MELISSA HARRIS PERRY, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning, my question, is it time to ban the box? Plus, Kentucky looks to make failure out of success. And how heroin is the new ethanol of primary politics. But first, the problem with the president`s party is not the president. Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. And we`re awaiting a news conference from Egyptian officials in Cairo this morning. They`re expected to provide an update on the Russian plane crash one week ago in Egypt`s Sinai Peninsula. All 224 people aboard were killed. More on that as we have it. But first, politics. The morning after Tuesday`s elections, the country woke up to see how its political boundaries had shifted after the results rolled in from the night before. And for Democrats, what they saw wasn`t pretty. In Kentucky, Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin won the governor`s seat. In an unexpected victory that put a Republican in an office that`s been held by Democrats for most of the last seven decades. Bevin`s victory was part of the sweep that left Republicans holding all, but two statewide offices in Kentucky. It`s given Republicans near total dominance over statehouses in the South. In Virginia, Democrats failed to secure the single seat that would have helped them regain the state`s senate. A defeat that will make it significantly harder for Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe to pursue his policy agenda. Add to those losses the rejection by voters of progressive ballot proposals in Texas and Ohio. And Tuesday`s election was a rude awakening that left some Democrats wondering what went wrong. But Wednesday morning quarterbacking and headlines like these were all too happy to provide the answer to a different question. Not what was to blame, but who? Some news outlets turned to a tweet from a Republican strategist Rory Cooper to sum it all up. Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900 plus state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That`s some legacy. The party`s losses. Democrats have certainly taken a shellacking in state and local elections during the recent history of the Obama era, but let`s look a bit further back in our political history. You think 35 years ago this week, Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in a landslide victory and a GOP Senate takeover. But the victory lap ended there. Democrats maintained control of the House. Affirming what political scientist Alan Abramowitz writes this month for "The American Prospect," was the prevailing pattern. Between 1952 and 1988, Republican candidates won 7 of 10 presidential elections. During this era of Republican domination of the presidency, however, Democrats won a majority of seats in the House in 17 of 18 elections. And the majority of seats in the Senate in 14 of 18 elections. Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress for 34 of the 40 years from 1954 to 1994. So, while Republicans tended to dominate the presidency, Democrats have traditionally held down the House. Fast forward, 1992. Enter a young charismatic governor from the state of Arkansas who had come seemingly out of nowhere to become the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Bill Clinton would go on to win the White House with a strategy that smashed the Republicans` political base and ended a 12-year hold on the presidency and the beginning of a new political reality that turned that old narrative upside down. That fact became all too apparent with the Republican revolution of 1994. That for the first time in 40 years put Republicans in control of both the Senate and the House. Remember, Newt Gingrich had engineered the GOP takeover with a strategy that unified all Republican candidates under a single national platform. Republicans had won by shifting the old adage that had long been the animating principle of congressional Democrats, all politics is local. A weakened Democratic Party found itself having to adjust to a new normal, local politics had now gone national. OK, fast forward one more time to 2008. Another young charismatic politician who emerges seemingly out of nowhere to cinch the Democratic nomination for president. Senator Barack Obama sailed to victory on a message of change in a 50 state strategy that knit together a diverse coalition of support that transformed the American political map. And his rising tide helped lift the political ship of his party. With Barack Obama`s name at the top of the ticket, Democrats further down ballot picked up five seats in the Senate and made double digits gains in the House, but three elections later, partisan power in Washington had resettled into that pattern established more than two decades before under President Clinton. A strong Democratic president did not equate to a strong Democratic Party. President Obama had won a second term in office, but Republicans had seized control of both the Senate and the House. The GOP takeover succeeded in part because of the party`s adherence to that national strategy that encouraged candidates to run against the president`s record. But Democrats had also pursued a losing strategy based on an unwillingness to run on President Obama`s record. In 2014, red state Democrats who had to win if their party was to hold on to the Senate were explicitly trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the president. As MSNBC reported that year, for red state Democrats fighting for their political lives this November, the strategy for lining up powerful endorsements seems to be ABO, anyone but Obama. The post-midterm map of the Senate elections shows just how well that worked, because Republican gains in the Senate were concentrated primarily in the red states. So this week, after another election has ended with defeated Democrats asking themselves what happened, it may be worth considering what this political history offers in the way of an answer. That maybe the problem with the Democratic Party that loses while its president wins might lie not with the president, but with the party itself. Joining me now, Mark Alexander, associate dean for academics and professor of law at Seton Hall Law School. And a former senior advisor to President Barack Obama. And Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of democracynow.org. So nice to have you both here. AMY GOODMAN, HOST & EXEC. PROD., DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG: It`s great to be here. HARRIS-PERRY: OK, Mark, assess for me then what the overall health of the Democratic Party looks like given these recent losses. MARK ALEXANDER, ASSOC. DEAN FOR ACADEMICS, SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL: I think the party is strong. HARRIS-PERRY: Come on. ALEXANDER: And I think what you left out, is you left out my state of New Jersey where in New Jersey the Democrats picked up the largest margin they`ve had in the assembly in 35 years. So, what I think you see is in some states like New Jersey, you`ve got moderate Republicans who are saying that the party is not their same party. And I think you see in places like Kentucky, you`ve got a Tea Party Republican getting stronger. So, I think the Republican Party is going much more to the right. I don`t think the Democratic Party is weak, but I think you`ve seen the Republican Party is going much more to the right than before. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I hear you - the Jersey had some pickups. And I think you can look around the map and see - hear that. But I`ve got to say like, Jersey being a Democratic stronghold hardly suggests to me like a robust Democratic Party. What gets lost kind of in that Clinton era forward is the capacity to win in Southern states, in Midwestern states. And I guess part of what I`m wondering is, if our focus on the presidency, which does tend to draw our attention, leaves us with a kind of anemic party underneath. GOODMAN: Well, first of all, I think the operative word is 70 percent. 70 percent of the voters of Kentucky did not vote. HARRIS-PERRY: Yep. GOODMAN: This election was won on 30 percent of the vote. It is hardly a mandate for the new Republican Tea Party governor. And also, the issue is health care. It is an absolutely critical issue. The health care co-ops that are dying all over the country right now that were a part of Obamacare. You know, the one in Kentucky died in the last weeks of this campaign. It was the wild card that they could use. And this means, though, ultimately, you could have half a million people out of health care in Kentucky, but 70 percent of Kentuckians didn`t vote. HARRIS-PERRY: But so, when I see that, I see a number like that, I think we have a tendency in the American political system to say those lazy individual Democratic voters who didn`t show up. And I think you are saying that, but I think that tends to . GOODMAN: I think there`s so many obstacles to voting. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. GOODMAN: That should be the focus. And expanding voting rights in this country. HARRIS-PERRY: Absolutely. So, both the expansion, but also to me the mobilization. So, part of that, when I look at Kay Hagan`s loss in North Carolina and Landrieu`s loss in Louisiana, and Grimes and Nunn in other Southern states in the last midterm, I see in every case Southern Democrats who instead of running on the president`s record, who instead of running on ACA, who instead of running and saying, oh, yes, I`m with that guy who`s won two national elections were like, please, let me pretend he doesn`t exist. And then the president gets blamed for these losses. ALEXANDER: And I think that`s a losing strategy. As you`re saying. Because the Democratic Party is defined by certain things like the Affordable Care Act. I think when you look at the next elections, you`ll see they`re going to be defined by the fact that unemployment has gone down consistently every year under a Democratic president. There will be a record of the Democratic Party the Democrats will need to run on. And you can`t pretend like you`re not quite a Democrat when you have a Republican who`s going to be every day pushing the Republican platform as they should. But I think the key is to draw contrasts. Democrats will go this way. Republicans will go that way. And then I think that`s ultimately the way, in which you stand true to your party. HARRIS-PERRY: Although, I want to go back to the point you made before about the potential mess that is also the Republican Party. They certainly are in massive control of state legislatures and governor`s mansions. So, Amy, it also feels to me like part of what we`re seeing at the presidential level for Republicans is that those state gains are not translating at the presidential level. Like there are people who will actually hold office and can`t manage to break about 15 percent in terms of approval at the national level. GOODMAN: Or expressions of that at the national level are not really electable. When you look at the main Republican candidates right now who are surging in the polls, are they going to get a majority of American voters, is a very important question. I mean, the way these elections run is you really don`t encourage people to go out. It`s astounding as you raise the issue of what about mobilization. Do the Democrats really feel that it`s better not to focus on this election and not to get people out? If a democracy is going to work, you have to push for the most people coming out, get all the obstacles out of the way, and then whoever wins truly is the best man or woman. HARRIS-PERRY: There is one place where Democrats could still have a pickup. And that`s in Louisiana where there`s a race for the governor right now. David Vitter is running against John Edwards. And I just - I have to play this because it`s just quite an ad. Early voting starts today in Louisiana. It is going to be a turnout game. I want to play this ad from that campaign. