many americans anxious, under nerd, deeply worried. they believe the governing class has let them down hence they were willing to gamble a presidency on a world wrestling entertainment hall of famer with no experience and we are living with the consequences. a few other things is that politics has become an arena for conflict rather than a place for problem solving. jonathan hite and dan abrams, two professors cite several destructive long-term trends that could explain why our national policies broken and to mention a few, a political scientist referred to the isle-- ideological sorting of the parties to peer presence over the over the years and politicians have polarized

americans and not just ideologically, but in terms of personality and lifestyle. that urban renewal divide has grown into a bowl which reflects to urgent interest in values. fourth, immigration is rising and has led to write-- ethnic division with cultural changes in congress make it harder to maintain cross party friendships and immediate environment has changed so it's easier for parsons to confirm there were suspicion and put pressure on politician to play to the extremes and to complicate that i think politics has entered what could be called a post truth period and donald trump is not only a person that was to attack the truth. he wants to annihilate it and there's been a debate on university campuses for years postmodernism versus constructionism.

we have never seen this in the political arena like we see now and there's a huge cost to that and it's disorienting. we seed in the of acute political tribalism, is my team right or wrong and the denigration of key democratic virtues. the spread of dehumanization within politics is a product in part of social media and and and into people have. on the right there's been an extraordinary devaluation of ideas that's occurred over my lifetime, which i'm happy to go into during q&a and on the left i think there is been a sense of national identity. people are defined largely by race and ethnicity and gender, so you get the sense we are headed towards a collision of sorts that the frame may give

away fracturing disagreements to contempt and anger to rage and it doesn't seem at this moment that there are a lot of breaks to be applied, so there's a downward cycle in the bonds of affection have been frayed and severed. when we do about it? i will throw these out and we can pick them up during discussion. first, keep perspective, don't romanticize the past. this is a country that's been through difficult times before. we had the civil war, jefferson and adams in the 1800s which made some of the elections we have had to look like a walk in the park. the second thing is we will get better and we have to find way to attain what i would call inclusive prosperity, that is prosperity that will drain some anger and frustration and fear people have and that requires

greater social mobility and inclusion. i think we need people in politics to make a case for politics, which they don't do anymore, what it is coming when it's not why it's essential. leaders need to argue for dignity and decency and necessity of politics and it's interesting how donald is speaking about his history which tracks in part with mine and how i felt about politics and to argue what it is, which is give-and-take and debating compromise. it's necessary and appropriate and there's also the limits of politics that has to be told-- talked about. politics has become a replacement for community and meaning and a sense of belonging for a lot of people explaining in part the tribalism we see. i think we have to recover the deep purposes of dialogue and debate and it's not to win, but move closer to the truth and reality of things.

i think we have to listen well to each other, listen not just to hear-- not to respond but to read here and spend time with people you actually disagree with and here where they are coming from and understand their perspective. we need people with authority within a political tribe to challenge their own try. doesn't help help troubled liberal president challenge conservatives or a conservative president challenge conservatives. the last thing i would say is we should not despair. people are not happy with the situation wherein. that is a good thing for viruses sometimes create their own antibodies. you saw that after watergate may think that can happen again. you have to find people willing to fight for the nobility of politics and what politics is about, which is justice.

this is not out of our reach. these are problems we have created and it can be solved that i want to end with a quotes , not from john kennedy, but his brother bobby kennedy. speech he gave in south africa in 1966 and in the course of that speech he said few will have the greatest than history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events and in the total of those acts will be written history of this generation. each time a manned-- man stands up for an idea he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls. remember, he gave that speech in south africa in 1966, site think each of us has to try and our own way to send forth on a daily basis tiny ripples of hope. thank you. [applause].

>> professor of law here in former national director of the sunlight foundation, former candidate for governor of new york and if you would. >> think you. thank you all for coming. thank you to my coparent with. if you are here tonight, probably like me you have this profound love for this country and i can tell you-- i'm recently 46, halfway through my life's journey and so much of it has been a real passionate love affair with what america can be. so, i think the questions we're asking tonight are essential.

imai langston hughes patriot. langston hughes in 1935, so think about this. this is a black man in 1935 talking about america says let america be america again. let it be that dream the dreamers dream. america wouldn't never america to me. and then he goes on with a beautiful home and says let it be that great, strong land of love where never kings connived that any man be crushed by one above. america was never america to me. sometimes that poem is it taught to talk about just how terrible american history is, but if you read to the end of the paloma, what he says is we the people of

the rod and ruin of our hate and lives, we the people must reclaim the rivers and endless flame and make america america again and the reason i think shoes-- i may hughes patriot is he tells us a way to think about our country and our past and our future, both to be non- sentimental about what we have been. as peter was saying, there have been plenty of bad times in america. this is not the worst. i do not think-- i hope many of us were not choose to live in 1850 america over right now. i hope many of us would not choose to live in jim crow america, so we have been in tough times before so don't be sentimental and at the same time it's important not to throw out the best part of our aspirations , so hughes' been calling on aspiration of love and freedom in these dual goals

of love and love of the public good and the goal of not being crushed by one above, immoral freedom and read it-- really meaningful goals that are worth returning to this moment, so i was privileged to run for congress in the last election, not privileged to win. iran in the hudson valley in a district that voted for barack obama by about six percentage points and four donald trump by almost nine percentage points. i can tell you to peter's point of the need for defenders of politics that even when you lose there is nothing as joyous and strange and weird and human as running for office and politics and i really feel honored by that experience.

