The married couple talk Trump, and a changing America
By Nathaniel Smith, Columnist, The Times
The prominent political strategists James Carville and Mary Matalin did a duo act on March 11 at West Chester University.
A large crowd came to hear the built-in drama of a Clinton person and a Cheney person happily married to each other (and who, we learned, started dating in Philadelphia 25 years ago). The advance publicity said:
“In James Carville and Mary Matalin’s second joint memoir, Love and War: Twenty Years, Three Presidents, Two Daughters and One Louisiana Home (January 2014), Carville and Matalin take a look at how they-and America-have changed in the last two decades. In their two distinct voices, they pick up their story from the end of the 1992 Presidential campaign to their new life in New Orleans today where their efforts to rebuild and promote that city have become a central part of their lives-and a poignant metaphor for moving the nation forward.”
Although that wasn’t quite what they discussed, and they seemed mostly transfixed by the Trump meteor, it was an interesting evening. Where they went back and forth with each other, I’m going to organize their thoughts.
Matalin, who has worked for three Republican administrations, says she is a conservative, not a Republican, and that Trump is not a Republican either. For her, the big issue now is not left vs. right but the relation between the ruling class and government. (Isn’t that what Sanders supporters say?)
Traditional R orthodoxy is being challenged and the party is in turmoil. “I blame the Republican party for creating Donald Trump,” she said.
Carville started with a good line, that Bernie is grandpa giving the kids ice cream while Hillary is grandma telling them to do their homework. (I don’t really agree, and Bernie is telling us to do our history and economics homework, but it’s clever.) Carville escalated this year’s significance to the top of the scale: If D’s lose the presidency they will be totally out of power, but the R party could go out of existence. The R’s, he said, did a good autopsy of Romney’s 2012 defeat, like the need to reach out to women and minorities, but then they paid no attention to their own prescription.
Trump, Carville said, has riled up a lot of people who don’t usually vote, including many of all political backgrounds who voted for him in open primaries (where D’s and I’s can vote for R’s). The R’s are the more ideological and stuck in the past; Romney gives a 1981 speech and Cruz wants to return to the gold standard.
If the young drop out of politics, others will decide their future for them. “A person who has a commitment to civic duty has a much richer life.” Mid-aged white male non-college grads, the only US group whose life expectancy is going down, are the most enthusiastic about Trump’s blaming politicians and immigrants.
WCU president Weisenstein presented some questions, first about “the culture of gridlock.” Matalin: Compromise isn’t working any more; we need to learn from experiments on the state level, with more federal block grants to the states. People distrust everything, including the media. Carville: R’s are more rural, D’s more urban; information is politically segregated; Americans don’t like their own party more than before but now loathe the other party. Gerrymandering creates few competitive districts.
Could there be a viable third party? Both said no. Matalin: Trump is a third party; incumbents like Pat Toomey will try to lie low if Trump is the R candidate.
Who is the strongest potential candidate who didn’t run for president? Matalin: Elizabeth Warren. Carville: It doesn’t matter; no one would make a difference.
Are there any strong VP candidates? Matalin: not really, because the VP’s authority depends on the president. Her ideal is Dick Cheney, for whom she worked. Trump, if he’s the R candidate, could choose a mainstream person or a disrupter; Clinton could pick a moderate R like Jon Huntsman to pick off R voters, or rally D’s by picking Warren. Carville: Trump won’t put in smart people; they all disagree. Matalin: Presidents deal with the unexpected; their world view counts the most.
How would they change the political system? Both thought it works as the Founders intended, slowly, but people should get more engaged. The end. Applause.
Neither mentioned issues of great importance to many voters, such as the Citizens United decision, the corruption of politics by money, the looming Supreme Court battle, the increase in wealth concentration, a tax system that favors corporations and the 1% over working people, or the permanent arms and war machine. Much could be said in further talks!
Carville seems to have retreated in belligerence since his 1996 bestseller We’re Right, They’re Wrong. Maybe Matalin has toned him down in those 20 years, or maybe he sees politics now through 20 more years of history, turmoil, and complexity.
