Does America need a Republican party?

>>> of linguists of columbia university . we have akin roid. and michelle goldberg . and john mitchell , associate editor of "the capitol times" in wisconsin.

>> here's my first question, should liberals have an investment? do liberals have an investment or purchase in the great debate how to rebuild the republican party ? right, i think the general feeling in the press coverage that liberals do. i'm just not sure they do. the question is, should you want these strong republican party ? whatever that means. or should you want complete total unilateral victory.

>> don't you think it depends on where your interests lie. on the one hand, it's clearly in the interest of the democratic party to see the republicans continue to margealize themselves and implode and fight the civil war . the country is ingovernable, right? like we kind of lurch from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis because we have this rumpf that will not agree to any kind of government. in as much as you want a two-part system, you want both of those to have a baseline of santi.

>> any party 's degree of self-criticism. that's what democrats accuse republicans these days of not having. any party has tendencies which need to be tempered. anybody that's concerned with the state of the nation the way it's supposed to be run is a good thing. i think as a democrat myself --

>> of fairly recent vintage.

>> always vintage. just a cranky democrat.

>> you're back in the fold, dude.

>> i'm back in the saddle. and i think identity politics is great when it starts, but then i think it sinks and in becomes a poison. i think there needs to be a party that can temper that. i think that all of us can often have a visceral distrust of business and corporations. i'm always happy when there's a party that counters that. however it has to be a republican party that is a conservative party , rather than what it actually is, which is today, in many senses, a radical party that makes gestures towards what any thinking party would call conservatism.

>> i'm old enough to remember 1992 . 12 years of republican presidents in the white house . every article in "newsweek" was the irrelevance of the democratic party . the real question is not whether the republican party will survive, but what will be the policy platform of the republican party ? will the republican party move to the left to accommodate a new liberal majority? or stay conservative and expand to groups that aren't voting republican today? that's really the question of what will happen with the republican party , not whether it will survive.

>> i think you're right. the republican party is going to survive. unfortunately, we have an electoral system that's designed to to have these two parties.

>> yeah, agreed.

>> as a progressive, and not as a democrat, i definitely hope the republican party gets its act together. because the democratic party say mess right now. and it is a mess because it exists as we're -- its platform is, we're not as bad as those guys. and until the republicans become a lot better, the democratic party will not become a lot better. and to give you an example of this --

>> what does better mean?

>> how does -- the democratic party say mess compared to what? it seems to be in better shape than --

>> only lectelectri electorally.

>> the d.o.c., they're not getting any more. the party is essentially more liberal than it's been in anytime. in what way -- it's a mess compared to --

>> what president obama does on the keystone pipeline . we'll see what president obama does on the decision of medicare and medicaid. we'll see whether the democratic is the party of roosevelt or stands on core principles.

>> wait a second --

>> and a better republican party gives that credit.

>> i totally -- i think i disagree. disagree contingent on what the definition of "better" is, right? is better a more effective party , more effective, can squeeze out more efficiency out of its current coalition? look at the texas republican party .

>> they produced ted cruz .

>> they produced ted cruz and they've done better in some elections. it's oh, i don't wanna.

>> "better" say party that would attract more interest among young people . and i'm going to say more interest among critically thinking people who try to think out of the box because at this point, what's going on is that the party say radical party . which to a large extent is in the hands of people looking to outside authorities, such as, for example, religion or os sa fied theorys that aren't based on what actually works but based on a religious ooh ooh ooh fervor. this is not the party of burke . i was teaching burke at columbia this week. my key question to the students is, you've read burke , conservatism. you thought you weren't going to like him. yet most of you hate republicans. what's the difference?

>> wait a second --

>> i'm a great admirer of burke . i understand what you're talking about. i think part of the modern challenges of the movement in america was forged in the 1960s , before the great society. so there needs to be a reassessment of how you apply conservative principles to the 21st century . that philosophical is ongoing on.

>> the author of the great director of mind. if he's watching, he's losing his mind because i think the whole persuasion of burke , burke is a radical calling your revolution. monar monarchist revolution. his whole point we liberals consider a have this argument, it was good conservatism back in the day.

>> burke was in dialogue --

>> exactly, the ones who are no longer in power. i want to talk about that