtful enough to go to the party that best supports their interests at the time. But eventually, the things that are happening and percolating at the state and local level have to be reckoned with at the national level. And I think this is where we end up with a Republican Party that's making decisions about- not necessarily- "We don't want to be the party of civil rights. But we really care about business interests."

Nick Capodice: [00:13:11] So the GOP starts focusing less and less on civil rights. That leaves this huge issue and a voter base wide open.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:20] Right. This is all part of that transition. And then something big happens in the mid 20th century. Here's William Adler again.

William Adler: [00:13:28] And then the big shift happens after the presidency of Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, really tied into the passage of the civil rights laws, which really marks the Democrats as the party of the liberal side. And gradually, the Republicans, even though they're split on the issue of civil rights, gradually after that point, turn in a more conservative direction. Gradually over the course of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, all those Southern Democrats gradually become Republicans. And so what you have today, then, is a situation where those people's- you know- the next generation down the line, have essentially flipped their partisan loyalties as a result.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:13] Many Republicans, including George, will say that this change really happened with Barry Goldwater, who ran for president in 1964. Goldwater sought to refocus the party.

George Will: [00:14:25] Goldwater said in his book, The Conscience Of A Conservative, that we had strayed from the idea of limited government. That the founders wanted it limited for a reason. That government should be limited in its power to allocate wealth and opportunity so that we don't politicize life promiscuously. So I... I think beginning with Goldwater we began to worry about this articulately. And we began to say that the Republican Party has to rethink its... its connection to the founding.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:59] Goldwater saying the Republican Party should get back to its roots, which is about small government and the free market.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:06] Yeah, he was very much opposed to government interference. He was all about states rights. He was opposed to most social programs. A lot of moderates in the GOP thought that he was too far right. But he had passionate support among voters and really served to establish the Republican Party as the party of the right. Even that, though, took decades of ideological tug of war between conservative and liberal Republicans.

George Will: [00:15:31] That lasted until Ronald Reagan came in and the parties began to sort themselves out. There really are no longer liberal Republicans and they're no longer conservative Democrats. Whether people are happy about this remains to be seen.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:52] Hannah, we've been talking so much about strong but limited government, and free-market capitalism, but we also have social conservatism. Right? We haven't talked about the "Christian" right. How... how did they become such a significant part of the Republican Party's voter base?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:12] Well, Reagan- I mean- Reagan really firmly established what the Republican Party is. He played to both the capitalist leanings and the social conservative leanings of the voter base. George Will calls this the "theory of fusion". Bringing together two separate but overlapping groups of people.

George Will: [00:16:32] Evangelical Christian social conservatives, concerned with abortion and pornography and all the rest. And, on the other side, the libertarian impulses of those who believe in free-market capitalism. And what Ronald Reagan did was successfully bring those two into the Republican tent. And keeping those two in...in equilibrium and in amicable relations has been a sometimes challenging project, but it has been the essence of Republican success since Reagan.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:08] So all these elements- limited government, limited regulations, social conservatism, those are still part of the Republican Party platform. That's how they define themselves. So what is it that made George Will, a lifelong Republican, sever his ties to the GOP?

George Will: [00:17:28] Today the Republican Party is, in my judgment, a cult of personality. When the party gets back to ideas which are interesting and which people like to talk about, then you can have really serious arguments about whether or not the government should allocate wealth and opportunity. Whether or not the government should... is more efficient than the market in allocating services such as health care or pensions. These... when you start arguing about ideas like this, then questions become empirical questions. What does the evidence show us? What does history teach us about government's effectiveness? And you can lower the temperature of politics by bringing in... by increasing the fact content of it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:13]  So I'm not going to say that the country is anything like it was in the 1850s. But the Republican Party did arise out of extreme division and a bunch of people defecting from another party. George Will is looking for a return to something, right, a party recommitted to old ideas. The Republican Party called itself that name way back in 1854 because they were going to be the true representation of Jeffersonian politics- of a philosophy that our nation was built upon. They were harkening back. That was their genesis. And it's something that Republicans like George Will revere. But I'm wondering about the future of the Republican Party. I asked Kathryn Depalo-Gould about this. What might the GOP look like going forward?

Kathryn Depalo-Gould: [00:19:06] I mean, what it's going to look like I can never predict. But that is something that parties change. And I think the winning candidate, who has voters who vote in the Electoral College system, and this candidate's ideas go forward, really influences the party's platform. Because especially these days where we have ideologically divided parties, they're very polarized ideologically, which we haven't really seen frankly since...you know...the Federalists with Hamilton and Adams and the Democratic-Republicans with Jefferson and Madison. It's fascinating that it's almost like "What is my team doing?" And, "I'm going to go with my team." And, you know, that kind of partisanship is something, again- we've only seen a few times, I would argue, in U.S. history.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:54] I want to be careful because we're a show that talks about, say, the civil war. And making big, broad, sweeping statements about how,"Hey, things have never been as partisan as they are right this second." But that said, we are divided as a nation unlike I've seen in my lifetime. And I wonder how that division will change both parties. Does Kathryn think that stark divide between the parties will result in them changing yet again?

Kathryn Depalo-Gould: [00:20:24] The Republican Party is going through changes and this is actually a normal course of events. You know, parties are big tents. They have to have a lot of voters. They have to- they have a lot of issues. They're not going to please everybody. But, you know, as society grows and changes you're going to have shifts. And I think the sort of parsing out that happens from election to election is a very normal thing to be happening. And it's fascinating to see what comes out at the end.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:48] Over the course of its lifetime, the one reliable constant in the Republican Party has been change. The party stays alive not because of its commitment to any one social or economic issue but because it can court voters. So what the GOP will be, and I guess, if the GOP will be, is all in the hands of the people who keep it in power.

Republican 1: [00:21:14] The top three things that are important to us is the economy, we're pro-life, and we want a more tolerant party to the LGBT community and other groups.

Republican 2: [00:21:23] You see a person that actually stands for, you know, what they've been thinking in their head but were too afraid to say all the years.

Republican 3: [00:21:30] Being a Latino in the Republican Party is not the easiest thing in the world this election cycle- I mean it's just honest-

Republican 4: [00:21:37] Honestly, I do not recognize the Republican Party of today.

Republican 5: [00:21:41] Immediately I saw a plan to bring back a manufacturing base to America and that's why the economy needs right now.

Republican 6: [00:21:47] A majority of young Republicans now support marriage equality.

Republican 7: [00:21:50] They reject Republicans on social issues and they reject Democrats on economic issues.

Republican 8: [00:21:55] If they're connected to Donald Trump, they are not connected to me.

Republican 9: [00:21:58] Talking about bringing America back and I'm thinking, "these are values"-.

[00:22:01] If you don't like this country, get out, please. That's all he said.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:25] Today's episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with you, Nick Capodice.  Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton. Eric Janik is our executive producer.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:33] Maureen McMurray is neither grand nor old but she sure is a party.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:37] Music in this episode by Cambo, Bio Unit, Audio Hertz, Chris Zabriskie, Chad Crouch, and Pro Leader. Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The Democratic Party

How did the Democratic party become "blue?" Why were they initially called Republicans? And most importantly, how did the party that supported slavery become the party that nominated our first African-American president?

Taking us on the long winding path, from the origin of the party to the modern-day Democrat, is author Heather Wagner, political scientist Keneshia Grant, and historian Paddy Riley.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Resources and Lesson Plans

Graphic Organizer

One Big Party by iCivics (explains the role of parties, not their ideologies)

Political Parties and Conventions by Carolina K-12 (students learn about platforms and hold a mock convention)

Why Red Means Republican and Blue Means Democrat, a video from Vox

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101

Democratic Party

CPB Grant: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Katie Couric: [00:00:03] You can see on this map there are a number of undecided states of the Democrats in Pennsylvania. A little concerned about Sarah Palin's...-

Nick Capodice: [00:00:13] When were talking about political parties, we tend to talk a lot about election night. Right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:19] Right.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:20] And there's this moment that I think is the most exciting. And it's where they've got this giant map in the studio, and there's an empty silhouette of a state, and then it flickers and it snaps either red or blue.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:33] Yeah. That's when you as a political person, your heart either rises or sinks. Right? When you see a state go for one candidate or another.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:42] Do you know when that started? Red states? Blue states?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:46] Have we not had that for like forever? For decades and decades?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:50] Right, here let me play you something. This is from election night, 1980-.

News Anchor: [00:00:52] -Electoral votes. And so we will put on our map in blue, for those of you who are [00:01:00] watching in color, we'll make Florida our projected winner for Reagan.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:04] Blue for Reagan! This is 1980?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:07] Yeah, hold on check this out.

News Anchor: [00:01:09] - We'll color those in now. Red across the western rim, the Pacific Rim of the United States, for Bill Clinton. And just a few blue spots on that map for George Bush. 362-

Nick Capodice: [00:01:20] That was NBC coverage of the 1992 election. Democrats used to be red. And then they sort of switched. One station switched it to red for Republicans because they said "we're coloring it red for Reagan". In the 1996 election, Clinton v. Dole, that was the first year that all three major networks had red for the GOP and blue for Democrats. But the terms "red state" "blue state" they did not enter our common parlance until-.

News Anchor: [00:01:48] It appears that there will be a recount in the state of Florida. They still need to wait for- what is it?- overseas ballots.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:59] Bush v. Gore? [00:02:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:02:00] Yeah, because of the closeness of that race, the ensuing recount, America had been staring at a red and blue map for days. I saw VOX video about this, actually, and it said that David Letterman was one of the first. He made a joke about blue states and red states. And the term just stuck it too soon.

David Letterman: [00:02:16] Here's how it's gonna go,George W. Bush will be president for the red states. Al W.Gore will be president for the blue states. And that's-

Nick Capodice: [00:02:26] And now Democrats embrace their blue. They put it in their campaign logos. We have terms like "blue wave" versus a "red tide". And that division, that color polarity, is really new.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:37] It's hard for me to wrap my mind around this idea that a party can rebrand itself that quickly based on this arbitrary choice made by a news network.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:47] You think that strange Hannah hold on your little purple hat.I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:53]  I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:55] And this is Civics 101. And today we're talking about the Democratic Party, capital [00:03:00] D. What it is. What it was. What it will be. And if we're gonna talk about how the party has evolved over the years we have to say what they're all about today. So let's go with their own words in their 2016 Democratic platform the planks of which included, "addressing economic inequality, college debt, climate change, and access to health care." It is also today the party of inclusivity when it comes to issues like same sex marriage, women's rights, and immigration.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:31] So let's go back now, the genesis of the Democratic Party. How did it start?

Heather Wagner: [00:03:36] The Democratic Party, to make things really clear, began actually as the Republican Party.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:44] Oh come on!

Nick Capodice: [00:03:44] I know. I'm sorry. I know. This is Heather Wagner, by the way. She wrote the book, The History of the Democratic Party.

Heather Wagner: [00:03:50] So the Democratic Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson, and other men like him, who were dissatisfied with [00:04:00] the direction the country was going under George Washington and John Adams. And they felt George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton were believers in a very strong central government.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:14] And Jefferson wants a smaller federal government with more power given to the states. And he is our first Democratic president even though he was called, sorry again, a Republican. But pretty quickly, the name gets changed by his opponents, funnily enough.

Heather Wagner: [00:04:30] His critics said that he and his supporters were too much like the radical French. Who had sparked the French Revolution and led to bloodshed and violence in France. And as a critique they would call this group of Republicans The "Democratic Republicans." It was meant to be a dis. Jefferson and his supporters decided to adopt [00:05:00] this points of honor and called themselves the "Democratic Republicans".

Nick Capodice: [00:05:05] And this was the founding of what we know today as the Democratic Party.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:09] And how are their beliefs related to what we think of now when we think of Democrats?

Nick Capodice: [00:05:14] Okay, here is Keneshia Grant. She is a professor of political science at Howard University.

Keneshia Grant: [00:05:18] So when we think about the Democratic Party at that time, we don't think of anything like the Democratic Party at this time. The Democratic Party at that time is "liberal with a lower case L", as scholars say. And that means that they don't want to see the government being very active. The government should not be involved in your life telling you what to do. The government should just kind of be around to make sure that things don't fall apart. Which is different from the party as we think about it today. We think about a Democratic Party today as one who is willing to step in to try to correct some of the perceived wrongs, they they might say, in the economy. Or some of the perceived wrongs in the way that we treat humans [00:06:00] and these other kinds of things.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:02] How does it change? Because that to me is like 180 degrees.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:07] All right, we'll get there. And that is Keneshia's particular bailiwick. But first, there is a big shift and it starts with Andrew Jackson in 1829.

Heather Wagner: [00:06:16] By the time Andrew Jackson is president he has dropped the Republicans from his affiliation. So he identifies himself as a Democratic candidate. Andrew Jackson was the Southerner. He was a slave owner. He was a war hero. He champions- even though he was a wealthy landowner- he championed the idea of sort of the "ordinary man" "common man" around... his presidency was when white men, I should say, were given the right to vote based on age. As opposed to if you had property or paid a certain amount in... in landowning taxes. So it was the evolution [00:07:00] of voting rights towards white men over the age of 21 as opposed to landowners.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:06] Quick side note, opponents of Jackson, during the 1828 election, called him a word that means donkey... but it was an epithet that Jackson embraced. He even put images of donkeys on his campaign posters- and that is when that all started. And the party that went up against Jackson was the National Republican Party. But they were just as often known as the anti-Jacksonians. They did not like what Jackson had done to the role of president.

Heather Wagner: [00:07:33] He took steps to concentrate power and to make sure that he was a very powerful executive. He had taken certain policies that really infringed on the rights of Native Americans and the rights states. And this sort of sowed the seeds of what would gradually flare up into the start of the modern Republican Party. And also, the disagreements [00:08:00] that flared out into the Civil War.

Keneshia Grant: [00:08:04] So remember the- part of the story is that the parties want to maintain cohesion. They understand that is difficult for minor parties, third parties, or smaller parties to win the presidency. It's difficult for them to win Senate seats, or seats in the House of Representatives, and be appointed to Senate seats. And because they are worried about splitting their power they are trying to do everything they can to... to remain together. And one of the things that splits them up more than anything else, kind of- I would say the thing that stresses the party the most- is a conversation about slavery. And if we want to have a party that is unified in the north and in the south we can't have this conversation about slavery because people in the north are going to disagree from people in the South. So we end up with these parties that exist in different ways because the one thing that they probably [00:09:00] should be talking about they are not talking about. So we end up with these cleavages, kind of, for that reason- where we have a northern Democratic Party that looks different from a southern Democratic Party. But eventually they do have that conversation. And we end up with a Republican Party that's more dominant in the north, because they have had the conversation and come down on the side of black people. Come down against slavery- for various reasons, again, not all of them on the up and up- set up where we have a party, again Republican Party in the north. A Democratic Party that's kind of dominant in the south. And then we have some kind of debate about who's going to win the west, and what the farmers want, and whether or not the parties will be willing to bend to the demands of the people, who are in the West, and who now have the ability to vote and influence politics too.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:47] All right. Now I want to learn about that shift. How does the party that is the party of slavery, the party of the Ku Klux Klan, become the party of the civil [00:10:00] rights movement? The party that gives us our first African-American president?

Keneshia Grant: [00:10:05] So if you want to sound really smart with your friends, if you like know a political scientist and you want to get their gears going, you just say "re-alignment". Because that... that is the one word answer to that question. Realignment happens and the parties change. And so the political scientists argue about how realignment happens. I'm in the camp of people who think realignment is a slow and gradual process. The short version is that America changes. So in the story that we've been telling up to this point there are folks who live in the south, there are folks who live in the north. We don't yet have like a large wave of immigrants coming into the United States. So we get an industrial revolution and we get a world war. We get immigrants coming into the United States and we don't yet in the nation have rules that are structured to prevent them from participating, in the ways that we try to prevent them from participating now. And so it's kind of easier [00:11:00] to get to citizenship, easier to get to participation in politics. And so, a part of the answer about how the Democratic Party in particular becomes the party of the people, as opposed to the party of the slave owners or the party of Southern business interest, has to do with their decisions to or attempts to win elections. Particularly, I would say, at the state and local level and to to speak to the needs of immigrants.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:29] Now I do want to step in here and say that the North and the South are not just one unified thing, that's unfair. There were people who opposed slavery in the South. People who supported it in the north. Whites only signs. Other forms of segregation in schools, businesses, housing.Those existed in the North as well as the South. And as Keneshia told me, African-American voters are a huge part of the story.

Keneshia Grant: [00:11:52] It's not just immigrants who are flooding into the cities, black people are flooding into the cities. The Great Migration brings about [00:12:00] 6,500,000 black people from the south into the north. And parties on the ground, local party leaders, mayors, aldermen, governors have to contend with how they might get this bloc of voters to support them as well. Which makes them takes, kind of, steps towards civil rights that they might not otherwise take.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:22] And then we have the Great Depression in the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his party, the Democrats, said "People are suffering. We need to do something." And what they did was the New Deal, relief reform, recovery.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: [00:12:39] This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms-

Nick Capodice: [00:12:42] What this did was further cement the notion that the Democratic Party is the party of big government spending on domestic programs and social welfare programs. But the civil rights movement that initially was more allied by geography than [00:13:00] by party. Almost 100% of northern Democrats in Congress supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, so too did 85 percent of northern Republicans. Just 9% percent of Southern Dems and 0 Southern Republicans supported it in Congress. So here's Paddy Riley. He's a professor of history and humanities at Reed College.

Paddy Riley: [00:13:19] But I mean I think the key thing is that the Democratic Party...is just no longer become possible for Southern white supremacist to remain in the party because the because the national party has moved so hard on civil rights. I mean that's Johnson's-  Lyndon Johnson's famous line, "We lost the South for a generation". And it turns out to be true, a generation and more at this point. So I think effectively the South kind of becomes up for grabs. Because they're not going to remain in the Democratic Party. So is someone going to capitalize on them? And Republicans do. I mean, that's just what happens.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:54] I don't want to sound cynical here.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:56] Go ahead. Go ahead.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:56] But it just kind of sounds like a big part of the reason [00:14:00] that the Democrats completely reversed their positions on just about everything was not purely because of ideals, but to court voters?

Keneshia Grant: [00:14:13] Well, I mean, I'm a political scientist so I think everything is about political strategy, political expediency. But yes, I think that one of the kind of biggest broadest ways of understanding party history is that parties are trying to- one- maintain themselves. And then parties as groups who are willing to court coalitions in order to keep or maintain power. "Black people are here. They want to have some kind of intervention on civil rights. We're not opposed to that. That seems like it could be okay for us. We think that they would help us win these local and state elections. We think that because they live in these states with large electoral college votes they could help us win the presidential election. Let's test out a coalition between [00:15:00] black people and the Democratic Party." So it's the same kind of thing, parties kind of moving and shapeshifting as they encounter groups so that they can maintain dominance.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:16] So thinking about like the party today versus the party then, there's a lot of arguing going on on social media about the problematic history of both parties. Right? And I'm just wondering, like, given how different the parties are today- from how they were at their genesis- is that even fair to do?

Nick Capodice: [00:15:36] Yeah. People taking the Democratic Party to task for being the party of the KKK. I asked Paddy about that specifically.

Paddy Riley: [00:15:42] That accusation, in some sense, it seems like it has power partly because maybe we are just not open and public enough about just how deep and powerful the history of white supremacy is in the United States. You know, it shouldn't be possible for us to continue to, like, romanticize the past. So, [00:16:00] you know, those accusations seem to have power just because we need to be more open.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:08] So finally, with all that history under our belt, I ask Keneshia about the party going forward. If she thinks there might be another realignment?

Keneshia Grant: [00:16:16] The Democratic Party is a big tent party. Keep these coalitions in mind. The Democratic Party has to please immigrants, black people, gay people, progressive white people. Like- business interest for some people... like people- just so many groups of people they have to be worried about. When you think about the Democratic Party or any party, particularly in a national election, they have to get in a room and fight it out. A party platforms only so long and, you know, not everybody's gonna read it. But it matters a lot to the party and it matters a lot to the messaging of the party. And so how do I say, "I really care about [00:17:00] urban development and I really don't like displacement of people as a result of gentrification"? In some instances that stuff is going to be in conflict. And so the Democratic Party has this difficult road to travel, because they have to please all these different groups of people and these different groups of people have different interests.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:22] So the Democratic Party has come a long way. Changing names, switching positions on the way to the blue party we think of today. And that's the thing. These parties are always changing. So it's really hard to say what a Democrat is because there's not one answer and it depends on a ton of other things. And you can still see that push and pull of this big tent, that Keneshia mentioned, in the huge pool of Democratic candidates in the 2020 race.

Andrew Yang: [00:17:50] So, we need to pay teachers more because the data clearly shows that a good teachers-

[00:17:53] -public colleges, and universities, and HBCU's debt free-.

Elizabeth Warren: [00:17:57] I think I'm the only [00:18:00] person on the stage who has been a public school teachers-

[00:18:01] {montage of candidates}

Nick Capodice: [00:18:19] Well that will just about tie it all up in a big blue bow or a red bow maybe if it's pre the 1992 election. Today's episode is produced by me, Nick Capodice, with you Hannah McCarthy. Thank you!

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:30] You're welcome. Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton. Erika Janik is our executive producer and her cut of the week, lots of stuff about a national bank. Thanks, Erika.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:40] When it comes to salting her food, Maureen McMurray is liberal with the small L, as scholars say.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:44] Music in this episode by Chad Crouch, Blue-Dog Sessions, Diala, The Grand Affair, Reed Mathis.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:50] And it wouldn't be a Nick Capodice  episode without Worth the whiskey, Chris Zabriskie.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:56] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation [00:19:00] for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Third Parties

When it comes to federal elections, third party candidates are almost assured a defeat. And yet the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Reform Party -- these underdogs always appear on the scene ready for a fight. So why run if you're not going to win? What do third parties do to American politics?

Our mediators for this one are Marjorie Hershey, Professor of Political Science Emerita at Indiana University and Geoffrey Skelley, Elections Analyst at FiveThirtyEight.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

CPB grant: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:04] When we were interviewing one of the guests for this episode, Nick, you mentioned this archival recording.

William Jennings Bryan: [00:00:14] Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the convention.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:17] Yeah, that's something I stumbled on a while ago accidentally, and I was confused because there's this guy, William Jennings Bryan, who was the 1896 Democratic nominee. But he was also the populist nominee. He was part of a presidential race that had two candidates, but three parties, which I did not realize was possible.

William Jennings Bryan: [00:00:39] But this is not a contest between persons.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:42] Yeah, I looked into it, Republican, Democrat and Populist.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:00:47] You know, we were on the gold standard and they wanted silver to be an option with a sort of an easier exchange rate for them. Thus, the famous speech, Cross of Gold Speech.

[00:00:58] This is Geoffrey Skelley.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:01:00] An [00:01:00] elections analyst at 538.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:02] We have gotten a lot of questions over the years about third parties in American politics. Think the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Reform Party.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:11] Right. These are parties we've heard of, but they don't actually make a ton of headway in elections.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:01:16] The third party success that we've seen historically at various points has often come about because of a party schism where there is a deep divide within one of the major parties.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:29] Back when William Jennings Bryan ran for president, the deep divide was gold.

William Jennings Bryan: [00:01:35] We will answer their demand for the gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the bow of labor of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:47] Bryan's cross of gold speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention killed. Supposedly [00:02:00] after he finished

[00:02:01] There was a moment of awed silence before the place erupted with applause and cheering.

[00:02:10] And "for he's a jolly good fellows" for and now accounts vary on this one. But at least half an hour, possibly an hour. Delegates hoisted him onto their shoulders and carried him around the hall. See,

[00:02:24] Bryan was arguing against the rigid gold standard in favor of something called bimentalism, which is basically introducing silver into the economy to increase money supply and stabilize prices. And this idea did not originate with the Democratic Party. In fact, a portion of the Democratic Party was fervently committed to the gold standard. Bimentalism was at the core of the populist party platform.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:02:52] If you go back to like the late 19th century, there was the populists who were doing fairly well in some parts [00:03:00] of the country that influenced the Democrats particularly. That's part of how William Jennings Bryan ended up being the 1896 nominee for the Democrats was pushed by populists that especially had to do with monetary policy, which doesn't sound all that exciting now, but it was pretty exciting back them.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:18] So Bryan wins the Democratic nomination on a populist idea and then the Democrats just kind of take that idea.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:28] Yeah, but because Bryan reflects what the populists want. They still give him the presidential nomination, even though he already has a nomination. And when Bryan loses, the Democrat Party is established enough to survive. But the populist party isn't their ideas and their members are more or less absorbed into the Democratic Party.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:03:53] Third parties have their own missions in terms of what issues are important to them and what policies they want to [00:04:00] see pursued. So given the fact that most third parties are pretty small in this country, they're their end goal is to try to expand their appeal, expand membership, get more notice for for the issues that are important to them. And historically speaking, third parties have had the most success when there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the major parties. And that has sometimes led the major parties to grab hold of whatever issue it was that that was propelling the third party success to sort of bringing them into the fold in a way. So third parties can can sometimes influence the major parties.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:44] See, this is what I struggle with because I know that influence is important. Yes. But if you know, you're not going to win ever. Actually, no, I don't know that for sure. Has a third party candidate ever won.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:56] Let's find out. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:58] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:59] And this is Civics 101, the [00:05:00] podcast about the basics of how our democracy works. And when we talk about American democracy, about this participatory government, what we're really talking about is, by and large, a two party system. We do have third parties, but in the U.S., Republicans and Democrats rule.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:05:20] When we talk about third parties in any other country, we wouldn't be using that term.

[00:05:31] We'd be talking about minor parties because of the fact that in most other democracies, almost every other democracy, the third party would be a major party.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:41] This is Marjorie Hershey.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:05:42] I'm a professor of political science emerita at Indiana University, newly emerita.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:50] In order to understand third parties in the U.S., it helps to first understand what makes it so hard for a third party candidate to win.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:05:58] You have to get a plurality. [00:06:00] You have to get the most votes in order to get anywhere.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:06:03] You keep getting 10 percent of the vote. People stop voting for you because why vote for a party that doesn't get any representatives? Only a party that can normally expect to get most of the votes will be able to maintain itself. So that means the party that usually wins obviously stays, and the party that has at least a shot at replacing it stays. All the other parties get nothing and they go away.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:32] Okay. And that's how almost every state votes for the Electoral College. Right. So basically, if you're running with a party that is perceived to be an unlikely winner, that perception alone will make you an unlikely winner.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:45] There's actually a political science theory about this.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:06:47] Duverger's Law or

[00:06:50] However, you actually pronounce his name in French. I usually hear people say, Doo-ver-ger, you know, just butcher it. It's basically just the idea that a two party political system [00:07:00] pushes people towards those major parties because they might view a vote for a third party as a waste of a vote. Because if the end goal of an election is winning, you want to try to build as large a coalition as you can without sacrificing the goals that your coalition has.

[00:07:17] I mean, that's the entire idea of parties basically in a winner take all system like we have. That is a real pressure point that pushes people to really embrace that idea to the fullest and thus have two major parties.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:36] So because we're a two party system, we vote the way we do and because we vote the way we do, we remain a two party system. But the thing that Jeffrey just said, if the goal of an election is winning. If the goal of an election is winning. Why run as a third party candidate at all? And what's the point?

Marjorie Hershey: [00:07:53] You know, probably their psychic benefit or people wouldn't do it. But I think most people who run as [00:08:00] minor party candidates or as independents do so because they're just really very intensely committed to a set of issues and they are willing to take all the costs of running, which are substantial and only in part in money, but just in energy and emotional commitment and everything else in order to expose people to this point of view that they believe is the truth.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:27] This is something that I found kind of remarkable about third party candidates that they pretty much know they won't end up in power. But they so believe in their message that the run is worth it to them.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:08:40] They're more like organized interests in that sense.

[00:08:48] Typically because of the fact that they do not worry a great deal about preparing a victory speech on election night, they expect to lose. And in fact, they -- their wishes are carried out. [00:09:00] They do lose on election night that there is not much point in having a platform like a major party that deals with virtually everything under the sun because you're not trying to appeal to everybody under the sun. You know pretty well as a libertarian that there's a pretty narrow slice of folks out there.

Gary Johnson Interviewer: [00:09:18] What exactly does it mean to be a libertarian in a short summary?

[00:09:22] As you can as you can explain that?

Gary Johnson: [00:09:24] Very broadly speaking, libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially inclusive, skeptical when it comes to our military interventions, when we support regime change in my lifetime, I can't think of one single example where that has worked out. And then supporting free market, the opposite of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is when government picks winners and losers, free market, more U.S. jobs, not less U.S. jobs. That's pretty quick.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:09:52] And that you're probably thinking if I can just get the loyalty of that slice of folks, they'll [00:10:00] grow over time. But you're probably not deluding yourself into thinking that a majority of people in the United States are libertarian.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:08] There's always a chance, though, right? Rocky can beat Apollo Creed. There's a chance that the populist party could have found its footing in the 19th century, made a real go of it. There's a chance that libertarianism is gonna get big enough to throw its hat in the ring in a meaningful way, but they'll just have to make their platform a bit broader.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:10:27] Yeah, I think they probably would. Which is why most of them don't believe that that's a good idea. They don't want to become mushier. They want to stand for this specific kinds of stands on issues that they believe most heartily in. And so most of them are what political scientists call purists.

[00:10:50] People who are motivated by the issue, not by loyalty to the party.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:58] But it hasn't always been this way. [00:11:00] Right. We didn't start out with Republicans and Democrats. We started out with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists and then Federalists and Democratic Republicans. And then we had the Whigs and the Democrats and then finally the Republicans and the Democrats. So, yes, it's always been a two party system, but it's parties replacing one another. How did that happen?

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:11:21] The parties weren't necessarily as ideologically sorted as they are now. And by that I mean, you know, historically you had, for example, in the Democratic Party, you had sort of more liberal big city Democratic bosses, especially like the East Coast, allied with Southern Democrats who were definitely conservative. And so that that was an interesting coalition. And on the other hand, you might have more conservative Midwest and Western Republicans allied with more liberal Northeastern Republicans. And so that was a coalition, too. And there are a lot of reasons why that was the case. But in modern times, the parties have become much more well [00:12:00] aligned in terms of liberal conservative than they were for much of the 20th century.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:05] There was a time when the parties simply weren't as well-established as they are right now. There was a little more room for party transition in the past. The last time a presidential candidate was elected from a new party was in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln won as a Republican.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:24] It's just crazy to me that the Republican Party was once one of these minor third parties. How they do that?

[00:12:31] How'd they become a major party so quick?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:32] The first Republican to run for president was actually four years before Lincoln. John Fremont in 1856. And it was because of that election that the Whig Party, which was the major party at the time, ended up dissolving because you had this issue, the left, a lot of people really fed up with the parties and wanting another option. But unlike with the William [00:13:00] Jennings Bryan election and the gold standard issue, the issue in 1856 successfully brought a new party to power because that issue was enough to tear an entire country apart.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:13:12] Whigs also were basically destroyed by the slavery issue because Southern Whigs were pro-slavery. And so they increasingly found themselves allied with Southern Democrats who were pro-slavery as well. And Northern Democrats increasingly found themselves allied with to some extent with Northern Whigs who were opposed to the expansion of slavery.

[00:13:38] That situation caused the Whigs to sort of fall apart, and the Republican Party basically came out of a lot of former Whigs in the north.

[00:13:50] And so that was basically -- it was basically on this coalition of those forces that ended up backing Lincoln in 1860 and how he got elected [00:14:00] at the end of the day.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:01] So we haven't had a truly viable third party since the country was the most divided it's ever been, which is the issue of slavery.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:14:09] And it then in 1858 essentially replaced the Whigs. So it might have been that the Republicans might have formed and then become part of a three party system or maybe a four or five party system. But we didn't. What we ended up with in 1860 was another two party system, but with one of the two parties different from the one that had existed 10 years before.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:40] So that was the last time a party was actually replaced. But I do want to be clear.

[00:14:46] Third party power remained and remains a significant force. For example, the Republican Party is what it is today because of a third party. Back when Teddy Roosevelt was rejected by the Republican [00:15:00] Party and formed the Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party in 1912, he took a bunch of supporters with him, and the party ideology of the Republicans started to shift to the right.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:13] But what about the local level? I've definitely heard of Libertarian or Green Party state legislators getting seats.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:19] Yeah, that happens. Elections are a lot easier for minor parties when the national government isn't at stake.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:26] What about like Bernie Sanders? He's a member of the Senate and the national level, but he's a self-described socialist, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:33] Well, he defines himself as a socialist, yeah, but he ran for his Senate seat as an independent. He's running for the presidency right now as a Democrat. It wouldn't do him any favors at the ballot level to call himself a socialist. An independent is significantly different from a third party. It's a lot easier to win as an independent at any level than it is to win as a third party candidate.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:15:57] Independents are a different story. The [00:16:00] state legislatures have not worked as hard to make it tougher for independent candidates because of the fact that independent candidates are usually a one off. They're a person who is running for one office without a whole slate of other people. Running along with that person so they're not as much of a threat if one independent gets elected. The chances are he or she will be defeated the next time round. And it's no big deal for the major parties.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:28] This brings us to the other hitch when it comes to third party candidacy, the major parties actively make it difficult for a third party candidate to even be an option for voters, while a third party candidate may be miles away from a win. They can still ruin a major party. Candidates run. There's a thing called the spoiler vote. That's a real threat. You steal voters away from a major party candidate.

[00:16:56] It's the state legislators who make the election rules so [00:17:00] effectively. It is the parties who make the election rules.

