columnist david broder died at the age of 81. today a memorial service was held at the national press club in washington. speakers include vice president joe biden, gwen eyeful of pbs and the chairman and ceo of "the washington post," done gramm. david broder won a pulitzer in 1973 for his coverage of the watergate scandal. this is an hour-and-a-half. ♪ [inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please rise [inaudible] thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome. david broder was a reporter. he knew that about himself from literally his youngest days. he never reconsidered or wavered in his passion for this calling for his competitive result to be the best he could. he became a columnist, lecturer, speaker, pungent and tv talking head. he was also a husband, father and grandfather, george broder's one of his sons. i stand with you wearing his watch which was his own father's watch, a depression era dentist from chicago who tended to his patience and took payment in trade or cash only when they could convince him they could afford it.

here with us today among his other items, his left hand return typewriter and a united states flag presented to our mom by the veterans administration in recognition of his service in the u.s. army. on behalf of my mom, ann, broder, my brothers, matt, tauscher and mike, our wives, wndy, karen, susan and robin and his seven grandchildren, dan, loren, maddy, nicole, emma, julia, and luka. thank you all for being here today. thank you, mr. vice president for being here. distinguished guests, contact and sources.

[laughter] his colleagues and peers from the state's and those of you who were his loyal readers for being here. thanks for your patience in waiting to get started. we hope you've enjoyed the slide show and the music of the sage string trio. curious pull virtually the jury in his last column ran on february 6th and he left us on march 9th. he wouldn't have truly understood it and the truth is i don't really get within 24 hours after he died, she had more tweets than charlie sheen or princess kate's dress. [laughter] not bad for an 81 year old who had his challenges with the new lawyer world we all live in. thank you for laughing.

[laughter] not because i knew one of the stand-up comic but because we want there to be laughter in the room today. this is a memorial service. we will have some tears but my father loved to laugh so let's recognize that also, the laughter and good will. yes, our family is grieving. we thank you for being here to share that with us. as well as the celebration of a life long life. we regret that the circumstances in his last month prevented many of you from being able to visit with him. the family wants you to know he was never in any great pain. in his last hours and days he was at peace with himself and the decision that it was time to go. my mother -- excuse me, my

father and my mother and our family, we understand and respect the place of feet in many people's lives. the strength and so bennati that comes from this. we are not a religious family in the conventional sense, so we gather here today at the national press club at his direction of a cathedral with you will to the highest values and standards and goals in the profession to which he dedicated his long life. the brilliance to the amendment of the constitution, the role and purpose of the free press and an open domestic the acrostic pluralistic, there is, society, the duty of the media on behalf the people to ask hard questions to investigate, probe and analyze the issues of the day, the responsibility of the members of the state to inform,

educate, communicators and deliver their views about what they found in an unbiased, straightforward and honest form. and finally, the distinct sanction of the first amendment the need to exercise the honor and obligation with civility and respect for fellow americans and those from other nations so that's why we're here at the national press club and goes to speak today will share their insights into his life with this backdrop. our family is indented to each of them for agreeing to do this. let me say a couple things about my childhood and adulthood as one of the sons of ann and david broder, a political activist and political reporter. are you surprised if i tell you i majored in police science at the university of wisconsin? my apologies to those that have heard the story.

i remember the sunday evening of 1968, family dinner going on, watching the black-and-white tv as president johnson talked about vietnam. as the president spoke, like father realized where the speech was going. he jumped up and shouted he's not going to run and bolted for the door. [laughter] moments later the phone rang and my mom answered and she assured the person don't worry, he's already on the week. [laughter] and she hung up. in the sixth, seventh and eighth grade i had a paper route, yes, the morning paper, "the washington post." family connection had nothing to do with it. this was before he won the pulitzer. my friend, steve bauer and talf went already had routes and when another became available, i to get. a true father, one morning i was so sick i couldn't deliver my papers and he rose to the

occasion. following an address list, he got the job done but it took so long that was light out. by the time he was finished. word got back to my mom from a neighbor with a few days, and she said i saw dave the other morning. that's amazing. he writes the paper on monday -- [laughter] and delivers it on tuesday. [laughter] as an adult, like many of you, i was always delighted to be able to talk public policy and politics with him and to talk sports. he loved sports especially baseball. i'll miss talking with him about both. no more teasing him about the cubs or commence reading about the woeful redskins. in recent years i wouldn't call it a tradition but facing the

countdown we were on. i've made a point to always call him whenever i was going to my first baseball game of the year. looking in san francisco usually with a cigar and a good pal would tell him that kaine is pitching, we are planning. he would tell me have fun, i wish i was with you. i'm going to miss making that call this year. before the first eulogy, we want to show a video of our father. he's talking about one of his two most famous topics, his grand children or the voters. this is about voters from three years ago in 2008 in new hampshire. we think you will enjoy it for the same reason we do. it shows how much he loved what

he did and how he was still at 878-years-old his 13th presidential campaign decades and decades and decades on the beat and not a cynical bone in his body. let's watch. >> i have a lot of memories of talking to voters here and across the country. one of my favorite experiences in reverse was being run off of a property by a guy who came out with two very large dogs and made it very clear that if i didn't clear out of their pretty fast he was going to let the dogs off their leash. what's fun about covering the hampshire campaigns is the people here, not just the politicians, but the people

themselves are really into. >> i've been working on this campaign and obama's prior campaign was when i was a senior high school and worked for jfk. >> you see more front yard and back fence campaign signs in this state than any other place i've ever been because the people do feel very committed to the candidates they are supporting, and that level of energy that comes straight from the people is what makes the hampshire politics really wonderful. >> i'm pleased to introduce the first eulogy, staying with baseball we have a grand slam lineup. we had to start with the news room where my father spent so many years of his life when he wasn't on the road.

i don't know what cosmic forces are in play he's got the same initials as our father, d.b. and he's become a good friend to the rest of the family along the way. dan balz from the fifth floor of dan balz from the fifth floor of the "washington post." >> thank you, george, and george, josh, matt, mike, other members who are here, mr. vice president, distinguished guests, friends, colleagues, we are here today to pay tribute to one of journalism giants, david broder and political reporter without peer. he was one of the most decent human beings any of us ever worked with and he was also my dear friend. we mourn his passing, but we celebrate a life that in its

richness and accomplishment remains an inspiration to all of us. dave broder was part of a generation of remarkable political reporters. they included jack modules, walter mirrors, the late bob novak, johnny apple, others too numerous to mention today. at the post, haynes johnson and dave shared a special bond come something i've long cherished. the same is true of lou cannon with whom he collaborated so often and effectively a except for one night in new hampshire when the two aces in 1980 managed to misread the tv listings and therefore miss the opening of the republican debate. with a little help from back home the managed to scramble and cover the the date adequately but we never quite trusted them the same after that. >> whether his own generation or subsequent generations, dave was

always special. he was called the dean fer reason tweets for a reason. he brought unmatched integrity, in sight, fairness come seriousness of purpose and true humility. he was, as george said, a reporter's reporter. he might have been one of the most widely read columnists in the nation and may have been on meet the press 401 times, a record there will not be broken but he never thought of himself as a pundit. he never believed he had all the answers. he knew that answers and insight grew out of doggett reporting. everyone has heard of his devotion to the voters. he believed elections belong to the voters, not the politicians or strategists were commentators many reporters paid lip service to this idea but if you did it as dave did, carefully, methodically, completely.

he would go up and down the streets of a bird's a strange towns for hours on end. he bent into living rooms, engaged people in conversations, learned their hopes and fears, most of all he respected their opinions. this isn't the easiest of work, but they've never tired of it. i remember one summer he decided the two of us needed to take a sounding around the country. we would start he said that the national governments association which was always a regular stop on his summer circuit. from there we were to fan out to different states where we would do a number of days of door knocking. that would have been enough for me but not for dave. he declared that the end of the week we would meet up at the national conference of state legislators where we would do another round of interviewing. i was more than exhausted by the time that week ended but he was still full of vinegar and fight. given his devotion to the voters, roger simon, our friend, suggested the other night we

would ask everyone here to volunteer to days of door knocking in the battleground state. the assignments will be distributed on the way out after the service. another thing that set david apart was his unerring ability to stay focused on what was important. he loved the tough and gripping campaign, but he also believed when the campaign ended politicians had the responsibility to do what they could to solve the country's problems. he hated frivolous politicians and public officials. he believed journalism was an enjoyable part of the space society. he believed good journalism made the machinery of government work better. he believed the holding politicians accountable and he always focused his energy on the big issues and the toughest problems. at the post, he led our coverage for more than four decades and in an era of bigfoot journalism, he always walked lightly.

he taught by example and made certain all other reporters have this case and the encouragement to flourish and expand their own horizons. ask anyone who's covered politics over the post in the time david was there and they will tell you that. that doesn't mean he didn't occasionally intimidate his editors or fellow reporters. we could always tell when he didn't think we were measuring up to his exact standards. he has the look we would say. nobody liked it when the will close directed at them. i first experienced this in 1968 as the college senior. i was interviewing dave for a class project. after two questions he looked at me and only the way that he could and said what do these questions have to do with your topic? [laughter] for once i put myself back up

off the floor. broder then gently helped me figure out how to refocus my project to do it right. to the young girl reporters he was always unfailingly generous and he played for colleges on the first campion and shared information with competitors including some he barely knew. they never forgot as the e-mails i received after his death show. david obviously loved more than his work he loved ann, his wife 59 years and his sons and daughters in long and his grand children especially. he loved the cubs, the jacket is there, he loved the theater, he loved the gridiron club, its rituals and customs and contributed so many songs and jokes over the years. he was a straight arrow in the best sense, but he wasn't always all business all the time. i remember the opening night of the 1980 republican convention

in detroit. those were koln days as you can imagine we were not tweeting around the clock in 1980's we extra time and dave and lu and invited me to join them for dinner. the dining room at the train hotel was packed and noisy and filled with delegates and reporters and there was a combo playing in the background. there was nothing rushed or hurried as we ate and talked about a week ahead. finally, it was time to go over to the convention floor. as we were selling that the bill he leaned back in his chair and he looked over. i never forgot what he said next. my head tells me to go to the convention, he said, but my feet want to stay here and boogie. [laughter] this is perhaps a side of him most of you have never seen. [laughter] i would also be remiss if i didn't mention he kept the messiest office in the newsroom,

