lives. her memory not only lives on for her family and her writings but also through the thousands of lives she touched over her long and productive career. so marty and karen on behalf of all the students colleagues and students at mason and for that matter mt. vernon, seton hall, brooklyn college and city college thank you for sharing your life with us. she is one of those rare individuals that will continue to be apart of all of our lives and help each of us to excel at whatever we choose to do. there couldn't be a more fitting tribute than to have students put together today's tribute to sue's work. bonnie is just one example among many of how sue influenced all of our lives. bonnie, thank you for what you have done to help us honor your

mentor and your friend. will you please step forward? >> thank you so much to all of you for joining me here today to celebrate sue's life and legacy. it was my great honor to be her student. she was my dissertation chair and three years ago sue received a lifetime achievement award for her work in and the thing that brought a tear to her eye and the thing that was most important to her was when i spoke about how meaningful having her as my professor was

and she was on the tv and radio and policy out comes but she said that was most meaningful and important to her was her role as an educator and the way she touched students lives. so anyway thank you for being here to share this event. i knew she would be very proud. as mose of you know had a career at the new york times and retirement starting. so some accomplishments in your own right. so come just say a few words.

>> we want to thank you all for coming. this event means a great deal to us. i also want to thank our panel and bonnie and mark for putting this together. ed and came over to me and said aren't you marty? and i said guilty as charged. and i asked do i know you? and she said well i have been in your home twice and i was a student of sues and sue would

have all of her students over at least once during the semester for a potluck dinner and she continued and she said sue changed my life. >> so i said how. >> and she said well until i took her courses i had no interest in public service but she made it seem so vital, so challen challenging, so fulfilling that i just retired from a career at the fdic and i want to say that as sue enhanced the lives of her students, her students and faculty and administrators here at george mason enhanced her

life. she loved the students with a passion. she would tell them to regard the program as an obstacle course and not to try to be creative. she said creative will come later and then when she got her ph.d. she helped them publish their dissertations and helped them get jobs and she had a great network that she worked with really to help the students. so i want to thank all of you and all the colleagues and the students for everything that they meant to sue and for making her life as wonderful as it was. thank you.

>> so it's any honor to introduce our keynote speaker for today. she comes to us from -- she is professor of government and sociology at harvard university. she too is a prolific arthur i'll give you a highlight of some of the things she has done in her long career. she is director of the network and author of the tea party and the remaking of republican conservatism which is so relevant to today. she served as the dean of harvard's graduate school of hearts and sciences. and she is going to have this membership in all three, american academy of parts and sciences. and american politics and her

work on social policy has been very impactful and of course the last half of is century so it's my great honor to welcome here my keynote speaker today. >> thank you for that introduction. to hear the recollection decision and make them realize that they had a chance to sit down and both of us study grass

roots popular anger and i know that when donald trump first announced his candidacy there was a virtual academic and media and said this is going nowhere and i immediately went into a state of anxiety from which i'm hoping to emerge in three weeks because i think like what has been reported, i understood this might very well be going quite a long ways and with untold consequences and i also said that i have a great appreciation for the work she has done on swrender and reminds me that many years ago i was invited to participate with a cia sponsor and somebody called at the last minute to say i would need to go in the side door. and i chose to anticipate and i

don't have a problem going in the side door so it didn't workout. all right. today i'm going to talk about this remarkable collection. it resinates that i look forward to hearing our distinguished panel reflect in ways i'm sure will go beyond anything. i don't need to remind everybody in the room here what the high stakes in the election as a whole are and i'll skip over all the things that i share with general audiences about all the offices that are at stake. this would be a high stakes election if they were not front and center but the last thing on the list here that this is a election that turned out to be

about a denidentity and this la month front and center women's changing role. >> i talk about the following puzzles about this election, the rise of donald trump, i'm not going to talk at all about if he's going to win or anything like that. that's not the point. the point is how did he manage to win the republican presidential nomination. nomination of one of two major parties which ooen compared to the rise and third of 4th parties not like too many parties so this is a genuine

puzzle and why was that challenge in the republican party at least temporarily perhaps for quite sometime more potent than the sanders challenge another form of populous challenge in the democratic party and then y'all can conclude that trumpism and brexit and thank you and the convention and with that, and with the message that was delivered at the convention, you know, i mean, i see no reason to hesitate any now, it's also a critical coalition that's made all kind of gestures, at least, however reliable or unreliable they may be in the direction of republic