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The choice for governor couldn`t be more clear. John Bell Edwards who answered our country`s call and served as a ranger in the 82nd Airborne Division. Or David Vitter who answered a prostitute`s call minutes after he skipped a vote honoring 28 soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedom. David Vitter choose prostitutes over patriots. Now, the choice is yours. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Well, that`s happening in Louisiana. And when we come back, Kentucky may just try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: We`re waiting a news conference from Egyptian officials in Cairo this morning. They`re expected to provide an update on the Russian plane crash one week ago in Egypt`s Sinai Peninsula. For Tuesday`s elections, though, come back to the U.S. for a moment, Kentucky`s outgoing Democratic governor Steve Bashir said this to "The Washington Post" about his state`s implementation of Obamacare and the possibility of another Democrat seceded him in office. Quote, "This is a winner for our people. Because it`s a winner for our people, it`s going to be a winner politically." Bashir had a lot of reasons to be confident. After all, his state is one of the great Obamacare success stories. In 2013, Kentucky avoided the glitches that plagued the unveiling of the federal exchange website with a smooth rollout of its own state-run exchange known as Connect. OK, I love the Kentucky story. We are, however, going to pause for a moment. As I told you at the beginning, of coming back from the break, there is a press conference going on in Cairo right now, and we are going to pause, go live for an update on that Russian airliner crash that killed 224 people last week. Officials speaking now in Cairo. Let`s take a listen. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Work of the investigation committee, within the same work of transparency and our keenness to give the public opinion locally and globally of every variables in the investigations. The committee has met and has issued statements. I will read out to you the statement of the investigation committee with the participation of its members and representatives of the foreign countries. But before I start, I want to express my deep condolences to the families of the victims and to the Russian people. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, we as the investigation team of the accident of Metro Jet flight number KGL 9268 extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the Russian aircraft that crashed in the middle Sinai last Saturday 31st of October 15. After the accident occurred, the government of Egypt dispatched emergency personnel and accident investigators to the crash site. The prime minister visited the crash site in the first few hours after the accident. The armed forces guarded the site of the wreckage. The flight recorders, black boxes, were recovered on the same day and the bodies of the victims were recovered and taken to hospitals in Cairo. On the same day of the accident, the minister of civil aviation of Egypt formed an investigation committee in compliance with Egyptian law number 28 and 13 to take the charge of the investigation of the accident. The government of Egypt extended invitations to representatives from Russia as state of operator, Ireland as state of registry, France, state of design, and Germany, state of manufacture. And advisers from engine manufacturers and from Airbus. Me, myself, I represent Egypt in leading the technical investigation committee. Egyptian air force operated five flights to the crash site carrying various members of the investigation team. Including Egyptian investigators and other state investigators involvement. The investigators examined and photographed what was found, including a recording that coordinates of each major piece. It is planned that the committee will conduct further visits to the accident site in the incoming days. The investigation team are composed of 47 investigators as follows. From Egypt, we have 29. From Russia, 7. From France, 6. From Germany, 2. And from Ireland, 3. The accident advisers from Airbus attend - one adviser. This comes to a total of 58 participants in this investigation. To meet all technical needs and requirements, five subgroups were created as follows. One, recorders` group. Two, accident site group. Three, operations, responsible for crew, for air traffic control, for airline information and metrology. Four, aircraft and systems. Five, medical and forensic. This is the fifth one. The committee is undertaking its work in accordance with annex 13 to Chicago convention, which is consistent with Egyptian law number 28. All groups who are working in parallel are currently in the information gathering phase. We are still in the information gathering phase. Since - visits to the accident site were hampered by bad weather. As soon as the weather improves, future visits will be arranged. The wreckage will be recovered to a safe and secure place in Cairo. For further examination, for each part during which methodology of specialists will be involved. The committee will recover the aircraft system computers, which have a special non-volatile memory. Observations of the committee until today. One. Debris is scattered over a wide area. More than 13 kilometers in length. Which is consistent with an inflight break-up. Some parts of the wreckage are missing and it is hoped to locate them in the incoming days. Two, the initial observation of the aircraft wreckage does not yet allow for either defining the origin of the inflight break-up. Three, the flight recorders were recovered on the first day of the accident and they were successfully downloaded. That preliminary review of the FDR, flight data recorder, indicates the following. Takeoff time, UTC time is three hours, 50 minutes and six seconds. With recording stopped at UTC time four hours, 13 minutes and 20 seconds. So, duration from takeoff to the end of recordings is 23 minutes and 14 seconds. Last recorded altitudes is 30,000 feet and 888 feet. While the aircraft is still in climbing mode. Last recorded air speed is 281 knots with autopilots one was engaged until the end of recordings. Four, the CVR was successfully downloaded. And the first listening was done. Although the CVR team is still in the phase of writing the transcript, which we`ll take time to finalize, a noise was heard in the last second of the CVR recording. A spectral analysis will be carried out by specialized labs in order to identify the nature of this noise. The committee noted media reports and analysis. Some of which claim to be based on official intelligence. Which favors a certain scenario. For the cause of the accident. The committee was not provided with any information or evidence in this regard. The committee urged the sources of such reports to provide it with all information that could help us to undertake our mission. Six. The committee is considering with a great attention all possible scenarios for the cause of the accident. And did not reach till the moment any conclusion in this regard. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, we have time for very few questions. Because they .. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My people are waiting. I`m afraid they have a very limited time. And my people are waiting for me. Salyam Aleikum UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): There were five seats now and I didn`t find except yourself, sir, who is sitting there without the members of the committee. The question is, I do smell the -- I have the smell of a conspiracy still as to prove something. Because there is an absence of the foreign -- other foreign members of the committee who were responsible for listening to the black box. Why did they not attend this press conference to which they have been invited? Beyond any doubt, there is no conspiracy whatsoever. We will distribute a copy in Arabic. I will take your permission in reading to you in Arabic. I don`t know about any conspiracy. What I know is that I did invite them officially to take part in attending this conference and I told them that I was keen that they would attend. So, I have to respond to any questions, but they preferred to not participate. I do not know. Maybe they have certain rules by which they cannot attend the press conference. I do not know, but I would like to clarify to you that, sir, I would like to inform you that the statement is something that they know about and they have already taken part in its development. It`s a statement about the Metro Jet KGL 9268 accident. Ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning or the outset, the investigation committee in the Metro Jet KGL 9268 accident would like to extend its condolences to the families and the friends and the victims of the Russian aircraft that has crashed on last Saturday, the 31st of October of 2015. [speaking in foreign language] UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I shall read the statement in Arabic. Ladies and gentlemen, at the outset, the investigation team of the accident of Metro Jet KGL 9268 would like to extend its deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the Russian aircraft that has crashed last Saturday, the 31st of October of 2015 and the Egyptian government, after the accident, has dispatched emergency personnel and investigators to the crash site and the prime minister has conducted a visit to the crash site in the very first few hours since the crash occurred. The armed forces has guarded the crash site and the black box has been recovered on the same day. As well as the victims who have been transferred to hospitals in Cairo on the same day of the accident. A decision has been made by the minister of civil aviation of Egyptian regarding the constitution of the committee to investigate the crash in accordance with Egyptian law number 28 and the account annex number 13 of the Chicago Convention in order to investigate the accident. The Egyptian government on its part has invited the accredited representatives of states, Russia, the state of operation, Ireland, the state of registry, France, the state of design, and Germany, the state of manufacture. As well as advisers from the manufacturing companies of the engine as well as the airliner. Me, myself, I do represent Egypt in chairing the technical investigation team. The Egyptian air forces have organized