KATE CIMINO: My
name is Kate Cimino

with our Center for the Study
of Politics and Governance

here at the Humphrey School.

And I want to welcome you to
the Humphrey School today.

I'll ask you to silence your
mobile devices, if you would.

We're glad to see you and
glad that you came out today.

Two things I'm here to do.

One is to let you know about
some of our upcoming programs.

We've got on May 2, Hahrie
Han from the University

of California, Santa
Barbara, will be here

to talk about the promise and
perils of community organizing,

about how community organizers
can role their work into longer

term efforts.

So that should be a good one.

And then on Friday, May 3, we'll
be down in Austin, Minnesota,

as part of a series that
our team is leading, looking

at the aging
workforce in Minnesota

and particularly
how older adults can

be part of the solution to
some of Minnesota's workforce

and employment challenges.

So if you would like to do
a little spring road trip

or if you know folks in the
Austin or Southeast Minnesota

area, we encourage
you to join us

for that conversation in Austin.

All these events
are on our website.

And if you get our emails,
they'll be there as well.

The other thing
I'd like to do is

to invite you to look at
the back of your program.

We've got a few of our
institutional donors

that I want to thank for their
major support of our programs.

We also have a number
of individual donors

that I want to thank in
general and invite you

that if you value and care about
these kinds of programs that

bring together different
political perspectives,

different views on policy, that
you consider joining our donor

circle.

That's a gift to the University
of Minnesota Foundation.

And I invite you
to connect with me

if you'd like to talk further.

And I believe with
that, I'll turn it over

to Professor Larry Jacobs
to introduce today's guest

and program.

LARRY JACOBS: Thank
you, Kate Cimino.

And I also want to thank
Mike Carey for helping

to organize today's events.

These things don't
happen by accident.

And Mike has been terrific
in making arrangements

with our visitors,
making sure there's

a room for us to meet in, which
is harder than you would think,

and all the other stuff
that makes it work.

And for Lea Chittenden, who
is the executive director

of our elections
program, as well

as the person who
runs our budgets

and supervises our events.

So we're really grateful we
have such a great team here.

I'm very excited
about today's guest.

This is someone who, if
you are a political science

student in sociology
or political science,

it is impossible to get a degree
without having to read and think

about and debate, Theda Skocpol.

She was a towering figure,
lots of books, lots of awards.

She is the model.

And that alone would
put her in the pantheon

of researchers and scholars.

And in a equally remarkable
way, Professor Skocpol

has redirected her research
over the last decade

or so towards investigating
problems, not just

social science theories and
methodologies but real world

problems.

And

Today, she's here to talk
about the political shifts

that she's been studying, both
in terms of the rise of the Tea

Party, the rise of
Conservative networks,

as well as the resistance that's
formed in the last few years

after the election
of Donald Trump.

This is going to be a very
provocative discussion.

I think at some
point along the way,

you're going to hear things
that might unsettle you.

And if that's the
case, we've succeeded.

[LAUGHTER]

Please give a warm welcome
to Professor Theda Skocpol.

[APPLAUSE]

THEDA SKOCPOL: So I'm going to
get myself in here, correct?

It's great.

LARRY JACOBS: Well, thank
you so much for visiting us

in our best time of year.

THEDA SKOCPOL: It's always a
pleasure to come to Minnesota.

It doesn't matter what the
weather is like, so great.

great to be here.

LARRY JACOBS: Theda was
born and raised in Michigan,

so she's a little more
tolerant of our weather,

and we're grateful for that.

We're going to talk for
a bit, and we really

want you to become part
of the conversation.

We've got question
cards rolling around.

Please fill them out.

I'm going to tell you
what I say all the time.

I love questions that disagree
with what we're talking about.

If you've got some dissent
or some other perspective,

fill it out.

And you will see that
I hone in on those

because I think that's what
these discussions are about.

And let me also say
why we do it this way.

A lot of our programs are
broadcast on public radio

or picked up by other
media, not all but many.

And it makes the job of turning
a program into something

that can be broadcast much
easier if there's just

two voices.

So that's why we do it.

Professor Skocpol,
there is a lot

of conversation among
commentators and pollsters

that Americans are sick
and tired of conflict.

They want people to
get along, and they're

no longer interested in
participating in the divisions

in our society.

You've been out doing
research in communities

outside the big
metropolitan areas.

What are you seeing,
and how does that

fit with this narrative
that we often hear?

THEDA SKOCPOL: I think
that on the ground,

across pretty much all kinds
of communities in the United

States, people do have a
yearning for a new kind

of politics that would involve
politicians and citizens

and active groups
talking about what's

good for the country as a whole
or the community as a whole.

So I think there is
something to that.

At the same time, people
right down to the grassroots

and even places very far
from the big urban centers,

are organizing with others
who share their sense of what

America is all about and
are prepared to mobilize

against even neighbors who
take a very different view.

So I think both of these
things are going on at once.

And in fact, a lot
of our politics

right now is about what America
is and where it's headed.

LARRY JACOBS: You
have been conducting

really fascinating research.

We've gotten in
your car, and you've

driven to some of these areas
far from big urban areas,

and you've been talking with
a whole range of people,

from newspaper editors
to political party

people to everyday folks.

What are you finding?

THEDA SKOCPOL: [CHUCKLES]
Well, not one thing.

I'll just explain that after
the 2016 election, three of us

female professors at
Harvard, one an economist,

one a sociologist, and I'm the
political scientist in the team,

we decided that we would
try to really just get

to know key local leaders
in eight counties,

two apiece in North
Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin,

and Pennsylvania,
that went for Trump.

Although that wasn't
the only criteria.

We looked for a medium city
area that in most cases,

those had flipped back and
forth over the years, and then

a smaller, more
Conservative place.

And the idea was pretty
simple at the beginning.

It turns out not to be
simple at all in practice,

but it was to go
to these places.

And my husband, a
retired physicist

from Boston
University, and I were

the first to get in the
car and start driving

and spend several days
meeting key leaders,

the local newspaper editor
in places where there still

is a newspaper, and heads of the
Republican and Democratic Party,

church leaders, because
a lot of community life

happens in churches.

I'm increasingly interested
in meeting the local sheriff

because the local sheriff always
knows where what's going on.

And if there are
Tea Parties still

meeting, because I studied
the Tea Party A decade ago,

and there are in two of the
counties, I've met them.

And in all of these
counties, we also

found citizens groups that
had formed spontaneously

after Donald Trump was
elected to take part

in trying to defend
the Affordable Care Act

and push back against some of
the things that were happening.