Marjorie Hershey: [00:17:05] You know, there are endless ways in which Democratic and Republican state legislators can make up rules to make it tougher for non Democratic or Republican candidates. If you were a minor party trying to get on the ballot in some states, you would have to get way more signatures on petitions to get your candidate on the ballot than if you're a Democrat or Republican. And keep in mind that the officials who determine whether those signatures are valid are all Democrats or Republicans, the secretaries of state in each of the states. And it's very common for a partisan secretary of state to simply cross out a whole bunch of those names and say that there's something the matter with this. You know. This person doesn't exist or their middle initial is on the petition, whereas their middle initial is not the name that they used [00:18:00] to register to vote. So that's illegitimate.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:02] There are the third parties aren't posing a real threat. Why work so hard trying to keep them off the ballot?

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:18:06] You know, the 1912 election is press one, the most obvious examples because Theodore Roosevelt ends up running in the Republican primary.

Theodore Roosevelt Campaign song: [00:18:13] Where ready for Teddy again, boys, for the presidential chair.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:18:19] Against his basically handpicked successor, William Taft.

William Taft Campaign Song: [00:18:26] Get on the raft with Taft boys, get in the winning boat.

Geoffrey Skelley: [00:18:29] Who'd run in 1908 after Roosevelt didn't seek another term.

[00:18:34] And so Roosevelt runs against him in the primary, loses the Republican nomination. It was very ugly battle for the Republican nomination. And then Roosevelt goes and runs as a third party candidate. He runs as the progressive candidate. There's some other complications in there that are not worth getting into. But the point is that there is this very obvious split within the GOP. And Roosevelt actually ends up winning more of the popular vote than Taft does [00:19:00] in that 1912 election. But the end result and this is where you get into trouble in in a winner take all sort of system, is that the Republicans were splitting the vote all over the country. And so Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic nominee, wins a sweeping victory in the Electoral College, even though he only won 42 percent of the popular vote.

Woodrow Wilson Campaign Song: [00:19:18] While on the street

[00:19:20] or on the car, while at your home or at the bar, it's Wilson, Wilson, Wilson, that's all.

[00:19:32] So third parties are more than an ideological force. They can actually determine the outcome of an election if they're on the ballot.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:38] Third parties have real teeth. A lot of people think that Ralph Nader was responsible for Al Gore's defeat in Florida in the infamous 2000 election, for example. But I want to get at a bigger question, too. Like, sure third parties make for political trouble here and there. But if they really can't win. [00:20:00] Right. If if having the choice of a third party candidate isn't really having the choice of a third party candidate. Are we less Democratic than nations where you really can vote your third party candidate into powerful office?

Marjorie Hershey: [00:20:15] Well, I hate to do this to you, but that sort of depends on what we want to define as democratic. On the one hand, the argument for a multi-party system is that when you go to the polls to select a candidate, you don't have to compromise as much.

[00:20:33] Ok, if you're a libertarian Republican, you get to be a libertarian. You don't have to be a Republican of whom a proportion of the party is libertarian, but a proportion is not. So in choosing a candidate, you get to express your views in a more pure fashion. On the other hand, in a multi-party system, the chances are pretty good that a single party [00:21:00] is not going to get a majority.

[00:21:03] That party that gets the most votes is going to have to join with one or more other parties in order to get a majority. And the thing is, you, as a minor party supporter, can't be sure in advance of the election which parties your party is going to coalesce with.

[00:21:24] So although it may be more small "d" democratic in quotes in advance of the election, when you're making up your mind as to what candidates to support, that may not be as small "d" democratic after the election when a coalition has to form in order to govern. Some people would use a different definition of democratic and say what we can really expect of voters is that politics is not a biggie for most people most of the time. For [00:22:00] most people, the biggies are, you know, do I have the ingredients for dinner and when am I gonna get the laundry done? And that means for the rest of us who would rather watch basketball, we need to have a pretty clear sense of what it is that we support without having to do that research. And what that is, is provided by is a party identification. And while that might seem to be not too satisfying as far as our ideals of public service are concerned, basically a democracy is a system that gives you a choice. And if you have to spend a huge amount of time researching every candidate, A, we know you're not gonna do that. And B, that means you're not going to have a choice because you're not going to bother to to become involved in it. So a two party system in some ways makes [00:23:00] the choice easy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:01] So on the one hand, it's not necessarily a bad thing that we default to a two party system and on the other, that doesn't mean that third parties don't have any power. They pose just enough of a threat that they end up being one of the more effective methods of shifting party ideology. Third parties have an ability to mess with major elections. They can spoil votes. They can ruin another candidate's chances.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:29] It's a super effective way to influence how a major party evolves. Sure. Maybe a libertarian is not going to see their candidate in office, but they can vote for a Democrat who adopts libertarian ideals in order to woo voters. And then the party shifts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:43] Yeah. So it's worth paying attention to these obscure names or parties that you see on the ballot. I mean, in 20 years, their ideas could be governing the country.

[00:24:06] Civics 101 [00:24:00] was produced today by me, Hannah McCarthy with you, Nick Capodice. Help in this episode from Jacqui Fulton.

[00:24:13] Erica Janik is keeping the dream bimentalism alive. She just won't let it go.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:16] Don't blame Maureen McMurray for anything because she voted for Kodos.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:19] Music in this episode by Chad Crouch, KieLoKaz, Verified Picasso, Lobo Loco and Patrick Patrikios.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:26] Entries for our student contest are pouring in.

[00:24:30] Keep them coming. Go to civics101podcast.org/contest.

[00:24:33] You could win.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:35] Civics 101 is brought to you in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Becoming a U.S. Citizen

The first step, the step that really matters in becoming a U.S. citizen, is becoming a permanent resident. Once you have that Green Card in hand, this country is your oyster. Become a citizen, don't become a citizen -- either way, you get to stay for as long as you like. We hear a lot about the legal path to citizenship, but what does that path actually look like? And why is it so much longer for some than for others? Has it always been like this?

Lighting the way in this episode are Allan Wernick, CUNY professor and Director of Citizenship Now, Mae Ngai, history professor at Columbia University and Margaret Chin, sociology professor at Hunter College.

Have a civics question? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

Naturalization Ceremony: [00:02:26] If our technology is working, we should next hear a message from our president of the United States.

George W. Bush: [00:02:38] The United States of America welcomes new citizens.

Barack Obama: [00:02:38] And so I ask that you use your freedoms and your talents to contribute to the good of our nation and the world.

Donald Trump: [00:02:44] You now share the obligation to teach our values to others, to help newcomers assimilate to our way of life and uplift America by living according to its highest ideals of self-governance.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:57] You've been to one of these, naturalization ceremonies? [00:03:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:00] No, I haven't. This is where people from other countries become citizens of the U.S., right.

[00:03:06] Have you?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:07] I've been to quite a few, actually. And they follow a certain format. There's a reading of the names of the countries present.

Naturalization Ceremony: [00:03:12] Nigeria.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:13] There's speeches.

[00:03:16] Everybody takes an oath.

Naturalization Ceremony: [00:03:16] Renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:21] And then there's usually a technology snafu.

Naturalization Ceremony: [00:03:24] Couple minutes once we get the projector warmed up.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:27] And then we have the prerecorded tape of the president of the United States welcoming these new Americans.

Barack Obama: [00:03:32] It's an honor and a privilege to call you a fellow citizen of the United States of America.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:37] And the tenor of the speech changes as the president changes.

[00:03:40] But one thing remains the same. The hand out a bunch of flags and they play this.

[00:03:46] And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.

[00:03:53] Lee Greenwood's 1984 hit God Bless the USA, also known as Proud to Be in American. [00:04:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:00] I'm very familiar.

[00:04:02] When did they start doing this?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:03] I don't know. I don't know. I called the offices of USCIS, that's the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

[00:04:10] And I was completely unsuccessful in getting through to a human any human.

USCIS: [00:04:13] The key that you pressed is not a valid choice on this menu. We will play the message for you again.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:19] I found a home movie of a naturalization ceremony from the early 1990s and they played it. This goes back.

Naturalization Ceremony: [00:04:31] USA!

Allan Wernick: [00:04:31] I'm not sure they play that anymore. The last one I went through, they didn't play it, but yeah, it was sort of annoy -- I always thought it was annoying.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:41] This is Allan Wernick, CUNY professor and director of Citizenship

[00:04:44] Now, which is a program that gives free legal assistance to those looking to wave that flag themselves. And while you might need a lawyer's help to become a citizen, you won't to listen to this episode because this is Civics 1 0 1.

[00:04:56] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:57] I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:58] And today we're talking about becoming [00:05:00] a U.S. citizen. What was the process back in the day? What is it right now? What do you have to do to sing along with Lee?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:10] I know that you're a citizen if you're born on U.S. soil, but if you're not, what is the first thing that you have to do?

Allan Wernick: [00:05:17] Well, first thing you have to do is become a permanent resident. What people call a green card holder.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:22] Hold it. What exactly is a green card?

Nick Capodice: [00:05:25] It's just a government issued photo I.D. that is green in color. And it verifies that you're a permanent resident. That you are allowed to live and work in the U.S. permanently.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:36] So anyone who is a permanent resident can become a U.S. citizen?

Nick Capodice: [00:05:41] Yes. If they have been here five years, they read and write a certain level of English. They're a person of, quote, good moral character. And if they pass the citizenship test.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:51] But speaking English and the test aren't required to get a green card to become a permanent resident.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:58] No they're not.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:58] So once you're a permanent resident, [00:06:00] citizenship is a breeze.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:02] Relatively.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:03] So we should call this episode becoming a U.S. permanent resident.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:06] Yes, we should have. But it doesn't quite have the same ring. And there are many ways to live and work here in the U.S.. Visas, statuses. But becoming a permanent resident is the path to citizenship.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:17] So how do you become a permanent resident?

Allan Wernick: [00:06:19] Well, you need a U.S. citizen or permanent relative who can sponsor you or you can be sponsored by an employer who can show a shortage of U.S. workers in a job that that employer needs to fill. You can be outstanding in your field. You know, it can be a great violinist or a scientist or you can become an investor.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:40] What does it mean to sponsor someone?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:42] If you're a U.S. citizen who makes a certain income, you can sponsor a family member or a potential employee. If you're a sponsor, you're vouching for that potential new American. You're saying you're going to support them financially if necessary. And yeah, you can sponsor a worker, but far and away, the most common way to get that green [00:07:00] card is through family, someone who is a U.S. citizen or themselves a permanent resident sponsoring a relative. We call this a family preference system.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:09] Can it be any relative?

Nick Capodice: [00:07:10] Not any relative. It can be different types of relatives. But the process is going to be completely different. The wait time is going to be completely different depending on that relationship.

Allan Wernick: [00:07:19] The quota is based on statute and the statute divides up the family employment based preference categories. The category for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, which is a spouse of a citizen, unmarried child under 21 of a citizen and the parent of a 21 year old citizen. There's no limit on those in that category. But in the family and employment based preference categories, which are divided up based on the type of relationship you have to your employer or your relative, there is a per country quota of more, no more than 27000 per year from any one [00:08:00] country.

[00:08:01] And typically no country gets that many every year because of the overall worldwide limit.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:06] You said I wouldn't need a lawyer to understand this episode, Nick, and I'm starting to disagree.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:10] You're right. I'm sorry. This system is complicated and you are a native English speaker with a college degree. Imagine navigating it without those two benefits. Many people do use a lawyer which can cost thousands of dollars, not to mention the thousand dollar filing fee. But Allan is breaking down the hierarchy of relationships. Every different category has different limits and thus different wait times. So there's the immediate relative category. If you're a U.S. citizen and you want to sponsor your spouse, your kid, or if you're over 21 years old, your parents, there's almost no wait time and there's no limit. It's almost a guarantee. But the other categories, like a citizen sponsoring their brother or sister, depending on the country, it can have a significant backlog.

Allan Wernick: [00:09:00] So, [00:09:00] for instance, in the brother and sister of a U.S. citizen category, if you're from India, if you're from the Philippines, if you're from Mexico, you could wait20, 30 years before you qualify for permanent residence in that category.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:11] 20 to 30 years.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:14] Yes.

Allan Wernick: [00:09:15] In some categories where you're looking at, you know, in the employment-based from India and some categories you're looking at, you know, 80 years. So basically none of the people who would be applying now are ever going to come to the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:29] Ok. So that's family preference and skill preference. But didn't Allan say there was an investor category?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:36] Yes.

[00:09:39] If you invest a million dollars, 500000 in some locations, actually, if you invest that in a business for a project that will create at least 10 jobs, you get residency in about two years. Doesn't matter where you from.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:51] I've always wondered how rich people do it.

Allan Wernick: [00:09:53] On one hand, people feel that they're buying their way into the United States to get a green card and then later become a U.S. [00:10:00] citizen. But it's also controversial. Some people think that the amount is too low. That a million dollars is not enough for such a great privilege as becoming a permanent resident of the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:10] So I asked Allan what my path is if I live in another country. I want to become an American citizen. But just like my Italian great grandfather, I don't have a family in America yet or a job skill that's deemed desirable or a million dollars on hand. How long do I have to wait?

Allan Wernick: [00:10:27] There is no -- there's no -- there's -- there's no way you can become a permanent resident unless you're one of the categories I describe. So it's not a question of how long you wait. It's basically, you wait forever. You're never going to qualify.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:39] But what if you're already here? You're undocumented, you maybe even have family here who could sponsor you.

[00:10:46] You can eventually become one, right?

Allan Wernick: [00:10:49] Yeah. Well, the thing is, is that if you're undocumented in the United States today, in most cases, the only way you're ever going to become a permanent resident is if you marry a U.S. citizen.

[00:11:00] All [00:11:00] the other options are not available to you.

[00:11:03] And the reason for that is because if you've been here unlawfully in the United States for more than 180 days, then there's really no other way you're going to be able to become a permanent resident unless you marry a U.S. citizen.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:17] You have to be in one of those categories. And if you're not, there's nothing you can do.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:23] Nothing.

Allan Wernick: [00:11:24] Many commentators talk about why not people who are undocumented here get in line.

Mitt Romney: [00:11:29] And then ultimately you've got to go home, apply for permanent residency here or citizenship if you want to try and do that. Get in line behind everyone else.

Allan Wernick: [00:11:36] But the fact is, for most people around the world, there is no line.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:45] All right. So that's how to become a citizen, rather permanent resident, today. Is this always how we've done it, family and job preference?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:53] Well, immigration laws have changed a lot many times over the last 230 years.

[00:11:59] So [00:12:00] let's start with our founding.

Mae Ngai: [00:12:02] The Constitution says that the Congress shall provide for a uniform law of naturalization. And actually, the Constitution says very little about citizenship at all.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:12] This is Mae Ngai. She's a professor of history at Columbia University. And the Congress does just that they write a Naturalization Act of 1790.

Mae Ngai: [00:12:21] And then you could become a naturalized citizen if you were a free white person of good moral character.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:29] What do those adjectives mean?

Mae Ngai: [00:12:31] Well, the free part means that they're not an indentured servant. It also implied that you were not enslaved, although by this time there were no white people in slavery. Well, we think of white being pretty obvious, but it really wasn't that obvious. But it mostly was understood to mean you weren't a black person because there were free black persons.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:54] For almost 100 years only white people could be citizens.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:59] What did [00:13:00] she mean by good moral character?

Mae Ngai: [00:13:02] So that that meant that you didn't have a criminal record.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:05] So if you were those adjectives after living in the U.S. for five years, you could become a citizen.

Mae Ngai: [00:13:10] After the civil war.

[00:13:12] They amended the Naturalization Act because now there was a question of African-Americans who had been excluded from the Naturalization Law of 1790. In 1870 Congress passed a new Naturalization Act which provided naturalization for white persons and persons of African nativity and descent. The interesting thing that happened at the time was that there were some people in the Senate, notably Charles Sumner and some of the other radical Republicans, who said, well, why don't we just get rid of the racial bar completely? Why don't we just say, any person can become a citizen after five years. Why do we have to specify white and African? The majority of people in the Senate said, no, no, no, no, no. If you do that, then you'll [00:14:00] open the door to Chinese.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:02] And we finally get to 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act, when Congress passes the first and so far only Immigration Act to restrict immigration based on a specific nationality.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:15] How much did it restrict immigration from China?

Nick Capodice: [00:14:18] Entirely. It barred any Chinese people from being allowed entry into the U.S. and those who are already here could not become citizens. And this wasn't repealed until 1945, when the U.S. led a whopping one hundred five Chinese people enter each year.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:35] Why did Congress single out that particular country?

Margaret Chin: [00:14:38] There are a couple of reasons.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:40] This is Margaret Chin. She's a sociology professor at Hunter College.

Margaret Chin: [00:14:43] One had to do with people feared that Chinese immigrants would be taking away jobs, because right before that, Chinese immigrants also came and they participated in mining, searching for gold. They also helped build [00:15:00] the railroad. And after the railroads was finished, they were afraid that they would be taking jobs away from other Americans, mostly white Americans anywhere in the U.S.. The second thing was they were fearful that Chinese immigrants couldn't learn English and couldn't assimilate.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:18] And this time, this was our era of peak immigration. Over 12 million new Americans came through Ellis Island. Our immigration station that opened in 1892. I read an estimate that 40-percent of Americans have an ancestor who came through Ellis Island.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:34] All right, so, during this peak era. Are there any restrictions on who can come?

Mae Ngai: [00:15:40] Hardly any. They sent back two-percent of the people who showed up at Ellis Island. Two-percent were sent back.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:47] The only people who are sent back from Ellis Island were people who suffered from certain contagious diseases, suffered from mental illnesses and, quote, persons who are likely to become a public charge that [00:16:00] included women who had come alone and had no male family member to pick them up in New York.

Mae Ngai: [00:16:05] You had to have some money in your pocket. They called it show money. People were advised they should have $15. Sometimes it was $25. It wasn't a huge amount. They just wanted to know that you were going to work. So it was important that you could walk through the medical inspection line at Ellis Island and not be limping.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:28] But this era of massive immigration comes to a screeching halt in 1924.

Archival News Tape: [00:16:35] By this law, the number to be admitted to henceforth wants to be in proportion to the national origin of our country's population.

Mae Ngai: [00:16:45] Well 1924 is when they pass real restrictive regulations on immigration and this is the first time that they impose a numerical limit.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:54] The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 is a quota act for immigration. [00:17:00]

[00:17:00] Limits were set based on the number of people who were already here in the United States, and they based it on the 1890 census from 34 years earlier before the surge of people from Southern and Eastern Europe. And so the quotas gave preference to northern Europeans. I'm talking Germans, British, Swedes and the like. And to give you an idea of how much it restricted immigration, let's use the Italians again. Over 3 million Italians came in a single decade in the early 1900s. But the Johnson-Reed Act restricted it to 4000 a year. Immigration from eastern and southern Europe stops almost entirely.

[00:17:40] One other crucial thing that happens in 1924 is that Native Americans who had previously not been allowed at all to become citizens are all granted U.S. citizenship.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:51] When do we start letting people in again?

Nick Capodice: [00:17:54] Not until 1965.

[00:18:00] Lyndon [00:18:00] Johnson at the feet of the Statue of Liberty signs the Hart-Celler Act.

Lyndon Johnson: [00:18:06] This bill says that from this day forward, those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their relationships to those already here.

Margaret Chin: [00:18:22] 1965 was the big year in terms of the immigration and immigration law.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:27] Here's Margaret Chin again.

Margaret Chin: [00:18:28] The Hart-Celler Act passed that year. I guess Kennedy and Johnson and I guess the rest of the world, when they were looking at the US, realized that the US wasn't doing what they were saying they would do. They were trying to support the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement focused on equal treatment regardless of race or nationality.

Lyndon Johnson: [00:18:51] Immigration policy of the United States has been posted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national [00:19:00] origins quota system.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:01] And this is the beginning of her family preference system where we started.

[00:19:04] But it's not Eastern Europeans and Italians who are coming anymore.

Margaret Chin: [00:19:07] After 1965 with this family preference law, you begin to see huge increases of immigrants from Asia and from Latin America. And that was something that people did not expect because the framers of the 1965 law thought that using family preferences that people who were already in the U.S., which were mostly white descendants, would have their family members come.

[00:19:38] The unintended consequence was that people who are who had a small population here, who could not move easily back and forth to their home countries to see their family members, really wanted to reunite with their family members. And by 2015, 50 years later, whites are 62-percent, Hispanics, 18, Asians are 6-percent, and [00:20:00] blacks are 13-percent of the population.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:05] And Allan and Margaret and Mae they all expressed difficulties with how our current system works. But nevertheless, despite all the lawyers and the backlogs and the red tape every year, about 700000 new Americans take that oath. And when you watch that ceremony with the knowledge of what many of those people have been through, it's so moving that it makes even Lee Greenwood bearable.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:50] Well, that is it for this episode on the ever-evolving process of becoming a citizen of the United States. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:58] Our staff includes Jackie Helbert [00:21:00] and Sarah Ernst.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:01] Erica Janik is our executive producer and wanted me to keep in part about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:05] Maureen McMurray considers herself a citizen of the world.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:08] Music in today's episode by the ever reliable Blue Dot Sessions, Chris Zabriskie, Kevin McCloud, Bizou, Young Kartz, The Rondo Brothers, Robert John and Poddington Bear. And you know who I forgot, Hannah.

[00:21:20] Lee Greenwood.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:24] Oh, Lee!

Nick Capodice: [00:21:25] Thanks, Lee.

[00:21:26] Fair use. Special thanks to Laura Keller and to the man who taught me more about becoming a citizen than anyone else. He himself is one, Pedro Garcia.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:34] Gentle reminder.

[00:21:36] We are coming up on the deadline for our student contest. Don't forget to have your students submit their 60 second stump speech.

[00:21:42] You can find more info on that at civics101podcast.org/contest.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:44] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Census

It's just a survey — a handful of questions that get issued to every household in the country every ten years. So how does a countrywide headcount end up being at the core of power and money distribution in the U.S.? And why does it matter if you fill it out?

Walking us through the people, money and power at the heart of the census are national NPR correspondent Hansi Lo Wang and Chief Historian of the U.S. Census Bureau Sharon Tosi Lacey.

After you listen, why not stand up and be counted as a supporter of Civics 101? We're in the throes of our end of year fund drive and we're asking you, dear civics listener, to consider making a contribution to the future of Civics 101. It's easy, mere moments, faster than filling out the census! If you're so inclined, you can make your gift here!

Have a civics question you want answered? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Please note, a prior version of this episode referenced a request from members of Congress to the Census Bureau to include a question about sexual orientation and gender identity on the U.S. Census. This request was in fact for the American Community Survey, also distributed by the Census Bureau. Though these questions had congressional support, they were formally requested by four federal agencies. We have also amended the statement that the household count is the first question on the census as this is not the case on the online version of the survey and included mention that incomplete forms will still be used for headcounts and that the penalty for an incomplete form has rarely been enforced.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] Hey, Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:00] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:01] If you had a grand and you could put that to going anywhere on this planet. Where would you go?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:09] I've always wanted to go to Scotland.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:11] Scotland. That's a good one. All right.

[00:00:14] Well, I've got some great news for you and some not so great news for you.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:18] Give me the good news first.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:24] We just started our end of the year fund drive and this one includes a drawing for a thousand smackers in AirBnB gift cards.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:32] That is tremendous news. So what's the bad news?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:34] The bad news that we can't enter, so say goodbye to Brigadoon.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:38] Well, just knowing that a Civics 101 listener may get to achieve their travel dream is enough for me. Mostly.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:45] Here's the deal. During this fund drive, when you make a gift to support Civics 101 from NHPR you will be entered into a drawing for one thousand dollars in AirBnB gift cards and they come in two hundred dollar denominations so you can keep them all for yourself or you share with family and [00:01:00] friends.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:00] Which would be the neighborly thing to do. But would it be the Civics-y thing to do?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:06] What do you mean by that?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:07] I have no idea.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:11] Also, when you become a new sustaining member, you can request NHPR's argyle wool blend socks. Perfect for keeping your toes warm on your walking tour of Philadelphia or your 'round the world comparative democracies trip or your trip to Seneca Falls to reenact the Women's Rights Convention. The AirBnB drawing, by the way, ends at midnight on December 31st 2019. And this is only open to residents of the U.S. and Canada. Sorry, Scotland.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:38] And on top of all this excitement, of course, you will be supporting Civics 101 and helping us to continue to make this show and to have conversations about what it means to be here in America and participate in this democracy.

[00:01:50] So if the spirit moves, you head on over to Civics101podcast.org to make your gift and to get more details. And thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:57] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:59] Here's [00:02:00] the episode.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:01] Yeah, here's the episode.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:02] And on today's episode...

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:05] Say it in a Scottish accent.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:05] And now onto the show. And now today's episode. And now let's get on with the episode.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:15] That was the best one.

CPB: [00:02:22] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:26] Nick, you've heard of We Are the World. Right?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:29] Are you kidding? I lived through it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:31] Oh, yeah.

[00:02:41] What about Do They Know It's Christmas?

[00:02:47] Tears are not enough?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:50] All of them good causes, cheesy, cheesy songs. I always wondered, is [00:03:00] that the best way to encourage charity?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:02] Right.

[00:03:02] Yeah, I mean, but that was the 80s for you, it's this the hotbed of cause-driven, star-studded ensemble ballads. Did you ever catch, um, Can we count on you?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:13] No, I missed that one.

Archival: [00:03:16] You can count on me. Can we count on you?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:22] Is that Mickey Mouse?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:23] One of the most famous celebs on the planet.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:36] This is a song about the census.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:39] Correct.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:41] The U.S. Census, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the mild mannered survey that Americans fill out every 10 years.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:48] Mild mannered until it comes out of the phone booth in a cape and tights. The U.S. Census is about people, money and power. It defines whole decades, Nick. It determines [00:04:00] how much of a say you or I or anyone has in the political process. The census determines what resources we have access to and how many of those resources we actually get.

[00:04:12] The census is a tool at the very core of our democratic system.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:18] So what you're trying to say is good cause, cheesy song.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:22] Good cause, cheesy song.

Archival: [00:04:24] You make it sound like it's my cue to get to the question. It is your duty. Answer the census.

[00:04:30] It counts for more than you think. It counts for more than you think. It counts for more than you think.

[00:04:35] And what is your part in this enterprise? It's to cooperate with the enumerator. Do answer the census question.

[00:04:41] Answer the census on April first, I'm going to.

[00:04:44] Our separate identities will be lost in the process, which is concerned only with what we say, not who said it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:01] This [00:05:00] is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:03] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:04] And today, we are covering the U.S. Census.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:08] Brass tacks first. How does the U.S. Census actually work?

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:05:10] The census process

[00:05:12] Well, basically, for most households, what they experience is they get a letter in the mail from the Census Bureau.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:20] This is Hansi Lo Wang.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:05:22] I cover that people power and money behind the 2020 Census for NPR.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:26] So some day between March 12th and March 20th, most American households are going to find an envelope from the Census Bureau in their mailbox.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:05:36] And in past years, people most households have gotten an actual census form. But in 2020, most households are going to get a letter explaining that they should go online and there will be a link to fill out a form on the Internet and also a code.

[00:05:55] And basically, people go on to a form, fill it out.

[00:06:00] And [00:06:00] then the Census Bureau collects that information.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:05] What is the information they're asking? What's the Census Bureau actually collecting? The main point of it is just to count us, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:12] Yes, right. That and only that is the part that is constitutionally mandated about the census. The enumeration of people in the United States, they want to know how many people live in your house from the youngest baby to the oldest adult. And before we go any further, I should say that the questions on the U.S. Census shift, the census of 2020 will look very different from the census of nineteen hundred.

[00:06:41] But at the moment, when you count people in your house, you're counting people who spend most of their time there and people who are living with you as of April 1st because they have no other permanent residents.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:52] But if the point is to count everyone, what do they do with the deployed troops, kids away college? And [00:07:00] what about people who live in group settings like prisons or nursing homes?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:04] So the Census Bureau has a whole category called group living arrangements. That's military bases, colleges, nursing homes, residential treatment facilities and correctional facilities. In those cases, the bureau contacts an administrator and establishes a process to count everyone living there. So sometimes that means that individuals get their very own census form. Sometimes it means that an administrator counts and identifies the population based on their own data. And of course, hundreds of thousands of people experience homelessness every year. And in that case, the Census Bureau deputizes workers, they call them enumerators to check in with shelters and soup kitchens and non shelters, outdoor locations to make sure that everyone is counted. But it's actually so much more than just the numbers.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:07:58] It will ask whether the home that you're [00:08:00] living in, whether that's owned and if it's owned, if there's a mortgage and if it's not owned, whether it's rented or occupied without rent.

[00:08:08] And also ask about the race of every person living in the household and also whether every person living in a household identifies as being of Hispanic, Latino next origin. It will ask about the relationship between the people living together in a household, whether they are, for example, a married couple or unmarried couple. It will ask about the sex of every person living in the household and also ask about the age as well as the date of birth. I think that's about it. Yeah, those are the basic questions.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:45] I have a bunch of questions about this. First was Hansi saying that the census both asks whether you're Hispanic or LatinX and asks you what race you identify as?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:55] Yeah, this is one of those questions that has shifted over time. So in [00:09:00] order to figure out what the census should be asking what federal agencies feel, they need to know to figure out budgeting and resource allocation. The census works with the White House's Office of Management and Budget. At that office requires that the bureau ask about Hispanic or LatinX ethnicity before asking about race, which has made the category at some other race the most often selected after white and black or African-American.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:09:28] And there was a proposal to change the way these questions are presented on the forms, essentially have a combined question and asking for people's race and ethnicity and in when combined question. But that proposal required approval by the White House to change how the standards are set. But the White House's Office of Management and Budget has been silent publicly. And so we're going to still see a separate question [00:10:00] for Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:02] All right.

[00:10:02] So my next question is about the sex category. Are male and female the only choices?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:06] They are.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:07] Can you just leave it blank?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:09] You can skip questions. Plenty of people do submit an incomplete census form and they're still included in the head of the United States. But I should say that you can be fined for refusing to answer a census question. It could also trigger a visit from an enumerator, although that has been enforced pretty rarely in the past.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:10:30] It is not a question about gender identity and the two options to to answer the question about sex. Yeah, it's male or female.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:41] All right. So let's get to the big question. What is the census for? Why does the government need this data and what do they do with it?

Sharon Tosi Lacey: [00:10:48] So the census is actually in the constitution. They require a count of the people every 10 years. While there's a myriad of reasons why we want to understand the size and characteristics of our population. [00:11:00] There are a few critical elements that go into it. First, the census is used to determine the apportionment of congressional representatives and that is actually in the constitution.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:11] This is Sharon Tosi Lacey.

Sharon Tosi Lacey: [00:11:13] I am the chief historian at the Census Bureau. I oversee a team of four other historians and a researcher. And we are charged with being the institutional memory of the Census Bureau.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:24] And what she means by determine the apportionment is that the population numbers of the census are used to figure out how many congressional representatives a state should get in the House.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:36] Right. So the greater your population is, the more representatives you get in Washington, D.C. Also, how many electoral votes your state has. And that means every 10 years we redistribute. And when I read that Texas and Florida are going to gain seats in 2020, for instance, that's contingent upon census data.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:55] Yeah. And the United States was the very first country to constitutionally [00:12:00] mandate a census. And it's way up there. It's Article 1, Section 2 -- it's the enumeration clause, clause 3. And we were one of the very first to use the resulting population count from the census to decide how many reps a state gets in Congress.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:17] So the census is essential to how our government operates.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:20] Crucial, yeah. And think of all of the other ways that the census affects us, because it's not just how many reps you have in Congress or how many electoral votes you have. I mean, that is a huge part of the power element. But then the census also tells us how many men, women, children, married people, elderly people, people of a certain race, even adopted people there are in this country and where in the country they are.

[00:12:50] Remember, the census is people power and money.

[00:12:55] And here comes the money part.

Sharon Tosi Lacey: [00:12:57] The next is determine the distribution of billions [00:13:00] of dollars in federal funding and that affects what goes to hospitals, fire departments, roads, other resources like that. Billions of dollars are in the balance. The federal government determines where to send this money. They're going to put schools where there are children. They're going to put the roads where there are businesses and where there's houses. And without an accurate count. You're never going to be able to put those in the correct places.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:32] So if for some reason someone doesn't or whole bunch of someones don't fill out the 2020 census, it could mean the difference between having a school in your community or not?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:42] Or even just having a well-funded school in your community or not.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:48] Ok. So I would imagine that anything that is likely to deter someone from actually answering the census and making sure the population count of their community is accurate so that the community can therefore get stuff, that might [00:14:00] raise some red flags. I mean, this was part of the fear about the citizenship question. Right?

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:14:06] The Trump administration make this last minute request for a citizenship question which has not appeared on a census form for all households for decades.

[00:14:18] And so it would have been a very significant change if you were added and that was part of the debate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:24] Now, it wouldn't be legal for the census to, say, pass on information about individuals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or something like that, because they're actually laws in place to prevent the Census Bureau from sharing information that could identify you for 72 years after that information is collected. So it's not like answering honestly that you are not a citizen could have affected your ability to stay in the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:51] Yeah. But, Juan, if I'm worried about being deported, I'm not going to answer an official question about my status.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:58] Right.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:14:58] That is one [00:15:00] of the biggest challenges facing the census, because the Constitution calls for a total head count of every person living in the country, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status. If you're a resident of this country, the Constitution says we want to know you're part of this population count. But there are people who do not want to be counted and do not see the purpose of being counted, do not see the value being counted, and are worried that any information collected about them could be used against them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:35] There is a reason that ads like this --.

Archival: [00:15:37] In 80 million mailboxes across the USA, the Census is a'comin' to help us plan the way!

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:48] Exist.

[00:15:49] The Census Bureau has been trying to make the census inviting and non-threatening pretty much forever.

[00:15:55] Even if you don't somehow fear for your chances of staying in this country, this [00:16:00] is a document that asks for the essential facts about you.

[00:16:05] And we as a nation aren't typically thrilled to give that information up.