i realize i didn't set my time at the beginning, so you will have to wave your hands when i'm at about seven minutes. i saw unbelievable amount of loneliness. loneliness, both in the older people that i met who had often times relatively little human contact. you my kind of expect that, but also incredible amounts of loneliness and young people. people who did not have anyone who they could ask to cosign a loan, people who did not have anyone who they could talk to if they were having trouble in their marriage. people who do not feel like they had a community to fall back on in tough times and i think loneliness is incredibly important part of understanding where we are in this particular moment in the long without i also saw an enormous amount of

powerlessness. powerlessness and loneliness are connected, but not the same thing. there is sort of-- freedom is another word to nothing left to lose attitude, but you can feel constrained and trapped, crushed. i was in a district with reasonable unemployment rate, four, 5%. you could always do better, but jobs where jobs were people felt stuck in precarious. they often had more than one job and didn't have benefits and even in those cases where they did have benefits, they had no sense of dignity or assurance they would stay in those jobs. that loneliness and powerlessness exhibits itself in the downtown of some areas of the hudson valley and i would say the crash. i don't want to speak for the whole country, but i think this is what you see. one question i asked when i came to a town is is there anywhere

downtown to buy socks and underwear and in so many places there were no more places to buy socks and underwear, no more local drugstores and the places of community and coming together, the small businesses, which i think the left sometime ignores which are really essential as a building block in our collective society had been dragged out, so would we do about this because i'm at two minutes. >> six. >> two minutes for a solution. i think often we turn to civic society to solve our civic woes. 1950s 20% of all americans were presidents of their voluntary association like the elks or ignites.

it's also important we look at commercial society and the loneliness is created by the incredible-- loneliness and powerless by the concentration of power in a handful of companies in this country. the other political story of 2016 is not donald trump, it's the year where we had more mergers than we have ever had, the year where we are serving the middle of handing over the keys are culture to facebook, google, amazon which have powered not just in the social media realm, but in the clouds power over small businesses of a kind we've never seen before, so i think there are two really key policy focuses, which i would like to focus on. one, a focus on reviving the incredibly important anti- monopoly tradition which was the heart of our politics left and right through the 1970s and returning to a real commitment to decentralize power in the economic sphere and the second

and related is a change in the way we fund elections to have more decentralized power in the political sphere. both of those together are-- by the way, proposed by republican teddy roosevelt 10015-- 110 years ago, but both are ideas that in the langston hughes tradition call upon ideas and tradition that we have in our past and power in isolation the things that come from not. thank you. >>

>> the one thing you shouldn't do is talk about religion and politics, so that's what i'm going to do. in the other thing after hearing that eloquence he i was reminded of the line when everything that should be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. i'm your guy [the several people made the point we shouldn't exaggerate the glories of the past nor minimize the challenges of the present. great to be in a jesuit school. great to be of this senate.

david is building on that and bringing tremendous assets to it. i now work at a just wait university that-- a jazz which university that sold 200 and 70 people to pay our debts and so there was some problem with our moral sensor at that point. it still isn't still goes on. if you are described the moral center, there would be two ways for me. last sunday's gospel was whoever you do to the least of these you doing to me. i won't ask for a sign of how many were there. we pledge liberty and justice for all. i would suggest that our politics and frankly the intersection between religion and politics is not getting us there. this is around the first

anniversary of president trump's election, this anniversary of prep-- pope francis election and probably the biggest two things that have happened in the last five years. one builds bridges. the other builds a wall. the other says on the center and the other says i've nothing to be forgiven for and while one demonizes immigrants one raises them up. one says, well, it can be a problem. they represent something important. they were both outsiders and they both challenge the status quo and they represent something that i think both offers problem and promised. what happened at georgetown and dealing with the slavery matter constructively was we had a set of principles and in our case

catholic social teaching and jesuit values and if we want to pass forward i think we will have to be clear about principles and develop leadership that we don't have work i would suggest that the moral center-- i have to say i'm a product of a mixed marriage. my father-- my mother comes from a republican family my dad from a democratic family, explain the confusion, but i think what is at work in our politics but two complementary kinds of accessibility. some on the right is economic individuals and libertarianism that makes the market the measure of everything that says we are in this honor roll, good luck and now, we have added a dose of nationalism and racial resentment to that in a special way. on the left it's kind of a

lifestyle individualism, which makes personal autonomy, choice in some situations consent the measure of everything, neither of those leave much room for the common good or care for the poor in the vulnerable or dealing with the injustice of racism or economic racial disparity. and we are really on our own. that kind of individualism when you added to the polarization in the ideological isolation that peter talked about leads to a kind of tribalism that is based on resentment and feeds our anger and makes it very hard to pursue the common good and i think that tribalism is best reflected right now in the alabama senate race where apparently christians have put a

person who is credibly accused of being involved with young women-- young girls-- i'm a father girls-- [inaudible] cardinal george of chicago once said democrats have lost their soul and i never believed republicans had a soft pope francis says we shouldn't be judgmental. i have a different version. i think republicans have lost their mind. [laughter] and of their hearts. in many ways trump is the epitome of this individualism. it's all about him. he's the biggest, the best, the only and anything that gets in his way whether it be the media or institutions or other republicans or or other parties,

people in the white house, he will destroy that he has to. truth is what you make it. there are no boundaries, no standards and incidentally everyone he touches is diminished. i worked for many years, peter was apollo this with paul ryan. has anyone suffered more for an association? think of the general how he's been diminished. and the democratic party i think that lost their wave, their voice and large capacity to compete in large parts of the country. donald trump is right about one thing. this election was lost, it was not one and democrats are doing what parties always do, they first blame the candidate and there's a lot to work with their and then, they blame the campaign, maybe it would amend

good to go to wisconsin. then, they blame the voters and i think that's the most destructive. the district talked about that voted for obama twice and trump now, obama wants. there are 206 counties in america that voted for obama twice and then tromped, so i know racism is alive in america, but i don't think it's the only thing to explain this election. i think republicans have gone in a direction that their rhetoric, peter was one of the reformers and i talked about the lifting of the poor. right now they seem to be responding to the rich. democrats have written off explicitly white working-class voters.