So there's no simple
theme except that we've

found some common concerns.

We started thinking
that health care

changes would be a flashpoint.

And indeed, the argument
over the Affordable Care Act

was an important part of what
Democrats, Republicans, Tea

Partiers, and resisters were
doing over that first year.

But the Affordable Care
Act wasn't simply repealed.

So the big changes
in flows of money

through hospitals, which
are central to communities,

and health care clinics,
that didn't happen.

On the other hand, there
have been a lot of changes

in immigration policy
and in refugee policy.

So one of the things
we've found is,

how do people
react when it's not

just an abstraction on
television or in Washington

but actual coworkers, or
members of their church,

or people who work at a
local plant that is raided,

or refugees that have been
incorporated into the community?

And also, I think the
final thing I'll say

is that everywhere,
we found concern

about the opioid crisis
and absolute consternation,

across the board,
shared by everybody.

Why has this happened,
and how are we

going to deal with the
absolutely devastating effects

on community institutions, on
families, on the workforce?

LARRY JACOBS: So
just to be clear,

I think everyone remembers that
shortly after Donald Trump was

inaugurated, there
was the Million Woman

March on Washington.

Are you talking about
that, or are you

talking about something more
broader and more organizational?

THEDA SKOCPOL: So in the United
States, eight years apart,

a president that really upset
the other side was elected,

Barack Obama in 2008,
in 2016, Donald Trump.

And they happened to be
elected at the same time

that their party controlled
both houses of Congress.

That kicked off in both periods,
widespread voluntary citizen

organizing.

And in the case of
Donald Trump's election,

the local grassroots
citizens groups

that are part of a
larger resistance to that

started organizing within days
of the election of Donald Trump.

Sometimes women who met through
Facebook group, Pantsuit Nation,

or women who met just--

one woman noticed signs
in the yard of a neighbor.

This is not all that different
from the way Tea Party

people met eight years before.

And so they started
organizing regularly,

meeting face-to-face
groups that usually

met in the back room of
a restaurant or a library

almost immediately and well
before those huge marches that

happened the day after
Donald Trump was inaugurated.

And remember, those
huge marches weren't

just in Washington,
DC, New York City,

San Francisco, Boston, Chicago.

They were in 600 locations
around the country.

So some further people
met during those occasions

and went on to
participate in or help

to organize the grassroots
resistance groups,

I found those, my husband
and I found those,

in every single pro-Trump county
we visited in the late spring

and summer of 2017.

And so it was evident
to us at that point

that whatever was resisting
Donald Trump's presidency

wasn't just something
happening among ultra Liberals,

in ultra Liberal places,
but was happening

among grassroots citizens,
some of them Democrats,

some of them independents,
some of them upset Republicans,

in lots of different
local communities.

LARRY JACOBS: One of the
most interesting and I think

provocative aspects
of your research

is this comparison
between the right wing

Tea Party or
anti-establishment Tea Party,

and the resistance movement
that has been going on and being

organized in communities.

You've described
this in both cases,

as a reaction against the usual
transactional mobilization,

let's say that a party
would do and lead up

to an election and more a form
of transformational organizing.

What do you mean by that?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, what I
mean by that is pretty simple.

We're in a period
where we're often

told that organizing
is all on the internet,

or it's all a matter of
professionally run groups

that raise a lot of money
and set up a big headquarters

in Washington, usually.

But both the grassroots parts of
the Tea Party in 2009 and after

and the grassroots parts of the
larger anti-Trump resistance

movement or pro-democracy
movement is the way many of them

would describe themselves.

It's been citizens who
just volunteer their time.

And in both cases,
white middle-class women

are big part of the organizing.

And I say to that when people--

I've had people look at me,
especially Democratic leaders,

look at me with a vague look of
disinterest and slight contempt

when I say that.

And I'm thinking,
who do you think

it is that organizes
things, actually?

[LAUGHTER]

I know.

And to be fair, that was true
in grassroots Tea Parties, too.

I mean, Tea Parties were
more evenly balanced.

If you attended a Tea Party
meeting, which I had the chance

to do, more evenly balanced
between men and women,

usually married couples,
older married couples.

But a lot of times,
it was a woman

who was standing up at the front
of the room doing the organizing

or running the bake sale table
that was raising the money.

So in many ways, these are
spontaneous, voluntary citizen

groups, where people are
saying, wait a minute.

I've been a voter.

I've maybe donated to
an occasional candidate,

or I've organized for a cause
on my side of the spectrum.

But I realize at this moment,
where this president is elected,

and a lot of things are going to
start happening in Washington,

then I hate that
I've got to do more.

And in fact, we have quotes
from both grassroots Tea Party

leaders back then and
grassroots resisters now.

It sounds like practically
the same statement.

I've got to save America,
and it falls on me.

This is a very American thing.

It echoes through all
of American history,

all the way back to what
Tocqueville observed,

which is there's
something about Americans

that, and I'm happy to
report, it hasn't gone away.

We thought it had, but it
hasn't, where citizens will say,

it's up to me.

It's up to us.

And so this is what's
remarkably similar.

Now, of course, the things
they're fighting for

are different.

Some of the tactics
are different.

LARRY JACOBS: How have the
political parties played a role?

Have they been the organizers
of this, or in some ways

the target, or just sitting on
the sidelines kind of asleep?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, I call
these extra party, movements,

because--

let me be very clear.

I mean, if you would go to Tea
Party gatherings back when there

were about 1,000 to 1,500 Tea
Parties regularly meeting--

now they're not nearly that
many regularly meeting.

But back in the 2009 to
2012 period, there were.

Would you find Republicans?

Yes.

Would you find
Republicans trying

to speak at Tea Party rallies?

Of course, you would.

Did they mostly vote
for Republicans?

You bet they did because they
didn't want Democrats elected.

The same would be true on the
grassroots resistance side.

People will say that
they lean Democratic,

or if they're independent,
they lean Democratic.

But the parties themselves
didn't organize these formations

at the local level
in either case.

And one of the big parts of the
research my colleagues and I are

doing is starting to
track over time how they

come to relate to the parties.

And there's one phenomenon
that is pretty similar.

When self-organized
citizens start

looking at their local
and state political party,

they often decide, well,
we could do better.

And they read up on the rules.

And they go in and
elect themselves,

or they run for party offices.

And that has definitely
happened on both sides.

But to a considerable degree,
both Tea Parties and resistance

groups have stayed separate,
partly because they're

trying to encourage and engage
people who don't necessarily

like the, quote, party
establishments or the people who

happen to be running the county
or local party organizations.