Editor/Publisher
Carville and Matalin talk left & right at WCU
The married couple talk Trump, and a changing America
By Nathaniel Smith, Columnist, The Times
A large crowd came to hear the built-in drama of a Clinton person and a Cheney person happily married to each other (and who, we learned, started dating in Philadelphia 25 years ago). The advance publicity said:
“In James Carville and Mary Matalin’s second joint memoir, Love and War: Twenty Years, Three Presidents, Two Daughters and One Louisiana Home (January 2014), Carville and Matalin take a look at how they-and America-have changed in the last two decades. In their two distinct voices, they pick up their story from the end of the 1992 Presidential campaign to their new life in New Orleans today where their efforts to rebuild and promote that city have become a central part of their lives-and a poignant metaphor for moving the nation forward.”
Although that wasn’t quite what they discussed, and they seemed mostly transfixed by the Trump meteor, it was an interesting evening. Where they went back and forth with each other, I’m going to organize their thoughts.
Matalin, who has worked for three Republican administrations, says she is a conservative, not a Republican, and that Trump is not a Republican either. For her, the big issue now is not left vs. right but the relation between the ruling class and government. (Isn’t that what Sanders supporters say?)
Traditional R orthodoxy is being challenged and the party is in turmoil. “I blame the Republican party for creating Donald Trump,” she said.
Carville started with a good line, that Bernie is grandpa giving the kids ice cream while Hillary is grandma telling them to do their homework. (I don’t really agree, and Bernie is telling us to do our history and economics homework, but it’s clever.) Carville escalated this year’s significance to the top of the scale: If D’s lose the presidency they will be totally out of power, but the R party could go out of existence. The R’s, he said, did a good autopsy of Romney’s 2012 defeat, like the need to reach out to women and minorities, but then they paid no attention to their own prescription.
Trump, Carville said, has riled up a lot of people who don’t usually vote, including many of all political backgrounds who voted for him in open primaries (where D’s and I’s can vote for R’s). The R’s are the more ideological and stuck in the past; Romney gives a 1981 speech and Cruz wants to return to the gold standard.
If the young drop out of politics, others will decide their future for them. “A person who has a commitment to civic duty has a much richer life.” Mid-aged white male non-college grads, the only US group whose life expectancy is going down, are the most enthusiastic about Trump’s blaming politicians and immigrants.
WCU president Weisenstein presented some questions, first about “the culture of gridlock.” Matalin: Compromise isn’t working any more; we need to learn from experiments on the state level, with more federal block grants to the states. People distrust everything, including the media. Carville: R’s are more rural, D’s more urban; information is politically segregated; Americans don’t like their own party more than before but now loathe the other party. Gerrymandering creates few competitive districts.
Could there be a viable third party? Both said no. Matalin: Trump is a third party; incumbents like Pat Toomey will try to lie low if Trump is the R candidate.
Who is the strongest potential candidate who didn’t run for president? Matalin: Elizabeth Warren. Carville: It doesn’t matter; no one would make a difference.
Are there any strong VP candidates? Matalin: not really, because the VP’s authority depends on the president. Her ideal is Dick Cheney, for whom she worked. Trump, if he’s the R candidate, could choose a mainstream person or a disrupter; Clinton could pick a moderate R like Jon Huntsman to pick off R voters, or rally D’s by picking Warren. Carville: Trump won’t put in smart people; they all disagree. Matalin: Presidents deal with the unexpected; their world view counts the most.
How would they change the political system? Both thought it works as the Founders intended, slowly, but people should get more engaged. The end. Applause.
Neither mentioned issues of great importance to many voters, such as the Citizens United decision, the corruption of politics by money, the looming Supreme Court battle, the increase in wealth concentration, a tax system that favors corporations and the 1% over working people, or the permanent arms and war machine. Much could be said in further talks!
Carville seems to have retreated in belligerence since his 1996 bestseller We’re Right, They’re Wrong. Maybe Matalin has toned him down in those 20 years, or maybe he sees politics now through 20 more years of history, turmoil, and complexity.
Share this post:
Related Posts
When life refocuses you on what really matters
On the passing of a union leader — and political powerhouse
WCU dedicates new court to former coaches Kane and Delaney