there's no outreach to voters of the faith, no evangelical catholic outreach in the last election. ask yourself who has more clout in the democratic party, planned parenthood or the labor movement we have gone from safely to bear on abortion to no restrictions, no reservations or discussion. whether you are running for mayor of omaha or for senator in alabama. for me, an alternative is the leadership we got from pope francis and it's important to say what a surprise that was. if you read book that says here's my story about the catholic church-- i need to wrap up here, but i will take my story and then word about pope francis. the pope's going to resign and an old jesuit from argentine is going to get elected. you won't move into the palace

and he will send holy third-- spend holy thursday washing the feet of women and muslims. what would you think they would tell me to do with my book? [laughter] that's an alternative form of leadership looking at the world from the bottom up and outside in. it's not only his word, it's his ways that make a difference. the opposition to francis is strong, powerful and narrow, but we need to find a way to deliver his message. bit-- two days after he talked to the congress i was privileged to be in the hall and i met with senators and said how come you don't talk about the board it all and they said well we sort of do and then finally someone says we don't think it's right. it will hurt our poll numbers i said you are in the teens on a good day. [laughter] and pope francis is at 80% on a bad day. [laughter]

why don't you try it. i think we ought to try it. the path to the moral center. [applause]. >> thank you to each of the panelists for a really stimulating set of opening presentations. i want to focus initially on a question posed in the program for tonight. can our institutions and values save us from this crisis and in particular i would like to focus on two of the institutions, press, which suzanne focused on initially, but also our two parties-- well, i won't dilate.

is it too late for the republican party? is it too late for the democratic party? anyone want to address those? >> sure. i will address them. on the press i went to elaborate a little bit of what i was talking about earlier suzanne suggested this, but i want to be explicit. right now i think 98 to make 99% of all the new digital ad revenue that is coming in because of the work of newspapers like the "new york times" or your local newspaper, all of that money is going to facebook and google. it's like the troll under the bridge taking the tax and taking the value that is created

through our press organization. i don't have a clear answer to that, but that's a serious problem. that's what economists who i disagree on all kinds of thing called rent seem keen, just taking away the cash from a central public feature and one of the things i things really important to emphasize is using the full anti- monopoly laws we have traditionally revising of saying when companies basically become so large they are governing as in all of these ways and really hurting our access to press and by the way they are not neutral-- they are not neutrally delivering news, but it in a using algorithm that shape and reward the most base kind of behavior. totally separate from the russian news question, totally separate so i think we are taking on these intermediaries that are secular the power of our news organizations and

that's essential part of a supporting central news organizations in terms of the party i can tell you more about the democratic party than the republican party. absolutely the democratic party has a strong fighting chance. i believe in institutions and part of the reasons i'm so worried about loneliness is i think there is a rise in the believe our political actions are expressive as opposed to people coming together in solving things. the democratic party since the 1980s has sold a lot of its sole down the river to the middle minute used to fight against, so fdr once stood up against the princes of wall street who were thieving from people standing up against the middleman for the small business owner, for the labor and starting in the early '90s the democratic party made a conscious choice to try to basically sell itself out to large donors i don't think the

democratic party can win with them and i think it can win without them and it scared about losing the money, but it hasn't been working the last few years while taking the money and no longer taking on the power because what voters are looking for brightly looking for, not wrongly looking for, but rightly looking for is someone who will generally listen and fight for them against the people stealing their paycheck in their power so i think it's an excess-- essential moment for the democratic party, but has to make the right choices. >> thank you. that was compelling. i will say couple things about. let me just start with the broad point about institutions. 10 the important features of this era in modern life is almost across the board collapse

of institutions and those are institutions of every kind from the press and political parties to churches, to large corporations to many others and if you check the gallup poll numbers on that you will see over the course of 20, 30, 40 years that has happened. i think it's happen for a couple reasons and i think it's serious. i think some has happened because these institutions in a lot of cases have failed, but i also think there's been a lost of authority with expressive individualism and people decided to go about life themselves and they don't put their time and energy or commitment behind institutions. of the two that you mentioned on in terms of which institutions will save us the press and the political party, those are the two among the least trusted in american life today.

they have a role to play for sure and i think in the trump euro that are institutions by and large have done well, actually. are judiciary i think the press is finding its footing and i think the kind of attack on our institutions that i worry might happen with donald trump so far has not been realized in my concerns are different, but i think they stood up pretty well, but those two institutions won't save us. they will if they do their job well i think act as a check on the worst impulses of the president, but if the opposition years we have a moral crisis than the answer will be in the moral formation of individual human lives and that's ultimately what we have to focus in on and deborah mentioned a

couple times about loneliness and i think that's quite right. there's a former surgeon general that did a tour of the country because he was curious about finding out what explains distemper in the land and is finding was that there's an epidemic of loneliness and i do think that one institution which could do a lot more than it is is the church itself. i should say i'm an evangelical christian is probably the most painful thing with a lot of paid in this political season is to have seen what has happened with a lot of prominent public evangelicals in their support for donald trump, which i think is inexplicable and discrediting to the faith. i also think that the church has an enormous opportunity because i think if you look across the landscape which you see is a fragmentation in isolation in american life and you do seed among the elderly and the young it is striking to see the

statistics about suicide rates and loneliness and young people are crying out for community and wholeness and that is what the church is trying to provide any and i think for a lot of people they look at it through the prism of the culture war and through the prism of a sort of morality which often manifests itself in sexual morality to the point of being obsessed, so i don't think we will get saved by any single institution, but i would put the church at a higher gear, not talk about salvation, just the repair of human lives and dignity. churches and individuals, people of faith are doing a tremendous amount. i don't want to be unfair and use a broad brush my take my son to soccer my wife and daughter

go to a homeless shelter, so there's a lot that's been done quietly that makes a difference, but i don't think nearly enough is. one more point on the republican party and can they come back, i mean, political parties can always come back. the question is if they will learn not. i think both political parties are exhaustive and i think that was manifested in this last election and i think the two candidates they nominated exemplify that. the republican party is i think in a terrible place right now and i think it's being corrupted every day because it's made a deal with a figurative devil in donald trump and you can just see it, standard after standard after standard being worn down, goalpost after goalpost after goalpost moved and the solution to that is if they lose unfortunately and that may well happen. >> suzanne and then john.

