The FRONTLINE Interviews

Eric Cantor

Former U.S. Representative (R-VA)

Eric Cantor served as a United States representative from Virginia from 2001 to 2014 and as House majority leader from 2011 to 2014. He is currently the vice chairman and a managing director at the investment bank Moelis & Company.

The following interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Gabrielle Schonder on Jan. 13, 2021. It has been edited for clarity and length.

This interview appears in:

Trump’s American Carnage

TOP

Eric Cantor

Chapters

Text Interview:

Highlight text to share it

State of the Nation

I wanted to ask you before I get going with our questions … your help in understanding context and nuance and history in a lot of scenes that I'm going to walk you through.But before we start with those specifics, I'm just curious to know, you're talking to us at a pretty historic moment, and I'm just kind of curious to know, before we start a discussion about where the party's been and where it's going, if there's anything you'd like to say about where we are right now, where the party is.

Well, I mean, you know, listen, I think, sort of, with all the news of the day, every day, we sort of forget about the health crisis that we've been undergoing for the last eight months, so—or more.So I do think that emotions are particularly raw, and, you know, so much of what this country's been through and the change we've been undergoing through technological innovation, through dislocation, economic consequences, together with the health crisis and the economic consequences it's brought about, you know, it's a very, very, you know, very intense time, I think for the people of our country.And then to have a presidential election in the middle of all that, it's just a time in which I think it's best for all of us, Republican or Democrat alike, to step back for a minute and just to remember how blessed we are to live in a country like this, where we are such an open society and that we can take on our challenges in such an open way.And hopefully that freedom never goes away and that we can all step back a little bit and temper some of the anger I think so many feel.

Trump and the Republican Establishment

… Let me ask you if we can sort of jump into this timeline, which, if you don't mind, begins back in, really, 2016.So I'm curious to know if you can speak to the specifics of the president beating a field of traditional Republican candidates with plenty of chaos and controversy in that campaign, and the establishment deciding to support him after everything they had seen in the primaries.What careful calculation do you think they're making in doing that?

Well, I think, first of all, you have to remember back four years ago, five years ago almost now, the Republican primary was chock full of candidates.I mean, there were—most of the candidates were clustered, if you will, to the center right, and then there was essentially President Trump, or before that, candidate Donald Trump, way on the fringe.And there were others, maybe Ted Cruz, that might have been somewhat in that lane as well.But he—that gave Donald Trump the electoral advantage in the nominations contest to gain a plurality of support in many of the earlier states.And so many of them were winner-take-all that he was able to really pick up some momentum with just a plurality of support until he got up into the Northeast, which then allowed him to begin to accumulate some majority support in those states.And at that point, you know, the train had left.There was too much steam behind him.

So you've got to remember that sort of tactical or a campaign move that—when that occurred.

But I would also say that, you know, the party, and, if you will, the establishment of the party, the base of the party, I mean, it's very interesting when people talk about that.You know, I look at it.There is the base of the party, and there is the activist base of the party.I would put in what most would say the establishment is probably the base of the party, not the activist base of the party.And the base of the party got behind the party's nominee, and that's what typically happens in our binary system of politics in this country.You don't get your choice necessarily, your first choice, but in the end it's either one side or the other.And I think that's what sort of forced a coalescence, if you will, behind Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.

Let me ask you about the choice of Mike Pence as VP.Were you at the convention?Did you see his speech?

No, I was not there in person, no.

You know him, though, as an establishment figure, I imagine, and I'm just curious what role you thought he inhabited for the campaign.

Well, again, I served with Mike Pence for 12 years in Congress.He was in my entering class, my freshman class, so I do know him well.And he was always—I'm not necessarily—I wouldn't necessarily attach the label of "establishment" to him, because when I was the leadership in Congress, both as deputy whip, whip and then majority leader, Mike Pence was always one that, you know, he sort of carved his own path.And he was, although at one point part of the Republican leadership, the number three in the Republican Conference in the House, he wasn't always willing to go along with what leadership wanted to get done, whether it was under President Bush or in contradiction to, you know, sort of a position perhaps that the Obama administration would take.