that driving with him could be an adventure especially in light, and as george suggested he could be sometimes technologically challenged. more than once when we were on the road together and he was struggling to finally story on that line, our political editor at time would call me and say can you just go to his room? send the story. was always clear who was story she prized most. [laughter] none of this slowed him down. she kept at it with an intensity and pace of some one half his age and for far longer than any of the rest of us might have tried. he was still out there last fall at age 81 making his rounds. he did it despite aging legs and a body that was giving out on him. he wanted to see and hear for himself what was happening in that campaign. to the end he had an indomitable spirit. now he's gone and we all miss

him terribly. he leaves an extraordinary legacy. one that embodied values that can guide all of us in these difficult times. he leaves a huge void. he is i believe irreplaceable. i've said this before, and i want to see it again. i cannot imagine there will ever be another political reporter like him or colleague for whom so many people have such respect and such affection. goodbye, friend, may you rest in peace. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for the beautiful tribute. good afternoon, everyone. my name is matt broder, and thank you for coming together to honor our father today. i am ann and dave's third son. one of my father's treats that

came through repeatedly in the public testimonials after he died was his willingness to help younger reporters with characteristic modesty he often said his advice was free and that was worth when you pay for it. but the people on the receiving end of that advice usually knew better. in the spirit, going to offer a little advice this morning or this afternoon. two of the young reporters out there wondering how do i get to be a big-time pungent in the ultra competitive world of journalism? how do i get to the 4,000 columns, to the 401 appearances on meet the press? i have the answer control from the life of the been himself, david broder. practice on your children. [laughter]

on your young children. i offer as evident the content of an old postcard i discovered some time ago while rummaging through a box in the attic of the family's summer home in michigan. this was a postcard my father sent to me while he was on a reporting trip and 1964. i will do the math for you. the future pulitzer prize winner was 34-years-old. i had just turned five. on the front of the postcard was a studio photograph of three basset hound puppies. the postmark was from somewhere in texas, houston i think. dear nephew, the postcard began, do you like these puppies? of these puppies are sad. do you know why they are sad? [laughter]

they are sad because they lost their oil depletion allowance. [laughter] love, dave. [laughter] i will mention for only a moment the ridiculous situation this but my mother in. [laughter] even a university of chicago education doesn't prepare you to explain the oil depletion allowance to a kindergartener. suffice it to say that this postcard explains why my father wrote eight books on politics but not a single one on parenting. [laughter] all kidding aside, this story provides an important insight about david broder.

he experienced the world through one lens only to the intersection of politics and policy. a postcard to a child became the chance to dwell on tax policy. the trick is san francisco sports bar with my brother, george coming years leader prompted a column about the presidential campaign process and the attention span of the electorate and there was the annual trip to beaver island michigan which my father used not really to relax but more often as a springboard for musings on the environmental policy of the reagan administration or voluntarism and public education or the implications of alternative energy programs. ..

>> speaking of younger journalists, u now have the pleasure to introduce one of my father's favorite journalist from the generation that came after him. dave had a big heart for anyone with a pen and a note pad, but it's fair to say he loved his colleagues. his intelligence and insight for obvious to my father even before they were colleagues at the washington post in the 1980s,

and the friendship they developed deepened over the years even though glenn went to work for competing news organizations. later, my father looked forward to his aday appearances, and faithfully watched the show on those weeks he did not appear as a guest. the entire broder family is grateful to glenn for delivering a eulogy today. we can think of no better fitting one to do so. >> okay. i have a card. thank you, matt, and thank you to all of the broders, and thank you for inviting me to speak here today and allowing us to borrow david for so many years.

david was for special to me as he was to everyone in this room. he was a there for us to aspired to cover politics in a matter that went deeper into polls and personalities. he was a mentor, who, of course, made the time and had the time for younger reporters, and, of course, he was a friend even when he was beating you on a story or at the very least telling it better than you ever could. over the past few weeks, i've been trading story with a many other journalists looking for nuggets. i probably should be surprised that in the end, everybody seemed to repeat the same version of exactly the same story always using words like generosity and excellence and modesty. uncommon decency, one political reporter wrote, relentlessly irritatingly sen tryst wrote another. [laughter] i'm certain he would have liked

that last one. [laughter] i was one who looked up to him and stunned he never looked down on me or even that he noticed me standing there worships him. plus, i often got to be the one to run interference at political debate when dave was on deadline and all the campaign consultants were lining up trying to get a piece of his story, and i was proud before they could get to david, they had to get by me first. [laughter] when he died, the stories bore witness to the man and colleague he was. there was rem innocences in the post, the "new york times," of course, but also in the daily ease -- ease torian and even in iowa and in the mormon times for some reason, all rolled together in a single their tie, the david stories everyone tells sounds like this. imagine it all said in unison. it went like this.

i first met david broder when i was finishing my first campaign. i did not know where to sit or how to sleep on the plane or how to pose a proper question or whether to force my way into a conversation with the big feet or how to meet my crazy deadline or how to just get the lead right, then the story invariably continues david broder introduced himself out of the blue or invited me to sit next to him closer to the can date, or advised me how to preserve my energy on long campaign runs on the road or handed me his own reporting to help complete my story or gently pointed out what the news was so i could put it in the first sentence. [laughter] then, if you were lucky, he took out now to knock on doors, meet governors, and join him for an interview.

collectively, we were all awed by the great man, grateful for his help and better for the lessons he toll us or as one colleague and competitor told me, he cared about politics and the issues, and there was never ever an agenda. this reverberated in ways he never could have appreciated. back in 2006 when i took it in my head to write a new book about the afternoon leaders coming of age, my first thing my editor send me was his own worn paper back copy of changing the guards, the book david wrote in 1980 about a new generation of leaders coming of age. thirty years later, dave was among the nicest reviews i received. he never mentioned that actually i had ripped him off inadd veer tently, but truly. [laughter] when he traveled, we went to iowa state university in 2000

and i got to see what a rock star he truly was. when i returned to iowa state just last week, strangers offered me con doll lenses and any place politics is discussed, he is still a rock star. david sat around the table hundreds of times at meet the press and washington week and countless other round tables and had his opinions, but he was seldom pundit, always a reporter, and the voice of good humored reason. that shouldn't be unique, but it was and is. when david talked to governors, presidents, county chairman and voters, they knew he was a person they could trust to tell their stories. he said it was done with someone you haven't heard of, and maybe he liked the low-key types because he was low key himself. david refused to toot his own horn. he was an egoman yak behind

closed doors for all we know, but we never saw it. [laughter] he devoted a chapter called behind the front page telling the stories that we, mostly he got wrong. he recognized the warts in the profession and taught us about that too. he knew how easily the press could be manipulated by politicians who knew how, but he loved journalism in a way that allows us to still appreciate what is romantic about a craft and a profession that so often puts its flaws on display. he taught those of us who came up behind him, and there are a lot of us, many of us in this room today teaching us how to work hard, appreciate awe awe then authenticity, play nice with others, and always, always know how to take a poke at yourself. i'll leave you with one broder story i love, it, too was recounted in the book. richard nixon apparently credited david with being one of

the few people at the 1968 presidential nominating convention who knew in advance who the vice presidential nominee would be. this was supposed to be a deep dark secret, but david said the story was not true. he didn't know which was bad enough, but what bothered him about it this detail might survive him. he wrote, "how would you like to have on your tombstone, he knew it would be agnu?" [laughter] no worries, david, no wares. [laughter] thank you, gwyn, that was an

amazing and wonderful tribute. now it is my pleasure to introduce michael ryan. mike is an accomplished soloist who you may know from his years with the gridiron club, a singer for the marine band and has given thousands of performances, including many at the white house, at ronald reagan's first inauguration, and bill clinton's second as well as other venues. in addition to this, mike was a frequent collaborate tore with my father in the annual gridiron dinners. he took great pleasure in combining his love of music with his deft sense of hue humor and deep knowledge of events and political personalities to put together songs for the show. i know he enjoyed working with

mike and always marveled at his ability to carry the less musically inclined upon his shoulders. most importantly, though, he valued mike as a friend, and that's why we've asked mike to lead us all in singing a song my father loved to sing when at the baseball field. ladies and gentlemen, michael ryan. [laughter] >> well, ladies and gentlemen, you know what's coming now. [laughter] as george said earlier, this is a celebration, and in that spirit, going to ask you to turn to the back page of your program where you will find the words to "take me out to the ball game" as wrigley field chicago. look at the words carefully.

as we are all irish on st. patrick's day, today, we are all cubs fans. because it's a short song, we'll sing it twice. here we go. ♪ take me out to the ball game ♪ ♪ take me out with the crowd ♪ buy me some peanuts and cracker jacks ♪ ♪ i don't care if i never get back ♪ ♪ so it's root, root for the cubs ♪ ♪ if they don't win ♪ it's a shame ♪ for it's one, two, three ♪ strikes you're out ♪ at the old bag game. >> sing it again. ♪ take me out to the ball game ♪ take take me out with the crowd. ♪ i don't care if i never get

back ♪ ♪ if they don't win ♪ it's a shame ♪ for it's one, two, three ♪ strikes you're out ♪ at the old ball game >> good job. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. >> wow, thank you, michael, that was truly wonderful. my name is mike bro, and i'd like to quote my in lieu nephew as i get started. i was told, as he was walking to

school on his first day of kindergarten, he looked up into his father's eyes saying i'm more nervous than i look. [laughter] so, dave, i hope you know how i'm feeling right about now. [laughter] over these past four weeks, we've all been experiencing a public wake following dave's death. the many tributes are touching, illuminating, and comforting. it's been a joy, frankly, to read and hear so many personal stories that all include some simple act of kindness and humility by dave. i have to tell you, growing up in our household, we never heard dave say, well, today i helped so and so with his or her career. you know, he just was not that

into himself. we were far more likely to have our father want to talk about issues such as the senate race in some mid western state or more likely how some former cubs player just put together back-to-back al star season since leaving chicago. [laughter] as we've all seen in the outpouring of remembering, dave was a good friend to a lot of people. dave was my father, and he was my friend. here are a few things i remember about my father. he was humorous and playful with a sly wit. dave was also a fan of watching his son and grandchildren play sports or perform on stage even though his work schedule didn't allow him to attend many of the events he might have otherwise. i remember him having a particular fondness for going

down to the patomic river to watch the three of us that rowed to compete in crew races. it was a place to relax in some comfortable clothes and just be outside. now, to be honest, crew was not often the best spectator sport. [laughter] the races are a mile long, and typically not easily observed from the spectator area. go figure. dave would not be detoured, so during my high school years, he would often walk back across the key bridge to the virginia side and scramble up the virginia river side just to get a better vantage point on the races. needless to say, he was the only spectator watching from the virginia woods, and all of us in the boats could easily see him in the foliage not just because

he was shouting loudly, but because he was wearing bright fire engine red participants. [laughter] when we returned to the docks, others would ask, and i would confirm, yes, that's my dad in the red pants. [laughter] fashion choices aside, one of the things i loved most about dave as my father was his ability to connect his personal and professional lives in very specific moments. my senior year in high school coincided with the 1980 presidential election. my government teacher, alice suffet, was a big fan of daves, so he and i cooked up an idea, it was mostly his. he would take one of the short paper assignments that he gave me, and he'd write the paper for me to submit. [laughter] as we expected, she came back to me a couple days after i had

turned it in and said this is quite a good paper, but it's not written in your normal style. [laughter] i think there are a few parts you need to rewrite. i will never forget the look on her face when i told her who had actually written it. it was priceless. [laughter] four or five years ago, dave agreed to be interviewed by my daughter nicole for an oral history project she was doing with a friend. the topic? how has my life been affected by the typewriter. [laughter] a few days ago, i listened to the interview again, and i was reminded how gentle, yet serious he was in answering questions about when he learned to type, did he use different typewriters, and what were the most important stories he had ever written on a typewriter.