>> i think these discussions are always interesting. i would disagree with peter and say i don't think our institutions are faring as well as we might hope. my feeling is the idea we should trust in our institutions is inherently dangerous because we need to push those institutions and trusting in them is probably past 30 and what i see is, yes, we have had good decisions, but we also have judges who are unqualified who are extreme in their views being confirmed at an alarming rates because of the end of the filibuster so i think it's a complex shape and ideology of our judiciary is being transformed in my view for

the worst. institutions like the state department where i work is being hollowed out with a mass exodus of senior foreign service officers and career officials who observed both parties with loyalty and professionalism. we have a secretary of state who was called for a 30% budget cut to the state department in our diplomacy with no rationale or explanation with how we will confront conflicts. there's the epa, goodbye consumer financial protection bureau in oh, i think the church , incredibly the church i think has eroded in norma's leo last year because of the political positions they have taken and i think yes in the research-- churches and religious institutions should be eight corrective to loneliness, but we can't wish away the things that push so many young people away from those institutions. we have to address that. we can't turn back the clock. we have to look at what people are searching for now.

i think there can be solutions in our culture and community that we need to look to, but we have to address the populations we face and not look back to it earlier in a dewy eyed way to an earlier time where people she knew toward kinds of institutions for reasons and rationale that aren't necessarily compelling today. >> no more dewy eyed looking. >> if you would. >> people have every right to be skeptical of their institutions. i worked for 25 years for the catholic bishops at a time when they were facilitating a horrible scandal and in the last week p weeks roger ailes, bill o'reilly and to morning talkshow host, two people from npr and for god sakes can be fired for their behavior towards women, so

let me give you an example i think of the failure of our institutions and i will be quick. a good part of my life i worked on the child tax credit. the child tax credit in the senate bill will be increased to $2000. it will not help people who make less than 30,000 dollars because of the way it's constructed. they will get $75 or less. it now goes up to $500,000 in income so someone who makes 500 will give forth in-- $4000 and help. the republicans designed this, senator rubio and senator lee had tried to fix it by saying let's take 2% of the 18% reduction in corporate income taxes to pay for this and the president of the post said today guess what, you can watch cnn, msnbc, anything but the "new york times" and "washington post" on pages six to find any description of how the child tax

credit has been designed to not help the poor and to help wealthy people like me, so i think there is reason to be skeptical of our institutions. >> in your initial remarks, you talked about loneliness and assign the reason, commercialization. clarify if you will. >> so, there's loneliness and one of the causes-- not the only cause. there are many causes, but one of the causes is the radical concentration of our economy in a handful of hands. so, that does not mean one of

the causes is the existence of an open market. in fact, it's a total distortion of the markets. the reason i quoted that extra part of hughes is hughes is talking about tyrants, kings and also private tyrants. there is a long tradition in american history that understands the importance in danger that comes from highly concentrated power, but these he is way to explain this i will give you a story. there is a store in millerton, new york. anyone know millerton? wow what. do you know saperstein? have you ever bought pants there shirt? good. saperstein's is a department store in a mall downtown, itself a miracle. saperstein fills pants, shoes, socks in millerton. two years ago ray saperstein got a note from oshkosh that they would no longer sell to saperstein in bulk less than

200. now, he's a small town and will not sell more than 200 oshkosh a year. the question is why, because oshkosh, we think, was told by walmart don't sell in smaller boat because then we cut out the small towns. same thing happens all the time with small pharmacies. you think they are just competing and losing, no, it's unfair competition. big pharma saying we won't even sell you what you need to survive so we can support the companies we are related to. the impact is it guts our downtown. we don't have the small business downtown that has been the heart of so much of america for so long. this is again loneliness is a lot of sources, but commercial life as well as civic life has always been a way in which we come together, checking on someone's health, check in on suzy who has not been seen for

two weeks and one of the essential way so i think we have forgotten the importance of antitrust, not just to take on these big guys who are stealing our tax dollars, but also to support a thriving small business community, which is the heart of our social community. does that make more sense? >> sure suzanne, i've been concerned personally with the state of the news media and frankly the frankly-- news literacy in the country for some time. talk more if you would about what can be done to allow the ordinary american to find their way through the thickets of my asthma, of true, false, some made up.

>> on budget last because i do think when you look at the possible solutions to the problem of fake news there are some that risk with the risk of being more dangerous to empower either government or the social media platforms that are-- already have such overwhelming control over over the ideas that reach us and the channels with which we communicate to ask them to call upon them to censor and constrict and arbitrate what is true and false is risky. i do think it lies is in an informed come powered news. writes a responsibility for the news consumer and we censored in on how quick inform and equip empower the news consumer to become judges and make a thoughtful decision about what to pay attention to, what to forward, what to share online in their our terrific news literacy curricula that have been developed and when i was growing up if i read a magazine, a book,

something that needs to be called an encyclopedia it had gone through layers and editors and publishers in fact checkers and not that it wasn't bias or necessarily authoritative or free of error, but there was credibility before it was even-- before we even reach me and it's not true. people are swimming in a vast ocean of data and information from unknown sources and we are drowning in it. this curricula teaches you what kind of proper sourcing methods do credible you-- news organizations utilize, how our corrections handled and what training does a journalists undergo when investigation is published into someone like roy moore and his misdeeds. what is behind that and what happens before the "washington

post" puts that on their website and in their pages, so educating children and adults about all of that. no one wants to be fooled. people want-- don't have the wool pulled over their eyes, but i think it would require almost a revolution. a couple states passed news to mandate news literacy. this has to be part of the core curriculum in teaching kids to read and do basic math and maybe understand this as well. >> thank you. [applause]. >> david, you have some audience questions there. >> while you are looking at those can i ask the rest of the panel he question? >> assure. >> i don't know the answer to this, but we now have developed a practice where very wealthy people on the right and left are

sort of setting the agenda, so i'm not just talking about the usual and bad guys bill and melinda gates, hobby lobby, the coat brothers, they are not investing simply in campaigns, they are investing in universities, time magazine. they are investing in a lot of our major institutions and used to set our priorities in a more collegial governmental process. that seems completely dysfunctional. the odds we will have-- congress has not passed a budget in 10 years and meanwhile the very very wealthy on the right and left are deciding what's important and they are creating the agenda and some of them are

