Presidential Politics: Civility, Unity, and the Future of American Leadership

We have Professor Will Imboten , who is the director of the Hamilton Center at the University of Florida , and Luke Nichter , who is professor of presidential studies at Chapman University and author of biographies on Richard Nixon , george Bush , henry , cabot , lodge . Gentlemen , welcome .

I mean my last book on the 1968 election also involved , you know , a very unusual presidential surprise withdrawal during the race .

A vice presidential candidate who was criticized for not winning any primaries , who became the nominee , not because they were the strongest candidate but because it was the least disruptive to insert Hubert Humphrey into what was left of Lyndon Johnson's campaign infrastructure .

A chaotic convention in Chicago , stronger than usual , third party challenges , including a candidate named Robert Kennedy , and , I think , historic lack of trust on the part of Americans in many national institutions . So I think we've seen a version of this before .

It seems worse these days in some ways , but we're also not , like you know , go back to the mid 19th century when you actually have Charles Sumner caned on the Senate floor in 1856 . So you know , thankfully we don't have , you know , mortal combat going on in Congress these days . We have combat of a different kind .

There's been , you know , very nasty vitriolic rhetoric in presidential campaigns , going back to our founding right and the you know kind of perversely iconic Adams-Jefferson race to succeed George Washington . We've had political violence before , in the 19th century or 1968 , as Luke has written so eloquently on .

But I always do try to think what , if anything , is perhaps new and unique about the moment that we're in , because it is a troubling moment and I think a couple of things I would point to which are different from previous times of polarization and incivility are first , social media .

You know it's almost become a truism to lament it , but the way that it can accelerate these divisions and cause the divisions to play out even more at the local level , you know , splitting communities , even splitting families apart , and where , you know , the two different sides of the multiple sides almost inhabit their own media echo chambers , now right .

So that's somewhat new and unique and the other would be and I don't want to overstate this , but we also need to acknowledge it as a factor . The other , which builds on social media is the new levels of foreign influence , whether it's Russia or China or Iran , and again I'm not making a partisan comment here .

I mean those malign actors have kind of , in different ways , supported both sides right . Their goal isn't so much to see one candidate or another elected as just to accelerate and further fuel and exacerbate the pre-existing divisions in the United States . And of course , social media is a very apt vehicle for malign foreign actors to interfere .

There's an expectation in the general society that these elections should represent our better selves , that this is the epitome of democratic culture , and so when it devolves into name-calling and finger-pointing , people seem to get really upset about that . Is this new , or have we always had these lofty expectations of civility , or is that kind of new also ?

Recently , it's not sure any votes have been changed , not sure it really makes a difference on the independent voters . Yet Americans still expect debates to happen , so you know . So what ? What purpose does it really serve ? So I would say I think you're right .

Americans expect civility , but they also expect their side to win and they expect their side is the right side and they want others to think the way that they do . And at this point I'm not even sure what point any continued debates serve , although we expect them to occur .

You know there's more talk now of having more debates and I've already I've actually already received my absentee ballot to vote this year .

I haven't filled it out yet , but my point is the ballots are being set in states and so you know much further than this , any possible debate we might have is not going to make a change in the outcome unless we can figure out how to securely change our votes , which I think is an innovation .

That's probably coming sooner rather than later once we figure out how to do that securely . But I think with the debates yet continue , because don't underestimate the American people for being fickle and for still wanting to be entertained through it all .

So I think there are other motivations , besides just the so-called desire for civility , why the system doesn't change .

Well , you know , strongly agreeing with Luke's good insights , there will kind of the 10% of the most politically active and yet most partisan citizens on the far right and then a similar 10% of the overall population on the far left who are most engaged , and those are the ones who are really at each other's throats the most and , I think , kind of driving a lot

of the toxic discourse . But the remaining 80% or so of the country , including ones who identify as strong Republicans or strong Democrats , are not nearly as driven by the incivility . They're really turned off by it . They sometimes feel reluctantly , sucked along .

And so , you know , using Newt Gingrich's old 80-20 rule of you know kind of find an issue that 80 percent of the country agrees with you on and then push hard on that and then push hard on that .

I do think that there still is maybe I'm being hopelessly naive and optimistic here , but I think there is a critical mass , that rough 80 percent , who does want more civility . Right , and responds well when they see it .

The second point I'll say and I saw this from having , you know , worked for members of Congress from both parties and then worked for Republican president in the White House and been a part of a number of presidential campaigns . Most politicians , deep down , actually yearn for more civility , right ?