Sharon Tosi Lacey: [00:16:10] Well, it's funny you said that because I actually have editorials from 1790 where people complain the census was too intrusive and too expensive. So some things never change. So America was kind of founded on a little bit of mistrust of the government. So you always had these questions of why did the government want to know what's happening in my household? We saw this especially in 1810 when we started doing the census of manufacturing. And we had to assure people and it was in the legislation that nobody could identify their business from their answers. And that was kind of the beginning of the idea of confidentiality.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:46] The Census Bureau has to toe this fine line between hey there, we're your friendly pals the Census, nothing to see here. And also, please, please, please pay attention to us. We really need you to do this thing for the good of life in America.

Sharon Tosi Lacey: [00:17:03] The [00:17:00] census is here to make your life easier. So people shouldn't fear it.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:07] So basically, as it stands right now, the only thing that can hurt you about filling out the census is not filling out the census. It sounds like the basis of so much that we count on.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:17:17] Census is such a wonky, boring sounding word.

[00:17:24] But really what we're talking about is money and we're talking about power. And this is a concept. This is a requirement of the constitution that's mentioned before voting, before any mention of a president. This is fundamental to how we set up our representative democracy in the United States of America. And it also helps form our -- the reality that we live under for the next 10 years.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:55] Federal funding is tied to census data. The population of your state [00:18:00] determines how much your state can get for Medicaid. Medicare, funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. Funding for transportation. Funding for public schools. Funding for public housing.

[00:18:13] If the government has an inaccurate count of your state's population, that can mean losing out on hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:18:24] There are no do overs.

[00:18:26] It's -- it's a one shot deal. And I think if people realize that so much is at stake and it is again, about money, about power, I think everyone would become a census nerd.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:44] There's this ad from 1920, interesting in part because it focuses on new immigrants answering the census. Anyway. It ends on this line that made made me do a double take.

Archival: [00:18:55] And when job is over, town shows nation's population is one hundred [00:19:00] five million, all Americans.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:04] All Americans.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:05] Yeah, it's almost impossible for me to conceive of a tool that is so closely tied to government and politics that also cares more about your living here than it cares about your being a citizen.

[00:19:22] And that element was actually built into all this from the start.

Hansi Lo Wang: [00:19:29] You know, I based my reporting on on primary documents and then, you know, the primary document on the Census beat is the U.S. Constitution and, you know, Article 1, Section 2 does not use the word "citizen" when figuring out how to conduct a census.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:47] In my time, I've looked at a lot of old censuses from the 1900s and the 1920s. And to be fair, they did have language in there like where are you from? Where is your mother from? What language do you speak in your house? But [00:20:00] the census still operates under the assumption that if you're a person and you're here, you are counted.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:05] Yeah, and you know what?

[00:20:07] Sharon Tose Lacey told me that the Census Bureau will never ask about your legal status. Right. They'll never ask, like, are you here in the country unauthorized? Because for them, the thing that matters the most is how many of us there are.

[00:20:25] They have a job to do.

Archival: [00:20:26] We must have many facts about ourselves as a nation and as a people. The census is the machine we have jointly established for finding and publishing these facts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:55] Civics 101 was produced today by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice and [00:21:00] help from Jacqui Fulton and Sarah Ernst.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:02] Erika Janik is our executive producer and does it daily -- not decennial --enumeration of the entire radio station. Music in this episode by Jahzzar, Junior85, Sarah the Illstrumentalist and Scanglobe.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:12] You can find loads more helpful information about the U.S. Census at census.gov.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:19] And just a gentle reminder, December 31st is the deadline for our student contest. Give us your 60 seconds stump speech.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:25] You can find all of the information for that at civics101podcast.org/contest.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:26] Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio and is made possible, in part, by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Electoral College

When we vote for a president, we're not really voting for a president.

Today in our episode on the Electoral College, we explore the rationale of the framers in creating it, its workings, its celebrations, its critiques, and its potential future.

This episode features the voices of Northwestern Professor of political science Alvin Tillery, University of Texas Professor of political science Rebecca Deen, and former 'faithless elector' Christopher Suprun.

Click here for a graphic organizer for students to write upon as they listen to the episode.

Have a civics question you want answered? Click here to ask and we’ll do our best to answer!

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101

Electoral College

Adia Samba Quee: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Archival: [00:00:05] CBS now estimates because of victories in California, Washington, Oregon...

Archival: [00:00:10] CNN right now is moving our earlier declaration of Florida back to the too close to call column...

Archival: [00:00:22] He just has to carry one more state and that brings him to 270 electoral votes...Right. Right. And statistically, in terms of the polls overnight...

Nick Capodice: [00:00:30] I've loved this since I was a little kid.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:32] Me too.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:33] Staying up late, watching those states get colored in. But today, I want to talk about the real presidential election elections. I should say, fifty one of them. Held on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Archival: [00:00:49] We gather to follow through on the mandate given by the people on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (music montage) Welcome, electors, guests and students from around the state who are in attendance...it is an honor to greet our three electors...the state's four electors...for you, electors who may be moving about the chamber. Please be mindful of the uneven flooring at various places...I will now officially appoint the alternate elector...the votes are 10 votes. Donald J. Trump...You sold out our country.

Alvin Tillery: [00:01:37] Well, the framers were very skeptical of democracy, frankly. And so this is why they created this buffer. They didn't believe that the average person could get the job done in the voting booth.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:53] That's Alvin Tillery, a political science professor at Northwestern University. And I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:57] And I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:59] And this is Civics 101, the podcast refresher course on the basics of how our democracy works. And we don't always mention that tagline, Hannah. But today I have to. It is not to address whether we are a democracy or a republic or a representational constitutional democratic republican federation. That's something I'll leave to political scientists. But today we are talking about a very specific, very intentional barrier to direct democracy: The Electoral College. How it works, why we have it, and its potential future.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:35] Before you go through how it works, I want to go back to what Alvin said about the framers not being fans of democracy and wanting this buffer. Who even came up with the Electoral College?

Alvin Tillery: [00:02:48] Hamilton. The genius of the Constitution. The principal author of the Federalist Papers and star of Broadway musicals. It's Hamilton that that came up with the idea of the Electoral College in Federalist Number 68. He says explicitly that they need the Electoral College to prevent the mischief that would ensue from the masses voting for president.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:16] And so the popular vote, which is the sheer tally of all the people who voted in the United States, does not determine the presidency. Our system ensures that smaller, lower population states still have a significant impact on who gets elected. And if a candidate gets 270 electoral votes, that's the magic number, 270, they become president.

Rebecca Deen: [00:03:39] The Electoral College, first of all, it's not a college. It's not a place. It is the process by which we formally choose the president.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:48] This is Rebecca Deen. She's an associate professor of political science and department chair at University of Texas at Arlington.

Rebecca Deen: [00:03:54] When we go into the voting booth to choose either President Trump or the Democratic nominee in 2020, we're not actually voting for that person. We're voting for who that person's party have selected as a slate of electors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:11] This fact drives me crazy.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:13] Which one?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:14] That when I'm voting for president, I'm not actually.. the vote's like not actually for a president. That drives me crazy. It's for an elector. It's for a person, a person who isn't even on the ballot.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:25] Yeah. This is that firewall between the people and the vote for president. In December, that person that you didn't think you were voting for will cast their vote, usually, we'll get into this later boy howdy, usually for the candidate that won that state. It's a winner take all system, all the electoral votes in that state go to one candidate, even if the candidate won by the barest majority.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:49] So who are the electors? How do they get picked?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:52] Electors are usually chosen by their party at their state's nominating convention. Sometimes it's like more of an honorific position, like Bill Clinton was chosen in 2016 to be a elector for the state of New York. So he cast his electoral vote for his wife, Hillary. The electoral vote in December usually takes place at the state house and it could be just like 20 minutes or can be like a whole day long affair with songs and speeches and bells and whistles and ricketa-racketa.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:18] Ok. And how many total electors are there?

Rebecca Deen: [00:05:23] So there are 535 electors. And that's exactly the same as the congressional delegation. So every state has to that represents the senators and then they have as many as they have congressional districts. D.C. also gets three.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:39] So the grand total is 538. For example, New Hampshire has two congressional districts. We have two members in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.. So add that to our two senators and we have four, four electoral votes. Now, California has 53 seats in the House. So it has with its senators 55 electoral votes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:01] There are states who do it differently, right?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:03] That's right. Slightly differently, because Article 2, which is amended by the 12th Amendment, is what lays out the electoral college. But the rules about who the electors cast their votes for, that's left entirely to the states. This winner take all system is not in the constitution, which is why Maine and Nebraska are a little bit different.

Rebecca Deen: [00:06:24] And Maine in Nebraska do it kind of interestingly, the mechanism for allocating those electors is a reflection of both the state and the two congressional districts. Maine and Nebraska, both are fairly sparsely populated states and they have two congressional districts. So the two electors that represent the Senate go based on the statewide popular vote. But then congressional District 1, that elector representing that district goes for what that district voted for, and congressional district 2, how that person how that district voted. It's kind of interesting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:02] And the determination of how many seats in the House a state has that is based on population, right?

Rebecca Deen: [00:07:11] That's exactly right. So that leads to the next obvious conversation, which is the U.S. Census.

Alvin Tillery: [00:07:17] After every decennial census, we determine who lives where,  we do a count, and some states lose seats in the House and others gain. And so the seats move around as population moves around.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:32] And that number of House seats, it is capped at 435. It shall not raise or lower. the 2020 presidential election will use the electoral map based on the data from the 2010 census. We do a new census every 10 years in the U.S. and 2024 is going to be the first presidential election that apportions or assigns seats in the House and therefore electoral votes based on the new 2020 census. And according to projections from the election data services, New York's on track to lose two electoral votes and Texas and Florida are going to get 3 and 2 votes, respectively.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:06] Seriously?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:07] Yeah, the population in the south is growing and it has been for a long time. And now we come to what many consider one of the biggest critiques of the Electoral College, which is the question of who benefits the most from it. And Alvin said this has been an issue from the very start.

Alvin Tillery: [00:08:24] So that apportionment process, if you're a southern slave holder like Madison, counting your slaves who can't vote in that process is gonna tip the scales of not only the House of Representatives, but also presidential elections to the Southerners. And this is why so many of our first seven presidents, I think four or five of the first seven are Southern slave-owning men, right? And so this is part of the benefit that they get. But that process of apportionment is one that we still live through today, one we're fighting about today.

Archival: [00:09:02] Trump says he's working on a way to bypass a Supreme Court ruling and add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Alvin Tillery: [00:09:09] This is what Mr. Trump's citizenship question on the upcoming 2020 census is about. Well, if we can just count the citizens or add the question that will lead immigrants from Latin America, Asia and Africa to not answer their doors, to not answer correctly, and that will bolster the movement of seats away from them to white populations, white rural populations. And that's a good thing for the Republican Party.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:41] Okay. Is Alvin saying that the Electoral College continues to benefit one region or one party over another?

Alvin Tillery: [00:09:49] Yeah, I mean, it really is the power engine of the Republican Party today, is it? It explains a lot of their behavior. They are a minority party. Fewer than a third of the voting age population identifies as Republican. But when you look at where those persons are dispersed geographically has a result of racial segregation and Jim Crow, it gives them a huge advantage in the Electoral College.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:20] And of course, the reverberations of this is that it affects how presidential campaigns are run. And because we don't have a popular vote system, campaigning is a state by state business. During the run up to the 2016 election, 375 of the 399 campaign events were in the same 12 states. And in the first five weeks of the campaign, 33 states were totally ignored.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:47] All right. But if we did switch to a popular vote system, wouldn't that totally revolutionize the way that we campaign in this country?

Nick Capodice: [00:10:54] It would completely change how we campaign for president. It wouldn't even be in states. It would be in cities, high population cities. Candidates would spend all their time and ad power in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:07] Going back to what Alvin said about how the Electoral College currently favors one party. Is there any momentum to, if not abolish it, change how it works?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:20] Abolishing it or changing it would require a constitutional amendment. So that's two thirds of both houses. But it also requires three quarters of all states to get on board. And I don't think that the 14 lowest population states would really get behind a movement to remove their electoral power. However, Rebecca told me that there is a roundabout way that the system is being altered as we speak,.

Rebecca Deen: [00:11:45] And something that's very concrete that's going on is that a number of states have come together and they're almost all Democratic Party controlled states, they've come together and they've said if we can get enough states that would constitute 270 Electoral College votes to agree, then our electors will choose the popular vote, the person who won the popular vote nationally, even if my individual state chose the other candidate. So in other words, they're trying to make the Electoral College moot, right? They're trying to to make it inconsequential by saying if we can get enough people who would, enough states whose electors would reflect this magic 270, then we pledge that our electors will go with the national popular vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:45] Wow. How many states have agreed to do this so far?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:48] 15 states and Washington, D.C. So that's 196 electoral votes. And there's another workaround that hasn't so far really affected an outcome of an election, but it has certainly been in the news.

Archival: [00:13:02] Gregg Jarrett here in the strategy room, a Republican member of the Electoral College Christopher Suprun of Texas is vowing to cast his vote against Donald Trump.

Christopher Suprun: [00:13:13] My name is Christopher Suprun. I'm a paramedic, father and husband. And in 2016, I was the faithless elector from Texas.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:19] Faithless elector.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:20] A faithless elector. That is an elector who does not vote for the candidate that won in that state. So when the Senate certified the electoral count from Texas, Donald Trump did not get all the votes. Chris and another Republican elector had concerns about foreign interference in the election and they voted for someone else.

Archival: [00:13:40] It appears therefore that Donald J. Trump from the state of New York received 36 votes for president. John R. Kasich of the state of Ohio receives one vote for president Ron Paul in the state of Texas...

Christopher Suprun: [00:13:52] I was told point blank on the floor of the state House of Representatives that my career would be over. I would never be able to work with Republicans again. And at the same time, I was getting threats on Twitter saying, are you out of your mind? You can't possibly take those votes away from us. My, my children have been threatened. My wife's been threatened multiple ways, literally six days after the vote, we spent Christmas in a La Quinta. So the repercussions were serious, but people were very unhappy. We were trying to, quote, undo the election.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:23] So far in U.S. history, there's been 167 faithless electors. Though I have to add, 71 of those were from a very small amount of elections where the candidate had died before the Electoral College vote. But electors don't always have the choice to be faithless or faithful. 32 states have legislation that requires you to cast your vote for the state winner. And in most of those 32, your vote wouldn't even count. You're replaced by an alternate. This happened in 2016 as well. Three would-be faithless electors were replaced. And there is disagreement, Hannah, as we speak among the circuit courts on whether or not this is constitutional. And the Supreme Court is deciding right now whether or not it's going to hear the case. This could forever alter the legality of the faithless elector. When Chris was explaining his thoughts to me on the role of electors, he referenced where we started. The words of Alexander Hamilton.

Christopher Suprun: [00:15:18] Well, as a faithful elector, I obviously endorse the view of Federalist 68 that electors are not an accounting procedure. If they were, there would be no need to have people assigned to those roles. And an elector should vote their conscience if for some reason they think their party, gets it very wrong. If there's some cause that an elector feels bound, that they need to vote for someone other than the candidate they are, quote, assigned to. I think they should vote that way.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:46] There is a chance that in our lifetimes the Electoral College will be, if not abolished, altered by state legislation to work a different way. So to finish up, I asked Alvin, what are the arguments for keeping it? What are the arguments for getting rid of it?

Alvin Tillery: [00:16:02] Well, the arguments for keeping it remain the arguments for putting it in place in the first place. It leads politicians running for president to not ignore states like, I don't know, New Hampshire or Rhode Island or Wyoming, Montana, places where populations are smaller. If you can win a good combination of those states with tiny populations, you don't have to spend all of your resources in New York, Illinois, California and Texas. Right. So that's the argument for keeping it together. Arguments against it are that it has anti-democratic origins. But let's be explicit. The framers would be appalled by the way the Electoral College works today, right? The entire point for them was a bulwark against tyranny. The entire point for them was to have electors being faithless, right? Electors to be free agents. The point is that they would be electing people of high virtue that would be able to discern whether or not someone had the moral virtues and the sensibilities to lead the nation. And so this idea that we should have reforms to make it more democratic, I think that they would think that that's preposterous, right. And I think that on its face is the argument against it that we are so far removed from a society with these notions, these ancient and notions of virtue that were largely exclusionary, that we should just scrap it and let the people vote.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:59] Should we keep it should we leave it? Should we scrap it should we bleep it? Tweet us. Tweet your argument for or against the Electoral College @civics101pod. And that's about it. They'll just about do it. That's the end of the Electoral College and the end of our series on presidential elections. We're going to be back in two weeks with another episode. Today's show is produced by me Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:23] Our staff includes Jackie Fulton, Erica Jannik as our executive producer and the only vote that matters.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:28] Maureen McMurray majored in mischief at the Electoral College campus in Leominster.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:31] Special thanks to Jeanette Senecal from the League of Women Voters and Brady Carlson for all of his presidential knowledge.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:38] ABC Brady. Always Book Carlson.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:41] Music in this episode is by Chris Zabriskie, KieloKaz, Kariatida, Emily Sprague, Ikimashoo Aoi, Patrick Patrikios, and this is BAD SNACKS.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is a production of NHPR and is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Conventions

The primaries are over, the caucusing has closed, the results are in. Now it's time to party. Nominating conventions are, by and large, a chance for political elites to get together, network and celebrate. The American public has picked a presidential candidate and the convention is there to give it all some pomp and circumstance. But what are all those fancy folk up to in that convention center? And what happens if there is no clear winner after primary season is over?

Taking us out onto the convention floor are Domenico Montanaro (NPR Political Correspondent), Alvin Tillery (Northwestern University), Bruce Stinebrickner (Depauw University) and Tammy Vigil (Boston University).

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

CPB: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

ARCHIVAL: [00:00:16] Those opposed shall say no.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:00:21] The conventions are really cool.

ARCHIVAL: [00:00:25] In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:32] For years, every four years for my whole conscious life, pretty much, I have watched snippets of nominating conventions and thought to myself, what on earth is going on here?

Domenico Montenaro: [00:00:43] There's so much buzz in the air. There is anticipation.

ARCHIVAL: [00:00:47] We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare.

[00:00:52] Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hangs in the balance.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:58] It's three or four [00:01:00] days. And there are a bunch of speeches. And then states cast votes.

ARCHIVAL: [00:01:04] Alaska cast 18 votes for Governor Mitt Romney and 9 votes for Representative Ron Paul.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:13] There's always a celebrity or two, which, what is that about?

ARCHIVAL: [00:01:17] And I'm Sarah Silverman. And this past year I've been feeling the bern.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:22] And then finally, the presidential candidate nominee comes out and is like, I accept your nomination.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:01:29] The folks on the floor really want to hear from their nominee.

ARCHIVAL: [00:01:32] I accept your nomination for... your nomination... your nomination for president ... I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States of America.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:49] Which also baffles me because don't we already know who the nominee is. That's the point of primaries and caucuses, right? Is [00:02:00] anyone surprised here?

[00:02:12] And as it turns out, the answers to those questions are not really. Not really.

[00:02:19] And sometimes. It is time to take a trip into the enigmatic world of nominating conventions. I'm Hannah McCarthy, by the way.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:29] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:30] And this is Civics 101. And today we are talking nominating conventions. Domenico montanaro is kicking things off.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:02:37] I'm senior political editor and correspondent at NPR.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:41] When he was talking about actually going to conventions, I was so jealous.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:44] I know. Yeah, me too. Hint, hint. NHPR.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:47] You've been to a couple to the conventions.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:02:50] Yeah. I was a 2008, 2012 and 2016. So I've covered the last three. Been to both both times.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:56] All right. So we have these primaries and caucuses and the public [00:03:00] gets to weigh in and choose their nominee. Right. So what's actually going on at the nominating convention like? What is it? What's the connection between this big event and the state elections that preceded?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:12] That is the leap that I was having so much trouble making. But I think Domenico got me there.

[00:03:18] So I think -- I'm still -- I'm struggling with connecting the public's vote to what happens at the convention.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:03:26] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:26] To what degree does our vote actually decide who the nominee is?

Domenico Montenaro: [00:03:32] It pretty much does. I mean, you know, it's I think that for the fact that the party itself wants to make sure that the process is as open and egalitarian as possible and democratic little D as possible now than it has been in past years. Remember, it wasn't that long ago when they were doing smoky room closed door nominating fights where that had nothing to do with people's votes. And remember, this is the Democratic Party's [00:04:00] nominee for president. This is not you know, it hasn't always been a democratic process because it was the party establishment that got to pick who they wanted to represent them to be president. So this process has only really emerged in the last 30 to 40 years where they've tried to make it more so that people's votes actually helped select the delegates for the person who will become the nominee. Pretty much that is tracked with what the voter sentiment has been for quite some time as opposed to way back in the 60s and before that when they would go into a back room and select someone.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:39] So 1968. Right.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:04:42] Yep.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:42] Bananas.

ARCHIVAL: [00:04:45] There is nothing in the rules of the Democratic Party they have a right to check us every ten minutes.

[00:04:48] Peace now, peace now!

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:53] That was the convention that changed everything.

ARCHIVAL: [00:04:56] I'm looking down at Edwin Newman in the middle of a huge bunch [00:05:00] of security people.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:00] Right. 1968. Racial tension, protests. Dan Rather getting punched in the gut.

ARCHIVAL: [00:05:06] I'm sorry to be out of breath, but somebody belted me in the stomach during that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:09] Gave new meaning to the term floor fight.

[00:05:11] The 1968 Democratic National Convention revealed to the parties that the American public would no longer accept a closed nomination system, a system where party elites got together at these conventions to needle and negotiate and smoke cigars until they'd struck a deal and picked the person who would be on the ballot to appease the public. The parties would take the results of primaries and caucuses into serious consideration.

[00:05:35] The people would, if all went well, choose the nominee.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:39] If all went well, as in, things could possibly go awry.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:45] I guess it depends on how you look at it.

[00:05:47] So most of the time everyone goes to the convention knowing who the nominee is because the people have spoken loud, clear and in droves.

Alvin Tillery: [00:05:57] And so the person that wins the [00:06:00] most delegates at the end of the cycle should cross a threshold for the nomination.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:07] Here's Alvin Tillery, political science professor at Northwestern University.

Alvin Tillery: [00:06:11] Both parties set a numerical threshold. If you you need, you know, 3000 delegates by this point, you know, a week before the convention, then you will be the automatic nominee and the convention will be just be a big party.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:27] And this is what we typically see, right? Primaries and caucuses come to a close and we all hear who most of us voted for.

[00:06:34] And then we get to watch that person be nominated for presidential candidacy at the Democratic or Republican National Convention on television.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:41] Right. And it's worth mentioning, by the way, that some third parties also host conventions. There's the Libertarian National Convention, the Green Party National Convention. And the principles with the third parties are the same as with the major parties. You crossed the threshold in the primary and you are the nominee. [00:07:00]

[00:07:01] But there is a second the highly unlikely possibility.

Alvin Tillery: [00:07:05] If no one gets that threshold.

[00:07:08] Then we have what's called a contested convention, a.k.a. Christmas for political scientists.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:14] Well, merry Christmas, policy nerds.

Alvin Tillery: [00:07:19] Right.

[00:07:19] Because we get to watch all of the floor negotiations and we get to sort of talk about and think about what's happening behind the scenes and then the conventions on the floor, the delegates from the states. And this operates very much like the Electoral College. All of the states send delegates to these conventions and they vote what they think is best for the state. Who will be the best nominee?

Nick Capodice: [00:07:46] If the primaries don't have a clear winner, the people the conventions get to pick our presidential nominee?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:51] Bingo.

Alvin Tillery: [00:07:53] And in the old days before primaries. That's how you picked you picked just at the convention. The state parties would send delegates. [00:08:00] They would get into the convention hall and you'd have multiple rounds of balloting, six, seven rounds of balloting before you would get a nominee coming through the system.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:10] Fat cats scratching each other's backs and smoking cigars.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:13] Handshakes and horse trading.

[00:08:17] Now, this hasn't actually happened since 1952. And then after primary reform in the 1960s, it became super unlikely, but it is possible.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:28] What's it actually literally look like on the floor?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:31] Oh, OK. So if you watched a convention, you might remember the moment when the camera pans from state to state to state and a delegate takes the mic and brags about their state for a little bit and then reports how many delegates each candidate received in their state.

ARCHIVAL: [00:08:49] Madam Secretary, the volunteer state, the state with no state income tax burden on budget surplus and [00:09:00] a balanced budget. Our pro-life state proudly cast our votes 16 votes for Senator Ted Cruz, 19 votes for Senator Marco Rubio, and thirty three votes to make America great again for Donald J. Trump.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:24] So that's casting a ballot, submitting the votes for a candidate for the nomination. And the rules vary from state to state. There are superdelegates who aren't pledged to anyone. They can vote for whoever they want. And then in some states, if a candidate gets the majority of public votes in a primary, then every delegate goes for that candidate.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:44] So you're not going to have this Trump-Cruz-Rubio split. You just have every vote going to Trump.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:49] Right.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:50] How would you end up having to take more than one ballot?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:52] It rarely happens. But if after the first round of voting, no candidate ends up with 51 percent of [00:10:00] the vote. Then you have to go again. And in that situation, it stops mattering if a delegate is pledged to a candidate. They can start changing their minds and maybe casting a ballot for someone else.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:10:10] Somebody has to get a majority. You know, you might reasonably ask, does that ever happen? Are there ever first ballots where someone doesn't get the nomination?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:18] This is Bruce Stinebrickner. He teaches American politics at DePauw University.

[00:10:24] And he told us about this one time. The voting just went on and on and on.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:10:30] I think the last time it's happened was 1924. 1924 was the last time that either party needed more than one ballot to nominate their candidate. And it was the Democratic Party. Are you ready? I believe they had over 100 ballots. I didn't say two ballots or three ballots. I believe they voted about a hundred times over four or five days. That must have been fun.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:58] A hundred times. [00:11:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:00] I looked it up. It was 103.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:03] So in a case like that, you're just taking the public's vote and it's like you're throwing it out the window because you go from delegates who are pledged to a candidate to delegates who can now just go willy nilly and do whatever they please or be coerced or corrupted. It would be really exciting to watch.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:11:18] You will really enjoy a real life analog. It will be exciting. So will I. I mean, I'm hoping it happens. But in every year there's kind of this rumble of, oh, this is the year no one's going to win on the first ballot. But don't bet your house on that. I mean, the party organization and followers in general understand that anything other than a first ballot nomination is probably going to work to the disadvantage of the party in the general election.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:44] So, yes, a contested convention would be super exciting to watch, but it could get in the way of the other thing that's going on at a convention which has nothing to do with voting or the nomination.

Tammy Vigil: [00:11:56] That convention itself has not been the place where people choose [00:12:00] the candidates.

[00:12:00] This is Tammy Vigil, professor of communications at Boston University. The deal is because we've got primaries, because we pretty much already know who the nominee is before the convention even starts. Modern conventions are about PR.

[00:12:15] I mean, the convention is almost entirely speeches about what the Republican Party or the Democratic Party believes.

ARCHIVAL: [00:12:21] Who would trust Hilary Clinton to protect them? I wouldn't, would you?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:31] It's a lot of we collectively agree on this, guys, don't we? I mean, look how amazing we are. We're better than that other party and we're going to win.

ARCHIVAL: [00:12:40] They'll tell them -- they'll tell them how this time we listened to our hopes instead of our fears.

Tammy Vigil: [00:12:49] And then also testing out different planks of the platform and also giving voice to either rising stars in the party so [00:13:00] that they can kind of get a testing ground on the national level and showing respect for sort of the lions of the party. Right. That the grand statespeople.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:07] Let's pause here for a sec. The platform! So the convention is where the platform gets figured out. But what is the platform?

Tammy Vigil: [00:13:16] Yeah. So with the platform, it's really important because it's -- it gives a party something to rally around. It also tells people what the party stands for. So if part of your -- if one of the planks in your platform is, for example, women's rights was a part of several platforms very explicitly, especially in the 1970s and 80s. It tells you that this is something that's important to us. And then everybody can get buy in. And then messaging from both the actual candidate and then also all of the surrogates that are working for the candidate. They have a similar sort of starting point for all their messaging so that there's consistency across the board.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:54] Of course, even the platform isn't really the point, right.

[00:13:59] I mean, you don't really hear [00:14:00] a nominee going on about the party platform during the general election campaign.

[00:14:05] The platform, the networking, the clapping and the yelling and the balloons. I mean, a big part of that is just checking in with one another, making sure everyone is feeling good and coming together as a party.

Tammy Vigil: [00:14:20] So it's it's much more of a celebratory or confirmatory event now instead of a decision making event like it had been. So they're trying to put an hour up, very positive outward face on the party for people who are either undecided or people who are in the party that they can sort of rally. So there's there's that part of it. That's a huge part of them. In that way, it kind of is become sort of a very celebratory, jovial kind of event.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:48] Bruce Stinebrickner there actually likened the convention to spring break for politicos.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:14:51] Don't college kids go off to Florida in spring vacation and have fun with other college students?

[00:15:01] I think the answer is yes. [00:15:00] Wouldn't people who are interested in national presidential politics have a lot of fun go into some place all expenses paid and fancy hotels hanging around with other delegates? I think the answer's yes.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:14] Basically, it's like a giant party with thousands of people who are all into the same stuff you're into?

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:15:18] It would be fun to be a delegate at the national convention. There's a lot of wining and dining. There's a lot of speech giving. I'm sure there's a lot of partying.

[00:15:26] It would be fun. It would be a four day party with other people interested in politics.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:34] I got pretty deep into delegates in our primaries and caucuses episode just in case people are wondering how people actually get to the convention and how votes are apportioned out and all that jazz. So if you want to know about that, just give it a listen. But who are these delegates? Who are these people?

Tammy Vigil: [00:15:49] Sometimes it's, you know, people who worked for the campaign, help for a campaign or volunteered and then they get tickets in.

[00:15:56] It's really it's kind of interesting because it's not just delegates [00:16:00] who show up to the convention anymore. Sometimes you've got you get a lot of scholars who show up. You get a lot of celebrities. You've got people who have worked the campaigns who are just there for the sort of celebration and the experience of it all. Members of the party who aren't delegates, but are there because they're part of their party members. So it's not really just delegates only kind of event. It hasn't been that way for a long time.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:24] Getting to host the convention is like scoring the Olympics on a smaller scale. The security and the mess is a pain, but it brings in tons and tons of revenue and tourism. People will pay thousands of dollars for tickets, the DNC or RNC, especially if the candidate is really popular or it seems like some drama could go down on the convention floor.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:46] How do they choose the city for the convention?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:48] Well, look at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. The DNC chose Milwaukee. Now, they were also considering Houston and Miami, but they picked this smaller Midwestern city [00:17:00] in a state that up until the 2016 election was basically a Democratic guarantee.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:05] Right. Until Wisconsin voted for Trump.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:07] Right. So the DNC is saying, hey, we see you, Wisconsin, we're gonna show up for you in a major way. And then once a national committee has chosen a city, they appoint a convention CEO. This is the person who's going to be in charge of the day to day operations of this event and who pays for the whole thing. Part of the deal with scoring the convention is that the host city has to raise the funds for this big party. So they also form a committee. The DNC plans the thing and the host committee ponies up the cash tens of millions of dollars.

[00:17:44] I talked to Domenico Montanaro about the mood at these conventions, like the event feels really powerful and significant, even though the nominee is usually a foregone conclusion. And so much of the event is really dedicated to patting [00:18:00] yourself on the back and building camaraderie. And he said that actually the convention can potentially be a decent barometer of the campaign to follow an indicator of an unpredictable future.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:18:14] The difference between, let's say, in 2008 between the Democratic and Republican conventions was it was like the place was on happy pills at the Democratic convention because they just really loved their nominee. They felt like hope and change was in the air and that they were going to win in in that election.

ARCHIVAL: [00:18:31] During our national convention, we will demonstrate to all Americans why we need Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the White House.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:18:38] The campaign for John McCain.

[00:18:43] That convention was a little more dour because it started off with Republicans canceling the first few days because of Hurricane Gustav.

[00:18:52] If you remember that.

ARCHIVAL: [00:18:52] Fox News alert now from Denver to St. Paul, Minnesota, we're getting news now on the potential for some changes in the Republican [00:19:00] schedule starting on Monday.

Domenico Montenaro: [00:19:02] And that wasn't even a hurricane that was anywhere near St. Paul where the convention was held. But because they had such bleed over from Katrina, they didn't want to seem like they were being insensitive. So it just got off on a bad foot and really was indicative of what would happen during the campaign. So sometimes you can get a sense with what the energy is like at it, each place on how the campaign's gonna go.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:28] It seems like the modern nominating convention is simultaneously totally arbitrary and completely crucial to a campaign.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:37] Exactly. There is this thing called the convention bounce, where the presidential nominee usually gets a boost in the polls immediately following the convention. Bill Clinton got the biggest of all time back in 1992. He climbed about 30 points.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:53] I mean, it makes sense. America loves celebrity. And what's more aggrandizing than accepting the nomination [00:20:00] of an entire political party before millions of TV viewers?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:02] Yeah, we could, assuming there's a clear primaries winner, we could just go right into the presidential election. But then, you know, what would elections or the United States, for that matter, be without the pomp and circumstance?

ARCHIVAL: [00:20:27] Part of this great, great Republican family that will give the leadership...

[00:20:31] when I think back of all the miles and all the months and all the memories, I think of you and I recall the poets words...

[00:20:39] all those millions of Democrats and independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally...

[00:20:44] There are moments which cannot be completely explained by words, their meaning can only be articulated by the inaudible language of the heart. Tonight is such a moment for me.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:21] Before [00:21:00] we go, I want to talk about a presidential election in which not two, but three nominees employed completely different strategies in their bid for president.

[00:21:33] Walking us through it is, of course, Brady Carlson. All Things Considered host at Wisconsin Public Radio and author of Dead Presidents. All right. Brady, when are we.

Brady Carlson: [00:21:46] We're talking about 1992, which is as of now, the last time an incumbent U.S. president has run for re-election and lost. So it's been a while. So what happened?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:58] Oh yeah, that is super, super [00:22:00] rare. What in sam hill happened, Brady?