offsetting each other, but how healthy is it that these people, some are great people and some i don't agree with, some days i'm happy they are in charge and other days i wonder who the hell left them in charge, but what does it mean to have a private entity at this level buying a business school, buying a piece of time magazine, buying a good part of the left? soros is all over the left. what is it mean to have these people making these decisions? >> does anybody want to? >> it's extremely unhealthy, of the course. as someone said after citizens united, there will be a clash of different billionaires, so at least we will get a clash of ideas. buck, the individuals-- it's extremely unhealthy and recent contest i got in recently was organization i'm involved with said one tiny slightly critical thing about google, who by the way has invested heavily in our

schools and in our politics. i think they are largely seen as left wing. you might think i'm okay with their politics. i'm not okay with any individual or company having that level of power. we said something slightly critical and they fired 10 people from a think tank. for challenging google's capacity, so i think there's a real danger especially right now for those of you and i'm making a guess from where we are, those of you that are slightly on the left to say anyone who stands up to trump we should run into their arms and thank them for standing up against this tyrant, but i think we are in a moment where there's a corporate monopoly with wealthy individuals on one side and trump on the other and both of them threaten to this idea of self-government. i'm not a market myth-- anarchist, not even on a good day and basically that's the model here.

>> other comments? >> you know, i guess i have a slightly different view. yes, i think there are dangers and risks and excesses, but we have always had at least in the subject a very significant role for private business people and institutions of the city have been built up to large extent by private business people and i also think it's a religious panel which is not my normal setting and i think back to that which you cannot change it i do sort of think-- she will change it, but i'm not sure this is something we can entirely change it i do think a lot of these actors you know, lots-- let's take the open society foundation i think they do extraordinary work around the world, a source

of support for civil society organizations trying to hold open the space bar discourse and i think that's extremely important, so i think the role they are playing, you know, yes if we can empower citizens in movements. i think that's essential and i think the press needs to hold them accountable, but you know there are risks in every distribution of power and i don't think it's inherently, you know, i wouldn't lump them all together and draw a conclusion they are all collectively nefarious. >> one sentence. george herbert walker bush great supporter of israel challenged that israeli settlement policy. as long as sheldon abramson is alive no republican is ever going to do that again because

of the financial consequences of that. >> it's different, but i'm on the board of one of the open society foundations. i love the open society foundation in lots of ways and i can still say there's an incredible problem with this concentration of power and shape of philanthropy today and it's always been this way. there's a great book about how it's changed over the last 40 years and become a handful of people with extraordinary political power and she wrote it 15 years ago, so i don't think-- we've never been in a steady state and should never assume it's a steady state of concentrated power. >> i want to move to audience questions. we have a question, somewhat provocative, do the panelists think a clinton win of the presidency would have helped america regain its moral center? if yes, why?

[laughter] >> i will start. i'm happy to. i don't think a clinton win would've helped america regain its moral center. on policy-- i want to say one word actually under half of the people or at least a qualified word on the people who voted for donald trump or at least to ask people to try to take a perspective of theirs and i say that as someone who spent almost the entire campaign criticizing donald trump and getting incoming fodder because of my own political history and my association and really the

political-- i did hear from a lot of people who made the argument if you are liberal this won't way you, but you need to set that aside for a moment, if you are come person-- a person that is pro-life and you think there is something damaging and destructive is going on in the act of an abortion and she felt like she would push an agenda that would undermine what you believe to be the moral good, that was on one side and then you had donald trump on the other and you said look and i have friends who said this. they were bothered by him personally, troubled by him and i said i think his court appointments and other things he's going to do will be better for the good of the country. now, i didn't agree with that argument. i didn't vote for donald trump, but i understood it and there's

a lot of people out there who who had concerns about it. i don't think hillary clinton has been a paradigm of virtue or morality throughout her life, so i don't think she would have done much at all to repair the moral decay. i do think donald trump will probably do more to accelerate the moral decay than she would, however i don't think either one think you would have done a lot to repair. i think donald trump will do

more to undermine it in the last thing i will say is i were to the white house for seven years in study political history and i care about politics, but the president can reference it in a perfect way of advancing justice, but i wonder whether we are investing too much hope in politics and its capacity to revive the moral impulses of the public. a lot of that has to going on other spheres of life and we are feeling their and donald trump won the election because lots of people pulled the lever for him. i think that was a mistake, but it's not as if the american people are doing swimmingly well in their own moral views and we can just blame politics for corrupting.

it's a process. it's a self-governing republic and you basically get the government you want and desire. that's the way it works. i know there are qualifications for that and that's roughly what you get and it seems to me that when you look up and see the problems with politics today you can't have-- you have to take into account the people themselves have simplicity and cream that and it won't be politicians to repair it. >> we have made the assumption that it does. someone wants to know. >> i briefly replied to the prior question to peter? i don't even know if you disagree with me, but i want to make what i think is a distinction. donald trump has been a disaster and brought out the worst in a lot of people and brought out even in our moments of panic and

defense. it's not good. , but small politics where you're fighting about whether to have a windmill or solar panel in town to be quite vicious, but i think local politics is a lot greater opportunity for bringing us together and forcing us to confront each other is real humans and also the focus, the top-heavy focus on the presidency as if the presidency is politics or even as if what's happening in congress is politics as opposed with happening locally. it's a problem for budget reasons and what is that if you become lazy after the walking down thinking that democracy could kind of work with people

just being hedonists in their private life and a camera. it does take a lot of work and that's where aristotle helped you out. there is no, i think, better training or commenting thoughtfully on national politics and getting involved in local politics. local politics has all of these functions and ain't beanbag either, it's not like you will end up loving your neighbor. you made your neighbor more for a while, but it will at least force you to see how hard and important it is instead of lazily getting angry and others who are doing a bad job. >> quick comment. my friends know i'm not reluctant to criticize the democratic party, but if hillary clinton were elected president we would have a very different healthcare debate, a much better one. we would have a completely different tax bill and we would have a very different budget and

we would not have congressional hearings about what can be done to stop the president from going nuclear without having someone else been involved. i actually, i share the pro-life cause and think the shift among the clintons and others to satisfy the extremes on this debate has been extremely unfortunate, substantively, morally and politically, but there would have been away to lock paul rhein and hillary clinton in a room and come up with a proposal to do something about poverty in this country that could've been an example of bipartisan cooperation and we have not only lost that opportunity, we have blown it up it's going in the wrong direction to know.