five visits over separate days over the last week to the crash site. In order to carry the investigation team, which includes the Egyptian investigators and a group of investigators from the other relevant states. The investigators have examined the wreckage and has identified all the various major parts and it has planned that the committee would conduct more visits to the crash site over the upcoming days after an improvement in the weather conditions. The committee of investigation is made up of 47 members from - of investigators who are broken down as follows. From Egypt, 29 investigators. From Russia, seven investigators. From France, six investigators. From Germany, two investigators. From Ireland, three. Additionally, there were advisers which were broken down as follows. From Airbus Company, there were ten advisers. And from Aza (ph), one representative. So that the total number of investigators is totaling 58. And so that the committee can assume its responsibilities in an organized fashion, five groups, working groups, have been established as follows. The group of the aircraft recorders and specifically the FDR and CJR boxes as well as the group of the accident site and the operation group which is responsible for examining the aircraft crew as well as various information such as meteorological investigation. Also, the aircraft systems as well as the medical and forensic team. Additionally, the committee is undertaking its work in accordance with annex number 13 of the Chicago Convention, which in consistence with the Egyptian law number 28. All the groups are currently working at the stage of data collection. In a way that is parallel to the exchange of information among the groups. The committee confirms that it is still at the stage of data collection. The wreckage shall also be transferred to a safe site in Cairo, so as to conduct further examination of every part. This examination is being conducted by specialists in the various fields, as well as the computer devices of the aircraft . HARRIS-PERRY: We`ve been listening to officials in Cairo with updates on the latest on last week`s plane crash. What I want to do right now is to bring in MSNBC military analyst Colonel Jack Jacobs. Colonel, we`ve been hearing a lot of things obviously this morning. This investigation has really gone from, last week, what looked like a tragedy, then to a mystery and now potentially to something that might look more like a crisis. What did you hear so far that you think is critically important for us to know? COL. JACK JACOBS, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, it sounds like a lot less mystery now than there was before. A couple of things come out of it. First of all that the investigation obviously is at the very, very beginning. Weather apparently in the area right now is not very good, and so there`s not a lot of investigating taking place at that site. When it clears, more investigators will return back to the site. The damaged aircraft is being transported in bits and pieces to Cairo. That`s a little surprising because you figure that they would investigate on site completely. And then they`d bring it all to Cairo. But apparently, some of it has already moved to Cairo. The voice recorder and the -- and the data recorders, both were collected intact and their information downloaded successfully. The voice recorder information has not yet been -- they haven`t talked about it all, but it`s interesting about the data recorder, the following comes to light. The plane was at about 31,000 feet at the time that the transmission stopped. It was still climbing, and it was going at about very nearly 300 knots. It was on autopilot as well. That kind of attitude, it was still climbing, probably going to its cruising altitude. And being on autopilot is not something new. Most people would be surprised that aircraft now do almost everything on autopilot, including landing. So nothing was untoward until such time as the transmissions completely and totally ceased. And while he didn`t say so exactly, every indication appears, from what he said, and from what the report has been rendered so far, that there was a break-up in midair. And actually what happened was that there was a catastrophe at altitude. You could see that the majority of the wreckage seems to be in one spot, although part of the wreckage, was - it was -- has not yet been found. Most of it is in one spot. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you, stick with us, colonel, I do want to go now to Cairo, Egypt where MSNBC correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin is there. I mean can you give me a sense of how important, how critical these updates are that we`ve been hearing this morning? AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, there has been some important information that has been released now as result of this press conference. And one of the key points that we heard there from that chief investigator, he gave us the sense of how this investigation has been unfolding. The fact that there are different subgroups working on different aspects of it. Perhaps most notable was the fact that he did identify that up until the minute the plane actually broke up in midair, everything seemed to be normal. In fact, according to this chief investigator, all of the evidence so far suggests that this was an inflight break-up. Things were operating normally. He does say that there was a noise that was heard on the cockpit voice recorder and that voice now is being sent to a lab for spectral analysis to try to determine what, if anything, they can learn from that noise that he described during that flight. But in addition to that, what we are getting is the first confirmation, if you will, from Egyptian authorities that this airline broke up in midair. He says that the way the plane landed, over a large area of territory, suggests that it was an inflight break-up of the plane. He also described all of the characteristics that we just heard General Jacobs there, Colonel Jacobs there, describe for us. So the most important part was that the flight data recorder as well as the cockpit voice recorder were recovered early on. There was some speculation that the cockpit voice recorder was severely damaged but now we`re hearing that, in fact, it was recoverable, data has been analyzed. They`ve had a first listening of it. There is a transcription being made of what was taking place. And not the most important point, which is the moment right before the plane fell off of the radar or fell off of all their tracking devices, there was a noise that was heard. He did not speculate. He did not talk about what kind of noise that was. But it certainly does confirm a lot of the reporting over the past several days that there was some type of inflight explosion that caused this plane to go down. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Ayman, let me ask you a question about timing here. Because obviously, the timing of an investigation, to be able to do this work carefully, to be able to say something definitive is quite different sometimes than the timing of politics. And so, part of what I`m wondering is, for Vladimir Putin, for the world, that are looking at, you know, last week there was kind of a dismissal of any claims that this could possibly be related to an act of terrorism. That is clearly back on the table now. And I`m wondering how big the mismatch between sort of how the politics of this might move versus the actual investigation. MOHYELDIN: Well, what we now heard officially from this chief investigators that all scenarios are being considered. And so, when he says all scenarios are being considered, that in itself already contradicts some of the earlier comments that came out from Egyptian officials suggesting that this was definitely not terrorism. So, already we know that over the course of the week there has been some evolution to this story. Now, the senior most Egyptian officials, including the foreign minister and others, have tried to be a little bit more circumspect in terms of identifying a cause of the explosion. Today, what we`re hearing is that all scenarios are on the table. One of the points that we did also hear from the foreign minister make today at a press conference here in Cairo as well as now in this briefing by the civil aviation investigation committee, was that there is some information that has been gathered by Western countries that is not being shared with Egypt. The foreign minister today expressed some disappointment with that. Saying that information no matter what it is, should be shared with Egypt since it is the lead investigator in this case. But what we also heard now from the chief investigator here in this committee during this press conference, was that he was calling on countries if they have any intelligence or information that could lead this investigation in one way or the other that should be shared with the Egyptian government. The way this information has been trickling out over the course of the past week or so has certainly evolved. The initial assessment by many here in Egypt was that this was some kind of mechanical or technical problem that brought the plane down. But as the cockpit voice recorder, the inflight data recorder were recovered and examination of the crash site that story began to evolve. We also heard from Western countries that said there may have been some intelligence intercepts and some communications intercepts between various militant groups including ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula and its leadership abroad that could have suggested some type of terrorist attack was in the planning stage or was going to be executed. And then ultimately you had that claim of responsibility by ISIS here in Egypt that they downed this plane, which in the beginning was somewhat discredited, but then seemed to gain momentum as Western countries including the United Kingdom and the U.S. said that there is evidence to suggest it was possibly a terrorist attack. The point that we heard from the chief investigator today, and I think one of the most important points to take out of this, is that all scenarios remain on the table. He called on Western governments to share information with them. And more importantly, he identified that all flight operations seemed to be going fine. Seemed to be normal. There was nothing in the cockpit voice recorder to suggest any kinds of problems except for that sudden noise before the inflight break-up and that is now being analyzed for spectral analysis. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Ayman Mohyeldin in Cairo and to MSNBC military analyst Colonel Jack Jacobs. We`ll continue monitoring the developments on the Russian airliner crash. When we come back, we are going to return to Kentucky and the state`s progress on health care reform which is now under threat. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: The state of Kentucky is one of the great Obamacare success stories. In 2013, Kentucky avoided the glitches that plagued the unveiling of the federal exchange website with the smooth roll out of its own state run exchange known as Connect. Governor Steve Bashir bypassed the Kentucky legislature and used an executive order to implement not only the exchange, also to expand Medicaid. Making Kentucky the only state in the South to take advantage of both provisions of the law. Two years later, the rate of uninsured people in Kentucky declined by more than 11 percentage points. It was the second biggest decrease any state in the country. But that policy victory for Kentucky Democrats ended with their political defeat on Tuesday. Because on Election Day, Kentucky voters elected a Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin who ran on the pledge to undo the health care reforms of the last two years. And during the campaign, Bevin promised to get rid of the state exchange and to turn it fully over to the federal government and he said that he would implement a restricted version of the Medicaid expansion that could limit the number of people covered by forcing them to pay premiums that may be too costly for many to afford. In his victory speech Tuesday, Bevin had this to say to his supporters. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATT BEVIN: Continue to take the high road. Because this is the opportunity for Kentucky to be a beacon to the nation. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Well, a beacon, sure, because if he makes good on his campaign promises, Kentucky would be the first state in the country to reverse Medicaid expansion, meaning Kentucky, once the model of the successful rollout of health insurance reform, may now become the test case for what it looks like to roll it back. Joining me now from Knoxville, Tennessee, is Jason Bailey, the director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy. So, talk to me about the economic consequences potentially of, in fact, restricting the Medicaid expansion. JASON BAILEY, DIR., KENTUCKY CTR. FOR ECONOMIC POLICY: Well, the biggest consequence has to do with the health of our state. You know, Kentucky ranks at the very bottom among states in cancer. We have the most cancer deaths, the most preventable hospitalizations. We have one of the highest rates of obesity. The highest rates of cardiovascular disease. So, our health is a big barrier to our economic growth. Everyone recognizes that. And that`s why Connect and the Medicaid expansion are such a huge opportunity for our state. To get healthier, we`ll have more people able to participate in the workforce and that will make us stronger overall. So, there`s the health consequences of it that lead to economic consequences, but there are also just bottom line dollar consequences. There`s an independent study done about the Connect and the Medical expansion for Kentucky by an accounting firm. And it estimated that the net benefit to the state budget over the first seven years was over $800 million. And the reason is that we`ll save money that we now spend on the uninsured in emergency rooms, on mental health and substance abuse and other things that we spend state money on. Those people are covered under Medicaid. And we`ll save those dollars. All the federal money flowing into the state also creates jobs. And that means tax revenue. Which also helps Kentucky`s bottom line. So, there are many ways, in which - Go ahead. HARRIS-PERRY: Stick with me here, because I want to talk more about the policy. But I do want to come up for just a second to one of my other guests on the politics. So, Mark, I mean it`s just sort of been a truism of American politics that once people have a benefit, you can`t take it back. That like - that just doesn`t work as an Election Day strategy. And yet, here you have a circumstance where 54 percent of Kentucky voters said we should maintain the expansion. But then you have the voters actually turning up for the guy who`s going to restrict it. ALEXANDER: Yeah, I think the politics are really quite strange here because, you know, the residents are getting a real benefit. And the reality is, Jason`s pointing out, the significant health consequences and the economic consequence. That`s being huge for the residents. They might lose out on something, which is literally lifesaving. HARRIS-PERRY: The point about turnout, is that that the folks who voted are not the same ones who are benefiting? GOODMAN: Well, I mean for one thing, this was not the majority of Kentuckians who wanted this to happen. A little interesting factoid, 155 years ago yesterday, a Kentucky native son Abraham Lincoln was elected president. The percentage of the vote he got in Kentucky, less than one percent. HARRIS-PERRY: Look, this point that you bring us to Lincoln I think it`s such an important one. Because the question of Medicaid expansion, Jason, is ultimately a question that was decided by the Supreme Court around the issue of the power of states versus the federal government. "The New York Times" did this kind of amazing set of maps where they look at the number of uninsured, the percentage of uninsured from 2013 to `15 and you see it just dropping precipitously. But they also show what would have happened if the health insurance Medicaid expansion weren`t optional. If it had been required. The Supreme Court decided that, and what you see is basically everybody ends up with insurance. So, Jason, what happens if Kentucky actually starts rolling back? Does that suggest that we`ll see that map get purple again? BAILEY: Well, if some of the ideas that have been put out in the campaigns by the new governor, which involve, you know, restricting access, making it more expensive, you know, people will - will not be able to afford care. And they won`t be able to get, you know, the health benefits that come. You know, we had 90,000 people last year in Kentucky that got cholesterol screenings for the first time after getting health insurance. We had 80,000 people - visits, 34,000, cervical cancer screenings that came from people who got insurance under the Medicaid expansion. So, you know, I think those are huge consequences, and to the point about turnout, I will say that, that only a small percentage of Kentucky voters decided this last week. 31 percent turned out. And in the counties that got the most gains from insurance coverage, the turnout was even lower, about 20 to 25 percent. And I think that people did not understand entirely the consequences of what was happening. In part because the Democratic candidate did not run on this issue. He didn`t highlight this issue. He didn`t have a turnout strategy for the 400,000 people who have gotten Medicaid coverage. And so, you saw those results at the bottom line. In fact, Governor-elect Bevin challenged him to a debate about health care in the last couple of weeks, and he turned it down. You know, so I think there was a lot of confusion. There was a lot of running against Obamacare. But folks don`t understand the difference between because they`ve been told different things about Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion. HARRIS-PERRY: Right, so you ended up - I think this wasn`t . BAILEY: This wasn`t a referendum - that`s right. This wasn`t a referendum on connecting the Medicaid expansion. Kentucky overwhelmingly support that. You know, this was about a lot of other issues. HARRIS-PERRY: I want to say thank you to Jason Bailey in Knoxville, Tennessee. Here in New York, I want to say thank you to Mark Alexander and to Amy Goodman who are going to be - excuse me, Amy Goodman will actually be back later in the program. But right now, I want to make a shift to the tech industry. This week, Twitter engineering manager Leslie Miley, the only African-American engineer in a leadership position at Twitter, announced he and the company have parted ways. Miley was among the 300-some employees who were laid off last month, but Miley said he refused Twitter`s severance package for one very important reason: He wants to talk about the company and specifically what he says is its diversity problem. In a blog post titled, why diversity is difficult, he described some of what he saw. In one instance, he recalls asking the senior vice president of engineering about diversity. And Miley says the response was, diversity`s important, but we can`t lower the bar. And Miley described another meeting during which he was asked to create a tool to analyze the last names of job candidates, to classify them by their ethnicity. Miley wrote, "I left that meeting wondering how I could in good conscience, continue to work in an organization where the senior V.P. of engineering could see himself as a technological visionary and be so unaware of this blind spot in his understanding of diversity. Leadership keeps citing the pipeline when the data do not support it." That senior vice president described in response in his own blog post, "I realize that we have blind spots, myself included. One of mine is that I have a tendency to default to engineering-driven quantitative solutions. The issues Leslie raised require so much more than that. I`ve learned a lot this week. We as a company are going to address our own blind spots swiftly. To build the Twitter that will make our employees and people who use our services proud." We also reached out to Twitter for a response to Miley`s post and the company gave us a statement. "We are committed to making substantive progress in making Twitter more diverse and inclusive. The commitment includes the expansion of our inclusion and diversity programs, diversity recruiting, employee development and resource-group led initiatives. Beyond just disclosing our workforce representation statistics, we also publicly disclose our representation goals for women and underrepresented minorities for 2016, making us the largest tech company to put hard numbers around its diversity commitment." And it`s important to note these issues are not just about Twitter. Most of the tech sector is overwhelmingly represented by white men. At Twitter, black employees comprise only two percent across the board while 59 percent are white, 29 percent Asian and three percent Latino. At Google, 1.9 percent of employees are black. And 60 percent white. 