And so a big
question is, do they

cooperate with them over time?

And the answer was that
Tea Parties were usually

intensely suspicious
of Republicans

until the moment they actually
took them over or elected

one of their own.

And then they sometimes became
suspicious of the people

they elected.

There's a very-- reminds me
of the New Left in my youth,

actually, very worried
about authority, suspicion

among self-organized Tea
Partiers, and almost a feeling

that if you're in government,
you're selling out already.

And there was a lot of
pressure put on Republicans

to never compromise.

It's a little
different, I think,

from what we're seeing
now in the resistance

at the grassroots.

Their relationships with
Democrats in their area

can range from friendly and
cooperative to outright hostile,

depending on the
Democrats, depending

on whether the Democrats
welcome the new energy

or don't welcome it.

But there's very little
sense that resistance groups

are trying to simply collapse
into the Democratic Party

in most places or force
it to never compromise.

So I think there are
some differences.

LARRY JACOBS: You've argued
that American politics is not

decided in big cities.

You're just saying that
your research is far

from these cities.

And I think some people might
find that to be curious.

At a time when
cities are growing,

the suburban, kind of
broader metropolitan areas

are growing, and
especially becoming

increasingly places of color.

And I guess the question is,
why are you leaving out cities,

and why are you leaving
out people of color?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, not leaving
out people of color in the sense

that if you go to a state
like North Carolina,

there are plenty
of people of color

who live in smaller towns and
cities and in rural areas.

So not all people of
color live in cities.

But I understand
what you're saying.

We, in this particular
project, focused more on places

outside of the well
known Liberal enclaves,

not because big city politics
and big metropolitan turnout

isn't critical in elections.

We know it is.

But you have to look
at 2016 to realize

it's not enough for the
Democratic Party to win.

Hillary Clinton, for
example, lost counties

outside of the big cities in
the state of Pennsylvania.

I'm sure it's probably true
in a lot of the Midwest,

too, by 80 to 20 margins.

Places that Barack Obama had
probably lost for the most part,

but he lost it 60/40 or 70/30.

So one of the questions
that animated this research

is, what's happening?

And including, what is it that
Democrats, as an organized

set of groups, are
doing or not doing

to speak to their
fellow citizens

in places that are not
absolute core strongholds?

The United States is
a federated republic.

There is an electoral college.

We are hearing that
the electoral college

can be gotten rid of.

[SCOFFS] It's not
going anywhere.

It was built into
the Constitution

by the founders
very deliberately.

And it wasn't simply
to protect slavery.

It was to ensure that
smaller and larger

states had some degree of
equal say in the Constitution.

And to get rid of
that, you're going

to have to persuade a lot of
states that benefit from that.

In a politically
polarized period,

where Republicans realized
they benefited from it a lot,

to get rid of it, that's
not going to happen.

It's less likely than that
the wall will be built.

It's just as symbolic an issue.

So if it's a federated
republic, then what's

going on socially, economically,
culturally, politically,

and whether the
minority party has

is making an attempt to have
a presence in the other place

really matters.

So that was part of the purpose.

But part of this research
on the resistance

is also based on
questionnaires that we're

collecting from groups
across the entire state

of Pennsylvania, including
in the big urban counties

and suburban counties,
just to make sure

that what we're finding
in the other places

isn't unrepresentative.

And the same thing
with the Tea Parties.

We've put together
maps of states

to show where Tea Parties,
one or more were organized,

and where resistance groups
now are being organized.

Most states that
we've studied so far

have both types of groups.

So it's not as if
things are sorting

out the way Republicans and
Democrats sort out in elections.

These are much more
widespread citizen movements.

LARRY JACOBS: You've
written for some time

now about Conservative
insurgency and success.

You wrote about the defeat of
Bill Clinton's health reform

and a book called Boomerang.

You've written
about the Tea Party.

More recently, you've
been conducting

some fascinating research about
the Conservative network that

includes the Koch
seminars, as well

as ALEC, the legislative
group among Conservatives.

And now you've gotten
to this moment.

And I guess the question
is, do Conservatives

have the upper hand?

Are progressive
grassroots groups

kind of rebounding and giving
them a fight for their money?

How do you assess the balance
of power between these two sets?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well,
it isn't settled.

And we're in a period
of mobilization

and counter-mobilization.

And we saw in the 2018 elections
that there was quite a lot

led by women, by the way,
organized in many cases,

nominated by the kinds
of groups that I've

studied at the grassroots, which
are heavily women-led groups.

They were changing the face
of the Democratic Party.

And I don't mean Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez only.

Actually, most of the
freshman class elected

are men and women of all
stripes, both ideologically

and sociologically.

So it's a very diverse
group of people elected

by Democrats and
citizen organizers who

said to themselves,
wait a minute,

we need to participate more,
and we need to vote more.

We need to reach out to others.

We need to argue and push back.

Now, the Republican Party
and the Conservative movement

have a pretty big head start.

Our research groups
have looked at things

both from the top-down
and bottom-up.

I've talked a little
bit about the Tea Party

upsurge that occurred in 2009.

But before that, there
was a decade-worth

of organizing of
millionaires and billionaires

on the right who
channeled a lot of money

into building up organizations
to the outside of the Republican

Party that both pushed
Republican candidates

and officeholders
and gave them months

to follow a very ultra free
market set of economic policies.

Those are different kinds of
policies than most grassroots

Tea Partiers were pushing for.

So these are two different
sets of pressures

that have hit the Republican
Party over the last 15 years,

like a two-sided tornado,
and in many ways have remade

that party into something that
Richard Nixon would certainly

not recognize.

I mean, it's even pretty far
from what John McCain ran on

in 2008.

And I'm an antiquer.

And a couple summers
ago, I found a postcard

and a postcard show
in Maine, where

I spent my summers
giving 10 reasons why

you should re-elect Ike.

That would be
Eisenhower, in what?

That would have been 19--

LARRY JACOBS: '56.

THEDA SKOCPOL: --56.

And boy, I mean,
the seventh, eighth,

ninth and 10th reasons
would make him a communist

by today's Republican standards
because he was going to speak up

for Americans of all income
levels and religions and races.

And he was going to protect
Social Security and Medicare.

And he wanted to make sure there
was an adequate welfare safety

net.

And, I mean--
[CHUCKLES] he couldn't

get nominated for dogcatcher
in the Republican Party now.

So things have really traveled.

Now, they've traveled in
the Democratic Party too,

but I think not quite as far.

And so I don't want to
suggest that the Tea

Party is the only force that
has remade republicanism.