it's priceless. more recently, dave agreed to take some time off for the 2008 presidential election to join my daughter, julia's 7th grade social studies class. seated in a mid schoolers desk, he talked about his job, and then he answered questions like is it hard to write a newspaper story every day? and, have you met barak obama or sarah palin? his answers were thoughtful and constructed in a way that helped the students gain a perspective on how important presidential elections are. priceless. i count myself lucky to have had dave as my father and as my friend. my father made many important decisions in his life, and one of the best was to align himself with the graham family and the "washington post".

in the weeks leading up to dave's death, many people reached out to me to pass along their thoughts and best wishes to both my parents. don graham was one of those people. i quickly gained an appreciation of something my father told me many times. he is a great friend, and sense dave's passing, don has done so many things to help our family during this very difficult time including being here today to deliver his own eulogy. ladies and gentlemen, chairman and chief executive officer of the "washington post" company, don graham. >> mike, thank you so much,

anne, we all love and admire you, and we know you are the greatest part of this story. mr. vice president, members of the broder family, distinguished guests, ink stained wretches and others -- [laughter] the year was 1964, katharine graham, a brand new publisher of the "washington post" for less than a year had gone on the campaign trail to see for the first time how her reporters covered campaigns. she was with a man named roberts, the best reporter at the "washington post," and with charles roberts of "newsweek" when a man she did not know walked up. cay, this is dave broder, he's the best in the business. now, pause a minute. this was 1964. dave was already covering his second presidential campaign,

and he covered local campaigns before that. he was with the "washington star." exactly one member of today's house of representatives, john dangle of mental anguish, and one member of today's senate were in office in 1964. president obama was three years old. [laughter] vice president biden was at the university of delaware where according to his wikipedia biography quote was that he was more interested in sports and socializing than in studying. [laughter] more than 40 years later, dave broder would have been introduced by his rivals as the best in the business except that it would have been sur purr few louse. his long -- long jest was enormous, and when

someone dies who has been so important to so many of us, it seems to me a good moment to say why? what made him so special at what he did? first, dave knew exactly what he wanted to be. he was a member from high school days of the crazy class of people called reporters. they are as smart as their college classmates to who into law or banking or business, and they understand they will not get rich as reporters, but they want to ask questions, they want to find things out, they can't explain why they do, or why they want to do what they do; they love it. college life reinvolves not around the fraternity or the classroom or the library, but the college newspaper. i don't know the other members of the university of chicago class of 1947, but i make it a

bet david was not the wealthiest, but in his working life, i bet he was pretty close to the happiest. second among reporters, dave was one of the lucky ones who absolutely fell in love with his subject. he neverment -- he nevermented to do one thing in the world other than write about american politics. he believed elections and the work of legislated -- elected officials were important and wanted to describe them as fairly and accurately as lee could. robert frost said it perfectly in a line. "my object in living is to unit my admiration and advocation," and that's what david did. third, dad -- david was the best colleague in the world.

i remember working with someone who just joined the staff, went with david to a governor's association meeting, and he had a hard time to describe it. broder introduced him to dozens of sources with praise to him as a reporter to make those sources his as well. in 1972, tim krause wrote in the boys on the bus after covering the 72 campaign for rolling stone that, "while the other reporters horded stories, broder generously shared the goods." in new jersey he said, "you better go out and knock on doors." that for a journalist is an act of sainthood. [laughter] fourth, his judgment was simply superb. i was publisher of the "washington post" for 21 years. david's great editor, ben bradly

is with us this morning, and david's -- ben's one sentence summary of david's contribution to the post was always the same, he put us on the map. in addition, each time there was a major problem at the newspaper, i would walk into david's office for advice, not an easy feat in itself as some of you will recall. [laughter] broder's advice was always good. at the time of the janet cook disaster, 1981, he began, the harder the paper are the beat reporters. if they're all right, the paper will be all right. when the post had to choose a new editor or face up to a problem, his was the first advice one sought. what else should be said of david?

that he was ethical in a most straight laced way. he was old-fashioned before it was in fashion to be old-fashioned. [laughter] that he was the fairist of reporters, that he made mistakes, and that no one was more meticulous about correcting himself, even devoting a year end column every year to that purpose, that he always had time for you, a little time. [laughter] if you had business with david, he'd like it done with dispatch, that he worked very hard. in his last illness, he told his syndicate that he was ready to resume his column, and the director of his syndicate, allen sheerer who david loved so much said in effect, for god's sake, david, do one a week, and david snorted. he promised two a week, and he

would deliver. we loved him. if you took us all back to our college newspaper days, we dreamed of being true to our ideals for a lifetime, of remaining dedicated to our craft of being the best in the business. whatever our own shortcomings, we could at least look across the room at someone who had done gist that. to go back to that long ago introduction in 1964, what a tiny handful of people of any profession in the world are the universally acknowledged best in the business, and then what a tiny, tiny handful exemplary behavior, the most decent, most honorable to friends, family, and colleagues. how many people are in both tiny handfuls?

how lucky we were to know david broder. >> thank you, don, for capturing the essence of our father so beautifully. let me extend just for a moment a thanks also to ben bradley for inviting my father to the party, a party he enjoyed for more than 40 years, thank you. when i was about the age that my 9-year-old boy is, my father took his four sons to the capitol building for a little lesson in the legislative process. we're in the senate gallery. it's a saturday, senate's not in

session, but the gallery is crowded with tourists, and we are sitting in the chairs in the front row. my father is hunkered down in front of us sitting against the railing, the empty well of the senate behind him, and he gives us a clear orientation of the process of the senate. the committee system, amendments, debate, and the engineered by design inefficiency of the body. he concluded in saying, and even if a bill manages to pass the senate, it's not yet a law. ..

>> and to be honest it's been something of a mixed bag. even as a kid it was hard to begrudge my father of a work life.

he loved reporting. he was having such a great time. as an adult, i could marvel at the good fortunate for the way he wanted to spent his time so closely aligned to how he spent his time. how my father wanted to spend his time was observing the daily dance of politics in america. about six years ago, dave started working on as close as it would be to a memoir. he wrote about the political events, his ted kennedy and chip o'neil. my wife sharon has done creative workshop with older people. i understand the tendency later in life to look back and sort through memory is the process in a lifelong series of psychological stages of a healthy human being. our father, his health failing, began to look back.

dave lost all interest in his book. lost all interest in his past and got right back to today. and how today would affect tomorrow. for myself i wish he would have finished the book. but i love the embracing today. he found a presidential election than he found even more thrilling than his first in 1960. that passion supported him through the first years, stuck with him until the end of his life, the last week among us. with days to live, he lost interested in politics. he no longed wanted read about articles of the failed

procedures in the wisconsin state house. he joined the other 99. % of the population. when david broder looses interest in politics, what's left? i'll tell you. first of all, a manifest aberration and gratitude towards our mother. beyond that laying in his hospital bed, waiting patiently for death, our father was to everyone, family, friends, kind, good humored, vis ties, appreciative, gentle. radioyears ago in the senate gallery who drew the tourist to david f. broder was his expertise. a month ago who had orderlies, nurses, doctors stops by his

bedside for an extra visit and to see to his comfort was his father's goodness. his decency. that simple humanity that so many people hear loved in our father, gave witness in the final speaker today. in 1987 on the occasion of then senator biden withdraw, dave wrote last summer i saw him walk away from a large number of fans at a chicago meeting. many for political activist, high presidential candidate would be happy to recruit. and, instead, closet himself for close to an hour with a stranger in pain. the man had almost broken down while telling biden he had just gurned he had a fatal disease, aids. he could deal to the threat to

his life, but not the prospect that his treatment might leave his family financially bankrupt. what kind of society is he? david continued, that must i over heard. the rest was between biden and this man. when i saw the man later, he seemed calmer. biden found a way to help, if only by listening. that compassion deserves to be noticed. in the more than 4,000 columns, he wrote about or mentioned joe biden more than 400 times. he was not always so generous. he once said biden preferred to fuzz the issue and give a straight answer. an another occasion, he lacked a career -- lacked clear occasions. he admired biden's high road contributions to the public conversation about iraq in 2006, biden advocacy of fiscal

discipline, and the bipartisan collaboration with senator lugar. always, dave, appreciated straight talk. in a column following joe biden's selection as senate obama's running mate, he wrote, if obama is honest and sane, he wants a vice president that will be direct and not worried about offending the president, he has found the right man. on behalf of dave's family, i'm honored to welcome the vice president of the united states, joseph biden. >> as you walk off the stage, it's true, the words so generous, but they were accurate. [laughter] >> always accurate. there's no higher god than truth

saided gandhi. i think that david broder shared that view. josh, thank you for the introduction. and let me say to you and the boys and the whole family, i am as i said to you privately, i'm truly honored that you'd ask me to be here today. i am probably the most out of place person in this room. representing not one who worked with david broder, but one about whom david broder wrote a lot with many, many other people. and i say to the boys if my dad were here, and my dad got to meet your dad, which was a high point when following me in the campaigns, he could say, boys, you've got good blood. you've got good blood. i want you to know that i'm