30 percent Asian and four percent Latino. And at Facebook, 1.5 percent of employees are black, 57 percent white, 34 percent Asian and four percent Latino. And the diversity is further lacking when you examine the leadership ranks. Joining me now from San Francisco Is Leslie Miley, former engineering manager at Twitter. So nice to have you, Mr. Miley. LESLIE MILEY, FORMER TWITTER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Thank you for having me. HARRIS-PERRY: I think one of the most interesting parts about your piece is that you highlight how important Twitter has been in kind of nascent social and political movements. So, for users, using #Ferguson, #black lives matter, Twitter is a very diverse space. But then the makers of Twitter, there`s a kind of disconnect there. Talk to me about that. MILEY: This is inherent in all of techs, not just Twitter. But, you know, particularly, it was for me, it was difficult to understand how we could seriously amplify the voice of Black Lives Matter, amplify voices of underserved people all over the world, and not reflect that inside the building. And I think that you look at tech and, you know, what you do is you get people who come from, you know, very privileged backgrounds and they`re trying to do the right thing, you know, but it`s the blind spots that I think Alex wrote really, you know, just took head on. Which is these are blind spots that they don`t even know they have. And the big issue about those blind spots is how do you end up the VP of a 2,000, you know, person organization and have these blind spots. You know, how did you get to that point without having to address those blind spots? And I think that is prevalent in tech. It`s prevalent at Facebook. It`s prevalent at Google. And that`s why you have these numbers. Because people are never -- are very rarely, you know, challenged to face their blind spots. HARRIS-PERRY: So, you reject the idea that this is primarily a pipeline problem. And instead suggest that this is an actual cultural problem within tech and within Twitter. Why do you reject the pipeline idea, that there just aren`t enough engineers of color to be in these spaces? MILEY: You can look at the data. And the data supports a larger number of African-Americans and Hispanics in particular coming out of these programs from the very schools that most of the unicorns or most of the companies recruit from. You can also look elsewhere in the industry. You can look at Twilio, you can look at Slack, you can look at Pandora. And you can see that they`ve done better at diversity as well. So, if they can do that, you know, how come these larger companies with bigger budgets, with better names, with better recognition, how come they can`t do it? HARRIS-PERRY: So, here is my big question: given that Twitter has been so useful, so valuable to a diverse group of users, why should we care if the population of people working there is diverse? How would that make it better? MILEY: That`s a great question. And Twitter is a perfect example of this. You know, Twitter`s growth has stalled. Twitter has definitely, you know, hit a point to where they`re trying to understand the use case of the people who are really over-indexing on Twitter, particularly African- Americans, particularly Hispanics, and they are not growing. And they try to understand why. And I really do think that part of that reason is the lack of diversity. You have an echo chamber inside of any company. I mean I`ve worked at Apple, I`ve worked at Google. I understand what the echo chamber is like. Once you`re inside there, you know, the outside world has a tendency to kind of fade away. And you`re in a really interesting bubble. And once that echo chamber just starts going, people are building the product they want to build. They are not building the product for their users. And I think if you bring in diversity, that changes. When you have diversity at the executive level, you build a great product. Slack which is one of the unicorns now, is a highly sought after place for people to work, they have a great product. They`re growing really, really fast. They`re extremely diverse. And I think you look at, once again, you look at Twitter. And Twitter having the problem because it is used by people of color in this country, you know, they are probably not realizing that the ability to grow, because they don`t have people inside the building who understand the people who are using the product. HARRIS-PERRY: I want to say thank you to Leslie Miley in San Francisco. And I want to go look up unicorns. I think it means something different. (LAUGHTER) MILEY: All right, I can tell you. So, a unicorn is, you know, companies that have evaluation of over $1 billion. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, good. Yeah, see, I had no idea. Thank you, Leslie. Coming up, one of the driving drug love reform to be the hottest things in the presidential politics. Wonderland at the top of the hour. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. And you may have noticed that several 2016 presidential candidates have been speaking in a quite moving way about drug abuse and addiction. There was Chris Christie speaking about the way we treat those who abuse drugs in a video that has now gone viral with more than 7 million views. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDETE: I`m pro-life. And I think that if you`re pro-life, that means you got to be pro-life for the whole life. Not just for the nine months you`re in the womb, all right? It`s easy -- it`s easy to be pro-life. For the nine months you`re in the womb, they haven`t done anything to disappoint us yet. All right? They`re perfect in there. But when they get out, that`s when it gets tough. The 16-year-old teenage girl on the floor of the county lockup addicted to heroin, I`m pro-life for her too. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And then there was Jeb Bush this week. Talking about his daughter`s arrest over prescription drugs and how he relates to others who have struggled with addiction in their families. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JEB BUSH (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I can look at people`s faces and know whether they have gone through this struggle themselves or with a loved one. Because it just -- you can just sense the, you know, the life coming out of their face and just -- I mean, even talking about it now, it hurts. To have that personal experience, the pain of going through something that no one wants to go through makes you sensitive to the fact that that`s the way life works. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And Carly Fiorina has spoken about losing her daughter to addiction. Hillary Clinton has released a detailed $10 billion plan to prevent and fight drug abuse. And Rand Paul has called for treating drug use as a health problem rather than a criminal one. And this is coming in the midst of what the CDC says is a sharp increase in the use of heroin. The number of people currently using heroin went up 30 percent from 2012 to 2014 in 435,000 in 2014. The CDC says many heroin users are led to the drug after abusing prescription opioid painkillers, 4.3 million people used painkillers in an illicit manner. More people now die from drug overdoses than from car accidents. And together, heroin and painkillers account for 56 percent of all overdose deaths, more than 24,000 deaths in 2013. The number of people dying of a heroin related overdose has nearly tripled since 2008. In some states, residents and officials say they`re facing a heroin epidemic. States like New Hampshire where people now say the number one problem facing their state is drug abuse, 25 percent say drug abuse is the biggest problem, more than the economy and jobs. More than education or health care, or taxes or the state budget, drug abuse. Also remember, New Hampshire happens to be where the 2016 presidential candidates are spending a lot of time in the weeks before the first the state`s first nation -- first in the nation presidential primary. The Granite Staters are taking their concerns right to the would be presidential candidates, appearing in their VFW halls in their factories, in their mayoral offices. And they are demanding that New Hampshire`s drug problem become part of the national conversation. Joining me now, Nicole Porter, director of Advocacy for the Sentencing Project. Juan Manuel Benitez, who is political reporter and host of "Pura Politica" on New York 1 Noticias. Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of Democracy Now. And Carl Hart, who served on the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, and is an associate professor of neuroscience and psychology at Columbia University. Thanks to all of you for being here. I want to start, Amy, with a political question. How in the world is it for GOP candidates, drug abuse talked about in this way has become a top political issue? GOODMAN: You know, it`s so interesting. It also goes to our political system. You have Iowa, you have New Hampshire. These are two of the whitest states in the country. It`s so interesting that they are the ones that so often determine presidential politics. And when you have an issue that is plaguing all communities for so long the black community has dealt with this in pain and in silence. It becomes a major issue. And I think we`re seeing this from Vermont where the governor a few years ago devoted his entire State of the Union message to the issue of heroin abuse there, to New Hampshire and Iowa. It is mainstream politics now. HARRIS-PERRY: So, that is fascinating to me that -- I mean, the story that you tell a little bit there is some miner`s canary story, that are communities of disprivileged who are experiencing these concerns. And then it shows up and becomes a political concern. But when it shows up this time, boy, is the rhetoric different. JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ, NEW YORK 1 NOTICIAS: Yes, but it`s a good thing. HARRIS-PERRY: OK. BENITEZ: The only problem here and my fear is they turn this into a false equation, because it`s a really easy topic like many others to speak about really superficially. We create a false equation, and we talk about one side of the equation that it`s the addiction. And we treat people like victims in this case. And then we try to solve it. And if there are victims, and there`s a perpetrator. There`s a culprit. And now, we try and any attempt of criminal reform, criminal reform, it`s going to go out of the window because we`re talking only on focusing on the victim. Or we`re going to try to find the culprit, in the doctors overprescribing pills, and are now, they are taking away those pills, and these people are going to heroin. Or we`re going to talk about Mexicans. We`ve already heard about that, Mexican is bringing drugs to this country. So many Latinos in this country are really upset and angry that he`s going to get a platform on "Saturday Night Live" tonight. HARRIS-PERRY: So, that is so interesting to me, because, Nicole, I think for some folks who are in the midst of this criminal justice reform moment, they`re looking at this and saying, oh, great, this is the great bipartisan moment, we`re going to shift to a conversation about drugs as a public health epidemiology problem instead of a criminalization problem. Maybe actually it`s still just a way of having one set of victims and another group that still will get criminalized around it. What are your thoughts about that? NICOLE D. PORTER, CTR. OF ADVOCACY, THE SENTENCING PROJECT: I think it`s a possibility. You have seen state reforms like Amy said. In addition to Vermont and New Hampshire, states like Kentucky and Oklahoma, expanded treatment for people with heroin addiction. But in the same -- HARRIS-PERRY: Well, but Kentucky is also like you could still feel free to go to jail. (CROSSTALK) PORTER: Right. I was going to say in the same year, the same -- part of the same comprehensive measures where they addressed use of heroin, they enhance penalties for traffickers and people involved in other parts of the drug trade, specifically this dichotomy between users and victims or perpetrators and people who are demonized because they sell drugs. HARRIS-PERRY: Now, Carl, you`re one of my favorite people to have at the table in these conversations because you tend to enter in and just flip the whole script. I know you actually have some reservations about the idea that this epidemic even exists in that way. CARL HART, AUTHOR, "HIGH PRICE": I`m one of your favorite people and you demoted me in the introduction. I`m not an associate professor, I`m a professor. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, yes, sir. I did not do that, but I will correct that as this moment. Yes, sir. You are a professor. (LAUGHTER) HART: No, but you raise an important point. I mean, actually, everybody around the table are making really good points. The thing that I`d just like people to understand is that the vast majority of the people who use heroin or prescription opioids don`t need treatment. They don`t need jail either. So, we`re in this frame of drug abuse. And most of people who use these drugs don`t need either of these. HARRIS-PERRY: You got to explain that a little bit of folks, because I think most folks, they hear you`re using heroin, they think, you should stop that. HART: Yes, they do. I mean, just like when people drive their car too fast. You should stop that. But that doesn`t mean you should go to treatment for that. Or have some sort of law enforcement criminal justice sentence as a result. So, people do things that they`re not -- that we don`t necessarily approve of. And using heroin is one. And they go to work. And they take care of their family. People use prescription opioids in ways that are different from their prescriber. Like me, I had, for example, dental pain. I had some opioids left over or something. I may use them to sleep or something. But that`s abuse. That`s what people -- but by the same token, I take care of my family, I go to work. I do all these things. And so, we have to be careful in terms of how we are framing this whole issue. I mean -- HARRIS-PERRY: So stick with me because I want to think of that, but also a bunch of other ideas when we come back, because for me, there`s an existential question about why Americans do -- if there is an increase in drug use, why do we need to be high, kind of what`s going on, what is our sadness or distress as a nation that we`re feeling the need to medicate from? That, and, you know, the political rhetoric when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: In 1989, President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office, his first such address. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: This is crack cocaine seized a few days ago by drug enforcement agents in the park just across the street from the White House. It could easily have been heroin or PCP. It`s as innocent looking as candy, but it`s turning our cities into battle zones and it`s murdering our children. Let there be no mistake, this stuff is poison. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Now, of course, that drug buy in the park near the White House was staged just for this purpose but that`s neither here nor there. In this address, President Bush laid out his plan to fight crack, the war on drugs, and he placed the blame first and foremost on drug users. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: Our most serious problem today is cocaine, and in particular crack. Who`s responsible? Let me tell you straight out -- everyone who uses drugs, everyone who sells drugs, and everyone who looks the other way. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Contrast that message with how today`s presidential contenders, Republican presidential contenders, describe drug users. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: There but for the grace of God go I. It can happen to anyone. So we need to start treating people in this country, not jailing them. We need to give them the tools they need to recover, because every life is precious. Every life is an individual gift from God. And we have to stop judging and start giving them the tools they need to get better. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So what in the world has changed? I mean, that is very different discourse across that time. PORTER: Well, I think it`s the story of how people are using heroin today. You know, there`s general consensus that because users are white the response is more humane. It follows also the pattern of responding to the crime problems in the U.S. overall when the users or the people assumed to be committing the crime are black, or people of color, there`s a tendency to demonize and dehumanize. When the users or people perpetuating the crime tend to be white, there`s a tendency to be more curious. And compare the current response to the crack -- I`m sorry, to the heroin epidemic, to how we responded to crack in the `80s. You can even go back further to how marijuana was responded to in the 1930s. The law enforcement response when it was assumed that marijuana use was in the racy part of towns as opposed to in the 1960s when there was a more curious response when white college students were using it in their dorm rooms and on their college campuses. HARRIS-PERRY: And yet, the one part of the curiosity I do want to bring back. What Carl`s saying about our presumptions, it is necessarily something one much get treatment for, all these other kinds of things. But I do feel like we`re not sufficiently curious about why people use -- I feel like when communities of color, when poor communities have these problems, we presume we know it`s because they`re poor and they have desperate circumstances. I would like to know why, you know, often privileged white Americans are making use of drugs that allow them to kin of escape. What is it we`re escaping from as a country? HART: Well, I don`t know if people are escaping necessarily. Think about your own alcohol use. Think about other people`s alcohol. When you go to these boring-ass receptions that I have to go to often, and people are -- HARRIS-PERRY: It makes it more interesting. HART: It makes it more interesting and not only that, it makes people more tolerable in some cases. When we think all these psychoactive drugs, they`re all interacting with chemicals in the brain in similar ways. And so, the use of heroin is not so different from the use of alcohol. But that`s a sociopolitical construction that we have all done. So, when we think about the sociopolitical construction about drugs, please remember drug policy is just an extension of all policies in this country. Drug policy is used in a way to further marginalize groups. That`s how it`s been used. And it`s not different from other policies. It`s not unique. But please understand, the body does not see heroin like different from OxyContin or even different from things like alcohol. That`s us constructing this. Not the body. HARRIS-PERRY: So that is incredibly provocative. So, I want to stick on this, because when we come back, I want to talk a little bit about that policy framework that you`re talking about, bring both of you guys in on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton`s new plan to address the issues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a new proposal for criminal justice reform yesterday, addressing in particular mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. Now, Clinton didn`t call for abolishing mandatory minimums entirely, but she did propose cutting such offenses in half for nonviolent drug offenses and making those cuts retroactive, as long as a court approves, and she would also make the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which abolished the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack apply retroactively for nonviolent offenders. So, Carl`s put this kind of provocative idea on the table about our physical responses to any of a set of things from caffeine to wine to heroin, right? But that what is indisputable is our responses, not our physiological responses but our political responses are quite different. And here we have a candidate that says I want to try to roll some of this back. BENITEZ: Yes, I don`t think how successful that`s going to be, because if the political discourse is dominated by the fact that Republican candidates are talking about people using drugs as victims, then we`re going to try to criminalize the other side of the equation. So, I don`t think we`re going to be that successful. And remember, when we tried to be more lenient with someone, as soon as they screw up once, then we go back, we roll back everything. And we`ve seen that recently here in New York City also. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, this is not a small point that -- there`s still relative courage required for an American lawmaker to step out and say let`s decriminalize, or let`s at least roll it back, especially when you look at what was the sentencing disparity. It is now down to 18-1 under President Obama, but 18-1 is still enormous, right, it`s not 100-1, but it`s still enormous. If crack sort of picks back up again, you do have that political problem reemerging. GOODMAN: I mean, we have to look at the actual factual results of treatment. I was just moderating a panel where the former mayor of Vancouver was who also happen to be coroner before he was mayor. He started to see the number of people who died and he said, we have to do something about this. In Vancouver, they have the only legal injection clinic, I think it`s in North America, where people can shoot up with heroin legally. The police were at first were again. Now, they`re for it. They`re bringing people there. You reduce Hep C. You reduce HIV. It`s also true in Frankfurt, Germany. They`re seeing this in many different places. We need courageous politicians who are actually looking at who`s affected, what can help our communities the most, not to mention bringing down crime. HARRIS-PERRY: When you say crime, I want to pop back for a moment to `86. But I do want to point out that some of this intervention, this criminal justice intervention, was actually initially welcomed by communities. This is an amazing piece of historical footage here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: The take back the streets demonstrations in the Bronx parallel the efforts of many other protest groups that have propped up across the country. In Miami, at the request of various church and civic groups, police added special anti-crack motorcycle patrols. In Texas, citizens marched for miles for a drug-free Corpus Christi. The march was aimed at schoolchildren. In Baltimore, it was a religious vigil. A plea for peace among street gangs involved in drug related violence. Many police officials across the country say they`re amazed at the recent citizen response to the crack epidemic. The public support will back up their efforts to combat the drug problem. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: In this moment, to say communities say please, police, come in, is stunning, because, of course, how that turned out is a little different than what people thought in `86. PORTER: It`s dismaying to see footage like that. I think what`s important to remember is that those communities had a false choice of only relying on law enforcement or only calling in the police. I think if there were more intentional conversations guided by political elites, guided by other influencers and communities were offered other choices, expanding early childhood education, bringing in programs targeted to at-risk youth, providing therapeutic opportunities for people in need of trauma care. Then the choices could have been broader than just relying on arrests, just relying on incarceration and driving the policies that have resulted in mass incarceration. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s also an interesting point, Amy, your point, oh, people are dying, we must do something about it. When we think about guns and handguns and particularly the number one way in which people die from handguns is through suicide and yet we haven`t quite had that same policy response as a country, oh, we must do something about it. Thank you to Carl Hart. The rest of my guests are sticking around. I`m sorry, Professor Carl Hart. The rest of my guests are sticking around. There`s more to come on this a little bit later on the issue of criminal justice reform. But right now, President Obama is talking about banning the box and that is critically important. Up next, the family planning policy that could change everything for 1 billion people. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Earlier today, the presidents of China and Taiwan met in Singapore, marking the first talk between the neighboring leaders in more than six decades. But no agreements resulted from the meeting. But the historic handshake is heralded as a breakthrough, symbolizing stability and peace after nearly 70 years of estrangement. It was the first presidential level meeting since the communist victory in the civil war in 1949, resulting in the nationalists splitting from the mainland and rebasing in Taiwan. Since then, the status of Taiwan and China`s relationship has remained a geopolitical tinder box and one of the most unresolvable fault lines in international politics. China considers Taiwan to be a breakaway province, but 22 foreign government s recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The U.S. is not one of them. The historic presidential summit follows another landmark move by China last week, the decision to officially end the nation`s one child policy. And in an effort to boost economic growth and confront an aging population lacking caretakers, China is now allowing couples to have two children for the first time in more than three decades. Since 1980, those who violated China`s birth restrictions faced large fines and punishment including firing from jobs and expulsion from office. Though the communist party credits the one child policy with contributing to its economic boom, it came with an immense human toll. Millions of births were prevented through measures like forced sterilizations, infanticide and sex selective abortions to ensure that families had a son. It is estimated today, there are 33 million more men than women in China. Joining me now from Philadelphia is Mei Fong, former reporter for "The Wall Street Journal" and author of "One Child: The Story of China`s Most radical Experiment". Nice to have you, Mei. Talk to us for a second -- MEI FONG, AUTHOR, "ONE CHILD": Thanks for having me. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you. Remind us why the one child policy was in place in the first place. What was it meant to do? FONG: Well, in the `70s, China had a big population boom. So, the country was very anxious to control it and scale it down and also to give the people economic prosperity. So that was the whole basis for the one child policy. HARRIS-PERRY: So, we`re going to talk about the kind of personal and familial cost. But did it accomplish those goals, the goals the party itself had? FONG: Very little actually. You know, we tend to think of the one child policy as a link to economic prosperity because it happened about the same time. But really, China`s economic prosperity was to do with more people, not less. It was to do with all the big labor pool of people born before the one child policy was conceived. And the problem going ahead is, China`s facing a big aging population. Much more shrunken workforce. And so, the one child policy is actually impeded future economic growth for China. HARRIS-PERRY: The book is fascinating for a number of reasons. But one is because you write about how much this one policy structured the life experiences of an entire nation. Tell us some of them. FONG: Well, you know, it`s made a nation that`s too old, too few and too male. So, I know we tend to think of the one child policy in terms of excesses like forced abortions, but really, it has a lot to do with how questions like who do I marry, where do I find an apartment, how do I afford an old age in China, because now, the population is stretching away. You have a Canadian sized population of bachelors trying to find brides that don`t exist, and then you have a whole nation of single children whose parents are very anxious and very invested in every decision they make. And then you are also going to have a population where one in every four people in China will be over the age of 65 very soon. HARRIS-PERRY: You and I are both the youngest in a family of five. And I cannot fathom growing up without siblings. It`s structured so much of my life and of who I am. I`m wondering what it means to have basically two generations of children growing up without siblings. FONG: Well, it`s created a family fragility system, right? One kid dies and suddenly everything is thrown off. Particularly in a Chinese context where a child still represents a lot of economic security. Now, there is this name in China called shodo (ph), it means parents whose only chide has died. A very sad population. But 75,000 of them with millions joining the ranks yearly. And they have all sorts of problems. For example, many of them have problems getting admitted to nursing homes because without children, the nursing homes say, well, we don`t want to take you. Who`s going to authorize all your treatments? They can`t even buy burial plots because of the same reasons, who`s going to pay your burial cost, who`s going to serve as maintenance of your cemetery down the line. You know, it`s really a thorny problem. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Mei Fong in Philadelphia. There is so much on this, I hope you will come back and talk to us even more about this policy. FONG: I would love to. HARRIS-PERRY: And what will happen next in China. Thank you. FONG: Thank you. HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, President Obama is planning to ban the box. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Recently, President Obama has made so many announcements about criminal justice reform efforts that we seem to have a related story to report every few weeks. Whether his administration is commuting the sentences of dozens of nonviolent drug offenders or announcing the largest one-time release of 6,000 federal prisoners or becoming the first sitting U.S. president to visit a federal prison. President Obama is making criminal justice reform an integral part of his legacy. This week, after visiting a halfway house and a drug treatment facility in Newark, the president took the stage at Rutgers University to announce his latest executive action. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`m taking action to ban the box for -- (APPLAUSE) For the most competitive jobs at federal agencies. The federal government I believe should not use criminal history to screen out applicants before we even look at their qualifications. We can`t dismiss people out of hand simply because of a mistake that they made in the past. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: The president`s executive action will reduce the number of barriers formerly convicted individuals face when they are trying to integrate into society as job holding citizens, namely this barrier: the check box on a job application form asking about criminal history. Studies have shown that people who report prior criminal stories on job applications are 50 percent less likely to be called back or offered a job, and 60 percent of people who served time cannot find a job their first year out of prison. Under President Obama`s action however, those with criminal seeking federal agency jobs will no longer have to report their felonies on those applications. Federal employers will still be able to ask about the criminal histories of qualified applicants who have been sent to hiring managers, but the removal of the box on the initial application allows applicants with records to get a foot in the door before stigma blocks the entrance. The executive action will not apply to federal contractors or private employers, but it`s a step for a national effort to ban the box. Joining the panel now from Raleigh, North Carolina, is Daryl Atkinson, senior staff attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. Nice to see you this morning. DARYL ATKINSON, SR. STAFF ATTORNEY, SCSJ: Thank you for having me on the show, Melissa. HARRIS-PERRY: Can you talk to me about why banning the box is meaningful, what difference it makes? ATKINSON: Sure. The president`s action on Monday really affirms values that we hold dear in this country. Values like inclusion, in equal opportunity for all people, because people with records face legal discrimination in many areas of life. The 65 million Americans, 1 in 3 adult Americans, that have criminal record history, face barriers in employment, housing, education, even volunteering in their children`s school. They may not be able to do. The American Bar Association has cataloged over 44,000 legal barriers that shut people out of just the basic necessities of life, and because African- Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, it results in the social and economic exclusion similar to the Jim Crow South. So, what the president did on Monday, a common sense solution like ban the box, that was birthed out of the formerly incarcerated community, a group called All Of Us or None. Some formerly incarcerated people in Oakland, California, came up with that term. It really opens up opportunity to feel with records. But I must say, we need this administration and the president to continue to exert their authority and apply a similar policy to independent contractors who represent 25 percent of the American workforce so people with records can continue to have access to opportunity. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So, stick with me here. Think this question, for folks who don`t know about this movement, about the ways in which it was birthed, may be confused about what banning the box means. So, I want to come to you for a second, but let`s listen to the president and point out that banning the box is about that initial state -- sort of step. It doesn`t mean you can never ask about criminal background. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: It is relevant to find out whether somebody has a criminal record. We`re not suggesting ignore it. But what we are suggesting is when it comes to the application, give folks a chance to come through the door. (APPLAUSE) Give them a chance to get in there so they can make their case. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So I`m sort of wondering how big of a difference does it make to get that foot in the door? PORTER: Well, it makes a huge difference ton getting the foot in the door. A lot of people self-selected out of even applying for jobs because those boxes were on the application. And the box not only extends to employment applications, which is what the president`s executive order covers, but it also is on housing applications, rental applications. Not only in public housing but also in private housing. And the problem of the box is emblematic of a broader issue in terms of the automatic bans that people with former criminal justice contact experience in all sorts of civic life, not just in employment, but also in voting, public benefits and housing and other areas of civic life as well. HARRIS-PERRY: And I just cy want to point out the press relief that came out after the president`s conversation at Rutgers, that they did talk about some of these things. DOE, Department of Education, is going to give $9 million to communities to support education for re-entry programs. HUD is going to do some work around assisting housing owners with new guidance on how to address these records issues. So, you know, the National Bar Association has agreed to devote pro bono work to this HUD effort, right? So there does seem to be the sense of the wrap-around. That said, we had Philip Atiba Goff on the show last week and he said the most distressing thing, he said, oh, banning the box might actually create more problems about race because without the box, employers may just presume that black and brown people have a criminal record. BENITEZ: And also, not to be too negative about it, because I think it`s a really great symbolic step. But it`s going to -- it might end up being a frustration. For a lot of people that so far had to check that box, now they know they can get to the second or third interview maybe when they apply for the job. But then, sooner or later, that question is going to come up. Sooner or later that employer is going to have to make a decision. And maybe that decision was already made from the beginning. I`m not going to take anybody with a criminal record. So, it`s going to give hope to those who, so far, they have to check the box and now they`re going to go through the process a little longer. But at the send end of the day, there are so many jobs out there, so many employers who are not going to employ someone with a criminal record. HARRIS-PERRY: But, Daryl, I want to come to you on this, because in Durham, there`s been a really interesting sort of uptick. Can you talk to us about it? ATKINSON: Sure, at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, where I`m senior attorney, we spearheaded a ban the box campaign in Durham, North Carolina. What we have witnessed since 2011 is a real uptick in the percentage of people with records who have been able to get jobs. So, it`s more than just taking the question of. You have to delay that question until a critical stage in the employment process. In Durham, the question is delayed until a conditional offer of employment is made. Then, the applicant has the opportunity to check the accuracy of the record, submit evidence of rehabilitation, and the hiring authority has to establish a direct relationship between the underlying criminal conviction and the prospective job. As a result of those procedural protections, the first year that the policy passed, we saw the percentage of people with records at 2 percent of total numbers of hires. The next year, it went up to 4.5 percent. The next year, 9 percent. Last year, 15 percent of total hires by the city of Durham were people with criminal records. And you know what, Melissa, the earth didn`t open up and swallow anybody up. The world kept on spinning as usual. And these folks were able to contribute to their local economy and none of them have been subsequently terminated for committing another offense. So, we`re impacting their recidivism rate. HARRIS-PERRY: And, sir, I live in North Carolina and it is not exactly the most progressive place in the world. And the idea that that exists as a kind of policy standard is just stunning. Stick with me for a second. Because, Amy, I want to come to you. The president does seem to be making this question. Not just banning the box but criminal justice reform central to not just his agenda but to his legacy. I just want to listen to him speaking to NBC`s Lester Holt for a moment about this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS: Is this in your mind your defining moment that would seal the legacy of what we would expect in the first African-American president? OBAMA: You know, this is something that`s important to me. You know, one of the things that I`ve consistently said as president is that I`m the president of all people. You know, I am very proud that my presidency can help to galvanize and immobilize America`s issues on behalf of racial disparity and racial injustice. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, Amy, it looks like Kentucky`s going to try to take down ACA. But will there be a new legacy for the president to stand on here? GOODMAN: Well, I mean, it is very important what`s happening and you see across the political spectrum and the whole issue of mass incarceration as well. People saying the fact that the United States has, what, 5 percent of the population, 25 percent of prisoners are not acceptable, but it has to be across the board but it show also the power of movements. You had the largest release, as you pointed out, 6,000 people in three days. But, you know, if a third of them are being deported. It`s an astounding story. This goes to immigration. Paul Ryan just said immigration is not on the table. A third them, close to 2,000 prisoners, will go right out of the country. HARRIS-PERRY: This seems so critical to me it even as we`re talking about decriminalization often around African-Americans, the new very aggressive criminalization of Latino communities and the ways in which mass incarceration and mass deportation are connected to each other. BENITEZ: Yes, because we have to find a culprit in all this. Right now for the last few months we`ve been talking about immigration. We talk about these issues in the presidential campaign season in a way that it`s extremely superficial. We only talk about one specific thing and we don`t see things in a comprehensive way. HARRIS-PERRY: Daryl Atkinson in Raleigh, North Carolina -- thank you so much for your work. Thank you for joining us. We`ll be keeping our eyes on this work. Here in New York, thank you to Nicole Porter, to Juan Manuel Benitez and to Amy Goodman. Up next, our foot soldiers of the week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To systemically be eliminated from pursuing our dreams, goals and objectives, contributing to the fabric of America, is not only unfair but it`s wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: So we`ve been talking about at the challenges of the formerly incarcerated face when trying to pursue employment after having served time. Our foot soldiers this week created Mission: Launch, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. that helps former inmates transform themselves into budding entrepreneurs. MSNBC chief legal correspondent Ari Melber has that story. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ARI MELBER, CNN CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When Teresa Hodge finished a five-year prison term for a non-violent offense, she returned to a different world. TERESA HODGE, MISSION: LAUNCH: All of the social media buzz and crazed took place while I was incarcerated. MELBER: Hodge didn`t just get herself up to spend, she teamed up with her daughter and another woman she met in prison, Bryn Phillips, to start a program for returning citizens Mission: Launch at on annual digital hack-a- ton. LAURIN HODGE, CO-FOUNDER, MISSION: LAUNCH: Seventy percent of the people who go to prison or jail can`t get jobs. So, either you need to look at entrepreneurship, you need to look at freelance, microenterprise. MELBER: Hodge`s former inmates have to tackle all kinds of questions when they get out. T. HODGE: We are a now or what organization. You have are been to prison and now what? What are you going to do with your life? How are you going to be productive and good community member and good parent? L. HODGE: We are almost ready get to work. MELBER: The hack-a-ton unites former inmates, lawyers, and technology experts to create their own solutions for reentry. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you have a meeting of the minds per se, there are so many aspects that the returning citizen may not realize, an attorney or coder or civil rights activist may bring to the table. MELBER: One of those ideas, a clean slate app that helps former inmates get their record expunged. Another guides former inmates to the first 48 hours after released. BRIANE CORNISH-KNIGHT, RE-ENTRY REBUILDING COALITION: It is a serious, like distressing time, so people are not getting is services. They`re more likely to return. MELBER: While the hack-a-ton helps communities craft their own reforms, some problems still require change at the policy level. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are decrying job discrimination against former inmates, Bill Cobb is living it. He says that he committed a violent felony over 20 years ago and has never reoffended, but he has been fired over 10 times for that. (on camera): Do you think it`s fair that you`re basically being denied jobs for an offense that happened 22 years ago? BILLY COBB, FOUNDER, REDEEMED: To systematically be eliminated from pursuing our dreams and goals and objectives and contributing to the fabric of America is not only unfair, but it`s wrong. MELBER (voice-over): That`s an idea drawing increasingly wide support. The prison reform is ensuring that people return to society and not another cell. T. HODGE: For me, I feel like nobody is laying on the bunk saying, I can`t wait to go back to prison. (END VIDEOTAPE) HARRIS-PERRY: Earlier this year, Mission: Launch was recognized the White House during the Obama administration`s inaugural demo day where innovators from across the country were brought together with a focus on inclusive entrepreneurship. Our thanks to MSNBC`s Ari Melber for that report. And that`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going to see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, when we`re going to be doing our first ever show live from Los Angeles. Yes, I`m leaving right here to get on a plane. We are going to be having three incredible power players in Hollywood, actor Amandla Stenberg, producer Kenya Barris and director Ava Duvernay. This will be a Nerdland you do not want to miss because we`re going back to Cali. Now, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT". Hey, Alex. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END
Melissa Harris-Perry, Transcript 11/07/15
Guests: Amy Goodman, Mark Alexander, Jack Jacobs, Juan Manuel Benitez,Nicole Porter, Carl Hart, Mei Fong, Daryl Atkinson