Brady Carlson: [00:22:04] Well, that's what makes this so interesting, because if you had asked somebody in, say, 1990 or 1991 what this campaign was going to look like, they probably wouldn't have guessed anything close to what actually played out. Remember that in 1992, Republicans have won all but one of the last six presidential elections, the last three in a row pretty handily and eight years before Ronald Reagan had won. Forty nine states on election night.

ARCHIVAL: [00:22:31] Reagan is our projected winner. Ronald Wilson Reagan of California, a sports announcer, a film actor.

Brady Carlson: [00:22:39] And at one point, it looked like George Bush was going to have the same luck when he ran for re-election during his term. Bush had led the U.S. through Operation Desert Storm in Iraq. And at one point during that episode, his approval ratings were like 88 percent, 90 percent. And he just really, really high. The Cold War was thawing. The Berlin Wall [00:23:00] was coming down. And at home, Bush had signed some pretty high profile bipartisan bills, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, this big budget deficit deal, the kinds of things that you can say, I'm getting stuff done to the American voter.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:15] All right. So Bush was in really good shape. People are like him, right? So where did it all go wrong?

Brady Carlson: [00:23:21] Well, the recession changed that. There was an economic expansion in the late 80s that slowed and then stopped. This is the time of the savings and loan crisis. Private mortgage banks were collapsing and there was a federal bailout. Technically, according to economists, the recession was not very long, but the recovery was slow, especially in key states like all, say, New Hampshire. And when the economy isn't doing great, usually neither is your approval rating. And remember that budget deal I mentioned with the Republican base, which had never loved George Bush the way they'd loved Ronald Reagan, was furious about it because part of the budget deal included [00:24:00] tax hikes. And when Bush had run for president in 1988, he said, read my lips: no new taxes.

ARCHIVAL: [00:24:07] Read my lips: no new taxes.

[00:24:13] I've watched that clip a lot of times because it was really, really important. It is what convinces a significant chunk of conservative grass roots voters to back an alternative Republican candidate, commentator Pat Buchanan. He challenges the sitting president and does pretty well. I mean, Bush gets the nomination. He's still the incumbent. And incumbency has its advantages. But it means that he has to pay more heed to the party's conservatives, including social conservatives, at a time that he's trying to show that he's in touch with average Americans concerns about the economy. Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan is telling delegates at the Republican National Convention that the country is in a cultural war.

ARCHIVAL: [00:24:59] It is a cultural [00:25:00] war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this war...

Brady Carlson: [00:25:08] All of which adds up to a president who had at one point been on track to easily win re-election, was now not such a sure bet.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:14] Which means that the Democrats must be like slavering at this point, right. They actually stand a chance and they never expected to.

[00:25:22] So who did they pick to go against Bush?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:24] The Democrats nominated the governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who was presenting himself as a new Democrat. Both he and his running mate were from the South. They weren't coastal or northern liberals. They were talking about revving up private businesses rather than just emphasizing spending on social programs. Now, Clinton is not a perfect candidate. Critics mocked him even back then for saying things like I feel your pain to voters or saying that he'd tried marijuana when he was younger, but he didn't inhale. Kind of trying to have it both ways.

ARCHIVAL: [00:25:55] I experimented with marijuana who didn't like it, and didn't inhale [00:26:00] and never tried it again.

Brady Carlson: [00:26:02] But he was able to present himself as a new kind of Democratic nominee, someone who could solve problems rather than just sticking to a party's ideology, that he cared about jobs and cared about the budget deficit. So it made it harder for Republicans to paint him as another version of, say, Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. He was something different, but he also wasn't the only challenger to President Bush in 1992.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:28] What? Who else?

Brady Carlson: [00:26:29] H. Ross Perot. A business executive worth more money than most of us would see in a lifetime. Loved to go on TV talk shows. A populist who opposed free trade and promised to shake up the political system and get things done. Perot's message, in short, is that we were doing government all wrong and I could fix it.

ARCHIVAL: [00:26:48] Now, if you can take four more years of this, God bless you. I can't.

Brady Carlson: [00:26:52] He also thought that campaigns were run all wrong. So instead of hiring the same consultants and placing a lot of campaign ads, [00:27:00] he would run campaign infomercials on cable TV. You'd see these programs where he'd sit there with a bunch of charts and talk about the budget deficit or the national debt or trade policy.

ARCHIVAL: [00:27:10] Seventy percent of our four trillion dollar national debt is doing payable in five years, and they do that keep the interest rates low.

Brady Carlson: [00:27:19] And because he was putting tens of millions of dollars of his own money into the campaign, he ended up with enough support to get into the nationally televised debates with President Bush and Governor Clinton. So for the first time, we had three candidates in the debates.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:31] That must have been so bizarre to watch.

[00:27:34] How did those play out?

Brady Carlson: [00:27:35] They were pretty memorable, to say the least.

[00:27:41] The most memorable moments from these debates reflected the narratives that were developing around each of these candidates. Clinton is the I feel your pain guy. He had pushed for a town hall style debate so that he could engage with the audiences. They'd tell him about their problems, about their difficulties, and he'd engage with them.

ARCHIVAL: [00:27:58] Tell me it's affected you again. You [00:28:00] know, people who lost their homes and lost their homes?

[00:28:05] Well, I've been governor of a small state for 12 years. I'll tell you how it's affected me.

Brady Carlson: [00:28:10] Perot, meanwhile, is giving snappy TV friendly answers about his top issues. At one point, he's asked, "you don't have any government experience. What about that?" And he says, "that's right. I don't have any experience running up a four trillion dollar debt."

ARCHIVAL: [00:28:23] Now, just for the record, I don't have any spin doctors. I don't have any speechwriters. Probably shows.

[00:28:32] I make those charts you see on television.

Brady Carlson: [00:28:34] For Bush, the people who thought he was out of touch with ordinary Americans saw him at one point sneak a look at his watch during the debate, which was a signal to those critics that this is a guy who doesn't really want to be here.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:47] You know what, Brady, the moment I see someone sneak a look at the watch, I'm done with them. It's not cool. I'm guessing that Clinton came out on top here.

Brady Carlson: [00:28:56] Clinton did indeed come out on top. He didn't get a majority of the popular vote. He got 43 [00:29:00] percent. Bush was at 37 percent. Perot more than 18 percent. But because generally whoever gets the most votes in a state ends up with their electoral votes. That gave Clinton a majority in the Electoral College over Bush. Perot didn't win any states. And while Bush's supporters called him a spoiler, analysts say he probably didn't cost the president his re-election. But that said, there were lessons from all three of these candidates and their campaigns that resonate even in to today. For Bush, it was taxes. The read my lips thing. The national conservative movement still points back to that 1990 budget deal saying we can't ever, ever, ever do this again, because politically, look where it got us. For Clinton, it was a line that they had put up in the campaign offices that sort of summed up their philosophy. And I'll quote, It's the economy, stupid. You'll still hear pundits on cable news talking about that line today. It's been the rallying cry of the Clinton wing [00:30:00] of the Democratic Party for decades now that if you follow the lessons of 1992, don't tack too far to the left. Focus on economic issues. Talk about the middle class and the party will win for Perot. Here's the lesson from those infomercials and his many appearances on TV interview shows that there's a path forward for populist outsider candidates to bypass the usual political circles and the usual media circles as well. You just go straight to disaffected voters and say, I'm your man. All of which sounds pretty familiar even today. And one more note about these three candidate debates. This is one of the few times where the vice presidential debate becomes memorable because you add Vice President Dan Quayle. You had Clinton's running mate, Senator Al Gore, and then you had former Admiral James Stockdale. That was Perot's running mate, who would later say he hadn't been fully briefed by Perot's unorthodox campaign. And so the opening [00:31:00] line, as he's introducing himself to the country as the candidate for vice president, is a line for the ages.

ARCHIVAL: [00:31:08] Who am I? Why am I here?

Brady Carlson: [00:31:14] And unfortunately, that's like the one thing that anybody remembered about Stockdale running for vice president, but still, at least he got one line out there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:33] Civics 101 was produced this week by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. We got help from Ben Henry and Jackie Fulton.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:40] Erika Janik is our executive producer and chair of the Shearing Season in East Cumbria National Committee.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:45] Maureen McMurry can throw a crazier party than your national convention any day.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:50] Music in this episode by Florian Decros, KieLoKaz, Scott Holmes and Chad Crouch.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:55] And hey, by the way, are you a social studies or government teacher who managed to get all the way [00:32:00] to this part of the credits? First of all, bless you. Second of all, we need your help. We're hiring educators to make high school level activities and lesson plans to pair with Civics 101 episodes. And you might be the right person for the job.

Nick Capodice: [00:32:14] If you're interested or you know someone who is, just drop me a line and we can chat about it. It's nick@civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:20] Civics 101, in addition to being fueled by all of you, is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Impeachment

We have never actually fired the President of the United States. But we sure have tried. It’s the biggest job in the country, so the road to termination is a long and fraught. What happens after Congress initiates the process?

What is impeachment? How does the process play out?

Our brilliant friends Linda Monk (the Constitution Lady), Frank Bowman (author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors) and Dan Cassino (Political Science Professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University) are our guides to the Big Show.

Click here for a graphic organizer for students to write upon as they listen to the episode.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

CPB: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: [00:00:08] The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.

DAN CASSINO: [00:00:15] Chief Justice Rehnquist, when he was presiding over Bill Clinton's impeachment trial famously decide he wanted fancier robes for it because was gonna be on TV. And so he saw a local production of a Gilbert and Sullivan play.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:00:27] This is the music from that operetta.

[00:00:29] by the way, it's Iolanthe.

DAN CASSINO: [00:00:30] And wanted the robes from that

[00:00:32] so he had special robes made with special stuff on the arms because we really liked to from Gilbert and Sullivan,.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: [00:00:37] Two thirds of those senators voting and a quorum being present, not having voted in the affirmative. The motion is not agreed to.

DAN CASSINO: [00:00:45] But the important thing, remember, is all of this is being made up as we go along. And so when they're impeaching Bill Clinton, they go, I don't know what are we supposed to do? Let's see what they did to Andrew Johnson. And they just follow that same playbook to try so they can go and claim, oh, there's precedent for all of this. This is just like Andrew Johnson. So we just keep on doing these things. They made up in the 1860s for no apparent reason. And we wind up with people dressed like they're in Gilbert and Sullivan.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: [00:01:07] On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 38. Division 3 of the motion is agreed to.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:01:18] I'm Nick Capodice.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:01:20] I'm Hannah McCarthy.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:01:20] And this is Civics 101, and we're interrupting our ongoing series on presidential elections to bring you this special episode on impeachment.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:01:28] We try not to let current events dictate the content of our show, but it's not every day that the House begins an impeachment inquiry.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:01:36] Yeah.

NANCY PELOSI: [00:01:36] I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:01:42] That's House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing just that. So today we investigate the history, the precedent and most importantly, the process of impeaching a president. First, here's Dan Cassino. He's a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University. He's the one who was talking earlier about Rehnquist's robes.

DAN CASSINO: [00:01:59] So our most recent example of remove from office is G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Louisiana.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:02:08] G. Thomas Porteous Junior. He was a Clinton-nominated federal judge, impeached and removed from office in 2010. And as to who can be impeached? The Constitution says the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States. Those civil officers aren't defined, though. But so far, the House has impeached 15 federal judges. Secretary of war two presidents. Of those, only eight individuals were removed from office by Senate conviction, and they were all federal judges.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:02:38] Can members of Congress be impeached?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:02:41] No, they can't. The Senate decided this amongst themselves in 1797 and the trial of William Blount. Senators and representatives can be expelled or censured. But they don't need to be impeached. So today we are going to focus on presidential impeachment.

DAN CASSINO: [00:02:56] We've had two presidential impeachments in history. A lot of people think Richard Nixon was impeached. He was not. He was about to be impeached and then he resigned.

RICHARD NIXON: [00:03:03] I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as president, I must put the interests of America first.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:03:20] So the only two presidents who have been impeached were Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. And here's where we come to our first linguistic distinction.

[00:03:31] Impeachment does not mean removal from office. It's the name of the process that can lead to removal from office.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:03:38] To be fair, people have often used the word to mean removal from office.

LINDA MONK: [00:03:44] You know, this is part of my job as your friendly neighborhood constitutional scholar to make sure that we get the the nomenclature, and therefore the constitutional language, correct. Cause it matters.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:03:58] This is Linda Monk, constitutional scholar, author of "The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide," and one who often tells us that the words in the Constitution matter and we should not be careless with them.

LINDA MONK: [00:04:09] And the sloppier people get the sloppier they become about their responsibilities under the Constitution, I think. That's that's my little wet noodle reprimand for the day,.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:04:22] Wet noodle reprimand taken.

[00:04:24] So where should we begin the process? The history.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:04:26] First I asked Linda to start with the process.

LINDA MONK: [00:04:28] We can't start with the Constitution, my favorite? I take it the answer is no. And I'm appalled.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:04:39] Of course, I acquiesced and asked her to start with the Constitution.

LINDA MONK: [00:04:41] Starting with the language in the Constitution itself, which is spread out in several places, but it says very specifically that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:05:02] The House levels charges. The Senate holds the trial.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:05:05] Right.

LINDA MONK: [00:05:06] And if the president's involved, the chief justice will preside in the Senate. And two thirds of the members present have to agree for a conviction and that if they are convicted, the only penalty is removal from office in disqualification to hold any other office. But the person can still be prosecuted under law for any criminal offenses.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:05:32] Ok, so if you're convicted after impeachment, the punishment is just removal from office. If there are criminal charges, that comes later.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:05:39] Yeah.

LINDA MONK: [00:05:39] Remember that an impeachment is an accusation.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:05:41] And those accusations or charges are called articles.

LINDA MONK: [00:05:46] That's what it boils down to. And then only if the Senate agrees to that accusation is someone removed from office.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:05:55] All right. So now I want to know what kind of accusation can be levied against a president. What justifies impeachment?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:06:04] Sure.

[00:06:05] Time to jump into that hot, oft revisited chamber in the Pennsylvania State House in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The framers were debating about impeachment and Ben Franklin made a joke along the lines of, "anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause because the only alternative is assassination."

[00:06:24] So some argue that impeachment was necessary because you could just vote the president out at the next election. But impeachment becomes a tool for when you cannot wait. Charges must be addressed and the charges that justify impeachment are in Article 2 of the Constitution. Here's Dan again.

DAN CASSINO: [00:06:42] Article 2 was a part of the Constitution that sets the presidency,is really, really short. The reason it's short is number one, because everyone knew George Washington was going to be the first president. They also knew that no -- that we didn't know how to set up what the powers of the president should be. If we make the president too weak, what's the point of having a president? If we make him too strong? Well, now you've got a dictator. So the deal was we'll just make George Washington present and we'll let him figure it out. So Article 2 is super vague. It doesn't say how impeachment's supposed to work.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:07:12] And they had a little bit of trouble coming up with a list of actions that warrant it.

FRANK BOWMAN: [00:07:16] The first problem they had with respect to the reach of impeachable conduct was whether it even to define it.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:07:23] That is Frank Bowman. He's a law professor at University of Missouri and author of the new book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump."

FRANK BOWMAN: [00:07:33] I mean, after all, Great Britain'd gotten along for, at that point, four centuries without an actual definition. The framers were at an age with a kind of a rage for written constitutions and actually writing things down. And so they decided now we need to actually have a definition of what we think impeachable conduct should be. And over the summer, the definitions changed and I won't go through all of them. But by the end of the summer and in September, the various committees involved that had come down to just treason and bribery.

[00:08:04] At that point, a guy named George Mason from Virginia stands up and says, don't like this treason and bribery, far too narrow. It doesn't cover a lot of things that we would certainly want to be impeachable. Certainly doesn't cover a lot of things that people in Great Britain impeached people for. It's not -- it's not broad enough. So he said, well, it should be treason, bribery or maladministration. And which, by the way, was a word had often been used in British and early American practice.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:08:35] Then James Madison stands up and he says, "I don't much care for maladministration. It's a vague, broad term and Congress can just use it to impeach anyone they fancy."

FRANK BOWMAN: [00:08:45] Whereupon George Mason comes back and says, all right, you don't like maladministration. How about high crimes and misdemeanors? Everybody looks around the room. Okay, great. High crimes and misdemeanors. And there really isn't much more debate about it than that. At that point, though, of course, I suspect there probably was. We just don't know. But what they were plainly doing when they accepted without too much conversation high crimes and misdemeanors, is they were accepting what lawyers would call a term of art which had been in use in both British and frankly, American practice, for hundreds of years.

[00:09:16] And so what we can infer from that probably is that at least from the point of view of the framers, they were saying, well, in addition to treason and bribery, you can impeach people for the kinds of stuff that Parliament has been impeaching people for for the last 400 years.

DAN CASSINO: [00:09:31] People think high crimes and misdemeanors a weird term, right? Because high crime think okay, murder, that's a high crime or misdemeanors, like, jay-walking and so it doesn't seem to work that you've got high crimes and misdemeanors, but that's because we're passing the phrase incorrectly. Right, the Constitution has treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's high crimes, but high is an adjective that's modifying crimes and misdemeanors. So it's high crimes and high misdemeanors. So high misdemeanor is a minor abuse of power. So under British law, this was something like if you were the captain of a ship and you didn't put down your anchor properly, that could be a high misdemeanor because you abused the trust that the Crown has given to you. So that's what I mean by high crimes and misdemeanors. It's all about abuse of power in some way. And they throw this in the Constitution and they never bothered to explain exactly what they meant by it.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:10:19] All right. So high crimes and misdemeanors sounds a bit nebulous, but can we define the other two, treason and bribery?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:10:28] Yeah.

FRANK BOWMAN: [00:10:28] Treason is actually the only crime that is defined in the constitution itself. And it is defined very narrowly. Essentially it is getting -- giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

[00:10:47] Next thing is bribery, which means pretty much exactly what you think it means. There's technical issues about what bribery means, but it means pretty much what you think.

[00:10:57] And of course, what it really is about is the core concept of corruption in office.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:11:05] So now we've got the why. I'm still muddy on the how. Being that the process isn't defined in the Constitution, how does it happen? Who defines the rules?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:11:17] The rules for the steps of impeachment, the process, everything that's not in the Constitution is created by the House and the Senate. And the most recent rules summary from the Congressional Research Service says here's the current three steps. Step one, the process is initiated. Step two, Judiciary Committee investigation and writing up of the articles of impeachment. And step three, the House considers the articles of impeachment. So step one, initiation of the process. The speaker of the House can announce an inquiry, as Nancy Pelosi has. But more often any member of the House can initiate impeachment by submitting a resolution through our old friend, the Hopper.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:11:53] The wooden box that called all our bills and resolutions to be.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:11:57] Right. It's just like a regular resolution or piece of legislation. And it's worth noting that first step has happened a lot. Truman, Reagan, both Bushes and Barack Obama have all had impeachment resolution submitted against them.

ARCHIVAL: [00:12:11] One Texas congressman calling for Obama's possible impeachment.

[00:12:15] George W. Bush in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:12:22] None of those got to the second step.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:12:25] Which is where we are now.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:12:25] Which is where we are now. At the moment of this taping, Speaker Pelosi did both steps, one and two, at the same time, she announced an impeachment inquiry and assigned the House Intelligence Committee, along with five other committees, to begin an investigation. And they'll report their findings to the House Judiciary Committee.

LINDA MONK: [00:12:41] The Judiciary Committee is one of the standing committees of Congress that considers anything regarding constitutional amendments, constitutional process, judicial nominations. And it is the place where a formal impeachment, meaning something that's ultimately voted by the full House begins.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:13:09] They can then draft and markup, which is the term for making edits on legislation these articles of impeachment. Just like committees do for any legislation. And if they report it out, which means they bring these articles for consideration to the House floor, it jumps ahead of all other proposed legislation and it gets a floor vote.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:13:26] Really?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:13:27] Yeah. It gets priority seating.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:13:29] So what percentage of the vote do they need to go forward with it?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:13:32] It just takes a basic majority, it has to be over 50 percent. If more than 50 percent of the House votes to approve these articles of impeachment, that person, that official, is impeached.

[00:13:44] And then we go to the fun part, the Senate.

ARCHIVAL: [00:13:48] Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye.

[00:13:51] All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibi -- exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:14:10] The Senate holds a trial, but it's not really like a criminal trial that we're familiar with.

DAN CASSINO: [00:14:16] Senators are acting essentially as the jury. They're going to side with a two thirds vote, two thirds of those present, not of all senators. They're gonna decide with a two thirds vote whether to remove the individual from office. The not gonna do anything else. They can't put him in jail or anything. All they can do is remove him from office. So two thirds vote removes from office and you're then going to prosecutors. Well, the prosecutors are gonna be appointed by the House Representatives. These are called, in modern era, impeachment managers. The House of Representatives appoints a few people, and those people are gonna present the case to the Senate for impeachment.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:14:45] Who are these impeachment managers?

NICK CAPODICE: [00:14:47] They are members of Congress. They are appointed under the discretion of the Speaker of the House.

DAN CASSINO: [00:14:51] The president is also allowed to have his own lawyers there. His own lawyers basically arguing as defense counsel, presiding over all of this is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now, the problem is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn't actually have any power. Not like a judge in actual trial, because the rules for the impeachment trial are set by the Senate. So whenever the judge makes a decision about what the rules should be or rules of evidence or whatever, he can be overruled by a majority of the Senate.

[00:15:19] So it's as if the jury was able to overrule the judge in the middle of the trial.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:15:22] To understand the trial in the Senate, it's easy to equate it to a criminal trial. Right. The House managers are prosecutors. The president has lawyers for the defense. The chief justice is in charge. But that's not really an entirely fair analogy, because it's not a criminal proceeding. This is a very particular type of trial. And it's not like anything else we see. The senators can call witnesses. They do cross-examinations. They question the House managers and finally they vote. And as Dan said, it requires a two thirds majority in the Senate voting for any of the articles of impeachment. If that two thirds majority is achieved on even just one article, that official is removed from office.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:16:09] I think I struggle with impeachment a little bit because it's like this nebulous thing, it has the echoes of a criminal trial, but it's a political process that feels, like Dan said at the beginning, like it's being made up as we go along.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:16:26] Yeah, and that's understandable also because it's so rare. An impeachment trial in the Senate has only happened 19 times in U.S. history.

HANNAH MCCARTHY: [00:16:37] Right.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:16:39] As usual, Dan Cassino gave me some sort of cold comfort of this process, a way we can look at it where we feel we might actually have some power.

DAN CASSINO: [00:16:49] So in terms of the politics of impeachment, impeachment is a fundamentally political process. And because of that, it is driven by public opinion. If the process is popular, if people want it, it will happen. If the people don't want it, it will not happen. It may seem like things in the world are spiraling out of control. But historically and in the present day, this is driven entirely by the public. The public is really running everything. And public opinion in these cases can shift amazingly quickly. We saw this in the case of Richard Nixon, where it was certain he was not going to impeached and then he resigned. We saw this in the case of Bill Clinton, where there was pressure for impeachment until people actually read the Starr report and then it evaporated. Public opinion can shift very, very quickly. But public opinion is what is driving all of this. Your voice matters in this. So however you feel about it.

[00:17:42] You call your representative, you talk to pollsters. That's going to be decisive in what actually happens in this or any other impeachment trial.

ARCHIVAL: [00:17:48] Two thirds of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty, the Senate.

[00:17:53] adjudges that the respondent, William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the second article of impeachment.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:18:06] Well, that's impeachment. Two thirds the Senate has voted to remove us from the studio.

[00:18:11] Today's episode was produced by Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy, who's currently doing an interview on the census next door. So here's Erika Janik, executive producer and the one who tried to get me to cut the part about maladministration.

ERIKA JANIK: [00:18:22] I told you to cut it, Nick, but I have to say, you did make it work.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:18:26] No maladministration in this office? No, sir.

ERIKA JANIK: [00:18:29] Civics 101 staff includes Ben Henry and Jacqui Fulton. Maureen MccMurray sings Modern Major General at staff holiday parties.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:18:35] Music in this episode comes from the unparalleled Blue Dot Sessions, who I once said we use like a barbarian uses healing potions. Also Mirobelle, Jesse Gallagher, Pictures of a Floating World, Lobo Loco, Florian Del Cros, Emily Sprague and Iolanthe under the direction of Sir Malcolm Sargent.

ERIKA JANIK: [00:18:50] We now return to our presidential election series. Never miss an episode. Subscribe to us on Apple podcast or wherever you do that sort of thing, or visit us online at civics101podcast.org to download transcripts, sign up for our trivia-laden newsletter or any number of a host of other things.

NICK CAPODICE: [00:19:09] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Primaries and Caucuses

It's one of the most democratic aspects of our nation, not to mention extremely recent. In this episode we explore the snarled history of how we select party nominees; from delegates to superdelegates, and from gymnasiums in Iowa to booths in New Hampshire.

This episode features political scientists Bruce Stinebrickner (DePauw University) and Alvin Tillery (Northwestern University), NPR's Domenico Montanarro, Iowa Public Radio's Kate Payne, and Lauren Chooljian from NHPR.

Also, Brady Carlson takes us through the least-suspenseful election in the history of the United States.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101

Primaries and Caucuses

[00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:04] Let me run a little thought experiment by you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:08] Alright, run it on by

Nick Capodice: [00:00:08] This one comes from Bruce Stinebrickner.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:00:10] I'm Bruce Stinebrickner, I'm a professor of political science at DePauw University.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:15] He told me to imagine it's the first game in the World Series.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:00:18] And there's going to be, let's assume it's going to be the Yankees, which is often the case with respect to the American League.

[00:00:25] Derek Jeter!(clap clap clapclapclap)

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:00:25] And let's assume they're going to be playing the Dodgers. So it's an old Yankees Dodgers World Series.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:33] Ah the old Yankee Dodgers World Series.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:00:36] I don't think the Yankees organization,  New York Yankees, are going to hold a vote among all the Yankee fans in the country to decide who's going to be the starting pitcher for the first game. And they chose Nick. They chose you. That would be ludicrous. And yet that is the analogy of what gets done in the presidential selection, nomination process.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:04] I'm Nick Capodice, the worst pitcher in the world.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:06] I'm Hannah McCarthy, and I'm slightly better at it.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:08] And today on Civics 101 in our presidential election series, we're talking about primaries and caucuses. The elections before the elections. The unique way we choose nominees. Yes, it may be ludicrous for baseball, but in politics, it's called democracy. So first off, when you choose a candidate's name in a primary or caucus, you're not technically voting for that candidate.

Domenico Montanaro: [00:01:35] Well, when it comes to a primary process, you're actually voting for a delegate. I'm Domenico Montanaro. I'm senior political editor and correspondent at NPR.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:45] And those delegates, about 4700 for the Democratic Party and 2400 for the Republican Party, they go to the convention and that's where they pick the official nominee.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:55] And the person that the delegates vote for at the convention, it's who the public voted for.

Domenico Montanaro: [00:02:00] It's based on the public's vote, but they're actually not required to be fixed to the public vote. Some places do require some of them to be fixed. So if somebody and oftentimes they wind up being that way anyway, because the candidates submit a slate of delegates. In other words, they submit the names of the people who they would want to be at the convention for them. And they do that to guarantee that those people don't wig out on them and, you know, go in and vote for somebody else.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:33] Most of the delegates are called pledged delegates who will on the first ballot at the convention vote for the candidate that picked them. But the Democratic Party has this fun thing called superdelegates. There's about 700 of them.

Domenico Montanaro: [00:02:48] A superdelegate is an elected leader or party official who gets a vote in this process. The Democratic National Committee has selected who those people would be. So if you're a member of Congress, you're a senator or governor. And also, they have these sort of higher level superdelegates who are former elected officials and dignitaries like former President Bill Clinton, for example. He would get a vote. Jimmy Carter. He gets a vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:17] So the Republicans don't have superdelegate.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:19] They do not. Hannah, I know you're gonna go into conventions in great detail in your episode, but just for a bare understanding, the delegates all vote at conventions. Whoever has a 51 percent majority gets the nomination. If there isn't a 51 percent majority, then they have to have a second ballot. The 2020 election is gonna be the first time that superdelegates do not get to vote on that first ballot.

Domenico Montanaro: [00:03:40] Their votes, however, would count on a second ballot. That could make things very, very dicey and interesting when it comes to a floor fight at the convention. If it comes to that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:50] Ok. That is what we're choosing in a primary or caucus. But what is the difference between the two?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:56] OK. Here's Bruce again.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:03:58] So you're very question wants me to distinguish between caucuses and primaries as two different instruments in the nomination process. And that's fine. I can do that and I will. But the bigger point is, by world standards, either caucuses such as which occur in Nevada or Iowa or primaries which occur in New Hampshire and California in New York. Either of those is simply a remarkable political phenomenon.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:25] And he did explain the difference, but he wanted to make something very clear to me at first.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:04:30] But don't. But don't ignore it. Don't ignore my friend. How unique either is if you introduced the most restrictive caucus system that's used in the United States in one of these 10 states, if you move that to Britain or Canada or Japan or India, other functioning democracies, it would be a democratic revolution.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:51] Why?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:52] Because nobody else does it this way. Primaries have been proposed in some countries and some positions around the world are subject to primaries, but not president or prime minister and almost nobody else caucuses.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:05] So why do we? Is this just the way that we've always done it?

Nick Capodice: [00:05:08] No. This is a relatively new phenomenon in America. The way things used to be, Party elites selected our nominees for president. Yes, regular voters choose who's going to actually be president, but they couldn't choose who would be on the ballot in the first place. And at this time, we have to mention our old standby, the early part of the 20th century, the progressive era. I mean, we're talking progressive politics. You know where we're going, right Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:37] Take me to the Badger State.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:38] You got it. Always with the Wisconsin! In Wisconsin in the early nineteen hundreds corrupt party bosses were, they were picking all the local candidates. And so reform-minded progressive politicians start to pass legislation that the people should have a say in the nominees. And as we know, states are laboratories of democracy. Florida starts to have its first. Primary in 1901. Wisconsin has a primary in 1905. And by the 1960s, we got 14 states who have primaries. And while those primaries gave momentum and public support for candidates, by and large, the party still picked the nominee.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:19] But then we get to 1968.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:06:28] In 1968, the Democratic Party changed the rules, you know about this?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:33] You do know about this.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:34] I do know about this.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:35] What was going on in 1968?

Lauren Chooljian: [00:06:39] Vietnam.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:41] This is Lauren Chooljian. She's an NHPR reporter and she's a co-host of the podcast Stranglehold.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:06:46] Democrats had nominated somebody who didn't perform as well in the primaries.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:53] That somebody who won the Democratic nomination was Hubert Humphrey by the way. Humphrey did not win a single primary. He got 2 percent of the national primary vote. He had just focused his campaign on states that didn't have primaries and he won the nomination.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:07:08] And of course, there are a lot of things. I mean, Robert Kennedy got killed doing this. I mean, there's a lot going on. Basically, what happened was in after the 68 convention, Democrats were like party bosses have run this game for a long time. It was party bosses who up until 68 chose the nominees, even if they performed well in the primary, the party bosses could say, "eh"  do whatever they need to do, like strong arm people to make that happen. Well, in 68, as you may have known, a lot of  people protest in Chicago, the DNC in Chicago, because they're angry. They're angry with government. They're fed up.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:50] And protests were happening outside of the convention, but there was chaos inside. There was fighting amongst delegates. Dan Rather got punched in the stomach.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:08:08] And so the Democratic Party was like, OK, we cannot have middle aged, middle class white men determine who picks our nominee for president. The real people out there need to have more of a say. So that switch was huge. And then the Republicans that would, the Republicans then go along with this rule change as well, I should say. And that is why we have people like Jimmy Carter in 1976,.

[00:08:33] The Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:08:37] Who had no clout, no connections to party bosses, was like hardly known by anybody. He was like just the governor of Georgia at this time. He like was involved a little bit in national politics, but not a lot.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:47] And Carter goes on to campaign like crazy in Iowa. New Hampshire sweeps them both in 1976 and becomes president.

[00:08:53] We went out early and not many people cared who I was. We had to shake hands with everybody at the Portsmouth shipyard. And everybody that came, I had to explain who I was and what I was running for.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:07] All right. So primaries and caucuses have been around for a while, but they didn't really mean much until recently.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:14] Yeah, and now the difference. Here's Bruce Stinebrickner again.

Bruce Stinebrickner: [00:09:18] Caucuses. Caucuses are different from primaries in that primaries are state government run elections. The state government of New Hampshire runs the New Hampshire primary. The state government of California runs the California primary. Caucuses, such as in Iowa, Nevada. Those caucuses are run by the party organizations of the states. So they are not official government elections.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:49] We have a primary here in New Hampshire.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:50] We do. We have a very special one which we are gonna get to

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:53] How many states do primaries or caucuses?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:57] Hoo! Not only are the rules and methods different in every state. There's no federal law about primaries and caucuses. The rules can change every election. In 2016, 14 percent of pledged delegates came from caucuses, but in 2020, it's going to be around 5 percent.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:13] Why are states dropping caucusing?

Nick Capodice: [00:10:15] Because caucuses, frankly, take a lot more work than a primary for the party and for the voters. We're now down to only six states who do caucuses. You must you just simply must look up how your state runs its primary or caucus. Some states only let you vote in the caucus if you're registered as being affiliated with the party. Some states don't. Some states have same day registration. Some states take you off the rolls if you haven't voted in a certain amount of years. You just gotta look it up.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:40] I think I got it. Caucuses are run by parties in a state, primaries by the state government. They both choose delegates for the convention. And every state is different.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:54] You got it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:55] But what actually happens in a caucus?

Nick Capodice: [00:10:57] Ok, for this one, let's go to the first nomination contest in the country.

[00:11:04] People, if you choose to try to find one more person caucus and we allow more time.