fully aware that this task is beyond my capacity to find the words to do justice to what your husband, your father, your grandfather, meant to our institutions and those things that assure our democracy persists. from my perspective, david broder lived a life that was full. and complete. my dad had another expression. he'd say it's a lucky man, tell all of his children, it's a lucky man that can get up in the morning, put both feet on the floor, know what they are about to do, and thinks it still matters. there's very few men or women

that i've met in my career, any acquaintance that i've had that have been able at 81 years of age to know that it still matters. and it mattered to them. david broder's entire career, and i don't know it post career, or previous to his career, seemed to me to be spent ceaselessly and elegantly in pursuit of the truth. which is often difficult commodity to find in any town, and i might add, probably any town. you've heard from some of his colleagues that knew david well on both the professional and personal basis. as i stated, mine was a different relationship. i speak from the advantage point of one among many who david reported on, observed, and commented on. i, as well many others, can tell you that i not only admire him,

but i was going to tell ann this earlier, hopefully this is appropriate. david broder, there's been many reporters that i've had the pleasure of meeting that have covered me in bits and pieces. many i admire. but there's no person who have ever covered me for whom i cared not what they wrote about me, i always cared what they wrote about me. [laughter] >> any politician that tells you otherwise is lying to you. [laughter] >> but i cared what he thought about me. it matters to me, chris, what he thought about me. and i also every time he wrote

whether it was about quote, my promise, as respected me for a good, or my short comings. i learned something. i learned more about myself. i took it seriously. i still have hanging on my wall in my library at home which my wife framed was that story marking the end of what was an embarrassing campaign in 1978 -- 1987. i also learned, i think like tens of millions of american, i also learned more about my country reading david broder, listening to david broder. his observations about our country, our government, as well as the political figures he covered were straightforward and

from my perspective, always unvarnished. and he was different. he was different than every other press person that i've ever met. like all of his undertakings, there was an all undertakings that all professions, there's some who just tower above others. whether it's in baseball, or in politics, or in business or in journalism, he was a towering figure. and he wasn't only recognized as that by his peers, and his fellow journalist, he was recognized by that -- those of us who was on the other side, or in the notebook. he was a towering figure. you didn't have to know that he had won a pulitzer, or 16 honorary degrees, or enough to

fill up my entire office in the west wing. you just knew. you understood. it was obvious. in a town full of monuments, david broder stood tall. if you forget me me -- forfive - forgive me, as a politic coming out of professional journalism, he stood tall. he was fair, fearless in the pursuit of both truth and justice. he anchored, phrases become more popular, but always associated -- he knew who he was. he knew who he believed. and he had an uncanny ability, uncanny ability to get to the essence of the person who he was covering. you referenced the story about the chicago meeting and the '87

campaign. again, i was telling ann a moment ago, what amazed me to the very end that he would get in the plane, he would get in the automobile, and drive to places and do things and interview people who i don't think anybody else thought was worth interviewing or traveling to. he was a guy who it seemed to me was always clear-eyed and analytical who thought it was necessary to observe the details himself to feel it, to touch it. to get his own assessment to taste it. he was doing that as the family knows, and all of you know when he was 80. i showed up places in the last campaign and wondered how in the hell -- why did he go here?

i couldn't figure out how the hell i was there. [laughter] >> and i was running for vice president. he wasn't covering me. ladies and gentlemen, he seemed to me is that he was a skeptic without being a cynic. it was obvious that although he seemed to have very little faith to the grand solutions offered by political figures and otherred, he did -- he did have faith in the strength and purpose of our institutions, both governmental and nongovernmental. faith that they were the vehicles if they were functioning well that could guarantee the promise of our constitution and protect our very essence and deliver the kind of government people deserved. you know, when you like that expression here all the time where government of law is not amend, it seemed to me that

david knew they would make individuals institutions, and institutions that made us different from any other country. he didn't moralize, at least i never observed him. he always analyzed. he reported the facts as he saw them by covering them up close and with his own eyes. he always amazed me that a man of his stature would pay so much attention to what seemed to be inconsequential details, or analyzing why the government was or was not functioning as it seemed it should be at the moment. it was not unusual, it seemed to me, that he did that in covering every one of us. any one of us who were involved in politics. he was one the few guys that th-

or women that when they covered you, you were quite sure there would be nothing glowing that would be written. but you are also sure that whatever he wrote would be reflective of the essence of who you were even if, even if he exposed your warts, which he did. he gave true texture and it gave insight to the readers, gained from a writer, who as i said, knew himself and felt and knew the real story that others seemed to be just covering. he covered me for 38 years without no malice, no sentimentality, and no excuses. as was mentioned many times, he was always fair and occasionally

hopeful. just as he made me and my colleagues look at myselfs and interspection is not a virtue that most politicians have. he made americans look at themselves as well. it was mentioned that he had great devotion to the voters. but he was also tough on the voters in his analysis of what he thought they failed to step up to the responsibilities. his intellect and talent, and as well as his disciplined with which he pursued his profession were not only admiral, but as some of his clears have implied today, they seem to me to be standard to which assigning journalist should repair. an institution is little more

than an lenten shadow of a man. an institution is little more than a lenten shadow of a man. david broder cast a long shadow. our nation will be lucky if the next generation bruces one let alone several david broders can be casting their own lenten shadows over the next generation. truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is wrote the noble laureate. his hunger was insatiable. i learned more about him today than i thought i knew. the world is better because of the insatiable hunger that he had. his legacy, as i said, i believe

with every fiber of my being is a standard worth pursuing. a standard that the professional journalism would be well to begin to recalibrate and look at what made him what he was as well as those of us who are covered by the press to have the humility of knowing that some of you, if not a lot of you, who cover us who have more insight into who we are than sometimes we do. may he rest in peace. >> hello again. thank you, vice president, and thank you for honoring him and honoring the family by speaking honestly and speaking on behalf

as you did of those that were in that reporter's notebook. thank you very much. as we conclusion, thank all of you again on behalf of the family for helping us say farewell and celebrate the life of our father, our grandfather, david s. broder. our father was a patriot in the truest sense of the word. to end this service, we've asked michael ryan to lead us in the singing of "god bless america." following the song, please remain for a few moments in the ballroom as our family and the vice president leave the room. a reception will begin shortly on this floor on the other side of the building. please wait for the voice of god and secret service to alert you that it's okay to leave the room

we will leave across the hall there. we know many of you have to get back to work running this country. those of you that can stay, we look forward to visiting with you and hearing your stories. please make sure you sign one the guest books and look at the items in front of the ballroom. on behalf of our family, thank you for being with us here today. michael? >> let's all stand once again. this time we'll sing "god bless america." "god bless america ♪ ♪ land that i love ♪ stand beside her ♪ and guide her ♪ through the night with a light ♪ from above ♪ from the mountains

♪ to the prairies ♪ to the oceans ♪ white with foam ♪ god bless america ♪ my home, sweet, home ♪ god bless america ♪ my home, sweet, home [silence]

[silence] >> ladies and gentlemen, please proceed with the processional. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> up next on c-span2, cnn anchor wolf blitzer interviewed israeli president shimon peres. >> as a host and i think as a trader, you are not republican or democrat. you are looking at what government is doing on the financial markets, oil markets, trading, wall street firms.

>> sunday, cnbc "fast moneymaker " melissa lee on what she believes is her role on reporting the financial and business news sunday night on c-span's q & a. >> c-span's two, one of the public affairs offerings. live coverage of the senate during the week, and weekend book tv. connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> at the u.s. institute of peace in washington, cnn anchor, wolf blitzer, introduced israeli president shimon peres. in 1994, shimon peres was given the noble price. he discovered the peace protest and political unrest in the

middle east. >> if i may ask everyone to please take your seat. i am robert wexler, mr. president, president peres, it is a privilege for all of us to be in your company this evening. on behalf of the s. daniel abraham center for middle east peace, i want to genuinely thank each and every one of you for joining with us. as you maybe aware, president obama graciously invited president peres to say in the blair house during his visit to washington this week. to illustrate the richness of the wisdom and experience of president peres, it is important to note that shimon peres first

stayed at the blair house 50 years ago this month working on american-israeli relations. [applause] >> as we begin, i would like to pay recognition to the former colleagues in the united states congress, speaker nancy pelosi joined us earlier, senator nelson, senator coons, senator corker, and senator latenberg. [applause] >> members of the house, which i'm sure all of you know is the much more important and powerful body -- members of the house, gary ackerman, shelly berkeley, dan burton, steve cohen, ted deutsch who have very big shoes

to fill, marie, nita lowey, mr. nadler, david price, debbie, and mr. schultz. [applause] >> i would also like to recognize and thank the distinguished representatives that have joined us this evening from the following countries, asser, israel, of course, netherlands, swieserland, and the united kingdom, as well as the european union and the palestinian authority. [applause] [applause] >> i would be remised if i did not pay special tribute to the center for middle east for their

hard work and devotion, tony, sarah, and brandon, thank you very, very much. [applause] [applause] >> but most especially, most especially, i want to applaud a patriotic and selfless american. a world war ii combat veteran, a visionary for peace in the middle east, and above all, a lifelong zionist, danny abraham. [applause] >> with that, i will turn the program over to a gentleman who is -- i would respectfully suggest in fact the most trusted name in the news, a talented journalist in news man who was not only kind enough to join us

this evening, but when asked said it would be a privilege. and it is my privilege to introduce wolf blitzer. [applause] >> and it is my privilege to introduce the president of israel, shimon peres. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> mr. president, you should know that here in the united states, when a president is introduced, we don't have long introductions. we basically say ladies and

gentlemen, the president of the united states. so i took that privilege to introduce you the president of the state of israel. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> i don't think shimon peres needs a lot of introduction. he was twice prime minister of israel, and also the winner of the noble peace prize, he comes at the issue with an enormous amount of history, credibility, and let's get right to the questioning. because the viewers here in this room and around the country on c-span, as well as on cnn, we are all interested in knowing what you have to say. this is a historical time in the middle east. many compare it to what happened to the fall of the berlin wall in the late '80s, early '90s. let's talk about egypt. the the change, the dramatic

change. president mubarak no longer the president. is this good for the region or bad for the region? specifically egypt, israel's largest and most powerful neighbor, certainly the largest of all arab countries. >> i wouldn't say -- i have to fair and say that president mubarak, we appreciate it very much. that is to prevent another war in the middle east. i shall never forget it. but i think the fact that the young generation in egypt to call them and try with the people, the new age, the modern life, and we cannot go on with corruption, and division, and dictatorship. i think it's a good opening, as well as for the egyptians.