They don't like to be hated by the other side and they don't really like to hate the other side themselves either . Maybe a few more marginal figures again at either end . Right , you know usually the ones who go by their initials AOC or MTG , you know . I don't know them personally . Maybe they really do thrive on this stuff .

But deep down , most political leaders and they have strong convictions . I'm not saying that this is wishy-washy-ness , but they yearn for more civility .

They get exhausted by the nastiness and the toxicity as well , and yet with the way the primary system is done , they feel some perverse incentives that they have to kind of go along with it , because that's where the most mobilized 10% are . So it's a little bit of a trap . We can recognize it , we can admire the problem .

I'm not sure how we get out of it .

And you know I could say , well , okay , if so-and-so is claiming this , well , let's see what the LA Times , new York Times , washington Post had to say . And you had some idea . And I know , because I worked at all three and and has that is that part of it .

I mean because right today , I mean I I don't trust the washington post any more than I do the blaze at this stage of the game . I mean , uh , that the partisan , uh orientation of the mainstream media has taken away one of the guardrails that used to exist .

But yes , as different media outlets have become , especially in the mainstream , much more partisan , and all the again the data backs this up If you look at party registration or voting habits or even kind of the skews of stories . Just one anecdote that was a revealing one for me about how some of these big media outlets almost feel captured by their audience .

A few years ago the New York Times had asked me to write an op-ed on a foreign policy issue it wasn't even a terribly partisan issue I won't mention the details and I sent in a first draft and as part of my draft President Obama was president at the time I had some mildly critical words about his Iran nuclear deal , which I would still stand by , and the

Times editors came back to me and they strongly urged me to tone that down or take it out . They said our readers just won't like that . Well , I don't care , I'm trying to say you asked me to say what I think I'm trying to do . But it was . It was really interesting .

They didn't say tone it down because it's wrong or inaccurate or or misplaced in the story . Is , you know , pleased because our readers really really won't like it .

And you look at the 1960s and 1970s , every single one of those presidents you could argue now , I mean with the different case of Nixon , but that's how long that unstable era was . And I think you could argue again that you know , really only after 1980 did we reach , I think , a more stable or at least more predictable political world .

The seesaws weren't quite as sharp as they were prior , in the 60s and 70s . And maybe now we'll look back , once we have hindsight in this era , and say you know , beginning in 2016 , we were in another one of these unstable periods .

And I think one of the things that's in common with both of those is that the American people had a historic lack of faith in institutions , all levels of government here we're talking about national media , I would add political parties , organized religious leaders I mean you could make higher how about higher education leaders in recent years , and so I think we lack

the hindsight to figure out our way out of this . But then you look back to the 60s and 70s . We're really crying out for analysis . How did we get out of that unstable season ?

And I'm not sure you know , there's not many things that bring together Democrats and Republicans very naturally now or back then , but I think one is to use Will's , you know , 10 percent or the 80-20 examples that a sufficient number of people around the big center whether you want to call it the silent majority , but the center and including both sides of the

center simply want to turn the noise level down and return to a sort of more normal whatever that means political era . And so we are again , I think , in the eye of this storm , of this unstable period , and it's not clear how we're going to get out of it .

Why is it that where the polarity is ?

It's certainly not the first time in US history that's been said . But I , you know , using history and Will's right I mean historians we can go back to the ancient Greeks here , you know , if we need to . But I think you know our candidates are a reflection of ourselves , our fears and our aspirations .

I think the closest parallel in modern US history to a Trump figure is someone like a George Wallace and , of course , wallace ran a third party challenger , certainly wasn't considered by anyone to win in 1968 . But I think the primary similarity that I'm trying to tease out here is Wallace didn't create those fears of his electorate . They were already there .

He just simply knew how to use them for political purposes . Whether we want to label that a demagogue or what you know , I think that that's really the similarity . I don't think Trump has created a lot of the fears and concerns that his supporters have .

He has simply spoken to their issues , given them voice including people who haven't felt part of the political system in recent years and has taken advantage of them .

But to bring us back to a more hopeful note , going back to when both of you guys brought up Reagan and yeah , this was one of the themes of my recent book on Reagan's foreign policy , but especially as I looked at the 1980 election part of Reagan's goal it wasn't just restore the strength of the American economy or the morale of the country or the effectiveness

of our military those are all there it was also to restore the institution of the presidency itself . He was acutely aware of what Luke had pointed out that the previous , his five previous successors , had not been able to complete two terms in office right , eisenhower's , the last time we'd had one .