republican from time to time commitments to reduce taxes and eliminate obama policies. now, what opens the door to this extreme partisan and ideological polarization. and that trend is asymmetric that is tilted toward the right. between the late 60s and the 1980s the two parties sorted themselves out in the wake of the civil rights revolution that finally extended voting rights to african-americans in the south. so you could say, and i think tom -- the political science profession was very slowed up to notice that the original nair ty of the two parties sorting

themselves out with a republicans moving right and the democrats moving left and the regional alliance is changing, that that shifted after the 1980s and quickly after the 1990s was the newt gingrich manifestation in the republican party. and since then, really, this is a major, political scientists used to pinpoint the ideological positioning, particularly on economic and political issues of house republicans, but this is also true of what's been going on in the electorate with a lag that follows what happens with elites first and with advocacy and groups and social movements surrounding the two parties. and you can see that the house republicans have been leading the way, in many ways, and they keep moving further and further to the right. this, by the way, shatters the theological of the political science profession in the median

and the belief that some still don't want to give up that parties will moderate and move to the center when faced with extremes. >> just to bring policy into all of this, it gives the ten reasons to re-elect dwight eisenhower, he has increased welfare and security programs and promoting the well being of americans. he has been liberal in dealing with people, of course conservative in dealing with their money. and then number 10, this would give him written out of the republican party as a communist. he has been president for americans regardless of political affiliation, race, creed, color or economic background. so that's what it use to be --

the approximate narrative we all know of this certainly not the candidate that republicans hoped to put forward, you know what they thought would be a winnable presidential election in 2016, bought from the very first moment in the summer of 2015, declared trump emerged with postal plurality in most polls and he never gave that up during the entire ups and downs of te preprimary and the primary process. and the let ditch efforts

mounted by people like mitt romney to -- to try to stop the trump train after he emerged out on it in the primaries, really went nowhere. in fact, i think it's an interesting thing. you might want to ponder that it's mainly mormon politicians who have signed up. i think because they have a sense of population in the public sector. it's a very conservativism that's different from the free market and evangelical that are the other major strands. i think if we're doing to look at approximate facilitating factor, the u.s. median, which i would characterize as fragmented and economically stressed, but also with a major sector that has been developed over the last decade and a half that can drive right messages through fox news

and through even more through a network right ring top. it's not so much that that complex wanted donald trump. i don't think -- i think they were surprised along with everybody else, but they have helped to make him a media star and he was very skillful in pressing all the buttons and using the techniques to get media attention throughout the republican primary. there have been some impeer cal studies of this, including by the center at harvard, showing that he just got an amazing percentage of the coverage and those who look into the content have found that either positive or horse race coverage for donald trump, the second most covered person was clinton, but clinton got mainly negative coverage into 2015 and 2016. sanders got mainly positive coverage, he got a lot, too. so really the two challengers to hillary clinton got a positive coverage. and look t the rest of them, the

republican also lands, they had trouble getting anybody to pay attention to them. the final estimate is that about $2 billion in free media coverage in the republican primaries, of course, that was also a great advantage that trump was competing against so many others and the field didn't, you know, now, we all know these things. let me move to the deeper trends of in that larger context of asymmetric polarization that i think have fuelled popular support for trump. now, i want to be clear, i actually don't think that american politics over all is driven by what voters want and feel primarily. and there's a lot of research in political science in the last decade that suggests that elected office holders and politicians don't actual do what most voters want, but it's still

very important, particularly in presidential context and particularly in primary contest, to have an aroused and determined block of voters. so i want to talk about that popular support for trump where it came from and i have to say that it reminds me a lot of what vanessa williams and i heard from grass roots tea party activists when we interviewed them in arizona, virginia and new england in 2011. many of them are the same people who are now a supporting donald trump, even though they might not use the label tea party, which is not used as much. so a number of factors, i think, have fed into popular support for trump. changing religious landscape. we need to remember that, although white evangelical

property sa protestants are declining. the white evangelicals are feeling on the defensive. they're very good citizens. they vote not just in presidential contest but in midterms. i think sharply rising economic rising equalities are part of the story, i'm not going to be one to suggest that and i hope so. i don't think economic suffering is what lies behind the trump phenomenon and i'll say more about that in a bit. the fact that we're in an era of rapid immigration, even though it's slightly slowed down, but since 1965 immigrants have been coming in in large numbers and they are people of color, often from central america and mexico. finally, i'm going to say a little bit about the imploegs party, elites open the door, created an vacuum into which --

could charge. so let me just offer a little bit of data on this, this is just in recent times, the fast-changing u.s. religious landscape, evangelical pr protestants now about a quarter of the population. look at what they're concentrate. these are christians and they are people who vote. so they represent -- the fact that they're feeling on losing side of the cultural transformation susan holton talked about them in the 1960s makes them available for antiestablishment, particularly an antidemocratic party candidate. we all know that we're in an era of sharply rising economic and equality where the gains have gone to the top.