>> are you confident, mr. president, the next government in egypt will continue to honor the peace treaty with israel? >> i do believe there is business forward. but it also depends upon what will happen between us and the palestinians. i think in order to enable the young generation to take over and go their way, we have to find his solution for the coll conflict in between us and the pall pall -- palestinians. the conflict will show the awakening, and let them be free of -- be free of it, i do believe we shall see an egypt free of and more successful. >> i want to get to the israeli-palestinian peace process and get to that in a few moments. let's continue on egypt for a moment. i was just there the other day with the secretary of state hillary clinton.

walking around cairo, and tahrir square and elsewhere, it was no means resolved who would have emerged the real lead of egypt. how worried are you that the muslim brotherhood would emerge as free leches -- free elections in egypt as the dominant player in the government? >> i wouldn't exclude it, but i wouldn't take it at the only solution. the really problem of egypt is poverty to start with. and in 1952, when the young officer of the world, there were 18 million people in egypt. today 50 years later, there are 81 million. egypt's growing population five times. nothing else grew. the real problem is how to

enable egypt to escape it's poverty. egypt is not the conflict, it fits the country. the nile didn't go up five times. the nile is really the only complication. i think egypt can escape poverty if they will try the modern age and an economy that doesn't hang on the land, but science and technology. the young generation is educated to people that cannot find the job. there was a combination of young people and women, women who -- that wants to have the freedom and the equality. i think they will not, even if it they won't succeed the first time, they won't give up. they have opened their eyes thanks to modern communication, internet, facebook, smartphones,

they see the ugliness of corruption. the ugliness of the division, and they will not close their eyes. now they -- muslim brotherhood are not more than 15. but they will be better organized and go to the ballots. but generally, they are not and will not be the minority, neither will be the solution. >> because when i was in cairo a couple of weeks ago, several people said to me don't be surprised if the muslim brotherhood in new elections get a lot more than 15 or 20%. >> they maybe get more. but they don't have solution. to their poverty. what are they suggesting? suppose they will pray ten times a day.

will this solve the problem of the future? the problem of egypt is not tryouts, but poverty. many people understand it. they may have a plague on their hands too. don't date -- you know, one the illusions in life is the vicious side is perfect and the right side is imperfect. it's nonsense. the vicious side is as imperfect as the right side. we should not take -- we exonerate all the time about the strengths of all of the people who are fanatic and extreme. they are not perfect. they don't carry a solution. >> all right. let's move on to syria while we are in the region. i spoke to an israeli that said as long as as israel has had problems, there isn't been any

violence along the goal line heights for 40 years or so. as bad as the relationship maybe between israel and syria, they are worried about what might happen next. are you worried about what's happening in syria right now from israeli's perspective? >> well, conflict and war is not the policy. we have to ask ourselves what can be done. i believe that finally a democratic system in syria is our best bet of the future. and i wouldn't take any other calculations. the president of syria are self-assured that the people are in love with him. well, it's an illusion. you know, and in politics, you have to distinguish between support and supporters. support exist as long as you are the government. you know, in cairo, the support

will disappear. and the first time in 40 years that they can see, they are not supporters as well. they answer and feed into it and stop it. neither can we stop it or change it. i believe that if democracy of freedom will take its place in syria this is the best for the future. >> and next door in lebanon as well? >> yes. lebanon was taken over by a religious group of people in hezbollah. but they are not so religious. they became missiles against israel, they are extreme. lebanon, it was a peaceful country. they want to control the government. but again, what for? what is their message they are

getting $1 billion a year from iran. iran finances them. they are serving the iranians more than they are serving the lebanese. and the basic facts are basic facts. we shouldn't over look them. we would like to see lebanon free, united, democratic, this is the best solution. >> how close was israel to a peace deal on the goal line heights with syria? >> if syria will divorce the iranians and hezbollah, we are close. if they won't have it both ways, nothing will happen. >> because you were in deep negotiation through turkey and others with the syrias? >> yes. >> and you almost had a deal? >> yes. the problem is if they had really ready to make the choice. >> is israel ready to give up

the goal line heights? >> all prime ministers in the past said so. and prime minister hamid left deposit with the united states saying it. we are ready, but not to the point for them to take over the government in israel. >> you insist on demilitarization if they withdrew the goal line heights. >> that is not enough. they cannot run a double policy. either piece with israel, or serving the iranian and the hezbollah way. if the syrians have to have peace, we are ready, we are willing to have it. but not any imagination.

not something which is not real. if they are making a choice, we shall make a choice. >> i want to get to the israel-palestinian issue in a moment. on jordan, your neighbors, are you worried about what's going on in jordan right now? >> i worry about everything. i don't want -- i don't know which wars. i think we have to help the king. it's our responsibility. it is trying to service people. and it's a very difficult situation economically, and if we are really serious, we have to help him over come the economic difficulties. and i think that we have to help him over come, and i say we, i don't mean israel. i think israel should keep themselves in the wheel, not in

the front. whoever can help him. i think nongovernmental companies today in the united states, who are being run by intelligence people and responsive people. they wouldn't like to appeal to the seer of the great companies of the united states as procuring from the quality of other people. so they have created their own foundations to give back the money to the people. if they will do it, not in a way of charity and fill philanthrop. and they will be able to take care of themselves and their own sick pick. that can be a great change. we have to act positively. feelings, moods, they are important. but you have to make finally a

choice. >> how did your meetings with president obama go today? >> very well. i trust the president. i think there's a dilemma. the dilemma is between the following: core of values, the privacy of the choice, and the realistic situation which is not necessarily as small as you would like to be. and to be honest, whatever you can have the supreme consideration to do it. if you don't have a mold, but you have to choose between difficult and complicated situations, the at least is the best one. i believe the president has it.

otherwise it's trying to make the choice. doesn't depend on him. he cannot control the world. i don't think the united states has the crime, i think the good number in the united states has increased. we have the same shoulder, but not the same burden. the world become longer in numbers, complicated in nature, different triumphs. i think the united states remains the real responsible power now. the real united states in my eye is this is the only great power in history that became great by giving, not by taking. you are helping other people to again gain their independence, and their future, and to send their voice to fight for other people. some of them lose their lives.

you won the wars. you got assets. you didn't keep anything for yourself. you gave to the japanese and improved japan. you gave to germany and improved germany, the plan for europe and all the time you are using generosity as the soffer of historic policy. i don't know any other. >> what do you said to those israelis who don't consider president obama a friend of israel? >> i am saying they are mistaken. >> give me an example of why they are mistaken. >> for example, they didn't believe the united states would use it's veto power and security council. the president said and told me several times that as long as he's president, the security of

israel will be on top of his president consideration. he does it, in fact, of the military defensive relations. the united states was only the country that didn't take the gold stone report about gaza a true one. goldson himself changes a few and the united states is justified. whatever we can tell him, i see we have a response. the president is not always flowering in his language. occasionally, don't go to the end. for example, if i take his cairo speech, and the united states wants to improve the muslim

world. what for? you have to enable the muslim to improve their own policy. we also would like to improve our policies with the muslim world. islam is not our enemy. muslims are not our enemies. we would like to live why peace with everybody. we would like the same thing. i believe that we have to be more balanced, and i couldn't recall a town to the president which just says, no, i'm not interested. >> did the president ask you, once again today, to freeze all settlement activity? >> the president told me this is the policy of the united states. but i told him, this is the policy that was also a pragmatic situation over the rest of the year, for example, concerning jerusalem.

for 40 years, no one build in the 21 suburbs, arab suburbs. we are going to continue. so the united states officially didn't support it, but pragmatically accepted it. the same is about settlements in the west bank. the united states is against building more or building new settlements. we are the moghabi country. and not to build on the existing settlements. >> do you support that? >> if i support it, it's elected government. this is the will of the people. and i respect the will of the people. so i suppose the democratic system and other present

considerations, this is the best that we can achieve. and why the united states will not change its principals they for their transitional period that can be pragmatic as all of us. >> is the united states general assembly going to vote and create and recognize a palestinian state in september? >> it's a possibility. and it is a mistake. >> why? >> because peace must be an result of an agreement. >> you do support a palestinian state? >> yes, 100%. >> do you support a two-state solution? >> question. >> everyone knows what the outlines of that palestinian state roughly are going to be. >> yes. >> so what's the problem? >> the problem is that the very nation of the second borders, and how the security needs of israel itself being alone in the

middle east. because the palestinians are split. you have a bus, the president, and hamas that wants the other story. while we respect very much the situation of hamas, you cannot close your eyes to the danger of hamas in gaza. we left gaza out of the will. we said and repeatedly said it, we don't want the town of gaza. we left gaza in order to bring back the settlers that we have had to mobilize 75,000 policeman. we have had to pay $2.5 billion conversation in gaza. and hamas took over gaza from there. and to start shooting at us, we

cannot understand to this very day, why are they shooting? what are the reasons? we left gaza. we are not going back. what are the purpose? what do they want to achieve? >> the question is if the vote is happening in september at the general assembly of the u.n. to create -- to recognize the palestinian state, israel is the member of the general assembly. you think israel will vote against? >> yes. >> did the president of the united states tell you how the united states would vote? >> i didn't asked him. >> did he raise the issue? >> i judge the united states did whatever they can to have an preference of agreed peace, not of an imposed peace. the united nations can vote. i'm asking, can they stop? can they answer the danger of tehran? what has it been a resolution in there? who will answer?

you do not get it. you must be responsible. you cannot solve the problems just by issuing declarations. you have to relate to the problems. >> has president abbas committed? >> yes. i believe this is the best. >> so you should take advantage of that opportunity and negotiate peace with him. >> yes. they too have their own conditions. and israel has their own conditions too. the gap is maybe more psychological than material. but a psychological gap is also a problem. and we are handling it in a manner. i do believe, and i do hope it's possible, to bridge over the differences between president

abbas and prime minister netanyahu. : to the opposition will i have to respect the majority and the majority today is for the two-stage solution, with a heavy

emphasis on security and mutual understanding and agreement. >> as part of that agreement, which you would be willing to give a plan of 367 israel to the palestinians in exchange for the palestinian territory that would become part of the state of israel? >> you mean -- >> part of a final peace settlement with the palestinians? >> we are willing to go for a swap. i mean, if you need to have an agreed and secure borders you should compensate the business of land. >> in other words gallegly -- >> no, no, what is decided is decided. [inaudible] it's helping the basic right for

values to live so it wouldn't force anybody. and the peace must be done by agreements, and i think it can be done and achieved. >> how close in your opinion, government of israel, is iran to building a nuclear bomb? >> i really don't know the answer. there are different ideas. some say a year, two years, three years. it's very hard to know because it's hard to measure out where exactly today, but i do believe nuclear iran is a problem for the rest of the world i mean, a nuclear bomb in the hands of an

irresponsible people are dangerous for washington, for new york, for everybody. and i believe all of that. and the russians understand the nuclear bomb in the hands of the people is the greatest danger. >> is it your opinion that iran recently suffered a major setback in its nuclear weapons program by cyber warfare, the form that has been widely reported? >> i know what i read in the papers. >> i seem to know more than half. [laughter] >> what i know isn't far from what's been written, but i don't think i have to take a position for figures and numbers --