And so it was—I'm not necessarily sure that we would share the same view, but Mike Pence has always claimed sort of a position as a fiscal conservative, at least when he was in the House, and perhaps when he was governor—I'm not as familiar with his term there—but I'd also say he was always very, very much a person of faith and very, very interested in some of those issues that surround religious freedom in our country, and always, always—and I could count on Mike Pence always when I was leader to be a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

And the unlikely marriage that is the Pence-Trump ticket, what did you think at the time?

I think that a lot of social conservatives had some doubts about Donald Trump in the very beginning, again because of their emphasis and focus on issues having to do with faith and so much of the controversy around the tabloid Donald Trump, that Mike Pence added some real seriousness, if you will, on those issues to a Republican ticket, especially with a candidate like Donald Trump, who several years before was a registered Democrat who didn't necessarily hold the same positions on many of the issues that are so important to social conservative voters.

I imagine it also sent a signal to Washington to pick a guy that had spent 12 years in the House.

I don't think that that was overlooked in the selection of Mike Pence.But I think more so—you've got to always remember, you know, elections take place at home, not here in Washington.And so it's really important to remember that the ticket that Donald Trump led was one that, I would guess, that he and his team felt accurately reflected the majority of the voters in this country.And, you know, he served as a different type of figure and was able to penetrate a certain electorate, and then Mike Pence also brought with him his own appeal to a different part of the electorate, and certainly a very important part of the Republican base, and much of the activist base of Republicans in the social conservative voters.

Trump and Charlottesville

I wonder if you could help me with a particular moment that the vice president comes to the president's rescue, which is after Charlottesville.It's a really delicate moment for Republicans to navigate the response, the president's response.Mike Pence, I don't know if you remember, is very cautious about defending the president, not crossing him specifically, but it's a bit of a delicate thread there.And I'm curious to know, in a moment like that, what does Mike Pence offer the president?

Well, I mean, I think that Mike Pence, again, has been a serious person throughout his political career and someone who always held himself out as a very ethical, straightforward person, and someone who tried very, you know, very seriously to be fair to all constituencies, whether he agreed with them or not.And so there's a certain seriousness in approach to issues of policy and politics, I think, that Mike Pence reflected that perhaps Donald Trump didn't.

I want to ask you about a couple of members who get caught up in Charlottesville in not the best way, which is Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, who criticize the president and are then attacked by him.I'm curious to know if this should have been an early warning to other members and leadership about the dangers of crossing the president.

Well, I mean, listen, there's been no question that, you know, the president, President Trump is known to have been prior, and then certainly during the campaign, and then during his presidency, to be loose with his language.And, you know, there are many, many instances, my goodness, that created news cycle after news cycle caused by his inartful language.And perhaps it wasn't so inartful; perhaps it was intentional, I don't know.But again, he had a penchant to make news with so much that he said.And in many ways, more traditional politicians, more people who had served in public office, who took a little bit more serious approach to the public debate reacted viscerally when they saw a sound bite or heard just a piece of what the president said.And I think it was natural to see that type of reaction.

And once that reaction was on display, then rightfully, President Trump—you rightfully say President Trump reacted and went after the people who were critical of him.

I don't think that was necessarily a surprise.You know, I think that the way that Donald Trump rose in the political arena of our country was one very much of a pit bull, very much of a fighter.And I think that was largely his appeal from very early on.

… I wonder if I can jump ahead a little bit to several months after Charlottesville, the Trump tax cuts and the celebration on the South Lawn.You know, your—you know those folks who are praising the president in that moment.Do you remember watching that press conference?Do you remember—what did you think?