that certainly creates a situation where people across the political spectrum are resentful of the fact that incomes have stagnated in the middle, will be defined a bit in the bottom and all the gains are going to the top. that opens the door for certain messages, even if it doesn't drive the circumstances for particular voters who take particular stance. socioeconomic characters suggests that it's more complex than just saying they're suffering in this economic era. we know that noncollege educated white men are disproportion atly of trump. but those who support them over gop nominees are not disproportion atly effected by trade or organization. it's not a simple relationship. nate did a little bit of look during the primaries of median

income. the trump fire 56. higher than those for the sanders of clinton voters. by the way, since the sanders voters are younger, they were actually headed for higher median income. she is the inequality candidate in this contest, and all of them are lower. so -- these are, i think, think construction contract or lower level white collar, blue collar, i go to breakfast in a working class in cambridge every weekday and the waitress tells me they'll all look blue collar guys, and all the fireman and policeman she knows. she is massachusetts, the girls, she says, are numbered. the girls are sensitive. and she calls them girls. i'm not being insulted here.

and then most interesting finding recently reported in the atlantic that trump supporters are less likely to have moved from their home communities and of course you only need to drive around the united states to realize that once you get beyond the metro areas into the far suburbs and into the smaller cities and into the rural areas, you see the trump sign. i think in many ways, this is people living in communities that have not yet experienced some of the changes that they're very afraid of and in many ways, they're seeing those change -- changes displayed in ways on the television networks that they watch and that radio that they listen to. now, the other thing i want to point to is that by the time the trump candidacy emerges, the republican party is hollowed out establishment. we're reading about the establishment and there are some members here, so i don't want to be insulting.

but the research that my colleagues and i have done suggested, for example, we looked at what was happening to the budgets of the republican party committees between 2002 and 2014, compared to the budget, the resources controlled by free market think tanks, the network of organizations tied to the coke brothers. even long-standing extra party groups like the nra and christian organizations. and, frankly, there was a huge drop in resources controlled by the party itself moving out to these far right plankers. and we know that in economic policy during the obama years elected office holders in the republican party and candidates also to a man and woman adhere to ultra free market principles following to reduction of free trade. reduction is in social spending of all kind and these are actually not positions that are

popular, either with most americans or with most republican-based voters. so the point that i want to make here is that by the time the trump challenge emerged to elected republicans and to party leaders, they had, in many ways, already been out flanked and pushed in directions that were quite at variance. above all they're at variance with their base on immigration and how to respond to immigration. i think immigration is the key issue here, both the fact that it has increased and that it has shifted from being from europe, to being from latin america and more recently asia. and this is what it looks like as a% of t percent of the u.s. population over the last century. you can see that we're not yet in a period, that 12.9%, we're not yet in a period where

immigrants, as a proportion of the u.s. population are what they are a tren tri ago, but it looks like it's headed to more and more people and that's what those were fearful about changing changing society and changing society see when they look at immigration. . just to help you understand, in 2010, the largest single immigrant group was from mexico, all over the country. there's some very good research that tells us why that's true. it turns out we've been building walls for quite a while. it's not a new idea and social scientists have found that the major effect of the walls was to raise the cost arrival, not to prevent the mainly young men immigrants from coming to the united states, but to make it hard for them to go home for easter or christmas or for grandma's funeral.