>> without getting into who is responsible for that, did that seriously set back from's nuclear program? >> i don't have a definite answer to it. i don't know. >> de want to tell us who was responsible for it? >> part and? >> de want to tell us who was responsible for that? >> why is the needed? [laughter] >> i'm a journalist. i'm curious. >> you're a journalist, i'm a politician. [laughter] [applause] >> i didn't really expect you to tell me. >> okay. >> i ask the questions. [laughter] how much of a role is iran playing, in your opinion, in the middle east and north africa right now in this unrest we are seeing? >> [inaudible] closing balance of consideration from venezuela at to iran.

oil isn't being produced, it's been discovered, so it's easy money. they don't need the agreement of people to spend and to spin it fearlessly. to give a billion dollars, for example, to sustain hezbollah 30% unemployment in iran, to take away from the youngsters and invest into uranium is a scandal, and i don't believe the best way to change the situation in iran is to support the iranian people who are ashamed of their own government. i believe dealing with iran, the economic sanctions are important, but what is missing is the moral call. the corruption is the most

dangerous one. today iran is the model of moral corruption, misuse of money, calling for death, hatred, without giving any message neither for their own people or the rest of the world. they spend money in iran -- and lebanon, sudan, hamas, they are also trying to arrive at south america. what for? i'm asking myself what is the ambition of mahmoud ahmadinejad? what does he want? the supreme leader, what do they want? they want in my judgment preakness. greatness is hard to achieve if you don't have it. you cannot do it falls or by

decision. so i think you have to understand that is to such an extreme degree to an unexpected level, and that's important. and dangerous since we have nuclear bombs, because for nuclear bombs the majority [inaudible] it's not who can carry it from one place to another place. and that is a problem. >> a couple of things since we're almost out of time the baby can clarify. there's a report in the papers already that you asked president obama today to free convicted american spy, jonathan jay pollard, did you? >> yes. >> what's the argument? >> he's human, not judgment but consideration.

the man is sick in prison for a long time. i, myself, am in charge of different people and have [inaudible] and have to check everything carefully. not on the level of the judges. with the court decides, i respect. but there were considerations, human suffering, the state of health, and that's what i asked. i didn't ask if they would change their mind about the wrongs pollard did, but the human consideration, clemency. >> what did he say? >> i didn't expect him to answer my question. i know, myself, if someone would

ask me this sort of question i would say leave me alone i should make my consideration. i have to say carefully with respect, but i didn't expect to answer my request. i simply put the consideration for him. >> we are out of time, but i will leave this conversation with you on one final thought. is there hope, because i think all these people here and people watching on television right now that within the next few months george mitchell, secretary of state hillary clinton, the president, someone can really break through and help the israelis and the palestinians achieve a peace agreement. >> i want to answer you seriously. it's a possibility, not a certainty. i wouldn't exclude it. i can't say that it was already achieved because all of us,

including the palestinians and israelis know that to move ahead calls for taking reasons, and people don't feel easy with taking risks. it's not a game, you may endanger your life, but not taking a risk is even more risky because you're not trying to make peace. i spoke with president abbas and said look, for years and years and years, egypt really helped us arrive at peace. now that egypt has had problems we have to come on their side, too. how can we help them, to answer

their economy problems and so on, what we can do is take out the conflict between us as a reason for who will win the confrontation between the younger generation that wants to introduce freedom, and the old gentleman who want to continue. there's going to be elections in egypt for parliament, for the president, then the israeli-palestinian issue wouldn't be on top of the consideration. then they can consider freely what is for egypt. and i told the president of the palestinian people in telling their own people let's take it out. it's bring an end to the conflict. i think all of them are people who realize the situation and they have to make a choice

between the two risky situations. one is to make the necessary concessions, you know, to bring an end to the conflict, and the other if it won't be done, the conflict may call the final results of the revolt of the younger generation. and to join the ideas of the professor hunton this is a clash of civilizations. i think it is a clash of generations. there's a young generation in a new strength and new age of freedom, of honesty, and maybe even different concept that democracy is not just free expression, but self expression. they are educated youngsters who went to universities, felt the 5% of the unemployed, they can't find jobs.

the problem is can egypt and escape poverty or not? my answer, yes. is the problem just financial? no, the problem is to understand that today there is no longer the national economy, but global economy. then the way to introduce growth in the economy is not just by continuing the dependence on the land and cultivating the land, buy hanging on the offense of science and technology. and i think we have to free them from the old calls and prejudices. people prefer to remember rather than to think but they in day for get a lot of things. the only remember the sunny side of the past they don't forget the prejudices.

it's very hard to get prejudices', but we have to. you know, facing a new era in your world that doesn't hang up a land but science. science doesn't have borders, science can be achieved by armies, controlled by police. the meaning of democracy today is not just the right to be equal, but have the equal right to be different. and we have to enable the people to join in the new world. only the new world can help them to east cape. >> would it be smart for the president of the united states to do what jimmy carter did, and fight the israelis and the palestinians to camp david and negotiated peace agreement? >> they tried to do it and i

wouldn't -- >> which president? >> obama. he met with the israeli prime minister and president. i think the president is ready to do it but wants to make sure that in the wake of such a meeting there will be direct negotiations and of the parties would agree for direct negotiations, in spite of the differences -- president carter invited mr. sadat and he was an exceptional statesman. i mean, he was the only arab leader who says i'm ready to make peace. what we have more sadats, then the president have more. but even now, i think the

president is ready to make the necessary steps, provided that there won't be just a show, but in the wake of the meeting there would be direct negotiations between the two parties. he doesn't want to impose a solution. he really thinks, like all of us, the solution must result from an agreement but from and in position. and that's one of the reasons why i respect the president and believe he's trying to do the right thing and carefully not creating solutions and something that is imaginary, so it's a different situation because they're different parties. and it's not a lost hope, neither is the prospect. it's a possibility, and we have

to work very hard and very serious to meet this possibility into a reality, and that should be the task of all of us. >> on that note, mr. president, thank you so much on behalf of all of us, good luck to you and all the israeli people and the palestinians and the entire region. thank you. [applause]

political scientist and charles murray, author of "the bell curve" was at the american enterprise institute on monday to give a talk billed as the state of white america. he talks about the demographic and cultural shift for the last 50 years. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening and welcome to this evening's lecture. i'm president of the american

enterprise institute, and i'm delighted to welcome all of you to this evening's lecture featuring charles murray, entitled the state of white america. i've read the manuscript of the book that charles is going to talk about tonight called coming apart, and despite the title of this evening's lector those expecting to hear a discourse on race are not going to hear it. in fact, this is a lecture about culture and increasing separation between social classes in america in a way that has very little to do with race. instead, it exposes a ruthless class sorting process that our society has developed with frightening results for those of us who join me in wanting america to truly one nation. charles murray is a w.h. brady scholars here at aei and has been here since 1990. he's the author of many books including blockbusters like losing ground and "the bell curve" as well as many others that have effectively become

classics. like in pursuit of happiness, human accomplishment and real education. charles has had an extraordinary impact on the life of many, many scholars. those of you who know me personally know that he has had a major impact on my own career as a scholar. for a long time i made my living as a professional french horn player in the mid 1990's, i happened to cross charles' work by pure chance. i found that his style of analysis opened up a huge vista of ideas for me, making me understand that the lyrical beauty that i usually thought of in music actually can happen in social science. he sent back to graduate school and ultimately a career in public policy, leading interestingly to the american enterprise institute itself. years later, after all of this, charles and i became friends, and i told him he had had a hand in leading me out of the music business and to become a college professor he actually seemed pained as if i had told him he

had led me into delinquency of some kind. [laughter] and about a year after that, aei was in search of a new president and have approached me about the position. i asked charles' advice and he strongly urged me to do it. that's advice for which i still heard him personally accountable my case is really only one of the lives charles has touched. he's been an intellectual model to withhold generation of social scientists, and tonight his fans will once again seek why. following his remarks, charles with questions and after that, please join us in a reception outside. ladies and gentlemen, charles murray. [applause] >> thank you very much, arthur. bradley lectures are usually reserved for work that is my sleep and down. that's not the case tonight.

since arthur read the manuscript, which was supposedly complete, i added a new chapter and two important sections, to other chapters, read written extensively and last friday and spent ten hours interim rall data on 614 suppose and their adjacent said codes and i haven't even started to analyze those yet. is it tonight you're going to be hearing about a work in progress. this, like all bradley lectors, is on the record, so i have to be willing to be quoted, but i really don't want to be tonight. [laughter] the thesis of this book is a symbol: over last half century, the united states has developed a new lower class and new upper-class the different in kind from any thing america has ever known. the second contention of the book is that the divergence of america and to the superclasses if a continues will and what has made america america.