Well, you know, the tax—the issue of taxation, lower taxes, smaller government, is central to what I believe a limited-government Republican Party is about.And so there was a lot of cause for celebration at the moment, because there had been 30-plus years since we had seen a comprehensive overhaul of our tax code to reduce the burden on the working taxpayers of America.So obviously things are very jubilant around that discussion.It is, you know, that tax bill was a product of many, many years of work in the halls of Congress on both sides of the Capitol, and with President Trump then being in office as president, he gets some credit for steering that through and for pushing to make sure that that happened.

So understandable that people were excited about it.And, you know, in sort of that little instance, there was praise deserved.

The praise is pretty extraordinarily, though, especially from Orrin Hatch, who says this could be the best presidency ever.I'm curious.We're not that many months after Charlottesville.I totally get the enthusiasm about the feat of this legislation, but that seems—and we've already witnessed how the campaign went and who this figure is.This is an insurgent, ultimately, and I wonder if these folks were getting quite comfortable with the idea of this president.

You've got to remember that, you know, what's behind some of the fervor is the fact that Donald Trump, unlike any other political figure, has been able to channel the real anger and dissatisfaction on the part of half of the country, if not more.And you know, again, I started earlier talking about the transformational change that this country is going through, and the negative consequences of that change as well as the positive, but there's a lot of people who feel left out, and again, transformational change, both technologically but also culturally and socially.And sort of some of the actions brought on by that change, whether it's being caused by an overbearing media class or—or others, or those in academia, and that has filtered down into the communities across this country, there's been a real negative reaction to that.And Donald Trump, of anyone else, has been able to channel that anger.

So part of the fervor, part of the hyperbole, again, is—is urged on by him for sure, but he's also sort of the conduit for that, unlike anyone else.And so when you're in elected office, you want to be able to, you know, connect with your constituency, and that constituency which is most intense is that which will turn out for elections, which will move the needle for you.

So again, I think all that is behind a little bit of the jubilation and perhaps the hyperbole around the signing of the tax bill back in 2017 or early '18.

I just wonder, especially with what we know, what do you think people need to know about what was really going on at that moment to understand where we would end up?

So I'm not sure I understand where—what was going on when?

… I think you've given us a great context of the excitement about his ability to kind of transcend traditional politics, but … looking back now, at that moment, given the division between a lot of those figures and this president, what did they miss?What did they sort of misunderestimate?

Well, first of all, I would also say that Trump, you know, President Trump's appeal is not just the activist base, as we recently saw in the elections a couple months ago.It was almost half the country, 74, 75 million people.It wasn't just the activist party base.And so it is true that in a system in which there's just one other side versus—it's one or the other, there's two sides, it's binary, that President Trump represents a real pushback to some of the overbearing sense of what is believed to be the mainstream culture, media or imposition of some kind of way of thought versus where President Trump is out there saying anything he thinks, saying things that other people may think and wouldn't say.I mean, he's almost like this reflection of the ability for individuals to freely communicate and indulge in the liberties of this country in a way, you know.And he's also really artful at being able to connect with everyday Americans, even though he is probably the most unlikely person to do that, given his own socioeconomic background.

And so when you think about the people that were at that press conference at the White House, it's this, you know, group of people who have spent—most of them spent most of their careers in public elected office trying to, you know, do the work of the people in a serious manner, and in a way had drifted way from the pulse, if you will, that had developed across the country that Donald Trump was so able to connect with.

The 2018 Midterm Elections

… I wonder if I can take you to a bit of backlash, which is the midterms, and the perhaps warning of the president's role for this party when he's not on the ballot.I'm curious to get your take on that.

Well, I do think that, you know, the midterms reflected the fact that, especially in the growing, diverse, more educated, suburban areas of our country, President Trump, his support is nowhere near what the Republican support had traditionally been.I think you saw that in the polls.I can tell you, in my state of Virginia, we faced that in an extraordinary way.In all three large metropolitan areas of the state, the suburban vote for Trump had fallen off, and did so in '18, and for him did so in the recent election in 2020.

But I do think, when he is not on the ballot, there is not as much as a turnout, obviously, and that's pretty much been the case all along in my time paying attention to politics, being involved in politics, that when you have a midterm election, there's going to be less of a turnout.