And he knew that a lot of Americans were just losing the faith in the institution of the presidency .

The country seemed too divided , seemed too broken , and I want to just highlight two vignettes from Reagan's life that I think really illustrate his effort to restore the unity and institutional strength of the presidency without reach to Democrats , and he did this as a very principled conservative too right .

But the first is you know the man he defeated , jimmy Carter , you know , consigned to one term . A big part of why Carter lost , of course , was because the Iran hostage crisis and Carter Carter appearing to be weak and unable to resolve that the day of Reagan's inauguration the Ayatollah releases the hostages .

It seems a fresh start for the United States , start for the United States . And Reagan , in a gesture of , I think , incredible magnanimity , sends Jimmy Carter to Germany to meet the hostages when they arrive at the American Air Force Base there . He wanted Carter to go greet them .

He thought it would be a nice healing moment to show the country that we're past this partisanship . Carter had a difficult circumstance with those hostages and I want to show that the entire country , not just Republicans , are welcoming the hostages back .

And even though Carter never became a fan of Reagan's , I've , you know , talked to a couple of people who were with Carter in that meeting . They say Carter was deeply , deeply touched at that and it was very healing for him and the country .

The second gesture that Reagan did , you know , many of you know , when a president is getting ready to leave office , his donors will raise a lot of money because it's private money to fund the building of a presidential library . Right , this was done for all of our post presidents .

Well , in the case of John F Kennedy that couldn't happen because he had been assassinated . And in the early 1980s the Kennedy Library the kind of fledgling Kennedy Library at Harvard really needed more money . And Jackie Kennedy and Ted Kennedy Senator Ted Kennedy the kind of fledgling Kennedy Library at Harvard really needed more money .

And Jackie Kennedy and Ted Kennedy Senator Ted Kennedy , the liberal Democrat , who is a real policy nemesis of Reagan's , approached Reagan and asked if he'd be willing to speak at a fundraiser at Harvard for the Kennedy Library and Reagan said absolutely .

And Reagan even tapped his own donor base and raised vast amounts of money for the Kennedy Library , again as a gesture of trying to promote reconciliation , bipartisanship and show America's commitment to the institution of the presidency . Reagan thought it's just really important that we honor our presidents , of whatever party .

Again , that was very touching and moving to the Kennedy family , I was wondering .

Right , and so that may be a two pronged strategy . Right , historically , when people , when leaders , externalize the enemy , it's one of the hidden agendas is to try to coalesce domestic support and so that , if you're doing that together with demonstrating that you've got broader domestic support , it seems like one way out .

I don't see , I don't see , well , I don't see Trump doing that . I don't know whether or not Harris would do it as president .

I mean , I can tell you , on one of my email accounts I get at least five emails a day from Harris-Waltz . Now the other thing is she's going to have infinitely more money than Trump . That's just not even going to be close . Now the other thing is she's going to have infinitely more money than Trump . That's just not even going to be close .

So I think we have to get past this current crop and hope that somebody emerges . Let's say , if it was Nikki Haley against Josh Shapiro , I think that would sort of accomplish maybe what happened when , when we , you know , after Nixon , where we got , finally , presidential candidates who were , you know , the least remotely human .

You know , if Reagan was peace through strength , you know , I feel like there are some days when I'm expecting Harris to say peace through joy is kind of the latest campaign mantra and I think that captures .

I don't know if that comes from her intrinsically or from Walls , because certainly Walls is a sort of descendant of the Humphrey Mondale kind of DFL wing of the party where it's very much based on sort of learning how to disagree without being disagreeable among public policy , and I think that's missing .

I think one of the things about Reagan , regardless of his political or his personal attributes or characteristics , is that he had he had a message of optimism and hope .

Optimism and hope After this long , turbulent period of instability where I think the country began to doubt itself , both at home after the experience of civil rights and race in America , but also abroad , after the experience of Vietnam , our nation's longest war .

At the time Reagan was refreshing for at least two reasons that message of sort of hope and optimism resonated with Americans , and I wonder if Harris is trying to echo back to that , because while their politics are obviously very different , hers and Reagan's it's certainly . You're not .