I think it interacts with
a much more elite agenda.

And Donald Trump seems to
be fusing the two because he

certainly is talking about
how terrible immigrants are

for America and the
need to build a wall.

And he's carrying through
on a lot of those policies

in a pretty ruthless way.

I don't think him personally,
but people around him.

But at the same time,
I mean, he has really

enacted most of the major
tax cuts on business

and the wealthy and
the regulatory changes

that the Koch network
and free-market-minded,

libertarian-minded
millionaires and billionaires

organized to persuade
Republicans to pursue.

So those both are
happening at the same time.

And I don't think anything
like that has happened

to the Democratic Party.

I suspect that if it
did, the Democratic Party

would lose elections.

So I'm not suggesting that
the processes are parallel

on the two sides, but there's
a real horse race out there

in just about every state,
certainly here in Minnesota.

And I don't know how
it's going to turn out.

Political scientists tell you
that they can predict outcomes.

Don't believe them.

[LAUGHTER]

LARRY JACOBS: You just suggested
that Democrats shouldn't follow

the lead of the
Conservatives who've

gone pretty hard to the right.

And that Democrats should
not move too far to the left

because they'll
lose all the time.

There are a lot of
progressives who

take just the opposite lesson.

And they say, wait a second.

The Conservatives get away with
raising the deficit in order

to cut taxes.

Why is it that
Democrats then are

in the position of
being the ones who

clean up after the deficits?

Why shouldn't they
just move to the left

and pass quite
progressive legislation?

Why wouldn't that
work politically?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well,
it depends a lot

on what we're talking about.

Notice that the Affordable Care
Act, which whatever criticisms

people may have of it, was the
most equality-enhancing piece

of legislation to pass in 50
years in the United States.

And that's particularly true
where the Medicaid expansion

was fully accepted by states.

And it's being accepted
by more and more.

That was not a timid piece
of legislation actually,

even if it was very
intricately structured to try

to slither through Congress,
which is really all it did.

That's a technical term,
slithered through Congress.

[LAUGHTER]

And it's still trying to
slither through the courts.

So I don't think there was
anything unbold about that.

But progressives have to be
careful that they don't say,

well, those people did
it, so we can do it too,

because the kinds
of constituencies

that are attracted to the
two major political parties

are different in various ways.

Most Democrats believe
in a degree of compromise

in government.

If you ask ordinary voters, most
Democrats are moderate Liberals.

They are not-- they
don't consider themselves

on the far-left
edge of the party.

Republicans by now,
it's a different story.

Most Republicans
say that they want

to be more and
more Conservative,

and they don't
believe in compromise.

So right there, the
voters that you're

appealing to plus the shrinking
little group in the middle,

and it's pretty
shrunken at this point.

But Democrats have to
win some of their votes.

So the question is
which battles to pick.

And I don't think-- let
me give you an example.

Conor Lamb, who was elected
in Southwest Pennsylvania,

with a lot of support from
both union constituencies

and these newly mobilized
and organized women

who went door to
door in his district.

He's pulled his punches on guns,
and he votes for women's right

to choose legislatively.

But he says openly, he's a
prolife Catholic personally

and makes the distinction
between the personal stand

and the public stand.

He's been criticized by
some people on the left

and described as a
Conservative for those stands.

Yet this is a man who talks
about expanding and protecting

Social Security and Medicare.

In other words, he's a New Deal
Liberal of a full-throated kind,

believing in using the taxing
and spending power of government

to build opportunity
and security

for large numbers of Americans.

I don't think it's very helpful
to try to pigeonhole him

as a simple Liberal or more
or less progressive Democrat.

And I think it would be suicide
to demand of him support

for policies that would
kill him with many voters

in his district, who
are prepared to listen

to the core
socioeconomic message.

The fact of the
matter is people have

to start where their district
is and then articulate

values that are shared
across those districts.

I think that's what's
happening with Democrats now

on the ground.

And that's likely-- that
was a winner in 2018.

It could be a winner in 2020.

That is a little bit
different from what's

going on in the Republican Party
because the constituencies are

different.

LARRY JACOBS: You've just
very gracefully canoed

into a major debate within
the Democratic Party.

THEDA SKOCPOL: [LAUGHS]

LARRY JACOBS: We do a lot--

THEDA SKOCPOL: So we're going
to go through the Rapids now?

LARRY JACOBS:
You're in Minnesota.

We do a lot of canoeing in
Minnesota, particularly up north

in the Boundary Waters.

THEDA SKOCPOL: You can ask
me about Medicare for all.

LARRY JACOBS: Well, I think
the question here, though,

is the split among Democrats
and progressives, including

resistance groups, is between
folks who are economically

progressive, economic
populists, and those who

have a very, kind of almost--

well, they have a
particularly strong stand

on issues about social
topics, whether it's

abortion, gay marriage,
or it's racial issues--

THEDA SKOCPOL: Or guns.

LARRY JACOBS: --or guns.

And so you move across that.

And Democrats look like they're
at each other's throats.

THEDA SKOCPOL: Yeah, they look
like that more on the media

than they are in fact.

And that's one thing
that I guess I would say,

that we're in a
media environment now

where there are many
multiple outlets

and there are
economically-stressed cable

television outlets.

And they're all looking
for controversy.

And they actually portray more
controversy than there often is.

So I'm not actually convinced
that Democrats are mostly

at each other's throat
on these issues.

I think most Democrats
are prepared to make

a case for a movement toward
more gun safety regulations.

And that includes those who
wouldn't accept certain measures

because their constituents
don't want those.

Maybe the abortion
issue is perhaps

one of the most divisive.

But even there, Senator
Casey, in Pennsylvania,

I mean, he has been
elected and re-elected

by increasingly large margins
and has done pretty well

in the nonbig city
non-Liberal strongholds

across Pennsylvania for years.

He consistently votes for
legal rights for people

to make their own choices.

But he also talks about
his Catholic faith.

At least when I've been
in settings talking

to actual people, they're not
going to each other's throats

about this.

The local groups
that I've visited

have Bernie supporters
and Hillary supporters,

but they don't spend any
of their time talking

about the 2016 election and
the split between Bernie

and Hillary.

They were getting on
with working together

for the next phase,
more so than happens

at the DNC in Washington.

So I just am not certain
that most people who

identify with Democrats
on the center left

are necessarily at
each other's throats.

Now, that said, selecting a
presidential candidate brings

out all of these incentives
to set yourself apart

from everybody else.

Imagine what it's going to
be like for 20 people trying

to catch attention all at
once and media outlets taking

every little word, to say, well,
that person is to the right,

and that person is to the left.