But he himself invokes such strong opinions on both sides, and then when you had the smaller electorate, those who were most motivated were those who were very negative towards President Trump, and they had no other way to vent their dislike of the man, other than to vote against the Republicans.

I think it's interesting to look at the outcome in 2018 and the real setback for my party in the House, at least, that you compare that to what just happened in 2020, and although President Trump did not win the Electoral College at the top of the ticket, the Republicans down ballot did a lot better.And I think that is an instance in which that venom and the people who don't like President Trump were able to go and cast their vote, but then again, when they were down ballot, probably said: "You know what?Some of the 'defund the police,' some of the extreme left Green New Deal, all that kind of stuff is not for me.I want the freedom to think how I want to think.I want less government.I want lower taxes."They were free to go vote for Republicans after they released their, you know, their opposition, if you will, at the top of the ticket.And I think that's why you saw some, really some ticket-splitting going on.

The First Impeachment

I wonder if I can jump now to impeachment for just a moment.Forgive me for putting it in this stark of a term, but why—the first impeachment—why does leadership look the other way on these charges?

Well, listen, there has been—and I assume you say, why does Republican leadership, is your question, why do Republican leaders—

Yeah, exactly.They, I don't want to say give him a pass, but there is space for him here, and there is a willingness to rally around him, and some do that in a very vocal way, and others kind of have a bit more difficulty.But I'm curious what's going on.

Well, I think at one level, I think you've got to go look at the merits of the charges, too, and question whether the charges reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanor on the charges that were brought to the floor, and I don't think you discount that when it's something that serious, where you would expect people who are elected into the positions to serve in Congress to actually really deliberate on the policy.

So I would first say that you do not discount that.Yes, there's always the politics of it, and so if there is a question about, you know, whether his actions reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and whether, if you couldn't decide that, what were the politics surrounding impeachment, again, there's no question that given the divide in the country, and we have a serious divide in the country, evidenced by the closeness of the presidential election.I mean, the electoral votes and the actual votes themselves in the swing states that mattered, the margin was slimmer than the margin was last time, when Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.So even though the popular vote—again, the votes basically in New York and California were so extreme on the popular vote, but when you look at the Electoral College in the states that matter, the margin was slimmer.

So, I mean, look, we've got to stipulate we've got a real divide in this country.And unfortunately, in politics, it's very difficult when you have to always explain what you did, because information flows so quickly; sound bites don't net, and they can't capture, sort of, what's really behind a decision that someone makes in serving in an elected capacity.

So it's very difficult, and oftentimes if they can't decide on the policy, if maybe they're uncertain about that, yes, the political elements come into play, no doubt.And so President Trump did a—I think he did a very effective job at laying out his case that there was this obsession about him in Russia, that there was this obsession about collusion, that there was this obsession about his wrongdoing with Russia, and as we have seen, over the Mueller investigation and the rest, there's very little hard evidence to point to that.

And yes, there was that phone call, but that phone call with the president of Ukraine, that was really the issue that policymakers had to decide whether Trump's actions reached the level for impeachment.And so it was a difficult call.It really was.So I don't think that you could say Republicans and leadership would summarily just dispose of that.I think those were—those were—certainly the call was inappropriate, but whether it reached the level of impeachment, that's where people got hung up, I would think.

I guess what I'm also curious to know about that moment, though: the relationship that leadership has to the president during that time period.So I am sort of fixated right then on the political, but that they are a united force at that moment, no?

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking in the question.Yes, at the time—

Certainly we're now seeing the split.At the time we're talking about now, though, there is, for somewhat similar behavior, the calling up—

There's a question there, too.I think that, again, not serving in the Congress currently, that I can't put myself in their minds.But I do think, just looking from the outside, there is a difference between a phone call to the president of Ukraine and what was said on that call versus the current situation, where there is so much consequence to what I thought was reckless behavior and—on the part of the president's campaign and the president after all the court cases had been disposed of, and there really was no more avenue for redress.He was entitled to have those avenues of redress to the courts.All of the courts, including the Supreme Court, did not rule in his favor.At that point, under our Constitution, once the states certify their elections, it's done.