Kate Payne: [00:11:12] Something I didn't really anticipate or fully understand until I came up here was how fraught the process can be for some people, like some Iowans really just don't like having to be yelled at when they're trying to vote.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:36] This is Kate Payne. She works for Iowa Public Radio and she's the co-host of the podcast Caucusland. A caucus is not filling out a bubble in a voting booth. A caucus is held in a school or a library or meeting hall. All across the state. And they take hours. And big surprise, the Republicans and the Democrats do them completely differently.

Kate Payne: [00:11:56] So for the Republicans, they use a secret ballot. So sort of writing down a candidate's name on a piece of paper or tossing it into a hat kind of idea. So surrogates will get up, defend their candidate folks, write down their names. Democratic caucuses are where a lot of back and forth and the political tug of war happens. So folks have seen, you know, those videos of dozens or hundreds of people yelling at each other in an Iowa gymnasium somewhere.

[00:12:28] What are you doing to make sure you invited people come over to John Edwards? People I know. I'm going to talk to each one of these candidates. John Edwards is the right man for president. We're going to get them over. Clinton supporters? Oh, yeah. What are you doing to make sure the Biden people come over? Kidnap most of them. You know what? A lot of times chloroform works, when you knock em out and drag em over...

Kate Payne: [00:12:48] That is a Democratic caucus. So at a Democratic caucus, the candidates surrogates will get up, defend their choice, and then it's up to all of those individuals in the room to then choose their candidate physically stand, you know, and some corner of the room with their candidate's supporters.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:11] So they're standing in corners of the room. But how do they winnow down the field?

Kate Payne: [00:13:17] So each candidate has to get at least 15 percent of all of the folks in the room. If they don't, then those supporters have to realign. They have to choose a different candidate.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:29] And Kate told me that is the beauty and the horror of the Democratic caucus. You're not hiding behind a secret ballot. You're taking a literal stand.

Kate Payne: [00:13:39] Individual Iowans defending their choice to other supporters. Sometimes their, you know, family, friends and neighbors defending their choice and trying to get other people to come over to their side. So that's that back and forth, hashing out argumentation about which candidate is better prepared, what are their policies, really? It's that interaction that is essential to the caucuses.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:16] And then eight days later, we drive into our own home state for the New Hampshire primary, which, according to the state law of New Hampshire is, "the first contest of its kind." This is what Stranglehold the show that Lauren hosts with Jack Rodolico, this is their rockin theme song, by the way, is all about. New Hampshire being first in the nation.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:14:39] FITN is like a hashtag and a lifestyle around here for like the political class.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:43] If you live in New Hampshire, you can physically shake the hand of just about every single presidential candidate because the New Hampshire primary gets so much press.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:14:53] Now, this is seems crazy, but New Hampshire has a very low number of delegates, so each should not rationally get the amount of coverage and media presence that it gets for its contests, because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of delegates that are coming for New Hampshire versus the amount of delegates in California, Texas. It's like not even comparable. However, because we are first Iowa's the first caucus, but because we are the first primary, Iowa and New Hampshire get an incredible amount of media attention. That then makes it seem like they get all this momentum going into the rest of them. And it makes it seem like we are much more important than many of the other states because it's the first real chance that candidates are going in front of real voters. And it's the first time we, as Americans are saying, oh, this is what our neighbors in these states are thinking. But the reason why New Hampshire is like, yeah, we're first, even though Iowa is the first contest, is because we're the first time people are actually going into a voting booth and making it a choice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:50] Okay. So now I have to ask, I know Iowa and New Hampshire are first, but what does that actually affect? You know, how often does it determine the nominee?

Nick Capodice: [00:16:02] Since about 1960 New Hampshire has picked the nominee for the Republicans in all but three elections, Democrats much less often. But Lauren told me that a win in New Hampshire or in Iowa can be a fast track to the White House. And she gave me the example of Bernie Sanders in 2016, who won in New Hampshire. And without that win, he might not have lasted as long as he did in that campaign. And this is all because we are first.

Alvin Tillery: [00:16:30] Ah yes. The first mover advantage.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:34] This is Alvin Tillery. He's a political science professor at Northwestern University.

Alvin Tillery: [00:16:38] So they are. They are the first two states in the the nominating system, and they have a ton of power to shape the way in which subsequent states consider who's a viable candidate. And so that's why they're so important. Some people say that the dilemma with Iowa and New Hampshire is that their populations, you know, don't mirror the the nation.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:06] And when Alvin says Mirror of the nation, he's referencing the fact that Iowa is the sixth whitest state in the union. New Hampshire is the fourth. And while the United States is about 60 percent white, those two states are about 90 percent. Which brings us to this question.

Alvin Tillery: [00:17:25] If you lose in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't know, for racial or gender reasons. Will the national media proclaim you a loser before you get to a place like South Carolina or California where you're much more likely to find support? And so, you know, there's been a debate about whether or not those two states should remain should keep their their their order.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:52] So why do we keep doing it this way? Why can't we have a national vote?

Nick Capodice: [00:17:57] That's exactly what I asked Lauren.

Lauren Chooljian: [00:17:58] Because New Hampshire and Iowa won't give it up, dude.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:03] Honestly, I can't. You just can't. Can't everyone agree that this is not truly a Democratic process?

Lauren Chooljian: [00:18:08] No, they can't agree. Which is what what I just explained to you. They like people in New Hampshire, like we want to be first, Iowa people want to be first. They don't want that. You know why they don't want that, for the most part is because a lot of people believe the nationalized primary then just becomes a TV primary. Then you don't have to, as a candidate, go and face voters, you know, one on one and be like, what's your question about like, what's your big issue like? Oh, it's health care. Let me give you my plan. Oh, you want Medicare for all? Well, here's why I do or don't believe in that. Or like you don't like Obamacare? Well, neither do I. Like those. You know, they're not. This is per the argument of these people who believe that a national primary would be bad. Their argument is like, then it's not real. Then it's not...then the real people don't really have as much power because then this campaign is going to be held in, you know, airports where they're like, I'm here in Nevada, but I'm not really I'm just like stepping off an airplane then I'll fly somewhere else, or it's it's, the campaign is done in commercials, you know, and then it becomes a cost thing. And then, you know, somebody who can't raise a lot of money doesn't even have a shot because they can't pay for the major ad markets in California or whatever.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:06] I can't forget Bruce's insistence that this is the most small 'd' Democratic nominating process in the world. But it seems like New Hampshire and Iowa just have a lot of power. Has anyone floated potential alternatives to this.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:23] A few things have been floated, like everybody has the primary on the same day, but also maybe doing a rotating first in the nation primary. So like every four years, there's a different set of states that goes first. And while that doesn't have a ton of momentum to change right now, there are some things changing about how we do primaries and caucuses. We can just opt to not do them at all.

[00:19:50] That's President Trump discussing his Republican challengers for president just moments ago. Several states are canceling their GOP primary elections and Kansas is one of them. The president says he had nothing to do with that.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:02] As of this moment, four states have canceled their GOP primaries. There's probably more to come. All those delegates will automatically be pledged to Donald Trump. And this is not unprecedented. In 2012, the DNC canceled 12 primaries during Barack Obama's re-election. But one difference is that in 2012, there weren't any serious significant challengers to Obama. And Domenico Montanaro said that this year there are.

Domenico Montanaro: [00:20:26] And that's a big reason why they're canceling primaries. They don't want to embarrass President Trump if there winds up being a significant chunk of the vote that goes to somebody else, like a Mark Sanford, the former governor of South Carolina. They don't want to have that kind of embarrassment, that media storyline, and eventually potentially hurt the president's chances of re-election.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:54] Before we go. Brady Carlson, author of the fantastic book Dead Presidents, is going to take us through one of his favorite presidential elections in U.S. history. What do we got today, Brady?

Brady Carlson: [00:21:04] Today, we're looking at the election of 1820, which at least on its face, was one of the most predictable and least suspenseful elections in American history. Here's the short version. James Monroe runs for re-election unopposed and wins.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:21] Nobody? Nobody opposed him. Just one candidate on the ballot.

Brady Carlson: [00:21:25] Just that one.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:26] Just for the.... You gotta put somebody up there, you know, just for appearances.

Brady Carlson: [00:21:30] You'd think, right. But this seemingly dull rubber stamp of an election actually has a lot more to it than it seems at first glance. So when I was reading president books as a kid, the way I understood 1820 was that James Monroe was just so popular that the country began what is sometimes called the era of good feelings. And so they re-elected him nearly unanimously in the Electoral College, nearly unanimously because one elector cast his vote elsewhere so that George Washington could have the singular honor of being the only president elected unanimously. Here's, though, how it actually played out.

Brady Carlson: [00:22:08] James Monroe was president at a time when the early American political parties were dying out. There were the Federalists who wanted a stronger federal government like the second president, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton of musical fame. They were opposed by the anti federalists who were mostly also called Republicans in their time and are known best today as Democratic Republicans.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:30] Terrible branding, first of all.

Brady Carlson: [00:22:32] Yeah, agreed.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:33] I know generally where Democrats and Republicans stand on issues, specifically social issues today. But what were those two big parties about?

Brady Carlson: [00:22:41] Well, very broadly, the Federalists were mostly based in the north. They represented industry and cities and they wanted stronger ties with England. The anti federalist Republicans were more southern, more rural. They wanted closer ties to France instead of England, and they were much more skeptical of the federal government. The key here was that the anti federalists had support in the most important state in the country. Virginia In the first 36 years of the U.S. presidency, a non Virginian was president for only four years. There were three Virginia presidents elected back to back. They were called the Virginia Dynasty, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. The Republican Party was growing and growing. The Federalists were declining to the point that by 1820, there wasn't enough of a party left to even field a presidential candidate. So when the Electoral College met, nearly all the votes went to the only guy in the race. And in Massachusetts, one of the electors who voted for Monroe was John Adams, one of the original leaders of that opposition Federalist Party.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:43] I did not know that former presidents could be electors. Stubborn old John Adams cast his ballot for the opposition party?

1776: [00:23:51] "Will someone shut that man up? NEVERRRRR!"

Brady Carlson: [00:23:54] And you see why there's this idea that this was the era of good feelings. But was it? I mean, 1820 was the year without a contested election, but it was also the year Congress had to engineer what was called the Great Compromise to head off this growing regional tension about slavery and whether or not to expand slavery as the country was expanding. And even in the very lopsided Electoral College count, there was a hint of opposition or dissatisfaction in the air. There was the faithless elector from New Hampshire called William Plumer, a former U.S. senator and governor. And later he would be a founder of the New Hampshire Historical Society. Well, he had reservations about casting his vote for Monroe, but it wasn't because he wanted George Washington to be the only president elected unanimously. That story I'd read was not true. He wasn't a huge fan of the Monroe administration. And while he knew he wasn't going to change the outcome of the election on his own, he thought he had a plan to make his protest vote count.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:52] So let me have it. Who did he cast his protest vote for?

Brady Carlson: [00:24:57] He voted for John Quincy Adams, who was Monroe's secretary of state. And his thinking was, this is a guy who someday should be president. So he was kind of floating Adams name to the political class, kind of hinting about who they should back in the next election in 1824. And as it turned out, much of the political class did get behind Adams in that election. But by then, the idea of having a bunch of powerful elites choosing each successive president for the rest of the country was not very popular. And there was a war hero, an aspiring president out there called Andrew Jackson, who decided to launch his own populist movement to stand against the political classes. He eventually and very pointedly named that movement the Democratic Party.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:44] So this extremely boring election with only one candidate and one political party essentially leads to a complete new era of U.S. politics.

Brady Carlson: [00:25:54] Yeah it's kind of the opposite of E Pluribus Unum, you know, out of many one. In this case, it was out of one many.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:01] Brady, thank you so much.

Brady Carlson: [00:26:02] My pleasure. Thank you.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:09] That's Brady Carlson, author, host of All Things Considered on Wisconsin Public Radio. That'll just about do it for today. We'll keep coming out every two weeks as long as you keep listening. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice and you Hannah McCarthy thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:24] Our staff includes Ben Henry and Jacqui Fulton. Erika Janik is our executive producer and reminder that it's pronounced Nevada, not Nevada.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:32] Maureen McMurray has no delegates, but she gets a lot of media attention.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:36] Music in this episode by Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions, Chris Zabriskie, Audio Hertz,  Meydan, Lee Rosevere, The Grand Affair and Junior85

Nick Capodice: [00:26:44] And we say it once, but we'll say it again. If you're a teacher and you ever want to use any of her shows in your classroom, drop us a line. Visit us at civics101podacst.org/info for various and sundry supports.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:54] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

How To Run for President

The job description is pretty sparse, the laws are convoluted and the path from A to Z seems fraught with peril. So how does a person go from candidate to nominee to Leader of the Free World? We asked some heavy hitters for the inside scoop on running for President.

Settle in for a long and strange ride with Former Governor and Democratic nominee for President, Michael Dukakis, CNN political analyst Bakari Sellers and founding partner of Purple Strategies, Mark Squier.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

[00:00:00] Civics 101 is brought to you in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:11] Nick and I are a little nervous, in part because Michael Dukakis is not answering the door.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:18] Seems to be another door.

[00:00:20] Maybe this could be one of the two houses that are next to each other.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:26] Good morning.

Michael Dukakis: [00:00:27] Good morning.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:29] Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts from 1975 to 1979 and then from 83 to 91.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:37] And in 88...

Archival: [00:00:38] It did not come as a surprise, but Michael Dukakis did make it official today, declaring his candidacy for president. Dukakis made his formal announcements and...

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:46] He also happened to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

Michael Dukakis: [00:00:51] My fellow Democrats, my fellow Americans.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:55] Atlanta, Georgia, July 21st, 1988.

Michael Dukakis: [00:00:58] 16 months ago, [00:01:00] when I announce my candidacy for the presidency of the United States, I said this campaign would be a marathon. Tonight with a wind at our backs, with friends at our sides and with courage in our hearts. The race to the finish line began.

[00:01:36] Did a great job on the primary, unfortunately, screwed up the final. Which was a very winnable race but didn't do the grassroots stuff and made a decision which turned out to be pretty dumb decision that I was not going to respond to the Bush attack campaign. You know, keep it positive. This that and the other thing. You want to keep it positive.

[00:01:57] But if somebody is going to hit you with stuff, you've [00:02:00] got to have a carefully thought out strategy for dealing with it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:04] Governor Dukakis did not win the 1988 election. George H.W. Bush did. And yes, there were attack ads and they were pretty rough. But that that is not what we are here for today.

[00:02:20] We want to try to explain to listeners what is really, truly like to run for president. I think maybe we should start with what it takes.

[00:02:32] I mean, what kind of a person can reasonably endeavor to do it? What does it take to do it?

[00:02:41] Not sure there's a clear definition. I mean, we all have our own story. I'm a greek kid, parents came over...

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:49] Michael Dukakis' story? He's the child of Greek immigrants, grew up in a Boston plagued by racial and religious tension. And early on, he was affected by the injustices he saw in his community. [00:03:00] He went to college, served in Korea, went to Harvard Law, and then he got himself elected to the Massachusetts House of Reps. From there, he became governor of Massachusetts.

[00:03:11] And in his third term, people started coming to him with a question. Was he interested in running for president?

Michael Dukakis: [00:03:20] And I said, look, I kind of want to enjoy this victory. At least until the end of the year. And I'll take a look at it, but it's 90 percent and I am very happy doing what I'm doing. And if I said, OK, I'm going to take three months.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:40] And the question Dukakis is asking himself at this point?

Michael Dukakis: [00:03:44] I mean, is it a job I can do?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:46] Are you ready to be leader of the free world?

Michael Dukakis: [00:03:49] First three months, I'm just going to spend time meeting with people whose judgment I respect and saying, look, is this something I really should seriously consider? [00:04:00] And I don't I don't want to. I want you to sugarcoat this thing. I mean, is it a job I can do? I was serious about it. I mean, it's kind of a pretty big assignment. You know?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:11] Now, wait.

[00:04:12] I agree. That's a very important part of the process. A very big question to answer. But how you actually get the job, how do you literally run for president?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:24] Luckily, Nick, that is exactly why we are here today. So let's get to it already. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

[00:04:30] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:30] And this is Civics 101 on the presidential election.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:34] Today, the campaign, how do you run for president? How does this operation actually happen?

[00:04:39] The only job description is in the Constitution. Article 2, the executive power shall be vested in a president.

[00:04:46] But how do you know if you're really right for the job? How do you know you're supposed to do?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:51] I mean, aside from the constitution, we don't really have a job description.

Michael Dukakis: [00:04:55] Yeah, but if you've been in politics as long as I was, I mean, you've got a pretty good idea of what the president does and [00:05:00] it doesn't hurt to been a governor.

[00:05:02] But I can tell you that you can't be a very good president and come from Congress or the senator or some other place.

[00:05:12] But it doesn't hurt to have been responsible for managing government and picking good people, which is so important.

[00:05:22] It's this is a people business and the quality and caliber of the folks that you pick as a chief executive are just the most important thing you've got to think about. That gives you a nice kind of experience base, but it's a big job.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:47] It helps, obviously, to have a sense of what running things like a government really looks like. I mean, all but one president, Donald J. Trump, has had some military or government experience before running. So it's not a necessity, [00:06:00] but it is a plus.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:01] And I know there are certain requirements.

[00:06:03] You have to be a natural born U.S. citizen.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:06] Mhm. Which pretty much means born in the United States for the intents and purposes of a presidential election.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:11] And you have to have been living in the United States for at least 14 years.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:14] No recent expats, sir.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:16] And you got to be 35 years old.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:17] I'm out, you're in.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:19] A gentleman never reveals his age, unless running for president.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:22] Next step, the Federal Election Commission says that there are a few things that you're allowed to do before you actually become a capital C candidate.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:30] Is this where the exploratory committee comes in? Bunch of people trying to figure out whether or not you're a viable candidate for the party?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:37] Exactly. Otherwise known as a testing the Waters Committee, you can conduct polling. You can make phone calls, travel scope out the field, even raise money under an exploratory committee. So long as you are not campaigning.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:49] A-huh.

[00:06:52] So you're basically saying you can campaign without campaigning.

Bakari Sellers: [00:06:56] The worst kept secret of anybody running for office is when they do an exploratory [00:07:00] committee. I've never I've honestly never seen watching politics my entire life. I've never seen anybody have an exploratory committee that didn't run for office.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:08] Bakari Sellers, folks, a beloved repeat guest and CNN political analyst. Here's the story with exploratory committees. The FEC says you can't raise more than five grand while you're sniffing around the presidency because that triggers the candidate label. But an exploratory committee gets an exemption. They don't have to file financial reports so long as the potential candidate is not an official candidate.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:32] So by exemption, you mean loophole.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:34] Yeah, but the second it is somehow clear to the FEC that you aren't just dipping a toe in the water. You are at risk of being called out as a candidate. This can be because you've raised way too much money.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:45] But they have no way of knowing that since you're not reporting anything.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:48] We're just not going to touch that one. That's Civics 606 campaign finance law. But you can also tip the FEC off by going on TV and slipping up and calling yourself a candidate [00:08:00] or making a sign that says Capodice 2020.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:04] It feels so a hazy still and unofficial.

[00:08:08] You're a candidate and you're calling yourself a candidate. This has happened for real. What's next? What's the actual thing? What's the actual thing that says, I am running for president?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:18] The actual thing?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:19] Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:20] The forms. Yeah. Your forms. you have form one and form two. That's statement of organization and statement of candidacy. You can't file one without the other. You've got the committee that's trying to elect the candidate and you've got the candidate itself.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:36] This committee. Are we talking about PACs, political action committees?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:40] Well, we could be. There is space to register a PAC on form one. But what you need to know is that candidates have their principal committee that's subject to contribution limits. And then there are, quote, independent PACs that can raise unlimited funds in support of though not technically affiliated with [00:09:00] a candidate. And let's get one thing clear here. You want to be president?

Bakari Sellers: [00:09:05] So, I mean, I think the number one rule about campaign money is to raise as much of it as you can. I mean, that that would be if you're trying to run for office now, that would be my number one rule. Right. And and people always say, well, why do we get money out of politics? Great idea. Absolutely phenomenal idea. But until that day comes. Raise as much money as you can.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:23] Money does not necessarily mean a political action committee. Grassroots fundraising can and does make a difference. But suffice it to say, you've got to come by money one way or another if you're going to get your face and your voice plastered around the country and you maybe have to be a little crazy, too.

Bakari Sellers: [00:09:41] Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, well, that's very narcissistic process and sociopath. Anybody running for president of the United States who believes that the entire country wants to follow you and choose them to be the leader of this great country has a slight dose of psychopathy. Because you don't just. I don't mean this to sound funny, but [00:10:00] when I speak to people around the country, especially young people, and they tell me they want to run for office, they ask for advice, and I say, have you ever met anyone who's halfway pregnant? And the answer to that is no. Either you are or you're not. There's no sticking your toe into politics. It's all consuming.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:19] I think it can sometimes be easy to forget that inside these shiny, quaffed, suit wearing stump speech making candidates are human beings. And when you enter the race, you are gobbled up by it. The campaign becomes everything.

[00:10:36] Right.

[00:10:37] Ok, the campaign. So first we have primary season, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:40] Right. Before you can get onto the ballot for president, you have to be nominated for president by your party. And in order to be nominated, you have to prove that voters are going to want you.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:51] Iowa State Fair, even corn dogs, kissing cows in New Hampshire, talking to folks in barns. We watch this stuff play [00:11:00] out every four years. We do. But -- but how do you get from that antiseptic form one and form two to flying around the country and fair food and trying to make everybody love you?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:12] You have to start by finding the people who know what they're doing and you have to get their buy in. People like Mark Squier who look for someone who really wants the job.

Mark Squier: [00:11:22] So I would say sort of an initial one is that sort of fire in the belly.

[00:11:27] Mark is a partner at Purple Strategies, a communications firm that prides itself on going for the bipartisan approach. Before that, he worked on campaigns, notably Howard Dean, who ran for president back in 2004. You may remember him by his scream.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:42] You didn't ask him about the scream. Did you ask him about the scream?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:44] He brought it up.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:46] What'd he say?

Mark Squier: [00:11:47] And I know you're going to ask me about the scream and I'll get into that later.

[00:11:51] But.

Howard Dean: [00:11:51] And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:58] Now, when Mark thinks about [00:12:00] taking a candidate on, he tries to evaluate whether they have a shot of convincing people that they are the one.

Mark Squier: [00:12:06] We remember when when the government came in and told us that he wanted to run. And I don't know, at that time, Bush looked completely invincible. Right. It was it was like, who is going to take this guy on? Because his the invasion in Iraq had been fairly successful and people were feeling okay about that. The economy was OK. And and, you know, Governor Dean was like, listen, I want to do this just because I want to talk about health care. And I've been a governor and I'm a doc and I got something to say about it. And we're like, okay, great. And we'd been with him for quite a while through his governors races. And eventually what happened was he took off like a rocket ship and we had to make a decision as a firm, frankly, just to go get on board and move to Burlington.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:52] So the campaign starts off kind of romantic, but, you know, it can't stay that way. You might start with fire in the belly, [00:13:00] but then you have to start playing by the rules. You have to do Iowa. You have to do New Hampshire. You have to play to the voters and you have to find the people with cash. Oh, and you're basically building a temporary business while you're at it.

Mark Squier: [00:13:15] You know, in Howard's case, you know, we were initially sort of a lot of people that had worked on this governor's race based in Burlington. You know, and eventually you have to set up shop in Des Moines, Iowa and New Hampshire. And then eventually these things keep going. You can then get sort of some field offices. There are satellites in those two states. And -- and then maybe you're starting to look at South Carolina, Nevada now.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:37] So I'm assuming this is the principle campaign committee who's doing all this work? But where do the PACs come in? Like when you see an ad attacking one candidate or puffing up another one, and at the end, it says something like paid for by the Freedom Lovers PAC, not authorized by any candidate, like it or not. Don't you just need people flooded with TV coverage? If you can't ask a PAC for help, how do you get one on board?

[00:13:59] You're hoping [00:14:00] that they're going to come in. And to that point, what we would do is go forward and let's say what we knew in the campaign when you did, you know somebody out there making a case against our opponent while we were also making a case for ourselves because voters didn't know enough about us. And let's just keep our fingers crossed that somebody comes on. On the other side and starts going after the opponent. So that's a way of saying, you know, we don't we can't coordinate, but we're certainly winking at each other saying, hey, we take this road, maybe somebody will take this route. But, yeah, the laws are very specific about that, that they can't just come in and buy a candidate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:40] And even when you've got the PACs, TV and radio are peppered with your face and bad voice overs and intimidating music, you still need to talk to voters. There's this huge machine swirling around you, but you have to kiss the babies. You have to nod solemnly when someone tells you about losing the job at the factory. [00:15:00] And Mark says that voters can tell when someone is just glad-handing them.

[00:15:05] So the campaign staff has to keep an ear to the ground.

Mark Squier: [00:15:07] And then we'll figure out sort of what it is the voters need to hear. And then the job of us together is to marry those two things up in a way that's authentic and credible and that hopefully gets people to vote for you. But yeah, I think too often there are some candidates who just expect it to be packaged and marketed. And I think fortunately, I would say most of those campaigns tend to fail because I think voters do give voters a lot of credit. I think they can sniff this stuff out. And I think most of the time they can they can they can figure it out and make the right choice.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:45] So let's say you're telling voters exactly what they want to hear and they're responding well and things are starting to seem real palpably possible.

[00:15:54] Does the campaigning then start to shift?

Mark Squier: [00:15:56] And I remember probably about three weeks before [00:16:00] Iowa finally went that that I began to think, wow, you know, this might actually happen because like another example, you know, you go from like, you know, booking the candidate and one person on a small airplane to fly around from Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Des Moines to Iowa City. Right. To. Well, there's now enough interest in funding in the campaign. And the press wants to follow you that you now have, like, you know, a 737 jet that flies everybody, including the press corps, like a mini Air Force One, if you will, from, you know, Iowa and New Hampshire to South Carolina.

[00:16:38] You know, in those initial days.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:39] Mark says the campaign does begin to take on a life of its own. Success breeds success. And we're gonna go all the way on primaries and caucuses and conventions in later episodes. But the long and short of it is just like Mark said. People start to think you might win and that means you get votes in the Iowa caucuses, you get votes [00:17:00] in the primary.

[00:17:01] Enough people in enough states think that you might actually stand a chance against another candidate and suddenly you find yourself standing behind a podium at the Democratic National Convention.

Michael Dukakis: [00:17:11] Mr. Chairman.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:17] Accepting the nomination for candidacy for president of the United States of America.

Michael Dukakis: [00:17:22] A few months ago, when Olympia Dukakis front of about a billion and a half television viewers all over the world raised that Oscar over her head and said, OK, Michael, let's go. She wasn't kidding.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:41] And everything changes.

Bakari Sellers: [00:17:44] Oh, they changed drastically. Oh, they changed so quickly.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:47] Bakari Sellers, again.

Bakari Sellers: [00:17:48] Your campaign goes from a campaign of maybe 40 people in your headquarters, 80 people in your quarters in these states around the country to [00:18:00] 300 people in your headquarters.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:04] Bakari says that very quickly, you have to be everywhere. It isn't just you anymore. You are part of something bigger now.

Bakari Sellers: [00:18:12] You merge operations with your party. You merge with the RNC or the DNC. You go from being one hundred million dollars, 200 million dollar operation to a billion and a half dollar operation. You spent all this time eating like fried Snickers and stuff like that in Iowa. And now you're in Florida. Every other day in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio. You know, Pennsylvania. Running a primary and running a general. It's like apples and avocados. Like there's no no similarity.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:46] The way you approach voters has to change, too. Time is running out.

Bakari Sellers: [00:18:51] You're trying to message, you're trying to strategize. You're trying to make sure that on election day you have all of those people come out. So that becomes that never comes a point when you stop trying to strategize to [00:19:00] woo voters. That happens usually around October and at the beginning of October. There aren't many undecideds. There are people who you can convince to vote for you. They're people. People don't make their decision in October. Who they're going to vote for in November make that decision is already made. So in October, you switch over to what's called G.O.T.V. strategy, which is get out the vote strategy, and that's when you implement and try to figure out how you can get all those people from their couches to the ballot box.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:27] Picture Michael Dukakis fresh off his nomination. He's vetted and chosen a running mate, Lloyd Bentsen.

[00:19:33] And now the pressure is really on because he is playing for the biggest job in the country.

Michael Dukakis: [00:19:42] Once you win the nomination or the guy wins his nomination, now one of the two of you is going to be the leader of the free world.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:52] So in 1988, Michael Dukakis had proven to Democrats the country over that he could really possibly win.

Michael Dukakis: [00:20:00] And [00:20:00] everything you do for the moment you get outta bed to the moment you go to sleep is just subject to more enormous public scrutiny beyond anything you've had, even in a state that takes its politics very seriously with a very active and aggressive press corps, as this one is. I mean it's just a whole different ballgame.

[00:20:18] And I think one of the things that happens, it's almost inevitable, is you should got to way everything you say, everything you do.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:29] And it's just you and one other person under the microscope, in the pressure cooker.

[00:20:33] One on one debates.

Archival: [00:20:34] Because it's gotten a little ugly out there. It's gotten a little nasty. It's not much fun sometimes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:41] Constant media attention.

Archival: [00:20:42] Do you feel that Michael has offered made his medical records public? Look, I'm not going to pick on an invalid.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:47] Attack ads.

Archival: [00:20:49] What else could it have been but these ads that drove up Michael Dukakis's negatives in the eyes of independents and Reagan Democrats?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:54] And of course, in the end there can only be one.

Michael Dukakis: [00:20:59] I called Vice President [00:21:00] Bush and congratulated him on his victory.

Michael Dukakis: [00:21:06] Did a great job in the program, and unfortunately screwed up the final, which was a very winnable race but didn't do the grassroots stuff and made a decision which turned out to be a pretty dumb decision that I was not going to respond to the Bush attack campaign. Keep it positive, this, that and the other thing. You want to keep it positive.

[00:21:28] But if somebody is coming at you with stuff, you've got to have a carefully thought out strategy for dealing with it. And I basically said, we're not going to do that. And it hurt me. Badly.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:40] It's just so much to go through it and possibly not make it to the end.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:46] Yeah. When we were speaking with Governor Dukakis and he was telling us this story, I just had to know what that does to you.

[00:21:55] Did you become disillusioned with politics through that process?

Michael Dukakis: [00:22:01] No. [00:22:00] Never have. You know, I'm not a guy that blames other people on me. I thought I thought I was responsible for my defeat because of these mistakes we made. And they weren't somebody else's mistakes. I'm not a guy that delegates responsibility of the campaign. Somebody else. I mean, you -- you've got to take responsibility. No, it did just you know, there were mistakes made. We ran a great primary and some lessons there for these candidates, particularly in a multi headed race. Don't start attacking some of your fellow Democrats.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:41] The fact is, Dukakis will always have been one of the two staring down the barrel of the presidency.

[00:22:48] I mean, my last question is just what is it like after the fact? Has your life changed significantly, having been the nominee and getting so close?

Michael Dukakis: [00:23:00] Yes, [00:23:00] in one respect. I think despite my loss that people look at you as somebody who's had interesting experience. Needless to say, and particularly now, you know, what was it like? What do you think? Do you think the candidates are doing this kind of thing. And people, I think, probably credit you with some degree of experience and maybe wisdom when it comes to this kind of thing.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:31] I think possibly the real answer to what's it like to run for president is try it and you'll find out, kid.

[00:23:40] Try it and you'll find out.

Archival: [00:23:43] I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience.

[00:23:50] I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards.

[00:23:57] I am paying for this microphone.

[00:24:00] Commerce, [00:24:00] education and the uh -- what's the third one there, let's see?

[00:24:05] You know, when I came back from Vietnam, I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.

[00:24:10] Read my lips. No new taxes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:16] I forgot to mention, Nick, we've really only been talking about presidential elections that played out without too much drama because there are attack ads and then there's violence, fraud, contested votes and constitutional crisis.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:31] What election you're talking about?

Brady Carlson: [00:24:33] We're talking about the 1876 election, the one that has been called, and I quote, the ugliest, most contentious presidential election ever.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:43] Brady Carlson from Wisconsin Public Radio. He is going to be joining us at the end of every episode in the series to share one of his favorite presidential elections.

Brady Carlson: [00:24:51] All that ugliness and contentiousness had a pretty profound effect on American history, even if the candidates in that election aren't exactly top tier historical [00:25:00] figures today.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:01] Who are they?

[00:25:02] Two governors, Republican Rutherford B Hayes of Ohio.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:05] Vote for Hayes!

Brady Carlson: [00:25:05] And Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:09] Tilden.

Brady Carlson: [00:25:09] And both of them were known as reformers.

[00:25:13] And that's because the outgoing administration of President Ulysses S. Grant had developed a reputation for how do I put this nicely needing reform.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:22] What did Grant do?

[00:25:24] Well, wasn't so much what Grant did, but the people underneath him, whom he trusted and maybe shouldn't have. Were alternately enriching themselves at the font of the government, helping their friends. So the country was not feeling great about its direction. The economy had been in trouble for a number of years, and the two people who were nominated to succeed Grant were seen as straight and narrow kind of guys, even if they weren't the most exciting candidates. In fact, one of hazes nicknames was Old Granny.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:57] So [00:26:00] who won, Brady?

Brady Carlson: [00:26:00] Well, from the looks of the popular vote, Tilden appeared to have narrowly won, which would have made him the first Democrat to win the White House in twenty years. In fact, the Republican nominee, old Granny Hayes, went to bed on election night believing that he'd lost.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:16] But.

Brady Carlson: [00:26:17] But as we've seen so many times, winning the popular vote does not equal winning the presidency.