You know , trump is not a person who sort of evokes optimism , you know , in his message . And I think the other thing that Reagan and 80 gave us that we're missing today is , frankly , a decisive election whose outcome that we don't doubt , and I think that's what a lot of the foreign agents who are trying to interfere .

Besides feed misinformation , which is , I think , one of their objectives . Perhaps their biggest objective is simply causing Americans to doubt ourselves and doubt the result of our elections , and so seeds of doubt about democracy itself and our system of government .

So I think Harris might be toying around with those ideas , but I think the lesson of Reagan is it can't be manufactured , it has to be genuine and it has to be backed by character , has to be backed by policy , and I think it's too early to tell you whether Harris can sustain it going forward .

But maybe what we really need is a new crop of politicians .

She's never had to genuinely work across the aisle before .

So I haven't seen that as much with Harris , and so this is uncharted territory for her . But you know , hope springs eternal . If she does end up as the president and I have no predictions here on who's going to win , maybe she'd surprise us . And on that I wanted to go back to Marshall's point .

Yes , sometimes it does take a significant external threat and I don't wish any further ill on our country and national security threats . But Reagan was able to marshal bipartisan support for a strong posture against the Soviets and he was very clear that the Soviet Communist Party , that's our enemy . My enemy is not the Democrats .

They're my political opponents , but they're not my enemy . It's not the Democrats , they're my political opponents but they're not my enemy .

And you know in in , you know a most more recent memory and this is , you know , fading a bit , but the most recent strong raised george w bush and he he really , at least initially , was able to rally a lot of you know bipartisan unity there . Of course , eventually , that phrase and you know the iraq war and other other divisive things coming along .

But I don't wish any sort of you know uh , ill fate on our country such as that . But sometimes something like that is what it takes to remind us of who our enemies really are and that as americans we do share more in common than divides us .

Do you see a major rethinking ? Is that actually already going on prior to the election ? What's your feeling about the future of the Republican Party in a post non-Trump world ?

Ok so , but the way I'll frame it is that it's going to hinge on this question Is Trump really sui generis and you know , kind of this obviously hyper charismatic figure of whom there hasn't been one before , will be one since ? And the Republican Party itself is more or less fundamentally the same ?

Or has the party itself been transformed and Trump is just a symptom of that ? It's obviously the true answer is it's some combination of both , but is it 50-50 or is it 80-20 ?

One way or another , I tend to think to put the speculation out there that this is a little bit more about Trump and the charismatic personality and that once he is no longer active on the political scene , in whatever form , that there will be some sort of reversion to the norm of the Republican Party , a little more populist , a little more protectionist , right ,

some of those things are not going away , but there will be , you know , more room for the you know the Nikki Haley's of the world , if you will , but I've got a pretty bad track record as a prognosticator . I'm better at history , so I may be wrong on that , I don't know . Luke , I'd love to hear your thoughts . Yeah , luke , what do you think ?

You know , I certainly cannot make sense of the present or the near future , but what I say , what I think about this , is kind of things I have kind of 3am thoughts . I think both parties are facing a version of the same challenge .

The way I see it , if you apply the lessons of history , I think , most of the time , if you show me a president deep into their second term and you were to ask me you know who's the leader of that party , I would say , well , that president , of course you know . If you have .

Yet , I think if you were to ask that question toward the end of the Obama second term , I think most Americans would say , well , the Clintons , of course , not Obama . If you were to ask Democrats today , you know , if you show me the nominee , I'll show you the leader of that party . Do Democrats think that Kamala Harris is the leader of the Democratic Party .

So I would argue similarly on the Republican side of the aisle that probably since the two terms of Bush 43 , it's not clear who's really in charge of the Republican Party . Whose Republican Party is it really ? So I have two other observations .

One , I think Harris again , I don't feel like I know her very well , I don't understand what motivates her very well , but I do think she's navigating a few pitfalls exceptionally well . I think her desire not to get into policy specifics , to say as little as possible , is probably all intentional .

I think Harris is deeply aware of the lessons of history that are really twofold for the situation that she finds herself in . No sitting vice president has won a presidential campaign with their incumbent president in office , except for one example , and the reason is it's so difficult to run on change and continuity simultaneously .

Every new idea you have why didn't you do it already ? And every new idea you have becomes separation from the president you still depend on for support , certainly behind the scenes . You still depend on for support , certainly behind the scenes . And Nixon couldn't do it in 60 . Humphrey couldn't do it in 68 . Gore couldn't do it in 2000 .