And so, again, that in and of itself, I would say, to mislead people to say that somehow there is an avenue yet even further, that the Congress can overturn what the states have certified, there is nothing to indicate in the Constitution that that is the case.Nor is it, in my opinion, the situation where a vice president could go in underneath the state certifications and decide whether there was fraud or not.I mean, that is up to the states; that was part of, in my opinion, the reason that the framers of the Constitution were so clear.They wanted to assure that Washington was not all-powerful, that the states did maintain that power.

And so, to me, misleading followers to say they could overturn the election like that is a lot different of a charge than would be a discussion with the president of Ukraine.

Trump Sows Doubt about Election Integrity

… Let me ask you quickly about the period leading up to the election, where the president is using rhetoric on the campaign trail along the lines of "Liberate your state," ramping up talks of fraud.He kind of starts early with this, and I'm just curious if you think that party leaders were paying enough attention to it.

Well, I do think so, and I do think that there are issues with elections and election reforms that are needed, because what we found ourselves in, and I mentioned earlier that this health crisis and pandemic that we're in is just something obviously none of us have lived through, unless you were—anyone listening was alive during the Spanish flu pandemic.And I think that states, many of which took steps to try and make it easier for people to vote—and I think the intentions may have been good.We certainly want to avail everyone of their right to vote.I'm always a believer that the more people vote and exercise their rights in a legal way, the better off we are as a country.So we ought to go and make sure that that is the case.

However, there were some very, let's say, unorthodox ways that the states went about either changing their regulations or laws, or affecting the rules around balloting because we were in a pandemic, because of the need for social distancing, because of the fear of the virus.And so I do think that there were early indications that some of these unorthodox measures undertaken by the states were going to raise some questions and—whether they were legal or not legal.And again, the courts have spoken to that.

But I do think that, you know, the lasting impact of that is, I do think the state legislatures will be prompted to take a further look into election reform.My gut is mail-in balloting, no-excuse absentee balloting, a lot of that's here to stay.And again, as long as it's done with safeguards, I think that is the appropriate avenue.And I think all of us should want more Americans to vote.

But again, I do think people were early on worried about some of these unorthodox measures undertaken by some states.

I understand that.It's just the rhetoric, the fraud rhetoric that we hadn't seen before in a race, and certainly not at that level.Did it trouble you?

Well, I mean, there has been so much, so much rhetoric that fills that description of "unprecedented" with Donald Trump that it probably didn't surprise people.The hyperbole is dialed up every single day with him, so I don't necessarily think that it was surprising.Unprecedented?For sure.

I worry about the lasting impact of saying that the electoral process in this country is fraudulent because I worry about what it does to the fabric of our institutions and the fabric of our democracy.We've got to have faith in the rule of law.I mean, that's the bottom line here.You have to have faith that if there is something that is untoward, if there were fraud perpetrated, that you have outlets for redress, that you have outlets to approach a court of law.There are state courts, and there's a system of federal courts, and all that is there and available.

Either you believe in the rule of law in America or you don't.And so I do believe in the rule of law, and so I worry about allegations of fraud that can go unredressed.That is a worry.

Alleged Election Fraud

Let me ask you about, the election happens; we hear that language about fraud that night, of course.But then what happens afterward in the House and Senate?There seems to be an inability in saying the words, "President-elect Biden," and there are some folks that are certainly very vocal about the president's questions about fraud.I'm thinking about Lindsey Graham when I say that.But then there are also folks in leadership that are silent.And I'm curious what you thought of the silence, if you—if that worried you.

Well, first of all, I mean, you know, Mitch McConnell, when he was asked this question, and he said the president has every right to avail himself of the courts if he and his campaign believe that there was fraud perpetrated that could change the outcome, or not, of the election, and I think that was an appropriate statement.He got a lot of condemnation for that, and I think unfairly.Now, once all those cases had been disposed of, and it was very clear there was no other legal avenue or constitutional avenue for Trump and his campaign to avail themselves of, you saw right away Mitch McConnell stood up and recognized President-elect Biden.