and so they responded in recent decades by bringing their families to the united states and by spreading out all over the country. if you visit the heart land states in the middle of the country, you're going to find large immigrant populations from central america and mexico, often holding the most difficult and low pay and least supported jobs with large numbers of children and that changes the cultural fabric, that is are easy for politicians to exploit the anger about, if they choose to do so. this is what the large immigrants look like 100 years ago. it's mainly skand knavian. french canadian is up there. we have some pretty good

research that shows that trump supporters compared to other republican identified voters and compared to other conservative identified voters, forget about the democrats here. they're much more concerned about the growing number of newcomers from other countries as a threat to u.s. values, much more likely to see islam more than other religions as something that encourages violence and believe that it's bad for the country for blacks, latinos and asians to, perhaps, become the majority of the population. so there are some differences that set the trump voters apart on demo gra fi, older males, no college degrees. the really pronounced ones are the things this concern them that have to do with the impact of immigration, with international terrorists incidents and worries about the

changing composition of american society. some of them come right out and say it. this isn't typical, but this is sort of an independent guy running for congress who temporarily put this sign up that spelled it out. the other part of this, of course, is that republican-based voters and certainly the trump voters and the tea partiers before them, but probably more than just those blocks of voters have been very angry at their party leaders, at their e lekle representatives in congress. throughout barack obama's presidency, we know that congressional leadership of the republican party and leading republican politicians have promised things about stopping obama, rolling back his chief initiatives, preventing him from being re-elected, all of which they have been unable to

deliver. and so in this poll that was taken in 2015. you can see that republican voters alike are, you know, have sold -- have a lot about the leaders of their parties, look how pronounced it is, the republican identified voters. 60%, close to 60% say that their leaders are not doing, mitch mcconnell and paul ryan, we're looking at you, are not doing a good job, particularly on government spending ie, getting rid of obama care, illegal immigration and same sex marriage. so that opened the door for a candidate who, from the start signaled that he was angry about mexican immigration and particular and didn't make any bones about it. challenged political

correctness, if i think if you listen to working class people that's one of the things you like best about trump. he says what everybody is thinking and he doesn't worry about it. and the fact that he's challenging republicans, along with media leads of the democratic party is a big plus in their eyes. now, let me more quickly just say something about the two antiparty agencies that we saw in this election, bernie sanders when he first emerged got just diversion of the class of donald trump, but he hung around, didn't he? he was there for several months. and -- in the end, in the final weeks and months of his campaign was deliberately targeting the democratic party as the establishment as we all recall. there are some similaritities

and differences that i think we need to be clear about -- these are fuelled by male -- something that -- i think it's fair to say we're in an era where white males are angry. and about a lot of different things. but these two candidates, sp someway, tapped into that male, i'm an older female democrat. i'm a clinton person, i've been a clinton person all along. every teem i would talk to women in my age group, they would all describe the terrible attacking from sanders supporters who were young men using sexual to describe their support of hillary clinton. where did that anger come from. i don't know. but it was there. of course the difference is that

sanders supporters were disproportion natalie college educated or in college and younger voters, where as the tilted male group for trump is older and tends to be without college degrees. they both had populace appeals, the core of the sanders challenge of economic populaci m populacism. it's been an appeal. they both were banished by the media. bernie sanders was always saying he was disadvantaged. he was never subjected to attack ads either from the clinton campaign or from the trump campaign that was hoping he would be the nominee. perhaps, mistakinglmistakingly, think they were. now, the sanders' challenge presented itself as a revolution, but, you know, i studied revolutions, i know

revolutions. this was not a revolution. this was the kind of challenge from the left of the democratic party that we see regularly and, you know, bill bradley, howard dean, barack obama, and only one of them has ever succeeded because it put together white liberals with african-americans, and that's barack obama. this is a routine kind of event in presidential contest in the democratic party. it was certainly also a campaign that perfected the dino of the repeated salary donor contributions it is a way of raising resources in a different way than going to cocktail parties with very rich people. other the under hand. channeled most of its resources

into rallies. . in the sanders due to very little appeal to blacks and latinos very important constituencies in democratic primaries and it has an impact on the party agenda, but democratic party institutions were able to handle this challenge, i don't care what was in the wicki leaks, that was small potatoes. they showed that a bunch of staffers at the democratic national committee were irritated at bernie in april. so would have been those internal e-mails in its public stance the dnc maintained its

compo compose sure and managed to incorporated sanders, and i would say, most of his goers into the coalition and we'll give them a voice after the election if democrats control congress, as well as the presidency. let me close my remarks that just asking the question, that i think, on everybody's mind including donald trump was brought over to britain, will this turn out like brex it in britain. i was in just before the brexit vote that everybody in establishment said, awe, this isn't going to pass. i think they're just, once again, very differences, quite politics as before. immigrants as major part of the population that are targeted in the campaign. in britain they were not just muslims but also of italians,