to forestall misinterpretation comoletti specify that this is not a book forecasting america's decline as a world power. we can continue to be wealthy and powerful, even if we become a class society that i fear. and i don't also argue that america was every classless society. rich people have always lived in different parts of town than poor people and have gone to different churches and have had somewhat different matters. it's not the existence of glasses that is new, but the emergence of class's that diverge on court decatur's and values. so what am i arguing? well, america has never been about maximizing wealth or international power. america has engaged in what i call and others called the american project. it consists of the continuing effort begun with the founding to demonstrate that human beings can be left free as individuals

and families to live their lives as they see fit. they can come together voluntarily to solve their joint problems. the policy based on that idea led to a civic culture that was seen as exceptional buy all the world. the culture was so widely shared among americans that it amounted to a civil religion, the american way of life. a free is the we actually don't hear much anymore, but used to be taken for granted. that culture is unraveling. in the book, as in tonight's lecture, i focus on what happened, not white. my primary goal is to get people to think about the ways people are coming apart at the seams, not the seams of race or ethnicity but class. and that leads to the title of tonight's letcher, the state of white america 1960 to 2010. for decades, trends that american life had been presented in terms of race and ethnicity

and the reference point has always been non-latino whites. when i use the word whites from now on i'm always going to be referring to non-latino lights. when you read about the latest poverty statistics, for example, when you read usually is yours the black poverty rate compared to the white poverty rate for the latino poverty rate compared to the white poverty read and hear the implications for how america is doing. there's nothing wrong with that. i wrote a book called quote code losing ground," that's filled with such comparisons but in doing so, we lose sight of the reference point. and what i'm going to do this track what's been happening to the reference point. and so, the book uses evidence based on whites, and my message is this, don't kid yourselves. what we are looking at our trends that can be remedied by eliminating racism or by restricting immigration. i want to get my her readers actually as few opportunities as possible to explain a way in

their own mind the trends i describe. about three-fourths of my presentation tonight focuses on the new lower class, because i think it's better to give you a pretty good idea of the data that is involved in demonstrating that trend rather than to give you just a fragmentary presentation of the whole argument of the book. i will conclude with a few remarks about the situation regarding the new upper class the without much data attached. for america to work as a was intended to work, meaning self-governing citizens running their own lives without hindrance from the government and without much help from the government, is it enough to get the law right? or is something else required? among libertarians, this is a source of contention and more than a few of mine libertarian co-conspirators, some of whom are here tonight, think that the right constitutional limits on government are enough and that the culture can take care of itself once those are in place.

i'm very sympathetic to the notion that a limited government tends to foster virtue in the people, but i think that the royals are a necessary but not sufficient condition. in taking that position, i at least have really good company. namely all of the founders and every observer of the american experiment who watched during the first half century. francis grunt who wrote about the same time as tocqueville wrote, quote, no government could be established on the same principle as that of the united states with a different code of morals. the american constitution is remarkable for its simplicity, but it can only supply people habitually correct in their actions. change the domestic habits of the americans, their religious devotion and other high respect for morality and will not be necessary to change a single letter of the constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government. i could give you quotations from every founder and every european observers saying the same thing

over and over. it was not just believed that taken for granted the certain virtues were required of a self-governing people. furthermore, there was lots of crete and about the virtues were. different people of this is different things, but four of these were so completely universally understood that they could be considered as central. two of them are virtues of themselves, industriousness and honesty, and two of them refer to institutions, through which virtue is nurtured, marriage and religion. for convenience, i will refer to all four of them as the founding virtues. so, how has america been doing on the founding virtues of 1960 to 2010? to track what's been going on, took to in this of white america, the top 20% in the bottom 30%. those percentages are based upon the way that america is right now. in 2010, about 20% of whites, ages 30 to 49 have college

degrees and worked either in a managerial position or in one of the traditional professions by which i mean medicine, all, the sciences, engineering and architecture and academia or they were married to such person. that's my and point. the people who in 2010 that the occupational and educational classical criteria for being in the upper-middle-class. i also selected the top 20% going back all the way to 1960, based on those with a 20% with the highest combination of education and occupation. what that means, since we've had so much expansion of college education that in 1960 my top 20% consists of people who had only 42% with college degrees and only 45% of the more in these occupations. the choice of 30% to demarcate the bottom comes from this observation. in 2010, about 30% of white americans ages 30 to 49 had no more than a high school diploma

and worked in a skilled or unskilled blue-collar jobs, low-skilled service job or low-skilled white collar job or were married to such a person. so those are people who fit the classic definition of the working class, and i went all the way back to 1960, selecting the bottom 30% from the databases i was working with. the occupational distribution of the bottom 30% back in 1960 was pretty much the same as it is now. the educational distribution was radically different. 80% of the group have not even completed high school in 1960 compared to only 15% now. 59% of the group had completed only the eighth grade. by the way, the last couple illustrate a problem as i am presenting this material orally instead of on paper. it's going to give very confusing if i say many more sentences such as 88% of the top 20% did x. compared to 15% of the bottom 30%.

so for convenience, i'm going to refer to the top 20% as the upper middle class, and i'm going to refer to the bottom 40% as the working class. in fact, we have back in 1960 as the upper-middle-class plus many from the middle class, and we have with the bottom 30% in 1960 was the very least able of the working class. if you think about it for a while, by the way, doing it this way stacks the evidence against -- excuse me, stack the odds against my finding evidence for my thesis. something we can talk about in the q&a if you want. what about 50% white's age is 59 .. to a record on every indicator described the were in the middle statistically as well as conceptually. know that i've been saying 30 to 49 all the time. why? it's another case of trying to simplify the interpretation of the analysis as much as possible. people in the 30's and 40's are almost always finished with

school and very seldom have taken early retirement. they are in the prime of life. in short, saying of them look, if this is what we are seeing among the whites ages 30 to 49 it's not going to get better if we look at white's younger than that and older than that or people who aren't white. okay. now to the trend. i'm going to star with marriage. we are talking of the data from the current population survey and the 1960 census. in 1960, just about everybody was married. 80% of the upper middle class ages 30 to 49 compared to 83% of the working class, that's a five percentage point difference. it's trivial. what's happened by 2010? wellcome 83% of the upper middle class are still married. hardly any change at all. the percentage of the working-class ages 30 to 49 who are married in 2010, 48%. that's a 55 percentage point gap

widened from 1960 to 2010. it amounts to a revolution in the separation of class is in this country. furthermore, the decline in the working-class was continuing as of 2010 with only the very slightest evidence of flattening in the downward slope. note the discrepancy between what i just said and our common impression of what's going on with marriage. a very common impression is that it's the upper middle class that's had problems with marriage. they are the ones who get divorced all the times and in which the guys take the mothers of their children in their 50s and to force them and get a trophy wives. this is the group where you have currier obsessed well-educated young women who forgo marriage altogether, and the common impression is in the working-class traditional values are still strong. that is foursquare opposites of the reality. we have a middle class marriage is alive and well and collapsed

in the working class. why is it a big deal? the working-class whites ages 30 to 49 are not married, excuse me, are married. there's several reasons. one is that marriage civilizes men. married men, their incomes go up, productivity go up, and in a more general sense, adult males who are single are finding the disheveled population in a variety of ways culturally and socially and at a glance at their desks after they get married with fairly good regularly. another reason is single people are not good producers of social capital. they seldom coach little league teams and civic fund drives or take the lead in getting before we stop sign at an intersection where children play. a third more fundamental reason is the one that they took else

all. it's worth quoting. i consider the domestic virtue of the americans' domestic virtue referring to married life in america. as the principal source of all the other qualities. he then goes on to enumerate those other qualities and concludes in short domestic virtue does more for the preservation of peace and good order than all of the laws inactive for the purpose and is a better guarantee for the permanency of the american government than any written instrument constitution not accepted. well it's not just marriage -- getting marriage to the committee that changed the institution of marriage. it also the matter of the rise of births to single women. the percentage of children born to working-class single women as of 1960 was around 6%. by now, it is closing in on 50%. i'm not talking about inner-city

blacks, not talking about all of the populations where you have single births that have been the topic of so much discussion over the last few decades. we are talking about non-hispanic whites. why is this important? because no matter what the outcome being examined, with a school dropout or emotional health or unemployment as adults or substance abuse that measure how well or poorly children do in life, on average the family structure that produces the best outcome are to biological parents remain married. divorced parents are sort of next down the ladder in terms of outcomes for children, and away at the bottom are the outcomes for children who are born to the never married women. all of these statements apply after controlling for the family socioeconomic status. the apply to unmarried women who are cohabiting with the father of the child as well as women living alone. i know of no other set of social science findings that are as

broadly accepted by social scientists who follow the technical literature on the left as well as the right, and yet it seems in permissible for the politicians or network news programs or any other kind of famous people to acknowledge them publicly. let's turn to industriousness. if just one trait can be said to be defining of the traditional american debt, that's probably it. frances grunt again, it's not only the principal source of the americans' happiness and foundation of their natural greatness, but they're absolutely wretched without it. active occupation is the very soul of an american. he pursues that as the fountain of all human felicity. once a day, the europeans say that americans live to work while europeans work to live. i don't think they realize how many of us americans on this side of the atlantic say yeah, that's right and then we feel sorry for the poor europeans. i'm going to focus on males

because the women that work outside the home change drastically the last 50 years. for men they stay the same. guys are supposed to work in 1960 and even today the guys are supposed to work. the healthy male in his 30's and 40's who isn't even trying to work needs a really good excuse. upper-middle-class males hs 30 to 49 changed hardly at all. in the 1960's, one plight five person of them are not in the labour force. in 2010, 2%. for working-class mails the same figure went from 5% in 1968 when it hit its low to 12% in 2008. i chose 2008 instead of 2010 because those numbers came before the recession. they are even higher now. among those in the working-class who have jobs, the proportion working fewer than 40 hours a week increased from 13 to 21% from 1960 it won the eight cut 2008 before the recession hit.