>> really, the center of gravity in our country's shifting in the direction of inclusion and the appreciation of difference. i think we also see a generational shifting gravity. one of the things on the most hopeful about his young people and how they see some issues that polarize and divide us. they have a broader perspective and more accepting of difference and more consciousness about how to relate to other people from very different kinds of backgrounds and what language you use. they need to vote in higher numbers, i mean, i agree with that. i think zephyr is right about

politics and what mobilizes people's local. they have to touch it, see it, relate to an understand why it matters in their daily lives and we have too awake in that spirit among young people and give it a sense of urgency. some of the new democratic movement that has arisen in this country since the election is exciting. it's a movement of young people. it's dispersed and happening in communities across the country. it's politically oriented. it's digital and i think that's exciting and there's a lot of potential there. there is a moral center of gravity and can move in a positive direction. >> this is somewhat related to the question about if hillary had one and it's a personal thing with me. has the republican party become the reserve of people who don't

accept the fundamental american proposition that all men are created equal? has that become the case. >> i'm sorry. it strikes me that the republican party has become the captive of people who do not accept fundamental american proposition that all men are created equal-- all people. i just want to know how panelists react to that. >> lets me go ahead as a republican here. in part i'm conflicted because i have spent so much of my time over the last two years criticizing the republican party , but i'm going to rise in defense there.

let me begin by saying something, which is i actually think that critique is part of what the problem of our politics is. it's a complicated question the idea of the republican party or the millions and millions of people in this country who are republicans have given up on the central proposition of this country, which is that you quality of all people come i just don't think it's fair and i think part of it is when people -- whether you are liberal or conservative you come at this in a different way and you assume not simply a difference of policy, but it's a difference of morality and one of the things we have seen happen in american politics is that the idea that something is wrong, but the people that disagree with you are wicked or morally defective. there are people out there i know it's maybe a memo to the people that a republican and

their good and decent people. they are conservative and have come a different point of view. a lot of them voted for donald trump and i think that was terrible. not a majority, by the way in the primary. he was elected by the american people itself and there were real grievance ease-- grievances these people had and there were people with a conservative point of view that felt like hillary clinton would advance policies that are wrong. i understand people disagree with it. it's not out of maliciousness and so the idea that republicans have given up on the proposition that all people are created equal i don't think is fair and the difficulty in politics is when you try to take these principles and get into particular policy debates about it and i will give you an example of one that for a lot of years and during the 1990s

republicans were championing welfare reform. liberals never press were against it and there were people saying if you were advancing the welfare reform that republicans wanted it would lead to white skillet humanity needs and millions and millions of people would be left on the street in the cold and it would be like a dickens novel and that they were cruel and didn't care about the poor. actually, some of us argued for welfare reform and the evidence we can go into was that welfare reform and did a tremendous amount of good, not just in getting people off the rolls, but the people that were actually on welfare and for the poor themselves and bill clinton eventually signed that, but that was an honest disagreement about the practical ramifications of policy. didn't mean people who were in favor of welfare reform were coldhearted and cruel and didn't care about people. did mean the people who were

against it were idiots or didn't believe in individual responsibility. public-policy is difficult. on this kind of these things with different history and one of the things we are missing is the capacity to listen to other people and to hear a point of view and i went to and with one story, which may bear on this because i said earlier in my remarks about the importance of debate and about debate got to prove one side is morally superior, but to try to help us in our understanding of truth. cs lewis in his biography had what he referred to as first track friends and second friends and his first friends, his lifelong friend said that is the person that your alter ego, the person when you start this as they come complete the sentence that may see the world the same way you do.

lewis described shoulder to shoulder and we all need that. we long for it have to have it and we find it. there was also the second friend and lewis said a second friend is the person that reads the same books that you do and draws the wrong conclusions from them. [laughter] he talked about going and said he and i would go hammer and claw late into the night debating these issues, but here's the punchline, which is that lewis and barfield both treasured each other because of their differences, because of the deep differences and they felt like in the dialogue, in that debate they were able to see the truth of things better together than they did individually which goes to a deep, i think, conservative and christian notion which is the sense that no matter how right we might be on any particular issue none of us have a hopeful apprehension of the truth and we

need other people to help us to seek it and we need other people who had different points of view than as an we actually have to not just hear them to respond to them, that we have to listen to their experience. >> thank you, peter. [applause]. >> briefly, think we are not all talking about the same thing when we talk about equality and i think that's one of the reasons why this debate becomes -- i think there are-- it sort of a different conception of what he called a means within those in the republican party who would say i am a proponent of a quality. may be in a formal sense that for example opposing affirmative action because in some mind that they form of unequal treatment or preferential treatment that's unjustified, so to treat everyone absolutely equal is without affirmative action where others focus on the quality of

opportunity and results in those are powerful argues for affirmative action. another is how much of a priority in achieving a more equal society and honestly that's where we really see republicans now fall dramatically short, i mean, this tax per-- reform proposal would be devastating in terms of intensifying income inequality and the deprivation in this country and, you know, the nine opportunity and programs that people have that give them, you know, basic standard of living and points have been made about the tax credit. seven healthcare. i think it quality of healthcare grievously is set back if current republican proposals were brought forward and i think the tolerance of racism and advancing racist ideas at the white house and really we become accustomed to, you know we knew