13%, same as in the united states. but immigration and britain was really not tailing off. it has leveled off into the united states and more to the point, an appeal -- candidacy that appeals to nativism and tries to 1968 won order campaign faces a very different situation in the united states than it did. in britain, minorities just not a skbror part of tmajor part of. look at the difference of 2016 in the united states. the gray there are whites without college degrees. they were 80% of the eligible electorate in richard nixon's time. now, they're, you know, less than half of the eligible electorate. whites with college degrees who have trended very heavily against trump throughout this

entire campaign and more so now -- are now about more than a third of whites. they're trying to up the turn out of noncollege -- that deepened the coalition and there's a little bit of a struggle there because hispanic americans, only half of them

voted, and, of course, a lot of those who are eligible to vote and have been, shall we say, slow and reluctant to come to support hillary clinton. the big divide in this election is among whites between the college educated and the noncollege educated as well as between racial groups. and we've seen in this last phase that what may be the for donald trump is the divide between men and women. the gender gap that's emerging is the highest gender gap we've seen, we'll see if that turns out to be true at the polls. my friend allen fitzpatrick presidency over a century and points out that hillary clinton now has all of her predecessors through margaret smith and shirley which is a combination

of support and foreign policy credibility, all of which has been held against her, of course. but she hasn't and chances are despite do demonization that has occurred in this campaign and most recently commenting on her looks, i think she's probably going to assemble the final piece of the puzzle, which is a high turn out among women, including women like my waitress, noncollege educated woman, whose girlfriends are all -- okay, let me stop. [ applause ]

>> that was a wonderful speech. so who am i, i'm here and asked to be the moderator of this

panel and honored to do so, but why me, because i was a good friend of suits and i think that's the principle reason. if there are any other that i didn't report for a long time with cbs and nbc and for the last 30 years have been associated with it and et cetera with the kennedy school and i'm now with senior adviser, i think that's what they call me, at the center here in d.c. i want to start our discussion in this panel by going back to something that the dean said at the very beginning what he cited would sue everett about in her book, the line, which is a i'm mad as heck and i'm not going to take it any more. the wonderful thing about sue's use of that, is that as a scholar, she was capable of the most serious scholarship in all of the data that scholars go by.

but she linked it to something that people can understand who are not scholars. it was a great gift that she had and i wish that more scholars had that. so thank you all very very much. but the idea, the question is still very much with us, we're still not quite sure what happens now that this window has been opened. remember, she raised this question 20 years ago and we're thinking about it now again and it's incumbent upon us, perhaps, finally, to come up with an answer. we're now running towards the end of an unprecedented presidential campaign, in which the republican candidate, donald trump, who by the way takes pride in pronouncing that he doesn't read books, is reaching into this voter anger concept, once again. so sue was writing about it 20

years ago and it's here, once again, so it hasn't gone away, has the ingredients of the voter-anger changed and if that's the case, in what way. i don't quite understand to this day how donald trump got to where he has got and is voter anger the reason, i doubt it. i doubt it. was it the reason that bill clinton won, was re-elected in 1996. it was a major issue, then, it is a major reason now and i think that the panelists are -- i don't want to say uniquely because here around washington we have lots of panelists from morning until night, but they're awfully well equipped to put all of this issue of voter anger into a proper political context that i hope when they do it, they will, as well, incorporate,

perhaps, some of the ideas that are presented -- that are presented in her keynote address. so down at my far right, katherine kreimer, who is director at the center for public service, professor of political science at the university of wisconsin, she's the author of the politics of resentment, rural consciousness of wisconsin and the rise of scott walker. next year, cofounder of the congressional economic leadership institute and we'll all remember that he was the running mate in 1996 to the independent candidacy of ross perot. "new york times" columnists, he's also the professor at the columbia graduate school of journalisms. to my immediate right, tom the chair and senior fellow in government studies ed brookings

and the resident scholar in the last couple of years at the institute of governmental studies at uc berkeley. so i would like to start and ask katherine to talk to us. i'm going to ask all the panelists about three or four minutes of opening comments, dealing with that central issue of voter rage. >> thank you so much. it's a real honor to be here. so thank you, again, for having me. i'll say two things, just to start off. one is that the anger among women has certainly caught my attention in the past two weeks and i think it's very interesting that we are here to honor professor who is both an expert in women and politics and voter anger. and how interesting that those two things are coming together and sort of alluded to, the withdrawal of college educated white women from the republican party and the past month or so or since, at least, early august

