Up | February 23, 2013
>>> i'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security , that's not something that's only good for our country. it's absolutely essential. it's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out. and good ideas get refined and made better. and that kind of vigorous back and forth, though imperfect and well-founded process that it is is at the heart of our democracy.
>> that's the president when he went to address the republican house ideas conference. that famous interchange is an amazing moment that will never happen again, because it was so great. and it was sort of like, you know, "up with chris hayes " people of actual power.
>> president obama is exactly who he wants to be.
>> right. that's who president obama wants to be.
>> one, "a," i think this model of strong and vigorous debate, obviously, i believe in that. that's what i try to do that here. that's what i do for a living. politics to me seems like i'm a realist on this. pure will to power . i'm not quite sure these exchanges ever -- like, do we have some idea that these exchanges back and forth improve things. and i'm not sure how much that's ever the case. but the other question is like how do we get -- like on climate, for instance. josh bearer had this column he was talking about why he's a republican, right. he made a distinction between different parties are good because of values. different conceptions are good, different values, moral codes of what should be valued, you know. but we should agree on positive factsing right? we should say --
>> change is real.
>> exactly. now, you have a set of enorma enormative principles that you want to deal with. it does feel that the problems we want to encounter are on questions of fact, right? there's disengagement from that. and i don't know what changes that.
>> the only thing that changes you basically have a party that's obstructed that reality and now lives within it. there's been a hope for a long time that that bubble is going to burst. but you have to see, i think, the current republican party real crumble, really suffer several more years of serious electoral defeats before you're going have some kind of reckoning with the intellectual cul-de-sac.
>> i don't think it's going to happen. here's the other thing. you know what the midterm electorate is going to look like in 2014 ? like the 2010 .
>> smaller, older and white. and going to legislate a lot of republicans we'll be sitting at this table writing articles.
>> i can tell you that's not true.
>> yeah, i think 2010 was like that. in 2010 -- in won, people had all the same conversations they're having today. then 2010 happened, conservatism is fine. doesn't need to change. 2008 made people realize that the 2010 change is has been an that the electorate has a much more urgency to how to improve and modernize. that's happening.
>> go ahead.
>> you've come full circle , though. you started out why should progressives care about this.
>> the fact of the matter is, until the republican party becomes --
>> i use the term "better" until it becomes better at what it does. the democratic party will always have a huge space in which which to compromise. for progressives, they should want the republican party to become an intellectual vigorous and strong conservative party from a reality-based point.
>> what do we know now that we didn't know last week? my answer after this.