the deteriorations that industrious among white working-class mails had occurred in the labor markets the were booming as well as in soft ones. honesty, i'm going to say very little about this one. if we are talking about felonies such as homicide, robbery and rape and burglary, it is a close case. ever since criminology began as a discipline, it has been found that criminals who commit these offenses are drawn overwhelmingly from the working class and on down. so, when you contemplate the increase of crime that occurred from 1960 to the early 1990's and the increase of imprisonment that occurred from the 1970's in to 2000, you are looking to increase his that have victimized the populations of the working-class community not changes that victimize upper middle class communities. in fact, one of the dirty little secrets of the last 50 years is

because crime has been a huge topic in many of those decades, nothing much has changed in the upper-middle-class suburbs. they've never been dangerous places. they aren't now, they weren't then. religionocity. hardly any of the founders was a devout christian. jefferson and franklin were openly deist, but they were not the only people who were suspect in terms of their religious doctrine. washington and hamilton and madison were always very vague about their adherence to christian orthodoxy. yet they were all united in their belief the religion was essential to the health of the new nation. they made the case in similar terms. my colleague once summarized this way. the doherty is the object of the republic. virtue meets liberty and virtue among the people is impossible without religion. they all believe it. and that includes thomas

jefferson. they were making in empirical surgeon which western europe is now putting to the test. manly that the moral codes lose their power eventually if they are not based on religion. the jury is still out on whether that is correct or not. but the last few decades have brought forth a very large technical literature about the effect of religion on maintaining civic life and the effect of religion and human flourishing. first, there is the role of organized religion in generating social capital. here is robert putnam and bowling alone, the landmark book on social capital and its decline. quote come as a rough rule of law monday become our evidence shows half of the memberships are church related, half of all personal philanthropy is religious in character and half of all volunteering occurs in the religious context, but it's not just the contributions of these religious based activities

the mix of religion important social capital. people who are religious also account for the large proportion of the secular capital as putnam described both in bowling alone and in his recent book, american crease. apart from the social capital in general, the churches serve specifically as the resource for sustaining a democratic citizenry. a variety of studies have found active involvement a church service serves as a kind of training centers for the importance of the skills and all of these relationships hold true after controlling various demographic and socio-economic variables. beyond these claims, you started to hear other evidence in the 1970's and 90's the religious faith is empirical the associated with good things such as better physical health, mental health and longevity. social scientists who have no personal interest in vindicating religion and in fact themselves are usually secular has been building a rigorous literature on these issues and it turns out

most of the claims are true, and that includes a wide variety of benefits for the socialization of children. so i suggest whatever your personal religious beliefs may be, full disclosure, an agnostic who occasionally attends meetings with my wife, you are on a week evident jiri grout if you think that the health of the american project is not affected by secularization, the main story line here is that the secularization has occurred across all social classes. the hard core definition that's represented by people who forthrightly say that they have no religion, the number for all white americans ages 30 to 49 went from 4% in 1972, the first year the general social survey past the question to 21% in 2010. a very big increase. the changes have been larger in the working-class than the upper

middle class but an even greater cost difference has to do with what i will call the defective secularization. defacto secularism is when you told the interviewer you have a religion but they don't go to the worship service more than once a year. if you combine hard-core secularism and a factor secularism, the upper middle class went from 26% in 1972 to 42% in 2010. good size increase. the parallel numbers for the working class, 35% to 61%. or to put it another way, a substantial majority of the upper-middle-class retains some meaningful form of religious involvement whereas just as substantial a majority of the working class does not. it's another case of data not matching the popular impressions.

the idea we have a specially those of us in the audience here in washington, d.c. is that it's among the intellectual elites, the upper middle class the secularism has taken hold. that's true for intellectual elites in washington, d.c. and new york city and san francisco and overt educated people like us. it isn't true of the upper middle class and alana and chicago and des moines in the same way. furthermore, it's not true that fundamentalism has been growing in a working-class as a percentage of all the members of the working-class. among those who still professor of religion that's been growing but at the same time, what nobody seems to have noticed is that told religious involvement in the working-class has plummeted like a rock. i've been talking about the decay in the founding virtues of the working class, but i began to lecture by saying that there is an emerging new lower class. that's not the same thing. it's a subset of the working

class. what do i have in mind? in many cases, i have in mind pleasant personally objectionable people. so don't think initially about math addicts. the better way to think about people in the lower middle class is in your own extended family and the extended family of your friends. someone or a couple of someone's in that circle probably is someone who is quite pleasant, you enjoy their company that they've never been quite able to get their act together. that's mostly what the new class and false. they are not much of the problem individually. if an adult man lives with a hard-pressed sister and her family, because he somehow can't manage to hold on to a steady job, that does put a lot of stress on the sister's family. that's manageable for the community. if a whole lot of males in the

community are living off of relatives or girlfriends, that puts lots of stress on the community. a man who fathers a child without meaning to and then doesn't marry the mother may be a nice guy that sorry that happened and maybe he tries to do what he can to keep contact with the child, but that doesn't change the nature of the situation the child faces, and if you have a whole bunch of such children doesn't make any difference they're all nice guys. you will still have the same problems with the socialization of the next generation for reasons beyond the capacity of individual fathers to control. people who don't go to church can be just as morally upright as those who do. no doubt about that. but they do not generate the social capital the churchgoing population generates. it's not their fault that social capital deteriorates, but that doesn't make the deterioration any less real. the empirical relationships that

exist among marriage and industriousness, honesty, religionocity and production of a self-governing citizenry means that the damage is done even though no one intends to. how big is the the new lower class? there's no sharp edges for assessing who belongs and who doesn't. it's possible to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem by considering three sets of people who create difficulties for the free society. the first of the set is men who can't make even a minimal living. the second single women raising minor children and feared is what i will call social isolates, fully grown adults but have no children, no engagement with a church, no engagement with any local the activities. such people are still rare in the upper middle class and they are very common in the working class. altogether, using algorithms i will not try to describe tonight, i put the proportion of the problem adding populations

the working class of about 35% before the recession compared to about 10% in 1960. whereas in the upper middle class the problematic populations have been steady at 5%. there's that divergence again that's different in kind from anything the nation has ever seen. how do these numbers translate into real life and real communities? well, they translate into an unraveling of daily life and a small blaze and large. good to any working-class community and you will find a variety of people who are making life difficult for their fellow citizens. it's not just they are nice guys who can't seem to hold a job there are also growing numbers of men who have no intention of working if they can help it and convince their girlfriends not only to support them but sometimes bankrupt them. alongside the nice guys who inadvertently father children,

are others to abandon their girlfriends as soon as they learn that a pregnancy has occurred and are never seen again. alongside the single mothers who are trying hard to be good parents, our mothers who use their three-year-old to babysit the infant while they go out for the night, plus the, not right cases of physical and emotional abuse of children. by the current live-in boyfriend of a single woman. churches that used to the centers for community activity have closed. local schools find that they can't count on the same kind of parent involvement that the use to take for granted. problems that used to be solved by the neighborhood was not calling the authorities are now transferred immediately to the social service bureaucracies. it's not a crisis. it is as i said at the outset the unraveling of america's civic culture focused on the bottom third of white america. and almost all of the trend

lines going the wrong direction and the working class are continuing to go down. so what ever is that now about the situation is getting worse. and there is another thing to keep in mind. that 50% of the population in the middle i haven't talked about, the trend lines are going the wrong way as well. they aren't going the wrong way as fast as the working class, but things are getting worse. okay, well that is enough bad news for a while. here's the good news. the good news is the upper middle class seems to be doing pretty well. but the bad news is we are also developing within the upper-middle-class a new upper class. now at this point, we are talking about another half a dozen chapters of the book, so i'm not going to try to give you more than the quickest sketch. here is the essence. back in 1994, richard jay hernstein and i argue in the book "the bell curve" that the nation was in the midst of a fundamental change and the nature of its eletes.

three trends had gathered force after world war ii and were in full cry as we wrote. the increase in market value, the college system that got almost all of the town and then did a really good job of sorting the smartest ones into a handful of elite colleges. and finally, the increasing degree to which the most able very the most able and pass on not only their financial success to their children but their ability as well. we also saw an increasing isolation of the eletes from the rest of the country as they develop a distinctive culture of their own. in the new book, i take a look at the situation 16 years later. i'm able to add a lot of new evidence about all of the trends and add some new evidence about the trend as well. after all the abuse "the bell curve" took mostly for completely irrelevant reasons i try hard to avoid saying we

chose you so. i don't think i am entirely successful in that. many of you in this room, me among them by the way, recapitulate what happened to the nation as a call regarding the upper class in our own lives and maybe that's the best way to talk about is i'm not going to give you a lot of data right now. the older you are in this room, the more likely it is statistically that your parents didn't have college educations, and the more likely you grew up in working class or lower middle class home yourself. you, on the other hand, those who did grow up in such situations probably did get a college attrition, since you find yourself in this room tonight, and probably to your spouse is almost all of you have education and your children have educations. the younger you are in this room, the more likely it is that your parents were in the upper middle class, were college-educated and that you've spent your entire life living in an upper middle class

environment. because we are in this room in washington, d.c., we also recapitulate what happened to the nation in terms of residential segregation. most of you live on cattle hell capitol hill or northern virginia the adjoining suburbs or montgomery county. some of you in this room probably live in exclusive neighborhoods such as georgetown or mclean, but a lot of you are probably in neighborhoods like kensington maryland. north of chevy chase, some of the weekend. where i lived for several years back in the 1970's. ander of washington, d.c. it is seen as a pretty run-of-the-mill suburban neighborhood. let's just see how ordinary it isn't. take for every set code in the united states the median income as of the 1960's -- sorry, the

2000 census and the percentage of adults aged 25 years or older with college degrees and a free zip code in the country as of the 2000 census. then, goes into a single index and rank order all this approach in the united states from top to bottom and create a percentile score for each zip code is just like the percentile scores on academic tests. if you're of the 80th percentile on the s.a.t., that means only 20 people out of every 100 got a higher score than you did among people who took the test. if you are in a zip code that's at the 80th percentile what that means is a fall of the americans in the united states only 20 of them live in a zip code with a combination of education and income as high as your zip codes. let's take a sip code 2007. that's georgetown. it's percentile score is 99.6. [laughter]

out of all the zip codes and northwest washington west of the park and the two tiers of the zip codes of the border of d.c. in montgomery county, it is correct that kensington has the lowest. 96.7. all the others are the 99 percentile. in washington looks like there's a world of difference between georgetown and kensington compared to the rest of the nation on the top of the pyramid. that wouldn't be so bad by the way those in virginia i shouldn't leave you out all the way from great falls and through arlington all the zip codes, 99th percentile. this wouldn't be so bad if the people who came from washington group and pleases most americans still live. cities like buffalo or peoria or waco or trenton or small towns

or rural areas because that is where most americans still live, but once again the older you are, living in this room -- being in this room, the older you are the less likely it is you grew up in a place like that. i'm sorry i've got in that sentence completely wrong. the older you are, the more likely it is that you grew up in a place like that. and that you bring with you to your mature success memories of life in those parts of the country. the younger you are, the more likely that you grew up not only in an upper-middle-class suburb but one that is a suburb of new york, chicago, st. louis, dallas, seattle or one of the nation's other cities and you've never had an experience with any other kind of america except maybe for four years when you lift attached to but not of a

small town that housed williams college or middlebury or some other elite school he attended. speaking of elite schools, that's another consideration that comes into play when we talk about the isolation of the middle class. great many of them who hold elite positions haven't only been in the upper middle class bubble, but in the elite college level as well. one of the chapters about the upper middle class tracks the residencies of the 14,000 graduates of harvard, yale and princeton. i've assembled the zip codes where they lived when they were in their forties or early fifties. the highest density of graduates of those three institutions is in the zip codes west of cambridge massachusetts. the second highest density concentration such people is in princeton new jersey. the third highest is and is a code of northwst