And then there's Bernie
who will say that.

Let's face it.

I mean, that's what's so
endearing about Bernie,

is that he's on a moral crusade.

So we are entering
a period where

it's going to be made
to look like they're

more disagreements than
they're probably actually are.

And the big question
is, will this

get put back together
when the time comes,

both to elect a president from
the Democrats' point of view

and to continue to fight for
the state and local offices,

as well as the
Congressional offices that

were neglected to a large degree
during Barack Obama's otherwise

to many Democrats
appealing presidency?

LARRY JACOBS: So let's talk
about a genuine difference

within the Democratic Party.

The leading candidate
among declared candidates

is Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders does not
support, has not come out

and supported, the effort
among House Democrats

to protect and expand
the Affordable Care Act.

Instead, Bernie Sanders says, I
support a form of incrementalism

that would phase in
Medicare for all.

Does that strike you as really--

THEDA SKOCPOL: Is
that what Bernie says?

I thought he wanted Medicare
for all in one fell swoop.

LARRY JACOBS: He would
prefer it in one fell swoop,

but he does not see the
Affordable Care Act as something

he's going to fight for.

Whereas the Democrats in the
House are unified behind that

battle.

Do you think it makes sense?

And does the politics work?

And does it represent
a major fissure

within the Democratic
Party that you've

got one group who does not
see the Affordable Care

Act as worth fighting for?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, to
be fair, I think Bernie

and many of his supporters did
fight for the Affordable Care

Act during the first year
of the Trump presidency.

But look, I'm just not
as convinced that this

is a major fissure that's
going to prove decisive.

Now, I guess it will if Bernie
Sanders becomes the nominee

of the Democratic Party.

But I have no idea whether
that's going to happen.

And I think there
probably will be

an open debate among
presidential candidates

about whether the way to expand
health insurance and health care

access is to build options
into the Affordable Care Act

and build on the
Affordable Care Act,

and gradually expand Medicare
as a matter of choice,

or try to replace
the entire system.

I don't think Democrats
should in any way,

or for anybody in the country,
should fear that discussion,

as long as that discussion is
substantive and is out there

and there is somebody
to speak for the

build on the Affordable
Care Act or Medicare

for more type positions.

I expect there will be.

I don't think that that debate
is going to be failed to happen.

I think it will be healthy.

And I doubt that it
will result in some kind

of cataclysmic suicidal fissure.

Speaking as both an analyst and
to some degree in my citizen

capacity, I do think
that Americans are not

ready to blow up the entire
health care system again.

So I don't think that would
be a winning position.

And I think there's
some evidence for that

because it's been taken
into state referenda,

and it has never won.

LARRY JACOBS: You've
written quite a bit

about the role of gender in
American political development.

You wrote a book called
Protecting Soldiers and Mothers,

which won many awards, in which
you recount the role of women's

organizations in the efforts
to heal up the country

and really set the seeds for
what has become our welfare

state.

And now you're telling the
story of the Resistance

and before that, the Tea Party.

And the story again, comes
back to women-led grassroots

organizing.

THEDA SKOCPOL: Especially
for the resistance.

LARRY JACOBS: What's
the common theme there?

What is it about women in
the political arena that

has made them so effective?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, two things.

One, which I think we saw
through the period of the Tea

Party, which goes back a very
long ways in American civic

life, because my colleagues and
I actually tracked voluntary

membership groups across
all of American history,

from the Revolutionary
Period through the 1990s.

And so the Tea Party and
Resistance research builds

on what we found was
similar and different

across all those decades.

And women have always been
stalwarts in church life

in the United States and
that those skills transfer

to organizing voluntary groups
that have local parts that

meet regularly.

What are those skills?

They are figuring out how
to organize a meeting, how

to get some food in there.

By the way, those skills
were important to all

the male-led voluntary groups
too, the veterans groups

and the fraternal groups that
dominated American civic life

on the male side.

It turns out that when you
actually looked into it,

it was mainly their female
partners in the Rebekahs,

as opposed to the
Odd Fellows, that

were organizing the dinners.

[CHUCKLES] So I
think those skills--

and Tocqueville would
have appreciated this.

Lord Bryce would have
appreciated this.

It comes out of a certain
kind of Protestantism,

which is actually also infected
all of the religions that

have come to America,
which is just,

let's do it in the name
of the common good.

And there are some
concrete tasks,

and those are dignified
tasks to do good tasks.

And we can do them for
ourselves and for others

whose activities we support.

The other part of it though, on
the more Democratic resistance

side is I think, this long
tradition that women developed

in the 19th century, early 20th
century America when they were

highly educated compared
to women in other parts

of the world, and
often teachers.

America graduated people
from colleges very early.

And they became teachers
all over the country.

And then they had to step
down, like my mother did

when she got married.

But they were still there.

And so women became
custodians of the public good

through voluntary action.

And I hear the rhymes of that
in the resistance group meetings

now, which are not just
women-led or co-led,

they're dominated by women.

And they're dominated by women,
middle-class women, teachers,

medical people, nonprofit
leaders, small business women,

who just say to
themselves, well,

wait a minute,
Donald Trump, that's

not my sense of the
community and public good.

He violates my
sense-- and those who

support him violate my sense of
what it means to be an American

and what it means to
have a healthy democracy.

And then because
they are Americans

and because they are women, they
say, if the rest of those people

aren't going to do it
right, I have to do it.

There was a great piece by
Molly Ball in "The Atlantic."

She said the attitude in a lot
of the groups she visited was

like a wife who sees her
husband for the 10th time,

fail to fold the
socks correctly--

[LAUGHTER]

--in the laundry,
and says to herself,

I guess I'll have
to do it myself.

[LAUGHTER]

LARRY JACOBS: There
are a number of topics

you haven't raised that might
be surprising to folks here.

You haven't talked about Russian
meddling in the 2016 election.

You haven't talked about
the Mueller report.

You haven't talked
about Attorney General

Barr and his role in that.

Is that because you
don't think that's that

important to Americans who
are active in these grassroots

organizing?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Let me
give two answers to that.

In hundreds of interviews
in these eight counties

I visited, not a single
person ever raised the Mueller

investigation with me.

Now, does that prevent me, like
everybody else in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, from turning
on Rachel Maddow each night--

[LAUGHTER]

--with the latest-- no, but
it was very educational.

This is just not where it's
at out there in the country.

And come on.

I'm going to speak
as a citizen here.

I never thought
that Donald Trump

would be defeated or limited
through a legal investigation.