-- i don't know if anyone spoke out today about those videos, but we've seen incidences where it's radio silence and calling that out, so i think you have got to own up to that reality. >> i'm not participating here. >> go for it. >> i have to clarify one thing, i share your view of peter, about not labeling people as hopeless, immoral, etc., but i see a huge difference between the welfare reform debates in the '90s, for example, which is about a sensitive issue and what happened last year with a man who began his rise doing the most cynical possible things and

everything about that campaign screamed dishonesty and lack of belief in the notion that all people are created equal. everything about screamed that. the party allowed itself to be enthralled with this man. something radical changed with republican party. >> yes, on that point my guesses of everyone up here i have probably written that more publicly than anyone so i wouldn't disagree with you on the point about trump and i felt like the republicans who voted for him and the americans who voted for him, it was not as if this was a state secret. people, i think, knew what they

were voting for. that's a very different category than a debate about health care or the tax bill and i can name it-- i don't think it into a debate, but if he went to the american enterprise institute and ethics and public policy center they would make it very different conservative case for a conference of healthcare reform that they would argue and believe in and i know both men with think it's more humane, but on the stuff with trump and the racism and the whole collection i think that it's horrible. i think with republicans that support him i think there is a range within their. some don't support him. most do, the vast majority do and within their there he had some reluctant supporters and some in pdf-- enthusiastic

supporters, but i'm happy to send deeply discouraged by what the party did and by what it's now represented in donald trump and i'm not sure how much longer i'm going to hang around either. if i come to the conclusion that this is not an ugly parenthesis, but the trajectory of things to come, this is the heart and core of the republican party and its represented in donald trump and steve bannon and steve miller, man i'm getting off that train soon. i think it's too early for my position to say that this is done. i feel like it's important for democrats to have a republican party to be responsible party and i hope more people who have a different view of what the party of lincoln should be and what conservativism is will fight for it, but i don't know that those are the people who have my view will prevail. i don't know that by any means at all and there is a way that

trump has of energizing ugliest instinct in the darkest impulses of the people, which is horrifying and it can't be denied and i'm also willing to say, finally, but it was much wider spread than i imagined. i may have been blind to it. i don't know, but if you had asked me five or 10 years ago if this is what the republican party would represent or produce donald trump has its nominee i would have said no it couldn't because that's on the republican party that i know in those aren't republicans i know, but i don't have my head buried in the sand or are produced him. he is president and they are behind him and if it's a travesty. >> can i add a bit crime at yes.

>> historical footnote. i said i come from a bipartisan family. my uncle was a republican leader at the minnesota senate and the author of the civil rights bill in the minnesota in the 60s. we need to political parties committed to equal opportunity. frankly, there used to be a big problem in the democratic party and now there's a big problem in the republican party. i think there is one thing worse than sincerely believing that people are not equal and that is cynically using that belief to gain power. i don't think it's accidental but every time trump is in trouble he tweets about black football players over muslim terrorists or whomever. there's a little bit of stockholm syndrome going on here that once trump took over the republican party and a lot of the people in the republican party are not afraid of trump.

they are paid of trump voters-- afraid of trump voters and that's a paralyzed them. we need a sanity caucus in both parties and the numbers are very small, but it's really important for people who are republicans to stay republicans and to fight for the soul of their party because if we end up with this as a base of the republican party: not only do damage to that party, it will do horrible damage to the country. >> it is doing ongoing damage, i mean, donald trump right now is doing ongoing damage by calling on-- the people in the party i have the least patience for. the people who cynically really cynically will do anything i think basically to serve their donor masters, but to get the tax legislation they want done and therefore not to stand up and be a moral voice against all trump.

in the populace i think it's a lot more complicated and that people carry with them lots and lots of different impulses, some of which are very bigoted and some of which are extraordinary egalitarian and this is where moral leadership is so incredibly important and i'm committed to being generous with people with the public and saying so you have a bigoted impulse wants. we will continue as a country to insist on appealing to your generous impulse and not forever write you off even if that is something i really find a moral and troubling. you are not a immoral and troubling person. leadership is where-- >> probably not helpful to call them deplorable. >> another question from the audience. in order to bring back leads in our government how important is it to teach civics in our schools? [applause]. >> i can jump in on that.

the point about news literacy, you know, the issue that we do a lot of work on an america with free speech on campus and we've done a lot of study with analysis. whether it's safe space or trigger warnings or dis- invitation of speakers or what to do with richard spencer or milo and one of the things we've learned is that we are at risk of raising a generation of young people who are alienated from the protections of the first amendment and the very idea of free speech. one young woman at one of our convenience was a student leader from missouri put it potently and poignantly and she said-- we were having a discussion and we had abrams, and bringing up the person i met she said first amendment wasn't written for me and what she means is twofold. her forebears during the time

the amendments were passed two thirds a person, slaves and also the way she sees the first amendment being invoked on campus is to protect racial slurs and what she considers offensive and marginalizing to her group and so she said she's deeply alienated from it. what's missing is understanding of how the first amendment protections have been at the heart of what made the civil rights movement and every other social movement in this country and around the world possible to protect the right to defend, protest, speak up, speak out, for her to announce the leadership she don't campus and so there is a huge glaring gap there that i think really exposes us as a society as part of the reason we see these principles eroded, so i don't think it's going back to old-fashioned civics from the

1950s, but i think we need to think hard about how to make those principles and values relevant to the rising generation. >> so, i taught civics this summer. i would always talk about how we need more civics in school. think about what it is we're talking about teaching. it's not that easy. sort of like why we just do in schools, so of course we need to teach civics in school, but there something more fundamental. teaching civics is the secondary seen schools as a place where we actually develop citizens is essential and about 25 years ago left and right said schools are for creating workers and we are going to basically justify everything even art in terms of how heard enables you. you to learn art also because it will help you in the design industry. this is the rhetoric we use for public education ring out.