So, you know, again, I don't—you know, I don't—I don't take that away from Trump.He had the right to do it.Once the courts spoke, once the states certified and the electors assembled at those state capitols and the states certified those votes, it's over.Joe Biden is going to be our next president.

So again, anybody that would say anything to the contrary, I don't know why they would take that position other than the political ramifications of doing that to folks at home who perhaps are listening to the president, again, in a way that I think is misleading.

… Let me ask you a little bit about something we've just talked briefly about, which is the position Vice President Pence then finds himself in, which is right where the president has kind of put him in this moment, which is in between the base, again stuck with the wishes of the president who he has been incredibly loyal to over the previous four years, the idea that he's going to be able to overturn the election.Help me understand, as you're sort of watching it, the position Mike Pence was placed in.

The contention that Mike Pence as vice president had any ability to change the outcome of the election is just constitutional nonsense.It's just not—I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't want to opine on that, but I can tell you, I just don't see it.I don't see where there was that kind of discretion of the part of Mike Pence.The Constitution says that the president of the Senate, the vice president of the country, will count the votes.And that's count; that's not underlook and see about the quality of the votes and certify them, et cetera.That's up to the states.So again, as far as the vice president is concerned, I didn't ever see the ability for him to do that.

Now, the members of the joint session of Congress have a right to object, and it's happened almost every cycle.I know when I was in Congress for the 14 years, it happened a lot.The Democrats consistently got up and objected to some of the electors' votes from certain states.So it's their right to do that.Why are you even having a vote one way or the other?If everybody's supposed to think the same way, then don't have the vote.

But the vice president himself didn't have any constitutional authority to do but anything that he did, which was count the votes.

The Seige on the Capitol

Your view of the president speaking at that rally the morning of Jan. 6, just at the base of the Capitol, urging the supporters to show their anger.He seems to be activating them.

I just think his conduct, rhetoric was reckless, and reckless to the point where I believe he was perpetrating falsehoods, and number one, that there was … widespread fraud that could change the outcome.And the reason why I say falsehood, because the courts had spoken, and either you're going to believe in the law of the land or you're not.Either we're a country of laws or we're not.I believe we are a country of laws.So that's number one.

Number two, again, perpetrating this falsehood, in my opinion, that the vice president had the power to do anything but count the vote under our Constitution in that joint session, again, is something that's just not true.

So those things, two things together, misled so many hundreds of thousands of people.And no wonder they're mad if they think that the system actually turned out like that.But they're just not true.And so, again, I think, very, very reckless.

Let me ask you about the speech that Mitch McConnell gives just before that mob descends.It's pretty incredible timing to break with the president.Did you watch that?What were your thoughts?

I saw some clips of it.Look, listen.I think Mitch McConnell is a man very dedicated to the institutions of our country and our democracy and understands the role that the Congress plays.And going back to whether you have faith in our Constitution and the system of laws that it has spawned or not—and we have been the most successful country in the world that has elevated people and their standard of living to the point which is higher than anywhere else in history, not that everyone has benefited from this and not that we're perfect, but either we're going to believe in that model of government or we're going to overturn it with chaos.And so I salute Mitch McConnell in his determination to uphold our Constitution.

Then a mob breaches the U.S. Capitol.And you know, you're, I imagine, watching some of this coverage.Tell me what you're thinking about the rhetoric that had been building for years and about what you had seen in that evolving base since your time in leadership.What was going through your mind?

Well, first of all, I would say what a travesty.I mean, you know, the U.S. Capitol is the most enduring symbol of democracy the world has ever seen.And the fact that American citizens are sitting there, climbing these walls to break into the Capitol is just so sad; it's heartbreaking, especially to those of us who have spent so many years working in that building, trying to do the right thing for the people that elected us.It really was heartbreaking.