That's what my colleague Martin
Schefter once called politics

by other means in a
book with Ben Ginsberg,

who was a Conservative,
that there is a tendency--

and I'm afraid it's been awfully
strong on the Liberal side

of the spectrum over
the last half century--

to think that there's some legal
means, or take it to the courts,

or criminalize it.

No.

What about actually
organizing and talking

to your fellow citizens
and getting out to vote?

And I never thought the
Mueller investigation

was going to result in Donald
Trump being removed from office.

And speaking normatively
as a citizen,

I think that would
be a disaster.

I remember what it was like to
interview Conservative people

in Wisconsin, who are still
furious about the attempt

to remove Governor Walker
in 2011 by a recall.

I mean, I literally had
to practically run out

of the living room of
this Conservative man I

was interviewing
because he was so angry.

And he thought-- he
suspected I'm a Liberal.

I mean, I don't go into
interviews talking correctly

in my citizen capacity.

And I had to say to him, it
was a legal process they used,

but that's not who he saw it.

And a lot of middle-of-the-road
Wisconsin people also believed

it was wrong to remove a
governor from office a year

after he was in there, even if
they didn't like his policies.

So I think there's something
in this whole drama

that we're going to see
play out over the next year.

Can the momentum that
Democrats achieved

in 2018, which was very much
a-- people coming forward

to run for office,
people knocking on doors,

getting out the vote, and that
happened in a different way

among minorities
and young people,

more in cities that happened to.

Can that be repeated in
a presidential contest

where all the other
offices are all at stake?

That's what it will take
over three or four elections

to change the tide of American
democracy in a direction

that Liberals want.

And it's not going to
happen by some decision

by a judge or a prosecutor.

It just isn't.

And if it did, it would
arouse a great deal of fury

among the supporters
of the people that

were removed in that way.

But it's not going
to happen anyway.

I mean, the Mueller
report is over.

No, it isn't, but
it'll go on forever.

I expect 10 years from now.

[LAUGHTER]

But I just don't
think that that's not

where-- that's not the core of
what most Americans care about.

That's not the core
about of what people

who aren't paying close
attention to every twist

and turn of Washington,
DC politics care about,

and the divide between what
they care about in Washington

and what they care about at
the grassroots is so apparent.

LARRY JACOBS: You've also
written about climate change.

And you've been quite
critical of the organized

groups on the side of fighting
climate change in Washington,

DC.

Are there lessons
from the research

you've done on
grassroots organizing

by the Tea Party and now the
Resistance for the climate

change advocates?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Sure.

You have to turn climate change
into a discussion about how

we're going to change our
community life and our economy.

I think that's
beginning to happen.

And the interesting
thing about the

abolished the
electoral college, I

think that's a purely symbolic,
relatively not very fruitful

procedural aspiration.

But I think the Green New Deal,
although I don't believe it

in any way, it's a
legislation ready.

I do think it
opens conversation.

And it tries to highlight
the juncture between changing

the way we produce
and use energy

and the way in which we organize
our work and community life.

And that conversation
is happening

more than it was a decade ago.

That will have to
happen, and it will

have to happen in
states and localities.

It can't simply be some kind
of bargain about a carbon tax.

I do believe a carbon tax
with a universal rebate

would have been a good idea.

I still think in the
abstract, it's a good idea.

But politics is not about policy
ideas in the abstract, is it?

Politics is about who we
are and how we do a better

job of being who we are.

And so a broader
group of people have

to be involved in
that conversation,

and it's very hard in
the climate change area.

But I think it's
about to become easier

because more and more Americans
realize something is happening

and that probably some solutions
need to be devised to it.

And some of those solutions
point to economic innovations

that will create jobs and will
create better ways of living

that can be quite attractive.

So that's the other thing
I think, has to happen.

I think you have to marry
a widespread participation

in the politics with in
the political conversation

and in the building of
support for candidates

and officeholders.

But you also have to
have something other

than doom and gloom to sell.

You have to have
a positive vision

to sell about what
we can-- what we

can do to build a better future,
not just to avoid hurricanes,

and tornadoes, and flooding of
New York, that kind of movie

is going to be more
and more common.

[CHUCKLES]

LARRY JACOBS: Here's a
question from the audience.

I suspect that a lot of
the people in your research

are people like you.

To what extent did you talk
to groups like Black Lives

Matter and others who
are not quite as formally

organized or maybe more
wary of Harvard researchers?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, the
people I talked to on the right

are very wary of
Harvard researchers.

That's all I can say, I'm not
sure what "like me" means,

but I certainly do talk
to African-Americans,

including in the eight
counties project,

because in North Carolina,
there are organizations,

and presence is very important.

The Black Lives Matter movement
is organized at Harvard.

I have many students who are
part of it and who study it.

So I do pay attention to all
of the movements out there

and think about
how they interact.

I have spent more time than most
researchers in my profession,

and certainly at
universities like Harvard,

trying to talk directly
to Conservative people.

And that is a challenge
because Conservative people

are suspicious of
Harvard professors.

They believe as a
matter of almost faith,

that you're coming to preach
at them and to be haughty.

And the only way I
solve that problem

is by making sure
that I'm trying

to get work through networks,
get into a conversation one

way or another with people,
stress my Midwestern roots,

stress that I'm a
football fan, stress

that I've been
married for 50 years,

that I was raised a Methodist.

And then when I'm in a
face-to-face relationship

with anybody in an interview,
I don't find it very hard

to be interested in what they
have to say and to show respect

for them personally.

But of course, it's
a different dynamic

getting into the relationship
in the first place

with groups that are
more on the left,

as I am identified in
my citizen capacity

than it is with groups
that are on the right.

LARRY JACOBS: There are
several questions here

about generational
differences and change,

and whether your focus on
the Resistance movement

has included young people, and
whether this question of who's

too old and whether
some folks are too young

to be participating.

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well, I'm an
empirical social scientist.

So I try to go into the
situation to find out

who is participating.

And the report that
in nonbig city areas,

the participants who organized
these voluntary groups

were mainly older white women.

I don't know.

It is what it is.

It's a fact.

It doesn't have to be desirable.

And I know a lot of people
don't think it is desirable.

But that's what we found.

Now, on campuses, it's
very different, of course.

I'm on a campus where lots
of student groups organize,

I would say, across
a broader spectrum

of causes and
ideological positions

than was true decades ago.

And of course, most
students in my classes

will talk about organizing via
social media, which I do think--

I have an undergraduate
who looked

at the movements,
organized or not organized,

following mass killings from
Columbine on through Parkland.