is quite remarkable. they've pointed this out, carey and politico has pointed this out, as well. that's one thing i'll raise. another is i'm here to represent the midwest, i think, and i can report back to you on what very kindly said was the title of my book on resentment, so since 2007, i've been spending time in primarily rural wisconsin listening to people, inviting myself into conversations in gas stations, for the most part, and hearing what i've called resentment because i see it as this slow, burning sentiment that, in many cases has erupted. it's the sense that, you know, those of us in a small community don't get our fair share, part of it is about economics, but it's about many things. it's not feeling that we're not getting our fair share of taxpayer dollars that are taxpayer dollars are being sucked in by the cities and

spent on the cities and we don't see it in return. but it's also not getting our fair share of power or decision making, people in many rural communities who might talk to, you know, all of the decisions are made elsewhere based on kind of urban values and ideas and those folks don't understand what life is like for us in small town wisconsin, small town usa. another thing i've heard, i'm saying, you know, people in the cities don't actually respect us, right? they call us red neck races. they don't understand our way of life and our values and that resentment, i have definitely seen turn into support for donald trump. so, i'll leave that for now. >> thank you very much.

>> let me note that i have -- it's on. okay. good. in during my half century career, i have had appointed policy positions with three governors, four presidents and been involved in six presidential campaigns, three republican, two democrat and one independent. in sue's book, i think, touches, essentially, on a trajectory of change that has occurred during that past half century. she opens this book, which is really a very good book. i reread it coming out here. it's a wonderful typology and i would recommend it to everyone. but, she begins the book with a quote from john adams.

and basically she says, politics is a practice. it's always been a systematic organization of hatreds. the genius of the american system created by john adams, is to take and control and channel that hatred into a democratic process, where there can be anger. where it is not revolutionary in nature. what has happened in a source of changing anger as described by students and others who in hatred, which we're now seeing in this campaign, as being a series of disastrous policies over the past 30 or 40 years that was setting and i listed some vietnam. we relied into vietnam. the iraq war, the afghanistan war. the 8 million foreclosures of

houses by the illumination of the gas steal act. the alliance of hedge funds to go from 20 trillion of death to over 240 trillion debt. literally we have hedge funds that have gambled our economy 12 times our gross domestic product. it took us -- we had 8 million homes foreclosed taken away brutally by people. we had $60 trillion of bailouts with a federal reserve, thank goodness, to bloomberg for their request. we spent 748 billion on tarp. we've had 50,000 plant factory closings since the year 2000. we've lost one third of our manufacturing base. 5 million jobs. we -- these job losses are following when people do not

have college educations. it is the source of the inequality that we're speaking about. and we have had our banks fined 248 -- top 10 banks -- fined $248 billion and no one has been held accountable tr this. we can talk how this happens and what we should do about it in our discussion. my point is, there is very good reason for people in this country to be angry. >> thank you, very much. tom? >> all right. it's an honor to be here and an honor to speak at a forum dedicated to susan, her work profoundly influential. book he and her husband wrote about patronage is still important to me. i've learned a great deal from it. i was very surprised to hear marty's description where he

said that he's paying the check -- no, that's not fair. he's a very generous person. but i just wanted to get one wisecrack. my contribution to this is that i think that what has happened is that among white voters, the two parties have flipped on their heads and under trump, the republican party has become the party of the underdog and the democratic party has become the party of the over dog. this is really among white voters. this is a huge shift from the democratic party that i grew up, which is suppose to be the party of the working man and woman, joe six pack, the blue collar riding the subway in the morning at 6:00 a.m.

now, the -- and i mean that not just economically. and i think economics does play more of a factor than veto would suggest, that the -- this is also true of the culture in general. the evangelical conservative christian now sees the world as tilted united states -- has tilted against them. they see themselves as on the losing end of the culture war that the moral majority no longer exists as a majority. and i think they are dead right if you look at television and look at the changing attitude toward gay marriage. they've lost that war. and they feel it and they are angry and you have combined that with their adjoining to the republican party and discovering in 2008 that this party could

not save them from the devastation of the 2008/2009 collapse, that basically created a revolt that did not find expression until 2015 with donald trump. and that process is now on going, how that's going to effect politics after 2016 is the real question. what's going to happen is the block of votes that's roughly 40 to 50% of the republican party, where will they go, what will the republican party do. how can the two-party system adjust to this, really, internal within one party. those are going to be the major questions that we face going forward. i'll pass this on to the genius of politics. >> to the other tom.