But again, I try and see a silver lining in it and just say that, you know, the incident, although sadly, you know, there were four or five people who lost their lives in that incident—we can never recover those—I do think that, you know, the incident lasted for several hours; law enforcement was brought in; the place was brought under control.There will be a lot of recriminations, a lot of investigations about breakdowns in security, et cetera.But the fact is, the joint session of Congress went back in and then did its work for the people of this country.

And so, although it was—it was so unbelievably awful to see, our Constitution did prevail; our system did work.And so to that I take some confidence that we are a resilient country and people.

But if you're asking, you know, what do I think about all the rhetoric, what do I think about the events leading up to this, you know, I very much believe that it's easy, as an elected official and a politician, to get caught up in the game of elevated expectations.It's easy to go in and promise people things that ultimately you're not going to be able to deliver upon.And it has consequences.And I think that day in Washington demonstrated that words, actions, rhetoric, irresponsible behavior and conduct, reckless statements have consequences.And when you are privileged to hold a constitutional office or an office in this country, sworn to uphold the Constitution, I think you ought to take that oath with a bit of seriousness and not always put the game of politics first.

And to those Republican members who came back in for that vote and continued to vote the same way, to reject, what are the—what are they risking, and then what are the long-term consequences of the message they're sending at that point?

Again, if you're going to have a vote and there's a red button and a green button, there's a reason, right?So I'm not saying that an individual in their conscience can't vote the way that he or she or their constituents feel they should vote.That is what we have in a representative democracy.So not everyone is supposed to think the same.

But, you know, again, given that, you know, so much of this—so much of this expectation that the election could be overturned is premised on what I believe are falsehoods, I don't think necessarily that their vote is going to be viewed in isolation that they're entitled to vote how they want, because they are.I think it will be clouded by the events of the day and unfortunately the deaths that occurred given the mob that descended on the Capitol.

And so, listen, there will be repercussions.There will be, you know, I think in my party there's going to be a lot of discussion going forward about how to go and climb out of a very dark day that occurred.

Pence’s Breach with Trump

"Soul-searching" is the word I come to.I wonder, as we think about soul-searching, can I ask you for a moment about Mike Pence?He obviously refuses to reject the results and certainly follows precedent here.What do you think that moment signified for him at the end of this—at the end of this administration, at the end of this sort of road that he's been on for the last four years?

Listen, I mean, he didn't only just follow precedent.He followed the law; he followed the Constitution.So I, you know, salute him.He didn't have a choice.I mean, if you believe in our Constitution and system of laws, you do that.And so I do think he upheld his sworn oath of office.What that means for him going forward?We'll have to see.

We'll have to see how and where the president goes, where does President Trump go, in terms of my party, after he is out of office.Does he maintain this outsize influence?You know, this whole question of the ability for him to connect and speak to his followers, be it social media, there's a question of where all that goes.

So there's a lot of unanswered questions going forward, but something certainly my party will have to reckon with.

I think the biggest question is, whose party will this be?Is it possible to move it away from this—from this president?

Again, I think the party is, is and should be, a party of ideas.We should—we should remember that the political parties here aren't necessarily tribal; they're not two tribes that are warring against one another.We have the ability to engage in a competition of ideas and how those ideas and policies impact real people and their lives.That should be the form of debate we're about.Unfortunately today, and again a lot of it's being driven by technological and social change, but right now it's all tribal, and it doesn't have a lot of, sort of, ideological or policy bent to it.Hopefully we can see the party regain some of its commitment to the principles upon which a limited-government conservative party is founded and go out and advocate for people that that is the better way.

I want to ask you, though, about the—I understand sort of the political questions, and you've been great about helping us understand what's at stake now moving forward, but another question I would never have guessed we'd have to discuss is the fragility of our institutions, which have been tested a bit, you know?And I wonder how our democracy continues after the events of last week.