[00:26:22] The votes that matter are electoral votes. And it wasn't 270 to win in 1876. The magic number then was one hundred eighty five. Tilden had one hundred eighty four. Hayes had won sixty five. But there were three states where Republicans said Tilden only won here because there had been massive voter suppression, fraud, all kinds of trouble. And there was also a single electoral vote from Oregon that was held up as well. So there are 20 electoral votes still up in the air. You get faithless electors all over the place. And at the same time, Democrats are saying there had been suppression and voter fraud in other parts of the state caused by Republicans. There [00:27:00] was even a story that the election board in one of those disputed states had offered to certify the election for Tilden and the Democrats in exchange for a million dollars. So ironically, in this campaign, with two reform candidates, both parties end up saying the other has tried to steal the election. And meanwhile, there's nobody with a majority of electoral votes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:18] What do we do when there's no winner?

[00:27:20] Under the Constitution, it's up to Congress to count the electoral votes. And Congress was, like it is today, split. The House had a Democratic majority. The Senate Republican majority.

[00:27:32] So they decided to set up an electoral commission to review and then award these disputed electoral votes. They set it up so it would have five members of the U.S. House, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. And it was politically balanced. There would be seven Republicans, seven Democrats and one independent.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:49] Brady, that sounds like a total circus.

Brady Carlson: [00:27:51] And it's about to get even weirder.

[00:27:55] The independent justice was a guy called David Davis, a justice from Illinois. And [00:28:00] just as Congress is about to convene this very carefully, put together delicately balanced committee, Davis gets word back from Illinois that surprise the Democratic majority legislature there has elected him to the U.S. Senate.

[00:28:13] So Davis decides he can't be on the commission. He resigns. And the other four justices approve his replacement, Joseph Bradley, who was a Republican. And so the commission has eight Republican members who then outvote the seven Democratic members to award all of the disputed electoral votes to the Republican Rutherford B Hayes, giving him one hundred eighty five electoral votes, a one vote majority over Tilden and Rutherford. B. Hayes gets a new nickname to replace Old Granny. He's now called Rutherford Fraud.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:44] Rutherfraud! Ooh, that is a clever one, they knew what they were doing back then.

Brady Carlson: [00:28:50] And there's more. Congress then has to decide whether or not to accept the commission's decision, because under the Constitution, that's their job. The Republican Senate is ready for [00:29:00] Rutherford. The Democratic House is still convinced he's run their fraud and they decide maybe they're just not going to take up the Electoral College vote at all.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:08] And all of this under the threat of maybe having an empty chair in the Oval Office.

Brady Carlson: [00:29:13] Yeah, the clock is ticking here. When March 4th, 1877 rolls around, President Grant is leaving office. And unless someone is declared the winner of the election. Well, who's the next president going to be? So finally, the two parties work out a deal. Democrats say they will accept the commission's conclusion and they will vote to accept Hayes as the winner. But on a certain condition, they want federal troops removed from the capitals of several southern states. They had been there during reconstruction to, among other things, ensure that states were protecting the civil rights of black residents. This deal goes through March 2nd, which means President elect Hayes has a transition period of two days. A little rough for him, sure, but only a small hurdle compared to what was coming for black Americans. Whites have called this the compromise of [00:30:00] 1877. African-Americans have long called it the great betrayal. One more note about this election. Hayes, of course, goes on to be president. As for Tilden, he used to joke that he had the great honor of being elected president without having to deal with all the headaches of the office. But it had to have heard at least a little bit. And you might find out his true feelings about the 1876 election on his tomb in New York, where you'll find the words, quote, "I still trust the people.".

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:29] Wow. Thank you, Brady.

Brady Carlson: [00:30:31] Glad to be here.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:39] That is a wrap on our episode about how to run for president of these United States of America. But there is a lot more in this series, including caucuses, primaries and conventions, DNC and RNC and of course, the very daunting Electoral College.

[00:30:55] Civics 101 is produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice, [00:31:00] Erika Janik is our executive producer, Maureen McMurry has secretly run every successful presidential campaign in American history. Music in this episode by Junior 85, Florian Decros, Chris Zabriskie, Cambo and Broke for Free. We have more resources like graphic organizers, for those of you playing at home, as well as our contact info at civics101podcast.org -- hit us up. We want to hear from you. Civics 101 is produced in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Student Contest Winner: On the Bench

Here they are, a fantastic trio of winners!

From left to right, here are self-professed Supreme Court lovers Jessie Aniloff, Katie Bruni, Mr. Anthony Micalizzi, and Tara Czekner. They created On the Bench, a show about representation in the Supreme Court. Also, we interviewed the trio to hear why this topic was so important to them.

We will launch our next Student Contest in February, so look out! And if any teachers out there are attending NCSS in Austin this November, make sure to stop by our table! We love to talk audio in the classroom.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Starter Kit: How a Bill (really) Becomes a Law

We at Civics 101 adore Schoolhouse Rock and that sad little scrap of paper on the steps of the Capitol. But today we try to finish what they started, by diving into the messy, partisan, labyrinthine process of modern-day legislation.

This episode features the voices of Andy Wilson, Adia Samba-Quee, Alizah Ross, and Eleanor Powell.

Click here to find other charts of Civics 101 episode from Periodic Presidents.

Graphic Organizer: Have students take notes on this sheet when listening to the episode

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101

Starter Kit: How a Bill (really) Becomes a Law

Adia Samba-Quee: [00:00:00] Civics 101 one is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:04] Well, here it is. Saw this coming a mile away.

Schoolhouse Rock: [00:00:07] You sure have to climb a lot of steps to get this Capitol building here in Washington. Well, I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is. I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:21] Do kids even know about this? Schoolhouse Rock?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:25] I don't even know. It was an educational animated TV show from the 1970s. I think we should ask a student.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:33] Got anyone in mind?

Adia Samba-Quee: [00:00:35] Hello. It's Nick isn't it?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:37] It is Nick, hi Adia

Adia Samba-Quee: [00:00:42] Yes, Nick! Hi.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:42] Adia, Hi Adia

Nick Capodice: [00:00:43] Adia Samba Quee was our first student contest winner. She's a civics friend. She'd just finished taking a test when I called her.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:49] What was the test on.

Adia Samba-Quee: [00:00:51] First and second New Deal programs and then describe like how like some of them still exist in real life. And then talk about like how like they were successful or not at like ending the Great Depression.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:02] I asked her if she knew the song I'm just a bill.

Adia Samba-Quee: [00:01:06] Yes. I had to watch it in fourth grade. We didn't even know what; I remember that where they talk about the prospect of a bill becoming law. Oh, God. Like I know how a bill becomes law, but not with the help of that video.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:20] So then I called a teacher, Alizah Ross. She teaches high school AP gov. I asked her if she shows it to her class.

Alizah Ross: [00:01:26] Every time. They love it. They ask for it. And then there is always like one or two kids that are like, I've never seen it. And then I feel like they have to see it. I think that there are some details that are definitely missing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:39] So what's missing?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:48] This. All of this.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:01] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:01] And I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:03] And today on Civics 101 in our Starter Kit series, we are going to follow that thread through the labyrinth. We are going to see how a bill really becomes a law. And I wasn't dragging on Schoolhouse Rock. It taught me that bills are brilliant ideas that are proposed. They go through committee, get voted on. Go to the other House. End up on the president's desk. Zip zap zop. Bob's your uncle.

Eleanor Powell: [00:02:25] So that's the sort of ideal version it's supposed to work.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:28] This is Eleanor Powell. She's the Booth Fellow associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin.

Eleanor Powell: [00:02:34] In practice, it very rarely works that way, and it's certainly not that simple. So in this unorthodox, messy world in which we live, essentially there are two parts.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:45] Two roads diverged in a chamber of Congress.

Eleanor Powell: [00:02:49] So one is the really easy path where essentially if everybody's on the same page, there's not a lot of bipartisan disagreement. There's not a lot of conflict. What happens is essentially both chambers use these expedited procedures.

Eleanor Powell: [00:03:02] The other path, the path of most legislation that you actually read about in the paper and you hear about in the news is the stuff that's more controversial where there's more partisan disagreement. That stuff gets hard and very messy.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:14] We're going to follow the complicated path for now. So part one: coming up with it.

Andy Wilson: [00:03:19] So the first thing is you have to come up with a bill. You have to have an idea. And then you have to translate that idea into what's called legislative language.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:27] I talked to Andy Wilson. He's a former staffer on Capitol Hill.

Andy Wilson: [00:03:30] An actual bill that adds to or commends some part of the United States code of laws.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:38] Members of Congress work with their staff to write bills. They can also get help if they need it from the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel. Experts on legal language and how to write laws.

Andy Wilson: [00:03:49] So sometimes when you have the idea and you have a written, you take some time to gather up support for the bill as co-sponsors before you introduce it.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:56] If you've got several members of Congress as co-sponsors to a bill, that's a signal that this bill has lots of support. Co-sponsors are just adding their name to it. They might not have even read the thing. Bills in the House can have a few co-sponsors. They can have hundreds of co-sponsors, which makes them many times more likely to become a law. And as to crafting a bill, I never knew this. Anybody can write one. Special interest groups, lobbyists, people who are raising money for your campaign. It just has to be proposed by a member of Congress.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:26] So once you, along with your staff, the Office of Legislative Counsel and anyone else you fancy have written a bill, where does it go?

Andy Wilson: [00:04:34] In the House? You have to take it down to the clerk of the House, which is a team of people that sit near where the president gives the State of the Union address every year. And you have to drop the physical piece of paper with the legislative language on it into a box. And that box is called the hopper.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:53] The hopper?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:53] Yes. In 2003, they replaced their hopper from the 1950s. It's just a wooden box.

Andy Wilson: [00:05:00] But the clerk takes the bill and gives it a number in sequential order. So the first one in the new Congress is H R one, House resolution one or S. one, Senate resolution one. And then it's assigned to the relevant committee based on whatever the topic of the of the bill is. So if it's a bill that has to do with foreign policy, it's it's directed to the Foreign Relations Committee. If it's got to do with farm policy, it's referred to the Agriculture Committee and so on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:31] Who is in charge of deciding what committee it gets assigned to?

Nick Capodice: [00:05:35] That is the speaker of the House or the Senate parliamentarian. Sometimes it even goes to more than one committee.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:41] All right. Written, dropped in the hopper. Assigned number and assigned to a committee.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:45] Right. Part two committee.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:52] The House has 20 permanent committees. The Senate has 17. And there's also four joint committees which have members of both the House and the Senate.

Andy Wilson: [00:05:59] The committees are formed to have expertise in a particular area so that they can be the first line of review of a particular topic instead of the whole house having to look at every little thing. So it's both to have deeper expertise on a given topic when looking at the various proposals that come before Congress and to have a little bit better process and having a more wieldy way in which the Congress can do its business.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:27] So who gets to be on these committees.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:29] Before each new Congress, every two years. There's a committee committee who chooses who gets to be in the committees. But what's most important about committees is that whichever party has a majority in the House or the Senate also has the majority in every single committee. For example, in 2019, the Agriculture Committee in the House has more Democrats than Republicans, and the Agriculture Committee in the Senate has more Republicans than Democrats.

Andy Wilson: [00:06:56] So that's why one of the reasons why the party that's in majority has so much power, because they really have the ability to set the agenda, to set the terms of the debate and to ultimately decide what is voted on and what is in committee and in in the full House or the full Senate.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:15] These bills get read sometimes for the very first time. They get hearings. They're discussed. Experts are called in to speak to the effects of a bill. They get marked up amendments are added.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:26] Question.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:26] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:27] It's about amendments to bills, the kinds of things that can be added.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:29] Right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:31] Did you see the speech that Jon Stewart gave the House committee on that 9/11 First Responders bill?

Jon Stewart: [00:07:37] It'll get stuck in some transportation bill or some appropriations bill and get sent over to the Senate where a certain someone from the Senate will use it as a political football to get themselves maybe another new import tax on petroleum, because that's what happened to us in 2015.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:56] What was he talking about?

Nick Capodice: [00:07:57] That line stuck out to me and I emailed Andy about it and he said that in the House, amendments to bills have to be, quote, germane. That means that they are relevant to the bill at hand. But in the Senate, there is no germane rule. You can propose any amendments on any topic whatsoever to a bill. So if you're a senator and you can't get your own bill to the floor and it doesn't have a lot of support, one thing you can do is get someone in a committee to put the stuff you want as a rider to another different, totally irrelevant bill. But this time period, this process of committee is where most bills die. And it's not because people vote on them in the committee and they say this is a bad bill. It's just they never get out a committee. So much time and effort and it just dies on the vine.

Andy Wilson: [00:08:45] It can simply disappear into the committee ether and never be heard from again.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:52] And if a bill doesn't make it to the floor for a vote in a Congress, it's dead. You have to start from the beginning and the next Congress, 90 percent of bills die in committee.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:03] Are committee members required to do anything like give a bill, a hearing.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:08] No they can just put it in the endless to-do pile.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:12] All right. So what if by luck and determination and bipartisan support, a bill survives the committee process and the committee reports it out and says this thing is ready for a vote? Is it then put on the calendar?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:24] Absolutely not. No way. In the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House decides which bills that make it out of committee, gets to the floor for a vote. And in the Senate, it's the Senate majority leader who decides what gets voted on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:38] Theoretically, can the speaker of the House or the Senate majority leader just kill a bill by not letting it get to a vote?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:44] Up until now, I've been talking about the House process and the Senate process as being pretty much the same. But here we have a major difference. The Speaker of the House. Yes. Can kill a bill, but there is a rarely enacted check on that power. It's called a discharge petition. Where if a majority of members of the House sign a physical petition, a piece of paper, that bill then gets brought out of committee and onto the floor for debate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:11] What's the check in the Senate?

Nick Capodice: [00:10:14] Nothing. There's no discharge petition in the Senate. If the Senate majority leader does not want your bill to get voted on, there will be no vote. The only check on this power is election. The American people voting in a new majority party.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:29] Wanna talk about debate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:38] Yeah, sure.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:39] Part 3 debate. First off, the house.

Andy Wilson: [00:10:45] In the house there's a really interesting and weird process called the Rules Committee, where any bill that's going to be debated in the full house has to go through the Rules Committee, where the Rules Committee votes on and determines what the terms of the debate will be. How much time will be a allotted for each side, what amendments might be in order. And when sort of the votes would be taking place. Generally, that's all controlled by the Speaker of the House.

[00:11:14] Said rule provides one hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:21] This is why you hear 'I yield the remainder of my time to the congresswoman from Delaware.' But in the Senate.

Ted Cruz: [00:11:28] Do you like green eggs and ham?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:30] There is no rules committee. You can talk as long as you like.

Ted Cruz: [00:11:37] Would you like them here or there? I would not like them here or there. I would not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not.

Eleanor Powell: [00:11:47] It's worth actually talking about what a filibuster is.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:49] This is Eleanor Powell again. And that was Texas Senator Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham in an attempt to block the Affordable Care Act in 2015.

Eleanor Powell: [00:11:57] So a filibuster is just any type of delay or obstruction that any individual senator can engage in. So it's not just the standing up and talking until you pass out the sort of old school filibuster that we used to think about. Now it's really a much broader category. And so the Senate really changed how they handle filibusters. So used to be you had to hold the floor of the Senate and you talk and talk until you can no longer talk anymore. And that's how you would break a filibuster. You'd wait somebody out.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:27] Cloture stops filibuster. If you invoke cloture you are asking to end of the debate and the filibuster and then have a vote. And it requires three fifths of the Senate to invoke cloture, 60 votes, which is a ton. The world record filibuster is currently held by Senator Strom Thurmond. He talked for 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957 to block civil rights legislation. He also apparently took steam baths beforehand to dehydrate himself so that he wouldn't have to pee. But it doesn't really work like that anymore.

Eleanor Powell: [00:13:01] Now, essentially, the way it works is essentially you declare your intent that you would filibuster something. And so instead of trying to wait you out, they're going to try to proceed via cloture or just give up entirely or try to convince you might change your mind. And so the cloture vote, you know, getting 60 votes on something is really hard. That's a really tough threshold. And so this distinction where instead of having to talk yourself hoarse,.

Jimmy Stewart: [00:13:30] You all think I'm licked. Well, I'm not licked. I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these.

Eleanor Powell: [00:13:39] Now that you only have to signal that you would filibuster, the costs of filibuster, are much, much lower than they used to be for an individual who doesn't like the legislation. And so that's one the really big changes that we've seen from essentially, you know, the fact that the majority responds to a filibuster by saying taking the threat is sincere and just saying, all right, we'll either have a vote to try to make you stop or we'll just give up rather than sort of try and force you to actually hold the floor and have this like long all night marathon. And that's what sort of made the cost of filibuster much lower for any individual senator who wants a change to some piece of legislation.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:19] Let me get this clear.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:20] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:20] You don't need to stand up there anymore to block legislation. You just need to have the 41 people on your side say, yeah, we would block legislation and nobody has to bother with the steam baths.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:31] As things work now in the Senate, that's how you block a bill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:35] So what does this mean for legislation?

Eleanor Powell: [00:14:37] So it's, it's had a huge impact. I mean, it means in practice now that you have to get, you know, 60 percent of the Senate on board, you in practice have to have bipartisan buy-in at least some level of bipartisan buy-in. And that just means very, very few things can pass through the Senate in its current form. And that's why we've seen here the majority in the Senate take you increasing steps to actually weaken the filibuster. Right. And we no longer allow you have filibusters or we lower the cloture vote threshold on judicial nominations, confirmations, that sort of stuff. Used to also require 60 votes for folks to get confirmed. Now, we've lowered that because not enough folks were getting confirmed. The majority felt they couldn't get their way.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:21] So the Senate makes their own rules for filibustering cloture.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:23] They do.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:24] Theoretically. If the Senate wanted to, they could just get rid of it. They could make cloture always 50 votes.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:31] They could.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:36] So are we here yet? The vote?

Nick Capodice: [00:15:39] Right. I'd almost forgotten the vote.

Andy Wilson: [00:15:45] The speaker of the House or the president pro tem in the Senate. Whoever is the presiding officer of the House at the time calls the calls the vote. Sometimes there's a voice vote in the Senate, for example, each member will come down, no name will be called, and they'll say I or nay, in the House, they typically vote by electronic device, which which means each member of Congress has a little card like a credit card, and they stick it into a reader and then they press green for yes. Read for no. And then the votes are tallied that way.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:19] Remember when Eleanor said that there are two paths to legislation and we've been going down the real gnarly one?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:23] Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:24] Let's take a little diversion down the Bunny Hill, suspending the rules. If the bill is relatively non-controversial, you can do what's called vote under suspension of the rules. If two thirds of the House agrees, you can ignore all the rules and debate and procedures.

Eleanor Powell: [00:16:40] And in the Senate, you actually have a unanimous consent agreement. So literally every single senator is on board and you just go ahead and pass it and you can just sort of skip all the other rules and the messiness. If people are, if there's no sort of partisan disagreement, we can just do this sort of easy process and lots of legislation passes that way.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:57] What kinds of laws get this fast track treatment.

Eleanor Powell: [00:17:00] Sort of standard everyday things that may not ever make it into a, you know, a headline in terms of the news, but in which there actually is a fair degree of, you know, bipartisan buy in. So this could be everything from symbolic bill. So renaming a post office, sort of relatively noncontroversial things, but even sort of more complicated things. You know, things like, you know, it's tough to even think of examples now because they tend to disagree on everything. But there are spending bills. There are other sorts of things where we do see a bipartisan buy and where essentially no one objects. And they've worked out their disagreements behind closed doors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:41] How often is that?

Nick Capodice: [00:17:42] Pretty darn often. In the house, about 60 percent of bills are passed under suspension.

[00:17:47] Relative The rules are suspended. The bill is passed. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:53] After debate and maybe suspension of the rules in both the House and the Senate, it just requires a simple majority to win a vote. So it can pass. It can fail. There can be a motion to recommit, which means it's got to go back to committee for some work. But if it passes, all it has to do then is just go to the other chamber of Congress for the same exact process. Committee assignment, committee hearings, markup amendments. Reporting out. debate. vote. Because before that bill gets to the desk of the president. We've got just one more committee. If the language of a bill is exactly the same in both the House and the Senate, it goes to the president's desk to be signed. But that very rarely happens. Usually legislation goes to what's called the conference committee. Senior members of the committees in both the House and the Senate who worked on that bill. They meet and they talk and they argue and they decide one final version that both houses are happy with.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:59] And that goes to the president.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:01] That that my old friend that goes to the president is so close, so close, you could just taste it. The last part, presidential actions.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:15] The president can sign it and it becomes a law. The president can also veto it, saying, I don't like this bill and it doesn't become a law, but the Congress can override a veto with a two thirds majority vote. Also, the president can just ignore a bill if it's left on that desk for 10 days. It becomes a law even without the president's signature. However, if the Congress adjourns before those 10 days are up, it does not become a law. This is called a pocket veto.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:46] And there you have it. What do you think?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:49] It sounds to me like this whole process is mostly about committees, like the committee is the most important thing.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:55] Yeah. Most bills die in committee. Committees determine everything when it comes to bills, and Eleanor said something that I hadn't thought about, that people in committees have areas of expertise and they know people who work in the industry. But the influence of committees on bills has recently shifted.

Eleanor Powell: [00:20:10] You know, congressional committees are really important in the legislative process. But one of the changes we've seen over the last several decades is party leaders increasingly taking power away from the committees. And a lot of what the committees are doing is sort of implementing changes that the party leaders wants to see in the legislation that have been sort of already agreed upon by the majority.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:32] That is my big takeaway for this whole episode, pretty much for the whole series that nobody can do anything by themselves unless one party has the presidency and the House and 61 seats in the Senate. There must be compromise and tons of it before you even begin the process. In the 115th Congress, of the proposed thirteen thousand five hundred and fifty six bills, 443 became law.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:09] You wanna take a whack at this?

Nick Capodice: [00:21:10] I'd usually save this for a post credits joke. You wanna leade me in.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:14] What do I say??

Nick Capodice: [00:21:14] You got to say, I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:18] I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:23] I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And my fate was pretty much determined by the party in power. Well, I was written by the staff of a member of Congress and also helped some lobbyists in the Office of Legislative Counsel. But I was drop in the hopper and given a number

Nick Capodice: [00:21:42]  But to day, I'm still just a bill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:49] Gosh, Bill, what happens in a committee.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:50] Well, I'll tell you, my young shaver. You See, committee is where I’m read and talked about and there are hearings and if I’m super lucky I get reported out, that means I’ll be either killed or sent to the whole house for debate, after teh rules committee of course, but the number of members in a committee who decide whats gets reported out is directly proportional to the partisan makeup of the respective chamber of congress, if the house has 235 democrats and 197 republicans, the committee will have about 22 democrats and 17 republicans and in the unlikely event that I get a hearing by the committee or subcommittee, I am debated and investigated for a good long while, but if there’s no way I can get a 61 person majority in the senate, maybe the committee says why bother even talking about it, it’ll never work! But if it is reported out favorably in the house it goes to the rules committee who decides the terms of the debate and what amendments can be added. The speaker of the house is in charge of the calendar for when bills are debated and voted upon the floor and the senate majority leader is in charge of the calendar, and in the house an absolute majority of members can sign a discharge petition to drag it out of committee and onto the floor for a vote but that’s happened a handful of times since 1985. There’s also the hastert rule, which I didn't  talk about in the episode, which is more of an informal rule, where the speaker of the house won’t let bills come to the floor that don’t have the support of the majority party, even if the bill would theoretically pass! And we’re just getting started! Maybe we can just suspend the rules and vote and the post office is named after Frank Harrigan the third,  Hooray! Frank, we're so glad you got your post office.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:15] That's it for today, and that's it for the whole darn starter kit series.

[00:23:19] We're going to be back in a few weeks. Can't believe it's over. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:26] Thank you, Nick. Editorial help from Jacqi Fulton, Ben Henry and Samantha Searles. Erika Janik is our executive producer and Sway Back Adirondack Pack Basket.

Nick Capodice: Maureen MacMurray takes steam bath before managers meetings

Hannah McCarthy: music in this episode by Schoolhouse Rock. Chris Zabriskie, Bisou, Uncle Bibby, Lee Rosevere, Kevin McCloud, Mild Wild, Cooper Cannell and Blue Dot Sessions. And a very special thanks to Sophia Jordan Wallace, who schooled us on representation in Congress.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:53] We do it often. We do not do it often enough. Civics teachers, AP gov high school gov, social studies, whatever. If you've used any of our episodes in your class, we really want to hear about it. Drop us a line. Civics101@nhpr.org

Hannah McCarthy [00:24:05] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of an NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Starter Kit: Federalism

A tug of war, a balancing act, two dancers dragging each other across the floor. This is the perpetual ebb and flow of power between the states and the federal government. How can things be legal in a state but illegal nationally? Are states obstinate barricades to federal legislation? Or are they laboratories of democracy?

Today's episode features Lisa Manheim, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law and co-author of The Limits of Presidential Power, and Dave Robertson, Chair of the Political Science department at the University of Missouri St.Louis.

Graphic Organizer: Have students take notes on this sheet while listening to the episode

Episode Segments

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

---

TRANSCRIPT

NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

 Civics 101 — Starter Kit: Federalism

CPB: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Archival: [00:00:09] It is my opinion that the south will be law abiding and will comply with the decision of the court and a step.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:17] In 1954, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision.

Archival: [00:00:22] People in the south are just as law abiding as anybody else. And other decisions have come down which they said they wouldn't like. And there's never been any trouble as a result of any of these decisions.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:34] Brown vs. Board of Education. Segregation in schools is unconstitutional, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. Separate but equal is not equal at all.

[00:00:46] Nine thousand negroes met together with no problem at all and discussed segregation and the ending of segregation. And that was in Mississippi.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:56] Three years later, a group of nine black students formally enrolled in an all white school in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:02] The Little Rock Nine.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:03] The Little Rock Nine.

Archival: [00:01:04] Units of the National Guard have been and are now being mobilized.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:12] And Governor Orval Faubus responded with military force.

Archival: [00:01:16] Advance units are already on duty on the grounds of Central High School.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:23] A mob of screaming white protesters lined the path as the nine students approached Central High School.

[00:01:28] They never did make it inside. The Arkansas National Guard, under orders from the governor, barred their entry.

Archival: [00:01:38] Then you see it as a state-federal conflict of authority.

[00:01:43] Oh, I don't think there's a question about that.

Lisa Mannheim: [00:01:44] This was clearly unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's decision. But the states nevertheless argued that they did not need to be, in a sense, bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. They disagreed with it. They said we don't we don't need to follow it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:59] This is Lisa Mannheim. She's an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law. So back in Arkansas in 1957, the governor tries to forcibly prevent enforcement of federal law.

Lisa Mannheim: [00:02:11] In response, the president, who at the time was President Eisenhower, sent in federal troops to escort these students into the state run school. So that would be an example of state government refusing to comply with federal law. And in response, the federal government here, both the court which concluded that the Arkansas was incorrect to think it had the power to do this, as well as the executive branch, the president here pushing back against the state in the sense forcing the state to comply with federal law.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:42] Eisenhower deputized as the National Guard to take it out of the governor's hands. And for the rest of the year, there is a military presence at the school enforcing the federal integration law.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:54] So Arkansas is forced to comply with desegregation.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:58] Actually, the events at Central High School were just the beginning before desegregation was going to happen in Arkansas.

[00:03:05] There was going to be a dance.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:06] What kind of dance?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:07] A dance of state and federal government in a constant swirl of conflict, negotiation and defiance. A dance otherwise known as federalism. And that is the subject of our show today. One big government and the 50 little governments that comprise it. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:28] And I'm the Nick Capodice.

[00:03:29] And this is the Civics 101 starter kit on the delicate balance that keeps -- or tries to keep -- American democracy in order.

Lisa Mannheim: [00:03:37] The United States is a federation. And what that means is that we don't only have a national government. We also have a number of governments that operate, in a sense, underneath the federal government or alongside the federal government in. In the United States, this refers to the 50 separate state governments that exist along with the federal government. And it's important to understand that these state governments are their own independent governments. They are not just subsections of the federal government.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:11] Back in Arkansas in the 50s, Eisenhower sends the troops in and says, "waltz."

[00:04:18] But Governor Faubus is like, no way. You can't make me. Tango.

[00:04:27] Arkansas requests a delay on desegregation from the federal court system and they get it. But then the NAACP petitions the Supreme Court for an emergency overturn, Arkansas's case goes back to the federal courts. Governor Faubus won't budge. He calls an emergency session of the Arkansas General Assembly to consider 16 bills to forestall desegregation. The Supreme Court meets and orders immediate integration of Central High. Arkansas passes the segregation bills and closes the Little Rock High School system. For the next year, there is no integration in Little Rock high schools because there are no Little Rock high schools.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:32] Hannah, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is totally illegal, isn't it?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:36] Oh, yeah, it's totally illegal.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:38] But it happened.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:39] But it happened.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:40] How is it possible that it happened?

Lisa Mannheim: [00:05:42] If you think about a government as having its own independence, as working on its own.

[00:05:49] But at the same time, having to share a space, in a sense with a separate government, you are.

[00:05:58] Trying to work out a system whereby two sovereigns are somehow coexisting.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:11] Two sovereigns at once. It just seems impossible. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that two governments are in charge. We look at Arkansas. It doesn't seem like it could possibly work.

Lisa Mannheim: [00:06:22] It's very complicated. And there are three overarching principles that are helpful to keep in mind when it comes to this complicated idea of federalism.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:31] Principle number one.

Lisa Mannheim: [00:06:32] The first is that in the United States, the Constitution makes clear that the federal law wins if there's a conflict between the federal law and some sort of state law. If, for example, you think about a simple illustration, something like imagine there's a federal law that says if you package a certain product, the packaging needs to be blue. By contrast, you have a state law that purports to regulate the same product. And it says, no, if you package this sort of product. The packaging has to be red. In that case, it is impossible for a company to comply with both federal law and state law. There's a conflict. And as a result, the federal law controls. And the state law is no longer valid.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:13] Federal beats state. This is called the supremacy clause. The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:23] Principle number two?

Lisa Mannheim: [00:07:24] State governments are profoundly important in our country. And this is particularly true in areas where the federal government hasn't regulated very much, or maybe where the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to regulate very much or even in areas where the states just think it's very important to do some sort of lawmaking places where there in particular there's a lot of state law rather than federal law are in areas like family law relating to marriage and divorce and the like, criminal law, property law, as well as laws relating to contracts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:58] States are your primary lawmakers. Where you live in this country matters because states govern the bulk of your life. So even though the federal government is the top law of the land, state laws are closer to you and there are more of them. Quantity over clout. All right.

[00:08:14] Principle number three.

Lisa Mannheim: [00:08:16] The last principle that is really helpful to keep in mind when it comes to federalism is that because state governments are independent of the federal government, they not only are, as a practical matter, able to push back from against the pie federal government if they so choose. They are also constitutionally protected in that sort of resistance. So if a state law disagrees with federal policy with respect to something like criminal law or immigration related law, the states retain a constitutionally protected power to, in a sense, refuse to cooperate with the federal government. By contrast, if the states agree with the federal law, they can voluntarily choose to cooperate. The states retain the ability to make that decision. Now there's limits to exactly how a state is able to do this. But the basic principle is embedded in the constitutional structure.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:12] For one thing, if state law contradicts federal law, the federal government can choose to enforce the supreme law of the land. Can being the operative word, it often opts not to. And then we've got the 10th Amendment. That's the one that says that the federal government only has the powers that are actually listed in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the state or the people to decide.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:42] Right. The 10th Amendment sort of follows the Ninth Amendment to address the concerns that Hamilton had and Madison had about your rights being constrained by the Constitution. The night says your rights are not limited to what's in the Constitution, and the tenth says whatever is not addressed here is left up to the states.

Dave Robertson: [00:09:57] Remember, the people who wrote the Constitution were first and foremost politicians. They weren't philosophers, they weren't saints. They certainly weren't political scientists, but they knew a lot about those things. What they were interested in was making sure that a new government could protect their states and accomplish national purposes. But the same time, not destroy the vital interests of their states.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:25] This is Dave Robertson.

Dave Robertson: [00:10:26] Chair of the Political Science Department at the University of Missouri, St. Lewis.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:33] Dave tells this story about a group of Russians visiting the university. The visitors are all interested in civics, and Dave is trying to explain how the U.S. government works through this principle of federalism.

Dave Robertson: [00:10:43] I started by showing them what they can see every day there in the United States. I showed them a variety of license plates because just about any place you'd go in the world, you have very boring license plates and they look similar to license plates in other countries. I think of Europe along those lines. Well, in the United States, if somebody is driving you around, you can see all of these fancy look. License plates of different colors, different sayings and different kinds of designs. And I try to explain if you want to understand federalism, you have to understand that states can do a whole lot of things differently that are not done differently and lots of other countries.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:30] Dave points out to his Russian visitors that the 50 disparate chunks of our country are called states like independent, self-governing mini countries inside of a bigger country. And the framers had just come through the Revolutionary War where they broke off from Britain, this big, powerful government. Just try and tell some of these scrappy little states that you're going to impose a big, strong federal government on them. Some states were going to benefit. Others, though, would get short shrift it. Alexander Hamilton, for example, wanted a strong federal government because it would benefit his state, New York.

Dave Robertson: [00:12:03] He wanted lots of tools for the federal government to control trade and to help nurture economic development and to do other kinds of things that would build manufacturing in the United States. Madison and Jefferson represented Virginia, which was a state that made a lot of money by growing crops and shipping them overseas. Trade restrictions, tariffs. The development of a manufacturing economy would tend to benefit states like New York. Hamilton states. And it would disadvantage a state like Virginia and other southern states that grow crops for export to Europe and to elsewhere. Those economic differences, along with philosophical differences about which level of government exercise, which powers really help drive a wedge between Madison and Hamilton and help spur the creation of national political parties.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:09] Ok, so there's that north versus the south from the get go.

[00:13:13] And we all know what happened next.

Dave Robertson: [00:13:14] Because states decided that they could get out of the union. And that was contested, wasn't settled by a court. It wasn't settled by a political compromise. It was settled by bloodshed, lots of bloodshed and incredibly brutal war in which one side surrendered and surrendered that right to leave the union forever, at least as long as our constitution stays in effect.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:41] While the South was in secession, the Republicans, led by Lincoln, leveraged federal power to help industry, commerce, even education. The tendrils of strong government eventually led to a nationalized railroad system and telegraph system. The economy boomed. An industry ruled for years. But as farms dwindled, factories rose and the population exploded. You also started to see extreme poverty, and so state and federal government needed to start working together.