we see civics as an add-on to a worker creation tool as opposed to a citizen creation tool with some nice features that help us give us skills in the workplace. those are two totally different views of education. [applause]. >> i have to add one personal notes. the last six years of my working life i spent teaching journalism at a jesuit university in chicago and pretty good students , but i was astonished at the abysmal level of civic knowledge of journalism students that they brought to their work. they didn't know basic things like how laws get made and the kind of stuff that i thought kids learned in high school. come to find out, just two years

ago the state of illinois reinstated-- i shouldn't say reinstated, and stated a requirement for civics in high school. a lot of states in this country do not require civics education and i always thought that part of the reason for public schools was to teach cynicism-- citizens. don't have that agreement. how our social media sites like facebook not considered broadcasters? broadcasters need licenses to fact check because they serve a public purpose, yet hate speech -- i can't read the last part.

if you could. >> the social media sites went it to a strict and went to be seen as totally neutral platforms that have no editorial control and therefore cannot be sued or held accountable for anything on them. they also want the capacity to use algorithms, which because you use algorithms change the fact to manipulate the source of what we have. it's a really new public policy challenge and they are trying to get the protection of being seen as neutral while themselves not be neutral. my own view to echo what suzanne said is that it's actually quite dangerous-- it's very important to deal with real pathologies in information, but very dangerous to beg these platform monopolist to be our sensors and in fact instead we should go more in the direction sort of in

disagreement with i think with the person who asked the question more in the direction demanding neutrality of these platforms instead of asking them to censor for us. >> did that addresses? what is the impact of citizens united on our moral center, going forward kwame and there's been discussion of citizens united, but if you could. >> quickly, we talked a bit before about the role of philanthropy, but i think the role of money in politics is a separate thing and is one of the forces-- i do think it's significantly to blame for what we are talking about in this

sense of disempowerment and disfranchisement of individuals and that we need campaign finance reform that will put ordinary citizens into more of a central role where they feel a sense of agency that they can participate. we know how empowering that is when you get involved in feel like you have influence. with all those limits blown out with corporate money playing such a predominant role, that withers away and i think it's part of why we see such a sense of resentment, why people felt they were willing to resort to anything to see a change. >> can i add something? this is contradictory. it struck me as someone who buys bias of the question that it's terrible that neither donald trump nor bernie sanders had money problems and that they did not depend on big givers and they had a message.

they had a whole lot of things which helped them make their case, so money is not everything jeb bush had more money and i don't know what he's doing, but he's doing it with a lot of energy, i'm sure. where i think it hurts a lot is in congress. one of the untold stories of this period is the rise of the religious middle as in stories about the problems of the religious right and peter has been a-- has been encourage with others and calling out his evangelical sisters and brothers. there's been story about the rise of the left moral mondays and that in some ways the most surprising thing has been the us conference of catholic bishops, the national association of evangelicals, bread for the world, a host of mainstream christian groups that of

organized something called the circle of protection will work together and work successfully and effectively to help defeat al qaeda bill. there working tonight to try to defeat the tax bill, who have been working for years with remarkable success to protect programs with the poor in the budget, yet i bet there isn't anyone in this room who has read that the mainstream religious community including some of its conservative voices, national association of evangelicals, catholic bishops conference, with the bishop conference has done consistently persistently as they oppose the repeal of the healthcare bill. it would lead to people losing their health care. on immigration, on daca, who's in the front lines with the churches? frankly, it's hard to get in the

congressional offices these days. you used to have the credibility of what you believed in what he did that call him and could get into see a member. it's really hard to get in to see members for two reasons. one, sometimes they don't want to talk to you. .. one thing trump has done is united the religious community in a principled to the poor and vulnerable. but it runs against the power of the entrance janssens in washington. >> i can say somebody who ran last time there's about $18 million spent in my race. this is six years and a congressional race, not the senate race, congressional race,

only six years after citizens united. the majority of that money was raised neither by myself nor by my opponent. and spent neither by myself nor by my opponent that by super pacs, most notably robert mercer, the singer, and a few others who gave over $500,000 each. so the 2016, people focus on on the presidential exit super pacs didn't matter. i think donald trump is in part a result of the cynicism that came out of citizens united. people's radical disconnection had already been happening. but also money in politics matter in normalcy in 2016 and the republican congress members are now running as if the next election will be decided with enormous amounts of outside money. what this does, as we we're ata

catholic event but talking about ourselves as moral agents, is it removes a lot of moral agency from a lot of lace were moral discussions used to take place. and instead you see really congress members as beggars and as not, as moral agents themselves but really serving to a handful of wealthy people. that really degrades our politics in lots of ways as well. >> thank you all. [applause] thank you all for being here, for your wisdom. it's been a delight to listen to you and i look forward to seeing you later on. [applause] >> let me join on and thank you everyone. this is really insightful come

some amazing, wonderful comments and insights, and really i daresay inspiring. this is the kind of thing that models what we need to do if we are to truly recover, and that moral center that at least is out there. it is, as robert kennedy said, perhaps a tiny ripple of hope. and what you, please join me in thanking our panelists and our moderator. [applause] and thank you all for your support, for being here tonight, for supporting the center on religion and culture. have a great holiday. we will be back again and then new year, april 15, we will pick up this thread with another great panel discussion taking 50 years after the famous essay on civil religion. will have panel civil religion road to redemption, or american heresy. the things that once united as

seen to divide us. maybe again provides a way forward. please join join us then. have a great holiday, have a great evening. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in just under an hour, a panel discussion and lies in the ongoing political protests in iran in the future of the country. we will hear from the fount of iran wire live at the brookings institution at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. on c-span the washington host a seminar examining issues including foreign-policy, counterterrorism and relations between the press and the white house live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. a reminder you can follow both these events live online at c-span.org or with the free c-span radio app.

>> saturday american history tv on c-span3 take you to the american historical associations annual meeting in washington, d.c. for live all-day coverage, 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. eastern. join us assess joint and scholars talk about civil rights in 1968, watergate and the rise of partisanship, commemorating civil war reconstruction in national parks and the new birmingham civil rights national monument. live coverage of the american historical association annual meeting saturday on american history tv on c-span3. >> next, conversation about the national debt and u.s. economy at any event hosted by the national economics club. we will hear from marc goldwein of the responsible federal budget talks producing the federal budget deficit and stabilizing national debt which carly stands