And it's a very
interesting senior thesis.

And a lot of times, my students
do senior theses through which

I learn a huge amount.

And she started
with the question

of why it was that no matter
what the scale of the killing,

no matter how sympathetic the
victims, and who could be more

sympathetic than those
children at Newtown,

every time I drive past that
exit on the Connecticut Highway

84, I want to start crying.

That's how terrible it is to
even see the name of the town.

So there was nothing
more sympathetic

than the tiny children.

And there have been much
more massive killings

than the one that
occurred in Parkland.

So what was different?

That's what my student asked.

Well, her answer is two things.

First of all, the new
adeptness of young people using

social media and the particular
kind of high schoolers

that were there at Parkland High
included a lot of young people

from fairly Liberal
minded families

who had confidence
in their ability

to use these new techniques to
organize after terrible things

happened to their a classmates.

But the other part of the
answer was very interesting,

and it fits with what
I've seen in the field.

Because this organizing,
this terrible episode,

one of many in the
mass killing series

we have in the United
States, happened after a year

and a half of
anti-Trump organizing

in which all these
women-led networks

and various Liberal networks
in the cities were activated,

there were a lot of
allies there to help

support the high schoolers
in their attempts

to organize across the
country through social media.

And that's what the research
on the marches shows.

The mass marches,
some sociologists

have studied them by taking
every fifth person out

of the line and getting
some information

on their views and
their demography

and how they got there.

Turns out that there's
a lot of older women,

are the core of those
marches a lot of times,

in which the podium
is the younger people,

not just from the Parkland group
but from the associated younger

people's groups organizing
around these things.

And the same thing I found
in my eight counties,

two of the eight counties,
very Conservative places.

One of them is so
Conservative that a woman

was fired from her
job for appearing

in the newspaper as a member
of a local resistance group.

So this is a very
tough environment

in which to organize.

When I went back a
year later, they said,

well, there was a group
of high schoolers,

one of the high schools in
the town that had decided they

wanted to engage in one of
the walkouts for the fight

for our lives, and they had
come to the women-led resistance

network and asked them
for their support.

And the network provided
it behind the scenes

without putting
themselves forward.

Well, it turns out, according
to my students' research, that

happened in lots of places.

And so that's not something
that should surprise any of us.

When waves of movements unfold,
they often support one another.

And in this case, there were a
lot of mothers and grandmothers

that were involved in
behind-the-scenes support.

So I don't think it's a simple
matter of one generation

is privileged over another.

I think there are huge
generational tensions going on.

But I think a lot
of what's happening

in the most successful
movements is mutual support

across those generations.

LARRY JACOBS: You've referenced
several times, Harvard

and university campuses.

I was struck by a
recent poll that

shows that Republicans
have increasingly

negative views about the impact
of colleges and universities.

You've talked about this.

What is it that's going on on
universities that is alienating

Republicans and Conservatives?

And is it just a problem of the
Conservatives and Republicans,

or is there something off
on campus that concerns you?

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well--

[CHUCKLES]

Gosh, you want me to
talk about campuses.

All right.

I will say that I think
we shouldn't overestimate

how disaffected Republicans and
Conservatives are with college

and college education.

This has been a
deliberate movement

on the part of
Conservative elites

to discredit an institution
where they think

there are a lot of Liberals.

They're correct about that.

There are.

And you could say, well,
leftists have also engaged

and that kind of thing, too.

They've tried to discredit
business, for example, if there

are a lot of Republicans there.

So a lot of this is elite hype.

And of course, there's an
entire network that hypes 24/7.

And it's connected to a lot
of other media networks.

So anytime something unfortunate
happens on a college campus,

for example, something that
looks can be portrayed as,

and I use my words
decisively there,

as in preventing free speech
by a Conservative, oh, boy.

I mean, that's just going to be
all over the place all the time.

Does it happen?

Yes, it does
occasionally happen.

It does not happen
at Harvard anymore.

I happen to know Charles Murray.

Charles Murray is an extremely
controversial speaker.

He came to Harvard, and
Harvard mobilized because it's

a rich institution.

And it has a sense of
what the issues are here.

And it made sure that
he was not prevented

from speaking, that
he was protected,

that people in the
audience and others

could stand up and argue
back and raise questions.

That's what free speech is.

I'm a free speech
absolutist personally.

I think the way you meet speech
you don't like is to talk back.

And there can be issues of
who gets a forum for that.

But for the most
part, universities

are getting better at making
sure that multiple voices have

a chance to be heard.

And come on, that's
what we have to do.

We're not health
care institutions.

We're not there
to protect people

from hearing an
argument or a word

that they don't want to hear.

We're educational institutions.

And education involves thinking
through the arguments of people

you disagree with
and articulating

why you disagree with
those, both on moral terms

and factual terms.

Now, what I just said is
going to sound hopelessly old

fashioned to a lot
of younger people.

But I actually think
most American colleges

and universities are
doing their best to carry

through those principles.

Usually, the incidents
that involve keeping people

from speaking involve outside
the university forces coming in

and engaging in violence.

That's a dilemma.

What do we do about it?

But it's part of
a larger dilemma

about increasing
violence in our society,

along both ideological and
nonideological dimensions.

So I actually don't
think universities

are anything like failing to
try on the free speech front.

Do they fall short?

Sometimes they do.

Do Conservative elites
make a big fuss about it

every time they see an instance?

Yes, they do.

But that's because they have
a larger political agenda

about universities.

And most ordinary Americans
still want their children

to go to college.

All of those right wing elites
that are attacking universities

are trying to get their children
into Harvard University.

[LAUGHTER]

Many of their children
are in my classes.

[LAUGHTER]

So I'm skeptical.

LARRY JACOBS: Question
from the audience.

Where does foreign policy
enter into the mix?

THEDA SKOCPOL:
Well, it does, but I

don't know that it sorts out
as neatly between Democrats

and Republicans.

I think there are
divisions within each party

on the question of trade policy.

There are disagreements
within each party

on deployment of American force
abroad and for what purposes.

I'm not sure I know what
more to say than that.

Immigration probably cuts across
the two parties less than it

used to.

But when Democrats
finally get around

to having to face up
to what do they want

to do about the arrival of large
numbers of Central Americans

fleeing violence at
the border, there

are going to be disagreements
that we're going to hear there.

And I think we'll hear some
of them in the debates.

And there certainly are
disagreements among Republicans.

I mean, Republican
business elites,

including local business
people that I talked to,

are really not thrilled with
what the Trump administration is

doing about immigration.