>> thanks for including me, i really appreciate being here and, you nailed it. i just think you got it right. all of the rich dimensions on convinced, sue would have been very pleased to listen to that argument. the fact that some people say well, it's all economics. entire economic nationalism, but the competing claim is, wait a minute, this goes back a long time cultural roots and the identity politics has changed

its meaning the identities of newly emerging minorities to the concerns and fears of a threatened declining white major which is working its way toward being a minority. matthews from fox has summerized some of the research that's referred to, and i think it's important to keep in mind, of course economics is important. the broad context is economic, but there are there are a lot of people who came through this okay who are champions of donald trump. so it tells us that there's a tribalism at work here that

transcends personal economic well being. the favorite philosopher of ej and barack obama, among others, wrote a piece for the american scholar, believe it or not, in 1937 called pawns for fashionism, our lower middle class. that's not something you might not expect. but, in fact, he laid this out very clearly, a shrewd democrat may cal listize, partially based on racial resentments, but also national prejudice is an equally strong force. i think the coming together of

the changing composition of our society has made a tremendous difference. second point i've written about it and said enough about it but the story -- throughout our history. they've tended to be manchal. trump was the first to come forward and garner the nomination of the major party and scare the wits out of a whole lot of people in this country and around the world.

with parties being so strong that lent him a base that made it possible for him to be elected. it wasn't ever right, but it was always possible and we're coming through this, but it's scarey and it reminds us that our democracy is vun able just like northern european social democracies are vuner able with a very generous social safety net to forces of tribalism built around race and nationalism that can be quite potent. even in a country that's a nation of immigrants, is facing this head on. >> thanks, tom, very much. in listening to the four of you,

and petfeta as well. and i mention that particularly because from the time that sue wrote her book in 1996 until today, we have the birth of msnbc, we have the berth of fox, we have the flowering of the radio right wing culture. i'm going to you to ask when you go to the gasoline stations and talk to your people, if there were no television 20, 30, 40 years ago and if they lived in their own world and we're not instantly connected to every argument taking place everywhere in the united states, especially the arguments upon the hill where you could listen to them for a while and have the feeling that nothing is happening, it's just words that these people would not have the feelings that they have today take the media,

inject it into your analysis and try to seek someway of understanding the broader context of where they are. >> well, what i have to say may not sit very well with many people on the panelists, but i -- what i learned led me to believe that we over state the role of the media and that most of what people -- the way they were understanding the world was not back from something they heard on fox news, for example, at times. but much of it was their own own reflections that they had created together in visiting with one another. oftentimes, there would be one person in a bunch of coffee cup of regs wulars who mentioned it

every day. the thing they were most often talking about was their own personal experience and their own economic struggles and their own anxieties about becoming culture changes. yes, at times they had heard glimmers of through the news media. it's not as if their interpretation of public issues was something that they had gained in isolation from there's much more interpretation in their own specific location going on than i think we ang knowledge. >> -- acknowledge. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> pat, we do have to comment on the media role. >> i will. >> i think people attempt to take the situation in context and in doing that construction, i think they're very influenced by the media. what i think has happened in our society and why we're seeing the politics that we're now seeing,

is we've lost the vetting functions. at one point the political parties would have betted donald trump -- vetted donald trump out. he would have been gone. but that has gone. that function has gone. when the print media was much stronger than what it was, the print media and the three major networks and pbs vetted out what was legitimate discussion, we've had the rise of talk radio and now cable television that is driven by rage and cash. donald trump got that much exposure on the networks for a simple reason that the cable networks were able to charge $5,000 just regular cable and when trump were on, they were able to raise that 200 and made an enormous amount of money.

>> enormous amount of money on that. >> that's why i'm totally convinced that trump will form a network. i think he's going to lose the election. i hope he loses the election. trump is now building his audience for tv network, media network now. rage is popular and that's what's -- he's capturing. >> the idea of setting up network is not the easy thing to do. he's got to get that from bangs. and banks these days are not in bed with trump. . the second thing, if you have to have a successful network, you

have to have stations all over the country carrying you. and there have been so many efforts to set these things up, so he may try but he may be spending a lot of money and wasting time. >> he's going to enter the market, who will be solid viewers. >> he can get the money from russia. and they've already got -- they've got wpn, white people's network. no, i think one that the media has lost its credibility because of polarization and the media -- the vetting media now are all seen as left wing media is going to shift in the way the "new york times" the networks all of them are seen facing all the