Dave Robertson: [00:14:10] The result was a progressive movement that aimed to help create partnerships between the national government, whose powers were limited by the Supreme Court and the states. So in that period, you saw lots of federal efforts to try to connect with the states, to build highways, to extend vocational education, even to extend for a time help for mothers and children. Almost any innovation you can think of that is now a federal program. Whether you're talking about welfare programs, you're talking about civil rights programs or talking about environmental programs. All of those things have been innovated often at the local level and cities then spreading to the states and finally being adopted by the federal government. That's part of the story of what happened in the 1960s and 70s with environmental policy.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:09] Wait, almost any federal program starts at the state level?

[00:15:13] What about something like Social Security?

Dave Robertson: [00:15:14] Aid to mothers with children? The stated innovated those things. Even unemployment compensation is a federal state program because the states of Ohio and Wisconsin had pioneered those before the federal government got involved.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:30] So what if the federal government kicks off a program that was like litmus tested in Iowa and Kansas says, no, heck no, we don't need a national speed limit.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:40] Well, for one thing, let's say the federal government is providing money to replace all the speed limit signs in your state. Kansas can be like we don't need your filthy money.

Dave Robertson: [00:15:49] Yes, there's lots of instances of that. There are states that reject the money because they don't want to deal with the regulations. But but that doesn't last long because there's often a provision that allows the federal government to come in and begin to implement the rules of if the state. Doesn't decide to join in. That happened with the Clean Air Act. The state of Arizona didn't join in for a good number of years, and it has happened with a lot of more conservative states and the Affordable Care Act.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:27] And Dave says, even in cases of federal law, the bulk of the implementation of those laws tends to fall to the states.

Dave Robertson: [00:16:35] We think about all of those federal regulations that the EPA issues as being federal rules, and they are. But in case after case, the states actually administer those laws so that the states regulate about 90 percent of most of the regulations of the environment that the federal government issues. The states do things differently and they have a lot of power to do important things differently. It's not that in theory, federalism matters. It's in practice. States rule most of our lives in many everyday ways, from birth to death.

Archival: [00:17:20] New Yorkers won't have to choose between just two gender categories and a birth certificate.

[00:17:24] Yesterday asked the Florida House passed a bill the Senate had already passed that creates the state's 5th school voucher program. They're introduced at the Ohio State House. Could mean teenagers have to wait until they are 16 and a half years old to get their driver's Arkansas.

[00:17:38] Lawmakers could limit who would benefit from the minimum wage increase. That vote was first time.

[00:17:44] Louisiana has a minimum age for marriage.

[00:17:47] 60 year old Vermont physician assisted dying legislation approved by the legislature. The law making the provision permanent.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:05] I keep coming back in my mind to the Little Rock Nine. They were forced out of the school and then the school was shut down by illegal measures. How did Arkansas get away with it?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:18] In the end, they didn't. Federal law ended up beating state law as it's supposed to. In 1959, a federal court struck down Governor Faubus as school closing law. And that August, Little Rock's white schools opened with black students in attendance. The state public school system was fully integrated by 1972.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:36] But that is so long.

[00:18:39] That's what 15 years to implement a federal law and one of the most significant federal laws our country has ever witnessed. Separate but equal is not equal.

[00:18:50] I feel I feel Hannah to an extent.

[00:18:54] If it weren't for this given take between the state and the federal where obstinate racism was given its say on the state level, those schools would have integrated a lot sooner. I mean, is federalism actually good for American democracy?

Nick Capodice: [00:19:08] It's essential for democracy to have a competing party that is protected from eradication and. In the United States, state governments help provide a place where opponents of the incumbent administration can thrive, where they can really build up a coalition of opposition to the people in power. Sometimes, you know, we often being partisans don't like that. Some Democrats didn't like opposition from conservative states to Barack Obama. Some conservatives now don't like opposition to Donald Trump. But in the end, we have to have a system where a president doesn't have the power to eliminate his opponents. There is a great photograph from 2012 where Barack Obama is on a tarmac in Arizona and the diminutive governor of Arizona, a woman, is lecturing him and pointing her finger at his chest. She is opposing him. She's criticizing him for all kinds of things, including Obamacare. But as I tell visitors from other countries like Russia, Barack Obama cannot fire her. He can't get rid of the legislature in the state of Arizona. He can't eradicate that opposition. And if there's one thing that democracy needs that our republic needs, its opposition to, anybody who's in power.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:51] It feels like federalism is like the firewall of our democracy.

[00:20:56] It is ambiguous and frustrating, and imperfect. But it helps keep this bird up in the air.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:04] Yeah, I think even though so many of us bristle at it. It's essential that we are a country that is not of one mind. And sometimes that's really ugly. But so long as we're allowed not only to disagree, but disagree to the point of combating laws and taking those laws to court and even finding our own way to use those laws to govern ourselves. That decentralized power is what makes this country so unusual. It's a mess. It's chaotic. But that's the way it's supposed to work.

Archival: [00:21:49] And I've enjoyed weed since Vietnam. And I think it's time for that whole United States to federally to legalize it.

[00:22:02] When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?

[00:22:09] The States Living Infants Fairness and Equality or Life Act bans all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected so far.

[00:22:17] Eight states and Washington, D.C. have legalized the drug for recreational use.

[00:22:21] The unborn deserves a up and down vote right yet to live.

[00:22:25] In Salt Lake City, yet another victory for gay rights advocates across the nation.

[00:22:30] Marijuana has long been classified as a Schedule 1 drug. That's the same classification for drugs such as heroin.

[00:22:37] A lot of them are pretty obviously contradictory to Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedents on abortion.

[00:22:42] They say of California now wants to allow same sex marriage. They can repeal that constitutional amendment.

[00:22:48] My body, my choice, her body, her choice.

[00:22:54] I'm just I'm just excited to get home, get out of the cold and finally get to use legally for the first time ever.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:15] Civics 101 was produced this week by me. Hannah McCarthy with you, Nick Capodice Our staff includes Jackie Fulton and Ben Henry.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:21] Erika Janik is our executive producer and Supreme Law of the Land. Maureen McMurray is a federation unto herself.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:28] Music in this episode by Chris Zabriskie, Metre. Cooper Cannell and Bio Unit.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:32] Hannah and I have so much to share from our research into episodes that doesn't make it into the episode.

[00:23:37] But lucky enough, we have a newsletter where we can put all that good stuff: civics101podcast.org/extracredit.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:40] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Starter Kit: Judicial Branch

The Supreme Court, considered by some to be the most powerful branch, had humble beginnings. How did it stop being, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, "next to nothing?" Do politics affect the court's decisions? And how do cases even get there?

This episode features Larry Robbins, lawyer and eighteen-time advocate in the Supreme Court, and Kathryn DePalo, professor at Florida International University and past president of the Florida Political Science Association.

Graphic Organizer: Have students take notes on this sheet as they listen to the episode.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Civics 101 –

Starter Kit: Judicial Branch

Adia Samba-Quee [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

[00:00:10] This Lieutenant White came and showed a piece of paper.  And, Mrs. Mapp demanded to see the paper, to read it, see what it was.

[00:00:20] The first plaintiff was Jane Roe, unmarried pregnant girl who had sought an abortion in the state of Texas.

[00:00:27] We can't order you to salute the flag. We can't order you to do all these obeisances around the flag. Can we order you not to do something, to show something about the flag?

[00:00:37] I see that my white light is on, so if there are no further questions I would save my further time for rebuttal.

[00:00:42] Thank you, Ms. Phelan, you have further time. We'll hear now from you Mr. Robbins

Nick Capodice [00:00:49] Do you remember this moment?

Larry Robbins: [00:00:51] Yeah.

Larry Robbins in 1986: [00:00:52] Mr. Chief Justice. And may it please the court. I'd like to begin my remarks by addressing the questions regarding deception...

Larry Robbins: [00:01:02] So is that that's actually from must be from Colorado against Spring. Yeah. I you know, I didn't realize that that one was recorded. I don't know that I've ever heard it.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:13] This is Larry Robbins. He runs a private law practice now, but for years he worked in the office of the solicitor general. That's the office responsible for arguing on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court. I called him up because I wanted to know what it's like to stand there alone under the eyes of Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Marshall.

Larry Robbins: [00:01:35] What's remarkable, though, it was to me anyway, the first time I stood up at the lectern is how close to you the justices are. I always I guess I always analogize it to sitting in a living room with nine very smart people who have thought about the same problem that you have and want to ask you some questions about it. And your job is to answer them. That's how it felt to me. And I've done it 18 times and it always feels like that.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:10] It's the judicial branch today on Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:13] And I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:14] And while I studied acting in college, on a whim I took this one class on the First Amendment. Where the only texts we were assigned were Supreme Court opinions. And thereafter, I took every single course that professor taught. And I just carried a torch for the third branch ever since. Hannah, what would you say if I told you that the judicial branch is, quote, beyond comparison? The weakest of the three departments of power, that its next to nothing?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:42] I'd say you were terribly misinformed.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:44] I know, but that was a direct quote from Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton, because initially the Supreme Court did not have that much power. But there was a night. Then everything changed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:59] Lay it on me.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:01] You're going to love it. I'm standing up. The presidential election of eighteen hundred, the two major political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic Republican beats the incumbent Federalist John Adams, 76 electoral votes to 65.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:23] And Adams becomes what they call a lame duck president. He's just sitting around until Jefferson is sworn in on March 4th. It's like spring of your senior year, right. But Adams and his federalist Congress, they don't just sit there. They go to work in the lame duck session. They pass this law called the Judiciary Act of 1801. And it's a new version of the Judiciary Act of 1789. I promise this is important, which creates a ton of new courts in the United States. And Adams uses his executive power of appointment and just packs those courts full of Federalist judges. The very night before Jefferson comes to the White House, they have appointed 16 circuit judges and 42 justices of the peace. These were called the midnight judges. Got all their albums. So you get a judge commission and you get a judge commission. Adams's Secretary of State John Marshall, he's just running around frantically trying to give out these judgeships and some of them didn't get delivered.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:20] Tom Jefferson is sworn in, and one story goes that he sees all of these judge commissions on the table and says, oh, no, you don't. And he maybe throws them all in a fire.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:33] One of those potential judges, William Marbury, sitting by the phone with a ham sandwich waiting for his commission to arrive. He goes to the Supreme Court to sue Jefferson's new secretary of state, James Madison. He says, hey, I was promised this judgeship. I didn't get it. He's furious. And the chief justice of the Supreme Court is John Marshall.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:54] Hold on one second. John Marshall was Adam's secretary of state. The guy delivering all those commissions.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:01] Yes. And the Chief Justice, John Adams, was like, all right, my term's ending. Can you just do both jobs until Jefferson comes to office? So William Marbury, he thinks he's got this one in the bag. He's asking the court to issue what's called a writ of mandamus, which is where the court orders the executive branch to do something to give him that judgeship. And Justice Marshall, stunning everyone, says, I'm sorry, Bill, I can't do that. Because that 1789 Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. And we the Supreme Court, we have a job to do. And it is not to make people do things. Our job is to say whether or not something is constitutional. That case, Marbury vs. Madison, establishes judicial review.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:53] All right, I was wondering where you're going with that story. But this is pretty significant. A branch giving itself a major power, maybe the most major power.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:03] Yeah. And apparently a kind of flew under the radar at the time.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:06:06] Now, a lot of people make a big deal about Marbury versus Madison today.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:10] This is Catherine DePalo. She's a political science professor at Florida International University.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:06:15] But at the time, it kind of came and went with a whimper. Right. Because nobody really said, oh, gosh, now this gives the U.S. Supreme Court all this power of judicial review to declare something unconstitutional. You know, the courts were kind of an afterthought. They weren't really thought as as, you know, as equal as Congress and the presidency, at least in people's minds. You know, in the Capitol building, they met in the basement.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:39] The Supreme Court used to meet in a basement.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:41] Yes. Catherine told me that after Marbury versus Madison, the court didn't rule something unconstitutional again until 1857, the infamous Dred Scott decision, where the court ruled that an enslaved person was not a citizen and had no rights. The Supreme Court didn't really kick into its modern, more powerful iteration until the 20th century.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:01] So if they weren't declaring laws constitutional or not, what were they doing? What are their constitutional powers?

Nick Capodice: [00:07:09] The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and it lays out that justices are appointed by the president with the Senate's approval. But it doesn't say how many justices there should be, though it does specify a chief justice. Originally, there weren't nine justices. There were five in the eighteen hundreds. And the number increased over the years by acts of Congress, cementing it at nine justices in 1869. It's left to the Congress to decide how the lower courts would be set up.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:07:36] There are some specific things that the U.S. Supreme Court is tasked with doing.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:40] One of those is settling disputes between the states.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:07:43] So if New New York wants to sue New Jersey over a particular matter, the Supreme Court is there to settle some of those disputes. Other things, you know, involve cases involving ambassadors and and these particular things. But it's so vague. And really, the Supreme Court is not used as a trial court much anymore.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:03] The Supreme Court is what's called an appellate court, which means that it hears appeals. It's not like a trial court. There's no jury. So someone loses a case in another court. They think it's not fair. They can appeal it up the chain.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:15] Appellate appeal.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:18] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:19] How do cases get to that level where they're ruled upon by the highest court in the land?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:24] Here's Larry Robbins again.

Larry Robbins: [00:08:25] The Supreme Court, to my knowledge, is the only federal court and one of the few kinds of appellate courts that you have no inherent right to be heard in front of. You have to ask their permission and they grant it only very rarely.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:43] It's a long process. And as Larry says, it's super rare, but it helps illustrate the entire federal court system instead of just those nine justices at the top. First off, Hannah, most trials in the U.S. are gonna be in your state court. You stole a car, you got a divorce, you jumped a subway turnstile, state court. Federal courts are for when your case deals with the constitutionality of a law or if the United States is a party in the case or if you broke a federal law. Currently, there are 94 federal trial courts and those are divvied up into 13 circuits, kind of like the NCAA

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:19] Right. So it's like the West Coast is one circuit.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:22] Right they're the 9th Circuit.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:22] And what circuit are we in?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:24] We in New Hampshire are part of the first circuit, which also includes Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, interestingly.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:31] Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:32] So if you lose a case in one of those 94 federal courts, you can appeal it to your circuit court. And a court of appeals trial has no jury. Its lawyers arguing in front of a panel of three judges.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:44] And if you lose that appeal, what happens then?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:46] We are on the road to getting your case into the Supreme Court.

Larry Robbins: [00:09:49] A case begins with an application to the Supreme Court to hear the case. This has a very fancy name with some with a Latin component because lawyers like to sound as obscure as possible. So it's called a petition for a writ of certiorari,.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:08] Petition for a writ of certiorari.

Larry Robbins: [00:10:11] What's called a cert petition for short. And what a cert petition does is it says to the Supreme Court, you should hear my case.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:20] And like Larry said, the Supreme Court does not have to do it.

Larry Robbins: [00:10:23] The vast, vast majority bordering on 98 or 99 percent are denied.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:30] If four of the nine Supreme Court justices agree to hear a case, then it will get a hearing in the Supreme Court. And only about 100 of the nearly 7000 cert petitions are granted.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:42] Are there any types of cases that tend to be granted more than others?

Nick Capodice: [00:10:46] Yes. And Larry had some tips on that.

Larry Robbins: [00:10:48] The most important thing you can say to get the Supreme Court interested in granting your case is that there is a question of federal law because the Supreme Court is there to decide federal questions, not state law questions, but federal questions, either questions about federal statutes or the United States Constitution. And what you want to tell the court is, look, there is a important federal question that the courts of appeals, the lower federal courts disagree about.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:22] There's hundreds of publications and Web sites out there that track these circuit splits, where two circuit courts are divided on an issue.

Larry Robbins: [00:11:29] Even better, if you can say there are three circuits on one side of the question and four on the other side of the question. So that, you know, the issue has been widely considered. The question has percolated in the courts of appeals, if you will. That's a Supreme Court lawyer's term of art.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:54] I have a question.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:55] Yeah, go ahead.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:56] So the Supreme Court, a seemingly passive political body, does have some political power because they can decide what cases they want to hear or not. And presidents campaign on what kind of Supreme Court justice they'll appoint. But if a justice wanted to pass a controversial ruling, they can't bring it up themselves, can they?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:15] No, they cannot.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:12:16] We talk a lot about how much power the court has. And I think some of the power of the court, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, has significant power in shaping a policy agenda. You know, if there is a ruling that they make, all of a sudden everybody's talking about it. And you point to Roe v. Wade in 1973 and we're still talking about that. It separates our political parties and our system. That's that's power that's setting an agenda. However, the power of the courts is really limited because the Supreme Court, you know, can't be watching, you know, TV and say, what the heck's going on? Let's make a ruling. They have to wait for the process to begin.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:50] Ok. So that's how a case gets into the Supreme Court. What happens once you're in there?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:55] Have you actually have you been to the Supreme Court chamber?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:57] I have not. Have you?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:58] Not since seventh grade. Anyone can visit it and witness the oral arguments. It's sort of this hallowed date; The first Monday in October until about mid-April, the court hears arguments and they make decisions. And when they're in recess, they choose their next session's cases and they prepare for those. People will wait in line sometimes from 5:00 a.m. like a rock concert to get a seat.

Larry Robbins: [00:13:19] In the years that I was in the SD office, The Supreme Court heard many more cases than they do these days. In those years, which were 1986 to 1990, there were typically four arguments every day that almost I think never happens anymore. The court doesn't grant as many cases as it used to.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:40] After the argument, usually the same week, they meet privately and they vote. The senior justice in the majority decides which justice, with a lot of help from their clerks, is going to write the opinion. Drafts circulate, edits are made. These opinions take time.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:13:56] Mostly most the time there is a majority opinion, whether it's 5 to 4 or 9 to 0. They they often on the court want to not have closely divided opinions because that doesn't look good for the court. Certainly going forward, that might not stand if you have a change, a composition of the court and then justices certainly that disagree can write dissenting opinions. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I think, has written some of the more interesting ones, expressing her legal rationale for why she thinks the majority got it wrong and what she thinks would be the proper course. Some write concurring opinions, meaning they're part of the majority, they agree with the majority, but they may disagree on some other point or they may expand on some issues that the court did not agree to, did not address. So they'll talk about those particular things as well.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:47] And while the opinion and dissent lay out the legal reasoning for a decision, the ruling is usually one of these three things: affirm, reverse or remand. Affirm is that the finding from the lower court is upheld. So the petitioner was unsuccessful in their appeal. Reverse is the opposite where the lower court's ruling was in error and it's overturned and the petitioner wins the day. And finally, remand is where the case is sent back to the lower court for a retrial with any irregularities corrected.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:20] One thing I'm curious about goes back to something that Kathryn said earlier about a court furthering a political agenda. Does the party of the president who appointed them have influence on their decisions?

Larry Robbins: [00:15:35] Look, I think. I think it's possible to overstate the significance of who appointed a particular judge or justice. I'm close to agreement with my old friend, who is now the Chief Justice, John Roberts, who I think famously responded to one of the present President Trump's tirades about Obama judges by saying there are no Obama judges, there are no Bush judges, there are just judges trying to do their level best. But I don't think, you know, anybody should be so naive as to imagine that political ideology has no impact. It certainly does.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:22] Larry told me one thing about how political ideology affects the law, and it's something I'd never considered before. It's that right now such a high percentage of judges in the lower courts are conservative. And that means there's less disagreement between the circuits on rulings, which in turn means there are fewer cases presented to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari. And this goes back to what Larry said, that the Supreme Court every year is hearing fewer and fewer cases.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:47] Last thing, these justices are appointed for life. They often outlive the presidents who appoint them. And they're not Constitution-interpreting blank vessels. They have strong opinions. Right. So how do they interact with each other when they're off the bench?

Nick Capodice: [00:17:02] Larry refused smartly, I believe, to go on the record about that. But Kathryn had a specific example that I thought was just lovely.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:17:11] The late Justice Scalia of probably one of the most conservative jurists we've had on the U.S. Supreme Court was best friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the more liberal justices we've seen in the history of the court. And they had this love of opera together and they would would go see operas and they would have dinner with the spouses. And were really the best of friends. And, you know, you can't find two really more opposite people. A lot of the justices have said, you know, it's not like in Congress where, you know, I'm going to yell at you for having your position. I respect your position. I may not agree with your position, but you have the right to say that and we move on. So I think the fact that they're all trained lawyers and have gone through the advocacy processes in their careers and understand you're going to win some, you're going to lose some, I think is particularly important. And I think that's how the court continues to operate.

CREDITS:

Today’s episode was produced by me Nick Capodice and you Hannah McCarthy, with help from Samantha Searles.

Erika Janik is our Executive Producer and burner of judicial commissions, Maureen McMurray only judges things at midnight

Music in this episode by Tonstartssbandht, thank you, Edwin, Chris Zabriskie, Doug Maxwell, the Grand Affair, Emily Sprague (I love all her stuff), Yung Kartz, and the MIT Symphony Orchestre

Archival Supreme Court audio comes from Oyez, o-y-e-z-.org, the greatest most wonderful resource from Cornell’s legal information institute

Hey, and I got two people to thank. First off, Keith ‘hip’ Hughes whose video on Marbury vs Madison I watched a hundred times check it out, and second, Professor Michael Brown from Emerson College, the guy responsible for the fact that I shall never forget that article 3 section 2 paragraph 1 says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”

Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Starter Kit: Legislative Branch

There are 535 people who meet in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill. They go in, legislation comes out. You can watch the machinations of the House and Senate chambers on C-SPAN, you can read their bills online. But what are the rules of engagement? Where does your Senator go every day, and what do they do? What does it mean to represent the American people?

Our guides to the U.S. Legislative branch are Congressman Chris Pappas, Eleanor Powell, Stefani Langehennig and Emmitt Riley.

Graphic Organizer: Have students take notes on this sheet while they listen to the episode

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 Please note: this transcript was created using a combination of human and computer transcription – there may be some discrepancies.

Starter Kit: Legislative Branch

CPB: [00:00:00] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:00:04] You know, as someone who is new on the job. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:09] This is Chris Pappas on the phone with me a few weeks ago. He's a first term congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, and he also just so happens to be my representative in New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District. I called him up to ask. In short, what he does all day. What does it mean to be a representative? He get voted into office. You head off to Washington and then what?

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:00:32] You know, there are really two ways that you look to be a good representative. One is by working on legislation here in Washington that can be of help to people back in New Hampshire.

[00:00:46] Another major way is by serving the constituents very directly and helping them with issues that they may have before government.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:52] Lawmaking and problem solving, hashing it out with politicians in Washington and then hashing it out with the public in your district. Being a member of Congress is all meetings and handshakes and promises. It's two houses, 535 people, lots of money and very few laws passed. This is the Civics 101 Starter Kit. This is our legislative branch. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:19] And I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:21] We're going to come back to Chris Pappas, Capitol Hill and this idea of the good representative in just a moment, because the whole point of Congress is representation. But first, let's set the stage. The House, the Senate,.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:35] Two houses, both alike in dignity.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:38] Not quite.

Eleanor Powell: [00:01:38] The two chambers actually used to be much more similar originally in Congress. And they've sort of evolved along different paths.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:46] Eleanor Powell stopping us from going full. Romeo and Juliet here.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:50] Darn it.

Eleanor Powell: [00:01:50] So they used to both be so these sort of freewheeling chambers without a lot of rules and without a lot of structure. The House used to look a lot more like the Senate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:57] Eleanor Powell is the Booth Fowler, associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. So constitutionally, states are given two senators each and representatives are apportioned based on population. The first House of Reps had 64 members, all men and the Senate 26 members.

Eleanor Powell: [00:02:16] And over time, they've diverged with the House, had so many people, they had to sort of corral folks and create more rules to have more structure and order the Senate, because they had a small number, a smaller number of delegates sort of maintain their sort of relatively loose structure.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:31] So by way of example, here's a vote on the floor of the House.

House Vote: [00:02:35] Those in favor say I. Those opposed say no. The no's have it. The motion is not the speaker. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is right. He now as the recorded vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:50] And here is a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Senate Vote: [00:02:52] Mr. Boehner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blunt. Mr. Booker.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:05] So the Senate with its 100 members, is considerably quieter than the 435 member House and trying to corral nearly 500 people with lots of very strong ideas means you need rules, lots of rules.

Eleanor Powell: [00:03:25] The House is so big with 435 members. If you let everyone talk endlessly or even talk a fair bit about any piece of legislation, it would just take you forever to pass it. And so the two chambers evolved along these very different paths where, you know, if you actually look at the text of the rules of the two chambers the House has, rules are twice as large as the Senate's just in terms of the number of words. There's just a lot more structure in place for the majority party to try to control what happens in the House.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:52] Now, the internal rules of the House may seem like small potatoes, but changing the structure of legislating can have a massive impact on our laws. It means things as mundane as you know. A representative isn't allowed to walk around while the speaker of the House is talking or take out their cell phone. But it can also mean how long a rep can spend debating a bill or how long they have to read that bill before it goes to debate.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:18] Like if you give legislators more time to read a bill, then you eliminate those situations where a bill gets jammed through the House last minute with a bunch of sneaky stuff thrown in.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:27] Exactly. And alternatively, the House could pass a rule that shortens review time to like an hour or two, which would mean that it's easier to get legislation passed without your fellow congresspeople knowing exactly what's in it. One of the first things a new Congress does and we get a new one every two years because representatives search on your terms is ratify the rules for the term. They keep a lot of what the preceding Congress had in place, but they change a lot, too. You do need a two thirds vote to make that happen. But with some concessions to moderates, the majority can get it done. And because the House has this two year turnover, the rules change pretty frequently. Things are a little different in the Senate, though.

Eleanor Powell: [00:05:10] The Senate, by contrast, because senators are elected to six year terms and those are staggered six year terms. So they don't adopt new rules every two years. They essentially their rules continue throughout the course of the Senate. So that means that's actually a little bit harder to change the rules in the Senate, whereas in the House, you can just make whatever shifts you want. At the start of the new Congress, the Senate, you have to decide how you're going to change the rules. And it's pretty hard to technically change the rules.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:41] All right. So if the house's dealer's choice poker where have a majority names the game at the start of every hand.

[00:05:47] The Senate's like a night of Texas Hold'em.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:50] Unless, of course, the dealer, a.k.a. the Senate majority leader, opts to go nuclear.

Eleanor Powell: [00:06:07] So the nuclear option, what we've seen in the Senate is actually changing the interpretation of a precedent in terms of how a rule is applied or what the rule applies to. And it turns out you can sort of change the interpretation of a precedent with just a simple majority rule, whereas technically they like do more substantial rule changes. You'd need a larger number of folks on board.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:29] So the Senate majority leader can pretty much turn Texas Hold'em into acey deucey.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:34] Final votes on bills in the Senate can pass with a simple majority. But in order to get to that final vote, you need a supermajority that's two thirds vote to end debate on a bill. The minority party will take advantage of this fact and keep debate going endlessly. This is also known as filibustering in order to prevent the final vote from happening. But the Senate majority leader has the power to issue what is called a point of order, where they suspend that two thirds super majority rule in favor of a simple majority of 51 votes. This is the nuclear option. Basically eliminate the minority's stalling tactic so that they can all get to a final vote.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:20] Ok. Because that final vote is a simple majority. It means the majority party can pass legislation they want to without any trouble from the minority party. So wait, why isn't this happening all the time? It basically grants the majority party absolute legislative power.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:35] Well, think about it this way. Senators do have those six year terms, but the elections are staggered, so they're constantly being replaced and the majority party can always flip. So if a Democratic majority leader uses the nuclear option, one year of Republican majority leader might use it the next.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:53] That is a dangerous little game to play, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:56] If there's any doubt as to whether the legislative branch is exciting. Just remember that stuff like that can go down and the stakes are high.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:03] But what are those stakes exactly? Are they voting on the same thing in the House? In the Senate?

Eleanor Powell: [00:08:08] So they do have notably different power. So that the big distinction is in the House, spending bills have to originate in the House and the Senate has the confirmation power. So essentially, anytime a cabinet secretary or a lower level appointment or an ambassador, any of those things that go through sort of advise and consent, the confirmation of the Senate that only goes through the Senate, not the House.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:33] The House is supposed to be the people's chamber. It's big, it's rowdy, it's proportional. And the framers gave the people the power of the purse. That's money bills. They're also the ones who bring impeachment charges. And that's not just against the president. It could be any civil officer of the United States. Of course, the Senate does have to confirm all of those money bills and they get to act as jury in impeachment cases. And then they also get to give advice and consent on presidential appointments.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:02] It feels like the House is sort of the shoot from the hip reach for the stars chamber and the Senate is the let's sit down and think this over for a while. Chamber, just like that hot tea cup and saucer metaphor that George Washington may or may not have invented, that the house is the hot tea and the Senate is the saucer that cools the tea.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:19] Which makes sense if you think about the House as a microcosm of the country at large and the Senate as a slightly more curated group.

[00:09:27] The House also gets to choose the president. If no candidate gets an electoral majority, the Senate gets to pick the vice president in that situation. Oh, and fun fact. The speaker of the House is actually third in line for the presidency.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:42] That is way more power than I expected the speaker of the House to have. And it brings something up that I would like to get straight. Leadership positions.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:50] Yes.

Stefani Langehennig: [00:09:51] It's I would say unquestionably the most important formal duty for the parties is selecting chamber leadership.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:57] This is Stephanie Langehennig. She researches U.S. politics and policy. And she gave me the rundown on leadership, starting with the speaker of the House.

Stefani Langehennig: [00:10:06] There are a limited set of kind of official duties that are defined by the chamber rules. So these, you know, include deciding who can speak on the floor and how the agenda is going to be structured and how different information is going to be disseminated and controlled.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:20] Does that mean they can prevent any bills from coming to the floor for a vote whatsoever?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:25] Exactly. It's a ton of power. And the speaker who gets elected by the House, the beginning of every term, also has political sway over committee appointments, which is also really big because it's in committee that most bills live or die if you get a good appointment. You can have a say in whether the bills that matter most, you actually make it to the floor.

Stefani Langehennig: [00:10:45] Basically, the remaining party leadership structure in the House in the Senate is determined by the party caucus organizations. So in the House, the majority leader and the majority whip. So the person who's whipping up the votes, it's literally call that for that reason. So you go into, you know, the Democratic Party and try to get them to vote on certain pieces of legislation. We're doing the dirty work. I would say, but they operate just below the speaker in terms of party leadership and then below that are these other secondary leadership positions that are also a part of the broader sort of majority party organizations.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:21] Okay, then who's the speaker of the Senate in the Senate?

Stefani Langehennig: [00:11:23] There is no speaker in the Senate.

[00:11:28] So for the Constitution, the president of the Senate is the vice president of the US. So right now, that's Mike Pence. And so the president of the Senate technically presides over the chambers proceedings, though the rules of the Senate get the holder of this position little authority. It's actually pretty ceremonial, I would say. However, I should also say that in recent years we've seen the president of the Senate or the V.P. come in and be the tiebreaker. Right. So we've seen Mike Pence come to the Hill a few times and break ties in the Senate so they can be really important. However, by and large, they don't really do much.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:06] Most of the time, actually, the vice president doesn't even show and the Senate has to appoint an interim presiding officer that they call the pro tempore, a president of the Senate, which actually has a really boring job because at any one time there aren't that many people out on the floor.

Stefani Langehennig: [00:12:21] And so the majority leader is actually the most powerful Senate leader, I think, because the majority party leaders have so much power and they they really dictate how the agenda said.

[00:12:35] They hold an enormous amount of influence in the way that policymaking and just the general flow of the day to day plays out.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:45] As we know, the majority leader has that nuclear card in their back pocket. But being in charge of the agenda is a huge deal, too, as we know. It means that you get to decide what's going to be debated on a given day, which means you can also decide what will not be debated. The rest of the structure is pretty similar to the House. So the Senate's also got whips, majority and minority, who help the majority and minority leaders respectively. There are caucus chairs who preside over caucus meetings, conference chairs who organized party members.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:13] Hold on the word caucuses.

[00:13:15] I hear that word all the time and I'm not sure exactly what it means.

Stefani Langehennig: [00:13:18] Caucuses are organizations that can effectively be whatever you want them to be, right? You've got really popular ones like the Blue Dog Democrats or the Congressional Black Caucus or, you know, the Freedom Caucus, things like that, where it's pretty easy to find a membership. Well, I should say the Freedom Caucus is not easy to find a membership on record for. But the Congressional Black Caucus, you can find, you know, a Web site and who's in there? Their caucus. And how many people are in it and what their policy priorities are. But some of these other ones are really pretty low key and hard to get a handle on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:55] In the House, caucuses are formal. They receive recognition and funding from the chamber in the Senate. They're informal and they don't. A caucus is basically a club with a focused interest that meets and discusses how to get legislation passed that benefits that interest. There are loads of caucuses and they cover everything from biomedical research and climate solutions to wrestling and bourbon.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:19] I'd join the Bourbon Caucus.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:20] You and me both, pal.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:21] Okay. I feel like I have a pretty decent grasp of how the structure works. But what does the day to day actually look like?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:28] I think it's time to bring Congressman Pappas back on.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:14:30] You know, the average day in Washington will start at between 8:00 and 9:00 at some point.

[00:14:39] And typically, you know, it might start with a caucus meeting for the Republicans and Democrats have caucuses in the morning.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:48] Chris Pappas is co-chair of the LGBT Equality and the New Democrat Coalition caucuses. So he starts the day by meeting with like minded legislators.