It goes without
saying they're not

thrilled about what it's
doing about tariffs,

unless they happen to have
a company that is benefiting

from a given tariff policy.

But they're not going
to break with Trump

all over these things,
but they're troubled.

And there are a fair number of
Conservative religious people

who are also troubled at
the harassing of immigrants

and refugees.

So I think these issues do cut
across, divides in both parties.

Right now, Trump has
such a stranglehold

on the Republican Party
that there is not a sense

that you can dissent inside that
party or the people attached

to it.

But Trump's not
going to be forever.

So I think these
issues are going

to continue to be debated to
some degree across party lines.

LARRY JACOBS:
You've been talking

about the rise of Donald Trump
and the ethnic nationalism

that he has championed.

You've been talking about the
rise of a resistance movement

among progressives at
the grassroots level.

And I'm wondering
how you would compare

some of those developments to
your long-standing research

in thinking about
European movements

of the right and the left?

THEDA SKOCPOL: I'm
going to be real simple.

It's a huge difference to
have ethno-nationalist,

anti-immigrant movements in a
third or fourth party than it is

to have it in one of
the two major parties

in a first-past-the-post system.

By no means are all
Republican elites,

or Republican officeholders,
or Republican voters

are primarily
motivated by a desire

to eliminate most immigration
into the United States.

But they are faced
with a dilemma of,

what do you do with a
president who's prioritizing

that issue with a hard
core of supporters for whom

it is an emotional core of what
they find appealing about him?

And by the way, I do think
the social science research is

pretty clear now that the
hard core of Trump supporters

are not worried about
closed factories.

They're worried
about immigrants.

That's what they say
they're worried about,

and that's what the statistical
studies are showing.

And the term I use is
"ethno-nationalist."

It certainly is what I hear
when I sit down with talk

with Tea Party people.

But that's not all
Republicans who feel that way.

And I just think that they
feel a dilemma about what

to do because it all comes
bundled in one party, one

candidate that wasn't
Hillary Clinton

and wasn't the Democrats.

And so a lot of people
voted and will vote again

for Donald Trump.

Don't imagine otherwise for that
reason that it's not a Democrat,

and it's not--

well, it's not going
to be Hillary Clinton.

And we don't know
who it's going to be.

But whoever it is it will
be, I don't want that person.

LARRY JACOBS: So let me put
the question more sharply.

There are academics
and political observers

who are writing about
the end of democracy

in America, who are
making comparisons

to the decline of the Weimar
Republic and the rise of Hitler.

Do you see those as
viable, helpful parallels

to thinking about America today?

THEDA SKOCPOL: It's
really hard to talk

about Nazi Germany
in any conversation

because all of our historical
memory of Nazi Germany

is how it ended up.

It's not how it started.

I don't think that anything
happening in the United States

right now is any exact
parallel to Nazi Germany.

But I do think that if you go
back to Europe in the 1930s,

in the early 1930s--

and I've talked with
some of my older friends

whose families emigrated from
Europe during that period.

And they feel some of
this too, in their bones.

This kind of coming together
of economic elites who

are trying to game the
system to get big changes

that they see as
to their advantage

in the political economy
with a populist movement

based on outgroup scapegoating,
that's a very scary combination.

And the only thing
that stops that

from being the
full Monty of what

happened, not just in
Germany but in a number

of European countries, when
your democracy gave way

to fascist movements before
the World War broke out,

the only thing
that sets it apart

is international war making.

Well, there are people in
the Trump administration

who want to start
a war with Iran,

and they want to start a
war with Iran very badly.

And that will make the war in
Iraq look like small potatoes

if that happens.

I'm not saying I think
that's going to happen,

but we have seen a
president and now

an attorney general who
are willing to stretch

institutional norms
beyond the breaking point.

The judiciary is
being transformed

at a breathtaking pace.

And some, not all of the
newly appointed judges-- and I

want to say that
again, some, not

all of the newly
appointed judges

will go along with
just about anything.

So the question is, what happens
if Donald Trump is reelected?

And I think that's when I'll get
personally very, very scared,

because I do think the
United States could--

there's nothing written, nowhere
is it written in a holy book,

that the United
States has to remain

a representative republic.

It just isn't.

We know from history
things can change.

And so unleashing a sense of no
limits would be truly terrifying

and would put most Americans
who are opposed to this,

most Americans are opposed,
in a very tough place

to decide what to do.

And so I don't know that
that's going to happen,

but I do know that it will be
a different scene, especially

if Donald Trump is reelected
with Republican majorities

in both houses.

And I am not going
to rule it out.

Like I told you, political
scientists cannot predict

the future.

They tell you they
can, but they're wrong.

And all political scientists can
do, and my colleagues at Harvard

have thought about
authoritarianism, is to talk

about the possibilities,
the range of possibilities.

So I just think 2020 will
be another election that's

even more important than 2018.

And I don't mean that just
at the presidential level.

I think the question is
whether Democrats, despite all

their differences, and
it's a highly varied party,

and some centrists and some
Republicans who are not happy

can find a way to select
reasonable candidates,

vote for them, vote
for people in Congress

and state legislatures.

And then if that happens, I
think the Republican Party

will begin to change.

And I think that
would be a blessing.

I think that moving toward
a Republican Party where

the approximately 1/3 of
Republican identifiers

and leaders who don't like
what's happening right now,

get their voice, start speaking
up, start getting elected,

start creating a Conservative
pool for compromise on issues,

that would be such a good
thing for the country.

But you know, that's
up to Republicans.

And the first thing that
happens has to happen

is that this version has to
be defeated at the polls.

And that is an
analytic statement.

If that doesn't
happen, then country

will be in new territory.

LARRY JACOBS: Well,
we've run out of time,

and I've got maybe
the hardest question.

You've been a longtime
New England Patriots fan.

[LAUGHTER]

We noticed that you're
wearing a purple blouse.

Is that a sign of your new
Minnesota Viking support?

[LAUGHTER]

THEDA SKOCPOL: Well,
you know, Larry, you

and I go back and forth
during those games every week

and in the offseason, too.

So I wish the Vikings no ill.

I'm hoping that they
get an offensive line.

LARRY JACOBS: Well, I think--

THEDA SKOCPOL: And
you should hope--

LARRY JACOBS: Thank
you very much.

THEDA SKOCPOL: --Patriots--

[LAUGHTER]

You should hope
that the Patriots

can get another tight end or 2.

I don't think we play
each other this year,

so let's hope for
the Super Bowl.

[LAUGHTER]

LARRY JACOBS: Theda
Skocpol, thank

you so much for being with us.

[APPLAUSE]