Again, I take away from the events of last week that we have a system that is in place, and we actually are a society and a country that allows for some very active, robust debate.Now, physical violence, lawbreaking, whether in—on Capitol Hill, to the U.S. Capitol, or whether it's on Main Street and the storefronts that were being smashed in over the summer, and store owners that have spent their whole lives building this business and are now gone, that violence in any way, shape or form is unacceptable.

And I think that both parties, both sides of the political spectrum need to come down firmly and say, peaceful protests, yes; you are allowed to assemble and approach your political leaders with your ideas and your positions.But you are not allowed, entitled or legally entitled to commit violence, period.And so we need to go and reinstitute the priority that that is the case.

I'm not so sure that the institution, the process of democracy is—I'm hopeful we're strengthened after all this, because I did see resilience.Two hours later the joint session of Congress is back in there to show the American people that Congress is at work, the process of democracy is functioning, and we have a next president in Joe Biden.

I mean, I do think that that came out of that day.Hard as it was for all of us to watch that, and hard as it was to see our president have such reckless conduct and rhetoric, at the end of the day, the Constitution prevailed.So I'm not sure I buy into this notion that the system didn't hold up, because it did.

Now, we'll have work to do to assure people that, you know, they also have equal opportunity like everyone else, in terms of whether they may view a privileged few.Everyone in this country, we're built upon that.And we've got to work towards mending, if you will, this opportunity gap.

Biden Inherits a Divided Nation

… You do know President Biden personally, and I'm curious what you think of when you look at the challenges ahead for him of inheriting such a divided country.

Well, listen, it's going to be up to him and how he goes about sort of volleying or putting the first volley out there, and whether it's the stimulus bill or whether it's, you know, the bill that will ultimately be under reconciliation for tax changes, et cetera., how far and how extreme does he go, because, you know, the Democrats are dealing with historically thin margins in both the House and the Senate, which means that there are moderate Democrats that can actually make a difference.There are four people that can block Nancy Pelosi, four.Now, I've been in the House when my party had five.It's very difficult to manage that.

And so it will be up to Joe Biden to, I think, be true to who he is, and basically not toe to the extreme, which we talked about their outsize influence in his party, and do things that are going to turn off the moderates in both the House and the Senate.

And equally, because it's so narrow in the Senate, we know that there's not going to be, or very unlikely to be, a doing away with the filibuster, meaning that most votes will require 60 in the Senate, which says that you're going to have to have nine Republicans.And so, again, if Joe Biden chooses to go too far to the left—and we experienced this with President Obama.He chose just to go without us, and what happened in the midterms is, we, 2010, became the majority, because it was too far for the country to stomach.

So again, that will be Joe Biden's sort of choice.

Because you have really a Ph.D. in this, if he goes down the middle and if he takes a more moderate approach, is there any hope that he is going to be met with reception on your side?

Then comes—then comes my party's side and whether they—what they decide to do.And in that calculus will be the political calculus of what is best to go and reclaim the majority in the midterms.Is it best to sit in opposition and not go along with anything, or is it best to cooperate where the policies being proposed are consistent with the principles that you have and reflect those that your constituents expect of you?That will be the question.Then it will be up to my party.

And to your point about the activist base, when you see how socialism is polling with the activist base, as that being sort of the predominant view of the left, what do you think the chances are of this?Where do you see an opportunity for the two parties to work together?

Well, I think a lot of it has to with, again, trying to get to consensus.And Joe Biden, from my experience in working with him, he has always focused on, at least in my experience, was always focused on the things that we can agree on, not the things that we disagree on, and trying to separate out those politically sensitive issues that you know that he—other side's not going to go for and try and get more of where we can come together.That is his proclivity, in my view.Whether he's able to go and exercise that, given the political environment he finds himself in, will be interesting, which again is why I think this move towards impeachment by Nancy Pelosi is not something that's going to be helpful.It will stoke the fires even more, and it will set the two parties back into their tribal positions even more.And I think that is a detriment to the prospects for more progress being made in Washington.

Latest Interviews

Get our Newsletter

Stay Connected

Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation

Koo and Patricia Yuen

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.