[00:14:57] Following that, the House session opens up. And so you might be giving brief remarks on the piece of legislation or something that's happening in your district that you want to raise for your colleagues. Committee meetings happen and sometimes they happen at exactly the same time.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:15] If Congress is in session, you show up at the Capitol building and you get to work. Sometimes you're on the floor talking about a bill. Sometimes you're in a committee meeting.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:15:23] You might be running from one committee hearing where you want to hear a witness, ask them questions and then head off to another one. Or you can be a part of that discussion, too.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:32] Committees are where bills are discussed after they're introduced. Congressman Pappas is on the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:15:41] And then typically in the afternoon is when votes will start happening. So. Well, you know, you've been in committee. There's debate happening on the floor. You know, you stay up to date on that through your staff and then you take votes and sometimes back and last throughout the afternoon and into the evening.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:58] All of this, by the way, is sound tracked by a system of coded bells that tell legislators about what's. Going on on the floor, though, it typically falls to staffers to learn the codes and make sure their lawmaker doesn't miss a vote.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:11] I want to learn the bell code. I really do.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:14] We'll learn it. Let's learn it. The bell code here.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:16:17] We have no staff in DC to act in the district and there are committee staff resources that are available to you to help you understand issues that help you draft legislation or amendments to the bill.

[00:16:31] And so, you know, it's really a force multiplier for you to do your job well and to make sure that you're addressing the concerns of folks back home.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:41] Ok. The folks back home. The house has district work, period. The Senate has state work periods. This means they're not in session, but they're supposed to go back home and talk to their constituents. It's easy to think of these as congressional vacations, but during this period, Congressman Pappas is most likely not sitting on a beach with my time. He's back home figuring out what people need and want from him.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:17:04] Back in New Hampshire, you know, we're invited to attend things seven days a week and we look to be proactive, to add ways to do outreach and to get me in front of constituents.

[00:17:16] And so, yeah, that doesn't really seem to be a typical day there.

[00:17:20] But whatever we're called on to show up and to engage with folks, we're ready and willing to do it.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:26] Okay. Hannah, representation. We come back to right where we started. These legislators are supposed to be listening to us, reflecting what we want and giving us what we want.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:36] Right. That's the idea. And I think that this is where things can kind of fall apart. You know, I think of some of these all white, all male state legislatures that often have women and people of color saying, hey, you know, it's not fair that you get to make my laws. You don't reflect me.

Congressman Chris Pappas: [00:17:52] It's critical that here in Washington we have a reflection of the people of this country, the diversity that exists around this nation and what people are looking for out of the public policy making process.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:05] But at the federal level, we've got our most diverse legislature yet. Right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:09] Right. But I guess my question is, what does a reflection of the people really mean? Just because I or a person of color or a member of the LGBTQ community or a member of any other number of minority groups can look at our House or Senate and find someone who looks like them or has a similar background. Does that mean that Congress is really, truly representing this country?

Emmitt Riley: [00:18:34] If we were to dissect the concept of representation, the first concept, we have to talk about his formal representation. This is Emmett Riley. No, I'm an assistant professor of Africana Studies and Political Science, and I'm also affiliated faculty with the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at DePaul University in Green Castle, Indiana.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:55] I called Emmett up to well, first, just establish our terms. You know, what does representation actually mean?

Emmitt Riley: [00:19:01] Formal representation. And that is the notion that anyone who is elected to an institution formally represents a person. This has nothing to do with their policy preferences. It has nothing to do with their race, their gender. This is the notion that by virtue of being elected to a certain institution, I am formally representing the American people. Then we go a step farther and begin to look at what we call descriptive representation, or most textbooks will call these sociological representation. And that is the degree to which people who are elected share features that we have, such as are race or gender or ethnicity, our heritage, our sexuality, all of those things.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:41] So now that we've got the most diverse Congress ever, does that mean that we're really representing, really reflecting the population's wants and needs at the legislative level?

Emmitt Riley: [00:19:51] And so when we look at that and we tie this into the political institution of the United States Congress, we see that the diversity that is reflected within the American population is represented in Congress, despite the fact that this last Congress that we elected is the most diverse Congress in our in congressional history. It still does not mirror the population that we have in the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:18] What it saying here is that even though there are more people of color and women in Congress, it's still an institution that is predominantly white and upper class, which is not what America looks like.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:29] So what would happen if Congress did look more like the American population?

Emmitt Riley: [00:20:32] The diversity in the makeup of the composition of an institution has profound consequences on the types of policies that are produced. That is, what types of policies do women pursue if they're given a chance to be to be represented in Congress? Do those interests intersect with black interests or other minority interests? And so the research overwhelmingly supports the notion that having a diverse body in Congress typically leads to a more diversity in the outputs in the type of bills that are introduced.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:04] And representation can mean something more than just the bills introduced.

[00:21:10] It can affect us as voters.

Emmitt Riley: [00:21:13] We also have to look at the impact that this representation has on levels of political engagement, in terms of voting, in terms of registration, in terms of campaigning, in terms of donating to campaigns. And so far, people are more likely to vote if there is a candidate in an election that looks like them, that shares their background, that shares their interests or have similar political interests that they have. And so we note it in particular in our scholarship that the more minorities who are running for office typically increases the number of minorities who are engaged.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:45] Okay.

[00:21:45] So having a diverse Congress can mean engaging a more diverse population.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:49] And a more engaged, diverse population means more votes for people who really represent us, which ultimately is what this whole mess is about. The legislative branch, as high and mighty and distant as it seems is supposed to be us. And the louder we are and the more we demand that it reflects us, the more it actually does.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:12] So as per usual, Hannah, your advice is get out there and vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:15] Yeah. Strength in numbers, my friend. Please listen carefully.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:24] Now, if you're sitting there thinking to yourself, that's it. You forgot the whole lawmaking part of being a legislator, Hanna, and you'll never work in this town again. Well, pump the brakes. Dear listener, because we've got a whole episode on how a bill becomes a law. In this starter kit, now that you know the framework of Congress, you're ready to learn what goes on inside of it. This episode of Civics, when one was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:47] Editing help from Jackie Fulton. Erica Janik is the one who schedules back to back committee meetings and skips them all day to hang out with her dog.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:54] Maureen McMurray thinks rules were meant to be broken.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:57] Music in this episode by Yung Kartz, Quincas Moreira, Shaolin Dub, Christian Bjoerklund, Blue Dot Sessions and Jazzhar.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:04] There's a lot more to see and hear at our website, including our newsletter subscription sign up every other week. We put all the fun stuff that does not make it into the episodes into our extra credit newsletter that is at civics one to one podcast dot org slash extra credit.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:17] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR.

[00:23:23] New Hampshire Public Radio.

[00:23:24] Dude we're gonna make a game called Senate Bells.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:36] That sounds really boring.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:36] It's really called you don't have the bell. The Tin Tin adulation, the Tin Tin adulation of the Senate bells bells . Was it the Senate we're in or in the House? We're in the House bells.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:47] It's all Capitol Hill.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Starter Kit: Executive Branch

In this episode of our Starter Kit series, we explore the powers of the President, both constitutional and extra-constitutional. What can a president do? How long do a president’s actions reverberate? Why don’t we do treaties anymore?

Also, we’ve got a super inefficient mnemonic device to remember the 15 executive departments in the order of their creation.

Featuring the voices of Lisa Manheim, professor at UW School of Law and co-author of The Limits of Presidential Power, and Kathryn DePalo, professor at Florida International University and past president of the Florida Political Science Association.

Graphic Organizer: Have students take notes on this sheet while they listen to the episode

Episode segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

 NOTE: This transcript was generated using an automated transcription service, and may contain typographical errors.

Starter Kit: Executive Branch

[00:00:04] (Presidential Oath of Office)

[00:00:26] Congratulations Mr. President.

[00:00:43] I've got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won't.

[00:00:46] I'm announcing my choice today, and will submit Judge Stevens name formally.

[00:00:51] What I'm going to do when I veto this is to say yes I'm going to send this bill right back.

[00:00:55] I'm signing today an executive order establishing the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime

Nick Capodice: [00:01:05] Ring a ding ding. What if the president picks up.

[00:01:09] Please continue to hold.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:14] What on earth is that.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:15] I called the president to make a comment. And I was on hold for about 20 minutes.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:23] Starts off the same way. Much like presidencies. Got hope at first. Comes along with a little trouble along the way. But the next thing you know. A Volunteer will answer. And take my comment to the president.

[00:01:51] Comment Line volunteer operators are currently assisting other callers.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:55] Did a volunteer actually end up talking to you.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:58] Yes one did and she told me that my comments would be delivered to the West Wing. Because no office is untouchable by the American citizen. I hope.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:09] I'm not Captain E.J.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:11] I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:12] And this is Civics 101, our starter kit series, and today we are tackling the most powerful job in the world. Or, as President James K. Polk put it, no bed of roses. We're talking about the Executive Branch.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:26] It's one of my favorite questions that the listener submitted. "What does the president do?"

Nick Capodice: [00:02:32] So when I think of the Executive branch, of course the first thing I think about is the president. But there is so much more. I spoke with Lisa Manheim. She's a lawyer and professor at University of Washington School of Law and co-author of The Limits of Presidential Power.

Lisa Manheim: [00:02:47] The executive branch has about has several million people working in it and there are about 2 million people who work as civilians within the executive branch. And then there are about 2 million people who work in the military.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:00] Over 4 million.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:02] Yeah. And the president is at the very top. The Constitution gives the president the power to execute the laws.

Lisa Manheim: [00:03:10] And one way of understanding what that is is it is the power to take the laws that Congress has passed, and they might relate to food safety or education or national security, and those laws need to be executed. They need to be carried out and enforced. And so the president via the constitution has the power to execute those laws. And what that refers to in practice is really helping to oversee a an executive branch that consists of literally millions of people who are doing the work of carrying out those laws passed by Congress.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:45] So this includes federal law enforcement. This is like the FBI and the Department of Justice employees, but also every member of the civil service. This is every post office worker, every national park employee. By contrast the legislative and judicial branches each have about 30000. The Executive branch is the single largest employer in the world. Twice as many employees as Wal-Mart. There are hundreds of agencies that fall within the 15 departments of the executive branch. All 15 of these departments can should and will get their own episode. But just so you know them all, you know I'm a sucker for a good mnemonic right Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:22] I do.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:23] Here's a super impractical one that I adore. See that dog jump in a circle. Leave her house to entertain educated veterans homes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:31] See that dog jump in a circle. Leave her house to entertain educated veterans homes.

[00:04:37] Now you're on the trolley. STDJIACLEHTEEVH, fifteen federal departments in the order of their creation. S state department, handling our relationship with foreign countries. T. Treasury. They make the money they collect taxes they include the IRS D defense. That's our largest department. J. Justice. They enforce the laws that protect public safety. This includes the FBI and U.S. Marshals. I, interior, manages the conservation of our land. This includes the National Parks, A Agriculture USDA they oversee farming food. C, commerce. They promote our economy and handle international trade. L labor, our workforce. H, Health and Human Services. That includes the FDA and the CDC. They also manage medicare and medicaid. H, Housing and Urban Development, HUD. They address national housing needs. T, Transportation. That's federal highways and the Federal Aviation Administration. E energy, the DOE, they manage our energy and they research better ways to make it. The next E's education. You know what they do. V, veterans affairs, benefit programs for those who've served in the military, and finally Homeland Security, whose job is to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks within the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:43] Right. Homeland Security. That's the newest one. It was just after September 11th.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:47] And the president hires, with the Senate's approval, and fires, without necessarily, political appointees to these departments.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:55] Wait before you jump into the president. I think that you are missing something.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:00] What? Oh. The vice president.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:10] All right. To be fair it's easy to overlook the vice president because the job just doesn't come with a lot of official duties. The veep is next in succession in case anything happens to the president, a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. They also serve as president of the Senate. Breaking tie votes when necessary. And that's happened about 270 times. And they preside over nonpresidential impeachment trials. Interestingly when it's a presidential impeachment it's the chief justice of the Supreme Court that runs the trial. Can you imagine that. And then over the last century the role the vice president has shifted a bit more towards domestic and foreign policy and sort of less sitting in that seat in the Senate as the president.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:52] Ok. Thank you. So we've talked about the millions in the executive branch but what does the president do?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:59] OK. There are constitutional powers of the president as well as more political powers. So let's start with what's written on the parchment. Here is Lisa Manheim again.

Lisa Manheim: [00:07:10] The Constitution creates the office of the president but it's sort of surprisingly has relatively little to say in the actual text about the range of different powers that a president in particular President these days has and is able to execute. That being said there are, the Constitution does include a relatively short list of specific powers that it grants the president and three of the most important relate to laws that Congress pass, who's appointed in the federal government, and then finally issues that relate to foreign affairs or to the military.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:45] The first of those three powers is signing bills into law or vetoing them.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:50] Which Congress can override with a two thirds majority in both houses.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:53] The second is appointing people to powerful positions in those 15 departments.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:58] Including Supreme Court justices. There are about 4000 positions that the president appoints. Twelve hundred of which require Senate approval.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:06] Ok. And the third the Foreign Affairs and the military that's forming treaties with other nations and being commander in chief of the armed forces.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:14] Right. And there's one more constitutional power that the president "shall from time to time give the Congress Information of the state of the Union," which they used to call the Annual Address and it used to be a written administrative report on what all the many executive employees had been up to. But radio and television have altered it to the State of the Union that we know and love today.

[00:08:34] Mr. Speaker. the president. of the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:39] I've always thought that when you look at it on the page right there in Article 2 of the Constitution, for a job that's called one of the most powerful in the world, there aren't that many powers and they're all checked. The president appoints nominees but the Senate approves them. The president can create or sign treaties but two thirds of the Senate has to concur. Did the founders intentionally make it a not very powerful position?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:07] Well let's duck into that hot room in Philadelphia at the Constitutional convention. Because they all knew they wanted an executive branch, which the articles of confederation did not have. And they were like, We want someone like the guy running these proceedings, someone who can also lead the troops into battle. Like General George Washington. Like that guy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:27] So they picked the candidate and then they wrote the job description.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:31] Yes. And that's one reason for our unique way that the branches divvy up war powers.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:09:36] The Constitution if you want to talk about separation of powers checks and balances there you know has given Congress so the people's branch right in the people's house the ability to declare a war.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:47] This is Kathryn DePalo, she's a political science professor at Florida International University.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:09:52] And that is very specific language but also gave the president of the United States the power as commander in chief. And so once Congress declared the war, the president then was supposed to lead the troops if you will. But that really hasn't happened at all. I mean the last time we declared war was in World War 2.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:09] There has been a consistent give and take between the legislative and executive branches when it comes to war.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:10:15] One of the things I find actually fascinating is the War Powers Resolution or the War Powers Act of 1973. And that was sort of the height of Vietnam. Everyone hated this war including members of Congress.

[00:10:34] Under the Constitution, you can end the war, not another dime for this war!

Kathryn DePalo: [00:10:41] And so what they wanted to do was try to take power away from the presidency. And so they passed this law that basically says the president cannot unilaterally send troops wherever he wants to. Just because he's commander in chief that you know the president has to inform Congress within 48 hours Congress, within a 60 day period has to decide if they want to continue with this war and continue to fund this this particular war. But a lot of wars aside from some of our recent war certainly in Afghanistan and Iraq really wrapped up very quickly. You know we didn't declare war you know when we went into Iraq the first time. And so the president really has a lot of the ability to send the troops and then say to Congress, oh well what are you going to do now. Right? These troops are here. So there's a lot of these things that are extra constitutional that would suggest there's a strict separation of powers here but really especially with the president of the United States and reality can do a lot.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:35] It sounds like we are getting into the territory of executive branch loopholes.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:41] Did you ever see these Saturday Night Live parody of the I'm just a bill song from Schoolhouse Rock with the executive order?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:45]  No!

[00:11:49] I'm an executive order and I pretty much just happen.

Kathryn DePalo: [00:11:56] Well I think human nature is we always seek out those loopholes. Right. So so of course there there are certainly loopholes and you know to talk about the presidency certainly to go around Congress. You know especially if the president's having difficulty getting Congress passed desired legislation the president as the chief executive of the executive bureaucracy can issue executive orders and basically make a whole lot of changes. You know President Obama couldn't get some immigration policy passed through Congress so he signs executive orders like the DREAM Act which which kept a lot of these kids who had graduated from American high schools to be able to stay here. And that's an order really to get to the the executive branch and to ICE. And so you can essentially make a lot of policy in those particular ways to be official.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:45] Executive orders need to be signed and recorded in the Federal Register and each of them gets an official number. I love executive orders they're fascinating. And every single president has issued them with the solitary exception of William Henry Harrison.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:57] To be fair he did die 31 days into office he probably would have done a few.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:02] We don't know that, we'll never know for sure. George Washington, he did eight. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863 was technically an executive order. The record for those so far is FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt three thousand five hundred twenty two executive orders, one of those was executive order 7 0 3 4 which created the Works Progress Administration, one of the primary ways FDR sought to combat the Great Depression. But as of very recently, determining what is an executive order has become a bit muddy.

Lisa Manheim: [00:13:35] When President Trump publishes a tweet, there is an argument that that is itself an executive order. It's not a formal executive order. It's not being published in the Federal Register. But legally speaking if the president issues a clear direction and does so in the form of a tweet that has the same legal effect as a formal executive order that's published in the Federal Register.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:59] So executive orders are just the president telling the people of the United States and all three branches of government their instructions.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:08] Yes. And these executive orders can still be blocked by the Supreme Court or by Congress if they pass a bill invalidating the order. And executive orders are different from executive agreements. Those are agreements that the president enters into with a foreign country.

Lisa Manheim: [00:14:23] And so if a question is Well why would a President ever enter into an executive agreement which he can do on his own rather than deciding to involve the Senate and enter into a treaty. There are basically two answers. One is that actually Presidents very rarely do enter into treaties now in part because they take this other route of entering into executive agreement. The other answer is that if a president enters into executive agreement rather than into a treaty then it's much easier for the next president if he wants to to exit the executive agreement than it is to executive exit a treaty. And that's one of the reasons why President Trump was able to start the unwinding process for the Paris agreement about climate change even though President Obama had just entered into it.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:13] George W. Bush he submitted about 100 treaties during his administration and most of them were approved by the Senate. And that's been pretty much the average since the beginning. By contrast Obama submitted 38. Only 15 of which were approved. However executive agreements which require no other branch involvement they are on the rise and American presidents have issued about 18000 of those.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:38] I'm curious as to the limits of these executive orders and agreements. Can a president order anything they want.

Lisa Manheim: [00:15:49] The fundamental principle that's underlying all this is the idea that if the president takes an official action there has to be some legal source of authority and the legal source of authority has to come from either a law passed by Congress or from the Constitution itself. The executive agreement is the tool the executive order is the tool and it's something in a Congress in one of Congress's laws or in the Courts Union itself that provides the basis for the president using that tool.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:20] One last thing I've got to know about. How persistent are the effects of precedent because if you love a president's agenda you might want them to issue as many orders and agreements as possible. Or if you loathe an administration you want to elect someone who will throw everything out and start anew. How long do a president's actions reverberate.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:44] That is an excellent question.

Lisa Manheim: [00:16:46] Legally speaking one way of understanding how permanent a president's actions are is to think about the process the president used to take those actions because for the most part the harder it is in terms of the process for a president is to take an action the harder it is in the future going to be for a president to unwind that same action. So for example if the president is, were to sign a bill into law, that means that two houses of Congress came together and agreed on the same statutory language which they then present to the president and the president signs it into law. For the next president to make that law go away? The president on his own cannot eliminate that prior law. By contrast if the president takes some sort of action all on his own. So if the president decides I'm going to issue an executive order directing people in my own administration to try to adopt certain enforcement priorities when it comes to immigration or if the president says I'm going to enter into an agreement with a foreign country and I'm not going to involve the Senate, I'm not gonna involve Congress at all I'm just going to sign it on my own. If the president does something on his own then generally speaking as a legal matter the next president can come in and unwind that on his own.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:07] There are different ways you can be a president you can be a military figurehead like George Washington who didn't necessarily even want the job, or you can be like Eisenhower or Kennedy you work like crazy to broker deals with the House and Senate getting a ton of laws passed and treaties signed or you can say forget that I'm gonna just go it alone and use those presidential powers. But again Congress can pass legislation to overturn an executive order and the courts can deem them unconstitutional. For example Donald Trump's travel ban was an executive order that a judge ruled against the law and no individual action on the part of the president could change that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:47] Until he wrote another executive order which the Supreme Court upheld.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:55] Yeah. There's sort of one last vestige of the power of the president that Lisa told me about. And the thing is it depends on how powerful we let the president be.

Lisa Manheim: [00:19:05] Given the role that the president plays as in a sense the single person that the news can go to that people can look to that foreign countries can can refer to. In thinking about what the United States government means and what it's doing in light of that position that the president plays. The president has over time gained an enormous amount of in a sense political power.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:33] And this didn't happen overnight. Administration to administration presidents have set precedent that gives the office more power. And we have no idea how that will evolve in the next 250 years. But I will say presidents often add tools to their executive toolbox but very rarely take them out.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:59] Well that'll just about do it for today's episode in the executive branch. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with you Hannah McCarthy thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:06] Our staff. You're welcome. Our staff includes Jackie Helbert and Ben Henry.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:10] Erika Janik is our executive producer which means she executes the episode and Maureen MacMurray, whose job description was written after she was hired.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:18] Music In this episode is by supercontinent, pictures of a floating world, Bisou, Daniel Birch, Chris Zabriskie, Ask Again, Asura, and the United States Coast Guard band. This here is Tone Ranger.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:28] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:36] And don't you forget you too can call the president to make a comment. 2 0 2 4 5 6 1 1 1 1.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Starter Kit: Checks and Balances

We exist in a delicate balance. Ours is a system designed to counterweight itself, to stave off the power grabs that entice even the fairest of us all. The U.S. government is comprised of humans, not angels, so each branch has the power to stop the other from going to far. The only catch being, of course, they have to actually exercise that power.

In this episode, with the inimitable Kim Wehle as our guide, we learn what those checks actually are, and how the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches (ostensibly) keep things democratic.

Graphic Organizer: Have students take notes on this sheet while they listen to the episode.

Episode Segments

---

TRANSCRIPT

Please note: this transcript was created using a combination of machine and human transcribing. Discrepancies may occur.

CPB : [00:00:00.09] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:05.83] When we decided we'd had enough of our own government and went to war and built a whole new government. The guiding principle was no king.

Kim Wehle: [00:00:19.9] So the framers of the Constitution were upset about a monarchy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:25.0] This is Kim Wehle by the way.

Kim Wehle: [00:00:26.5] The Constitution basically took the concept of a monarchy and broke it into what I say almost like a three headed monster or a three handed you know Angel. However you want to see it and so instead of having one boss that would be a king or a CEO of a corporation even the American Constitution separated the government into three parts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:48.73] That's right. America is basically Cerberus with wings that three headed hound that guards the gates of the underworld. You've got power carefully divided between each head all supporting the health of one body.

Kim Wehle: [00:01:02.05] One is the executive branch which is the president.

Archival: [00:01:04.87] The president of the United States.

Kim Wehle: [00:01:07.96] One is the Congress the legislative branch.

Archival: [00:01:10.99] Members of Congress.

Kim Wehle: [00:01:12.4] And the third would be the judiciary the judicial branch which are federal judges.

Archival: [00:01:16.75] The court is now sitting.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:19.48] If you could get a look at this angel beast's DNA you'd see a basic order to it all. A blueprint for the operations of this complex animal otherwise known as the U.S. government.

[00:01:31.69] The thing that has kept it alive for two centuries and counting written into our genetic code from the beginning today on civics 101.

[00:01:44.2] Checks and balances because the people who run this government are no angels. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:50.35] I'm going to Capitol.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:51.34] And this is the civics 101 starter kit. The basic knowledge you need to understand the rest of American democracy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:58.3] Now it seems a tangled web but you promised me Hannah that there is a structure there underneath the headlines. The tweeting and the campaigning and the arguing there's a foundation at the bottom of it all that keeps the whole thing from toppling over.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:11.11] There is a swear. It's why I called up Kim Wehle to try to figure out how that system of checks and balances is supposed to operate and how it actually operates. Kim by the way is a law professor at the Baltimore University School of Law and author of a brand new book on our favorite subject to Nick how to read the Constitution and why we asked her what exactly we mean when we talk about checks.

Kim Wehle: [00:02:38.65] It means if any one of those branches violates the law or does something that is improper or not consistent with what the public wants there are mechanisms or levers in the Constitution that the other two branches can pull in order to basically impose consequences on the bad branch.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:58.84] If you think of each head of the government beast as having its own crown that crown vests special powers in that particular head. Powers that allow them to do their own thing and powers that allow them to play watchdog for the other branches.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:13.81] What branch you want to do first let's do legislative branch.

Archival: [00:03:17.26] Congress.

Kim Wehle: [00:03:18.61] Legislate branch means Congress what is a law.

[00:03:21.97] A law is a rule that governs general behavior.

[00:03:26.77] Thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race. That would be a law that is something that Congress decided and passed through both houses and that is then signed by the president to become a law.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:40.48] But let's say Congress tries to pass a law that's questionable beast number two rears its head.

Archival: [00:03:47.95] The President.

Kim Wehle: [00:03:49.72] So the president has a check on that process the president can veto what Congress has done. That would be one check for example.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:58.31] And so the president can stop Congress from doing basically the one thing that it really does.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:02.5] Except Congress can then veto the veto.

[00:04:06.34] It's called a veto override and they can go over the president's head and pass their law anyway even if that law is unconstitutional. But this is a three headed dog remember.

[00:04:17.68] And that third head is a little more stoic.

Archival: [00:04:19.78] The courts.

Kim Wehle: [00:04:22.21] The court can then can strike down that law and hold it unconstitutional so that's an example of how the legislative branch is checked by both other branches of the federal government.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:32.62] Judicial review is not a constitutional power. By the way it's the result of one of the end all be all Supreme Court cases Marbury vs. Madison in 1883 in which the Supreme Court established its own power to declare a law unconstitutional.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:49.33] That is an insane amount of power when you think about it the Supreme Court can make itself more powerful like it took its superpower crown and made it even more super.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:59.35] But lest we forget where there's power.

Archival: [00:05:01.54] The court.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:02.36] There is a check.

Archival: [00:05:04.98] The President.

Kim Wehle: [00:05:04.98] The executive branch checks judges is to decide what cases to bring.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:10.38] So you can't rule on something unless somebody asks you to.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:13.53] Precisely. If federal law is violated it is the executive branch's job to prosecute through the Department of Justice. The DOJ they do that at the district level and then the circuit level after which point a disappointed plaintiff can appeal to the Supreme Court. But what if a federal prosecutor chooses not to take a case to begin with chooses not to prosecute something not to bring it into the court system at all. That's called prosecutorial discretion and it can keep cases away from the Supreme Court.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:50.03] Right. And the president is the one who appoints federal judges.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:52.41] With congressional approval.

[00:05:54.36] But yes when it comes to removing someone from the Supreme Court though that is a horse of a different color.

Kim Wehle: [00:06:03.83] Judges can be impeached. Federal judges just like the president can be impeached. Congress can narrow the kinds of cases that federal judges can hear. They can say listen you can only I'm exaggerating but you can only hear disputes involving fights with blue cars versus red cars. That's a that's not an accurate example. But the judges. what's called jurisdiction is defined by the United States Congress. The Congress could also decide we don't want federal judges under the Constitution. The only judges that are required as the Supreme Court the United States or Congress could say listen we want all these cases to go to the states. We are going to abolish the entire federal judiciary.

[00:06:41.18] Other than the Supreme Court that literally would be constitutional.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:43.13] By the way the same act that established the federal court system the judiciary active 1789 established congressional power to regulate jurisdiction.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:52.88] Another branch making its own super powers more super.

[00:06:56.99] You got Supreme Court saying We decide what's constitutional or not. And you've got Congress saying we decide what you can rule on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:04.1] And then you've got that third head of the government beast. We might want to think of that as the most enigmatic of the branches the executive presided over by the president.

Archival: [00:07:12.92] The president.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:14.63] The president can't make law or officially rule on whether law is constitutional. A president's job according to the oath of office is to preserve protect and defend the Constitution to make sure that law is upheld. But being in command of the enormous executive branch also means commanding the military the Treasury the Department of Justice and on and on. Most of the power there is implicit so checks are everything. When it comes to presidential reach and most of that checking lies with Congress.

Kim Wehle: [00:07:48.92] Well the number one thing we heard in the news right now is impeachment. If the executive branch the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors or even members within the president's cabinet the legislative branch can basically have a trial in the Congress and impeach that is basically fire the wrongdoer.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:06.44] Short of this fire the president approach Congress can cause a lot of slowdown or flat failure of the president's agenda.

Kim Wehle: [00:08:15.86] They can control the executive branch through the budget process. They can say listen we're going to shrink the attorney general's budget we're not going to give the Department of Justice enough money to actually execute the laws. That's going to limit their ability to go off the rails so to speak.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:32.09] Ah yes is the all important power of the purse. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:35.18] Congress basically controls the president's allowance because they're the ones approving the budget or making appropriations for certain bills. You can't wield overbearing prosecutorial power if Congress underfunded the attorney general's budget and let's say it's a matter of the president overstepping some bounds. But Congress isn't looking to impeach.

[00:08:56.69] They can still issue a check of sorts because they make the laws.

Kim Wehle: [00:09:00.44] Every branch gets their papers graded one way that Congress grades the the papers of the executive branch is to hold hearings. The hearings are for two reasons. One to find out whether Congress needs to do more checking by passing a law that limits the executive branch's power which is well within its authority under Article 1 of the Constitution that vests a legislative power in the Congress and the second thing is to just let the American public know what's going on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:31.1] Limiting presidential power like this usually comes after Congress feels like the president has gone too far. Like maybe he didn't act unconstitutionally but that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong like when FDR served for 12 years straight and Congress finally passed the 22nd Amendment and made term limits an official thing.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:51.26] Right. Especially in a nation founded on that no king principle. I'm thinking of the War Powers Act Truman and Kennedy entered wars but they didn't actually declare war. So they sidestepped Congress and Congress claps back and passed a law that said presidents are supposed to get approval for most conflict engagement regardless of what they call it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:10.25] But in those cases I mean in part because laws take so long to come to fruition. The presidents who got a little too big for their britches they were already out of the White House by the time those laws were passed. So what happens when we need a legal decision immediately. This is where that last black robe clad Cerberus head gets to speak up because the Supreme Court can declare executive actions unconstitutional for example. In 1996 President Bill Clinton wanted the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity.

Archival: [00:10:48.35] The president.

[00:10:48.47] The Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president does not have immunity from civil litigation while in office a court because they get to decide what is constitutional or not. Basically. Clinton eventually ended up in impeachment proceedings.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:04.26] But what happens if the president refuses to follow that ruling. Like when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and the Supreme Court said no you can't hold people indefinitely without trial just because they're disloyal. And Lincoln just ignored them ignored the Supreme Court. That's just completely illegal.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:21.84] Yeah. And the thing is that this does happen. And in a case like that Congress could have impeach the president. That would have technically been a proper course of action but they didn't. And to be fair most of us are probably grateful for that Lincoln prevailed and is considered to have been one of the nation's greatest presidents. But it's an important moment to bring up because what if the check system fails to engage. What if Congress and the judiciary or Congress and the president agree to let the other do what they want. Just because they're pals. What if one of these heads is asleep while the other two are just running amok.

Kim Wehle: [00:12:00.54] Another example I use is you know a speed camera. There's one on Connecticut Avenue I live outside of Washington D.C. and there's a couple blocks on Connecticut Avenue where everyone slows down and goes below 30 miles an hour because there's a speed camera. Once it's in the rearview mirror. People speed up. So same with the Constitution. If there's not a speed camera catching people and sending them the dreaded ticket in the mail with a little you know snapshot of your of your license plate.

[00:12:28.23] People are going to speed and the president.

Archival: [00:12:30.03] The president.

Kim Wehle: [00:12:30.66] The Congress.

Archival: [00:12:31.47] Congress.

Kim Wehle: [00:12:32.76] Federal judges.

Archival: [00:12:33.5] The court.

Kim Wehle: [00:12:33.6] They'll all blow through the speed limits.

[00:12:36.42] If there aren't consequences and that's the case for Republicans Democrats independent. It doesn't matter who is in the White House or who's in Congress. What I'm saying what matters is protecting the institution. So if if those in power shift whoever's in power is checked whoever's in power has consequences for bad behavior.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:57.3] Turns out the three headed government monster actually comes with a leash and the person holding that leash it's you they actually have to take the thing for a walk to make a difference.

Kim Wehle: [00:13:10.89] There's no constitution cop on the block that is the Constitution is a piece of paper. It's like a contract right. If you if we the people don't enforce it through the voting booth the ballot box or through the courts or a suit of some kind of other mechanism to ensure that our elected leaders are actually complying with the law then the Constitution itself just becomes irrelevant it's a piece of paper it doesn't its rules don't matter you can take out the black sharpie and cross them out. It's only so good as it's enforced.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:48.84] I feel like this ultimately makes us the Constitution cops. I mean trust in the system. Appreciate the system sure but know how the system works. Just in case someone sleeping on the job.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:01.5] Yeah. So. now that we do understand how things are supposed to work.

[00:14:06.93] The failsafe system for keeping the three headed dog alive it might be time to get a better sense of what all of these branches are thinking doing on their own time. Their powers are checked. but what are their powers.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:22.89] That's next time on Civics 101.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:33.47] Civics 101 was produced today by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice and help from Jackie Helbert and Ben Henry. Erica Janik is our executive producer Maureen McMurray thinks that power corrupts but absolute power is actually kind of cool. Music In this episode is by Blue Dot sessions, Lobo Loco and Quicksand. There is a transcript for this episode as well as a bunch of other resources at Civics 101 podcast dot org. And while you're there drop us a line. Click the Ask a question link and let us know what you want to know about civics. We'll do our best to answer it in a future episode. Civics when one is a production of N H PR New Hampshire Public Radio.

CPB : [00:15:30.29] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

---

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.