I would say Hillary had a version of that problem in 16 because she was Secretary of State and closely associated , certainly , with the foreign policy of the Obama administration . George HW Bush is the only one who pulled it off in 88 , I would argue , because he ran more on continuity , due to the popularity of Reagan , than on change .

And I think , secondly , the lesson of nominating a liberal in the Democratic Party who runs as a liberal , and those are two different things .

Even Obama ran largely , I would argue , as a centrist in 2008 who wanted to build bridges to other parts of the party at least , and in terms of a liberal running as a liberal , which I think defines Harris at least so far , you have McGovern in 72 and Mondale in 84 , and both of those were 49 state landslides , and the Democratic consultants that I've got to

know say when you're in that situation , and especially in a year where the issues are not naturally democratic issues , which is this year the economy , inflation , an unpopular war that energizes the left and the youth Instead you move off specifics and you campaign on what Democrats have done historically for Americans social security , jobs , the economy , education and so

I think this explains more or less you know , in a general , oversimplifying terms , the strategy of Harris so far On the Trump side . I think the real question is does Trumpism survive without Trump ? And what does that look like ?

I don't know , maybe it's JD Vance , for example , but I do think that that emphasis on the blue collar lower middle class voters that Trump made the heart of his campaign when he formed its nucleus in 2015 is probably going to stick around , because Democrats don't seem to want to compete for them and campaign and fly over country , and I do think it's become a

slightly more insular , isolationist party than it was certainly under the Bush 43 years .

So you've got one candidate who is focusing her campaign around building an opportunity economy and the other , the other one , talking about the lack of opportunity for the people who have been kind of dispossessed . So it's really that's the way I would simplify what you just said and what I'm observing .

I don't know , joel , what do you think Does that kind of capture it in your mind ?

But I think she is taking good advice and of course , you know you can always count on Trump to self-destruct I mean , that's his specialty , um well , that's what I was going to add .

You know , nixon in 72 and reagan in 84 she's running , of course , against Donald Trump , who and this is not meant to be a political statement- who's obviously a much more divisive figure .

Right Is there as a critical mass , you know , a silent majority , but still , I think , a majority of Americans who may have differing political convictions but do see our country , as you know , wanted more unified and want a more , more hopeful , hopeful future . And the second is and here this goes back to the post you know the what comes after Trump question .

You know , speak as a Republican myself , the Republican bench is pretty strong , right , if you look at governors like Brian Kemp in Georgia , or you know , doug Ducey , most recently in Arizona , governor DeSantis here in Florida , who I think has done a great job , glenn Youngkin in Virginia , there's , you know , whatever else you may think of them .

You know whatever else you may think of them . You know their particular policies . They are political talents . They've thus far managed to , I think , show a way of conservative governing that brings on board some elements of Trumpist populism but also has elements of the more traditional Reagan approach . They're all relatively young and healthy .

In the Senate you've still got , you know , the Marco Rubios or Tom Cotton's of the world , and so I think there's a next generation of political leaders said out there . Who you know gets a movement needs a leader Right , and if these impulses , bitter impulses of the American people are there , I think it can be galvanized behind a good leader like that .

So I'm I'm reasonably hopeful for the medium term .

It's because he's been effective and politically and I've had more than one Democratic campaign consultant tell me , you know , we greatly underestimated Donald Trump as a campaigner . We're never going to say it , but the fact is we did .

And so I think actually you know , so much of the discussion around the Trump era has been how it's an aberration , how it's unique , and frankly , I just don't think you need to be a full , true blue believer in biblical end times to think that you know .

50 years from now , we could look back at this time period as we do today , at the 1960s , and it begins to look a bit quaint .

That the lesson is it's going to keep getting crazier and I'm guessing a bit of that Trump magic , that blue collar , that lower middle class , that direct appeals , whether it's by through Twitter or another platform in the future , I think that's not going to go away for the most of you show me an effective leader in the next 50 years , and it's going to be

those who consistently find a way to get their message through to supporters , no matter how abrasive they can be , because I think that's the way to remove the filter of the national media and that's the vision for the next 50 years of politics . But the bottom line is we did .

The sky didn't fall and we did get out of the 1960s , and I think a sufficient number of Americans today also want to turn the noise level down , and we will . I think because I'm an optimist like Will we will find a way out of this and we will return to a more normal or at least a calmer political era .

So thank you so much and thanks for being guests on the Feudal Future podcast .