media created the situation because he produced viewers just like he produced hits on the web when i would write a column about trump it would get three times the hits that a column on inequality would get, ten times the hits. there's money in trump, for the media. it's a tough situation and the market is now defining the media, where use to be the media had so much money, it could define itself, it's no longer the case. >> tom go ahead. she didn't quite see that left wing bias for traditional media,

if anything they were very late to coming to the guts of this campaign and the stakes of this campaign and only in the last weeks have you seen the kind of reporting on trump that might have been done last year and the kind of things that they covered on clinton were, i mean, unusual. but that isn't what i want to say. i think reality tv is -- has been more important to trump than the media, news media. it was his basis of visibility and popularity and attention that allowed him to short circuit all of the other processes and i think that's really important and was master full in playing the media during the primary process. he knew -- he knew how to do it.

but what -- what i've come to believe is that in this world of a as a asimilar -- asymmetrical polarization the media. it's their search for equivalent has, in effect, neutered their important role in our politics and therefore they weren't present in a serious way until very late in the campaign to help us cope with the most serious threat to our democracy since the civil war. >> woe could have a wonderful discussion about the role -- we could have a wonderful

discussion about the role of the media and the entire trump campaign, but i don't want to do that. i want us to go back to sue's book and all of us take a look at that book and appreciate who sue was dealing with at that time. she was writing and researching in the early part of the 1990s and the book comes out in '96. 20 years have past. were she here to do an update on that book, what are the issues that have emerged in the last 20 years that she would now spend a couple of extra chapters brieting about or rewrite -- writing about or rewriting what it is she had done earlier. >> i'll pick up a general one that i found very striking the book, americans had it better than at any time in history. and i thought, in the 20 years since then, that's not really the case anymore, in many of the ways that thea pointed out.

and one thing i did was to look up this question that gallup has asked for many, many years, at least since 1994 and probably going back earlier than i was able to find. and it's just about general satisfaction in life. and it goes like this. in general are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the united states at this time? and not long after her book came out, gallup's estimate of this put -- in 1999, it was at nearly a 20-year high. at this point in time, in 1999, 71% of the american public said they were satisfied. now it's reversed. so that 72% say they're dissatisfied, and 27% say they're satisfied. and i would imagine she would, you know, make something of that. she pointed something out that we needed to pay attention to. and i think this election is a

great reminder, that if left unaddressed, it comes to a crisis or near crisis moment. >> two things i think she would focus on. one is the '96 communications act that in effect allowed the agglomeration of the media. prior to that any individual owner could only own a set number of tv stations, a set number of radio stations. now it is possible to homogenize that and own 1500, 2,000 stations, and be able to deliver a rush limbaugh or an alex jones and their message to the whole of the country. that's new and different, i think she would focus on that. i think the second thing she would probably focus on, because it's significant, has been

citizens united, and the whole question of money. perot ran the '96 campaign on $135 million. you can't do that in pennsylvania today. and we wind up with a situation today where a massive amount of that money is dark money. we do not know where it comes from. we do not know the agendas of the people behind it. those two things, the media agglomeration, and this massive flow of money, i understand the 6 or $8 billion in this campaign, i think those would be the two things. >> excellent. thank you very much. tom edsall. >> on the second point, i disagree. trump ran a campaign that was actually low budget, relatively speaking. he's gotten a huge amount of free media, like $2 billion, as i think thea shows. but he has raised and spent much less than hillary, and especially in a primary. beyond that, even his

advertising in every given state. i think this election, if anything, shows that citizens united has not had the overwhelming consequence that we thought it would have. i think the other things that sue would note would be, one, in 1999, at the high point of when everyone thought everything was hunky-dory, that was the high point in the economy. the '90s were golden years in this country, and they were golden years for everybody across the board. low income, high income, middle income. everybody rose, all boats rose. since then, we've had a very slow growth period. we've had rising inequality with very little growth at the middle and down below, if not no growth. that's a big difference. if you're going to get pessimistic, there are real grounds to be pessimistic for the majority of the electorate. there are a lot of other points, but i'll leave it there. >> i think sue had the

categories all there. it's the context of each has changed. the economy, she had seen the stagnation of wages, but that then continued, and we saw increasing economic inequality. and then we had the worst global financial crisis and recession since the great depression. so this unleashed, you know, a lot of the other forces and factors that she herself addressed. and i think she would have, after viewing this, sort of looked at the two parties, not together but separately, and try to see what's happening, with all the racial minorities clustering in one party and the other party being predominantly the right party, that's the kinds of thing that has a way of really exacerbating divisions that we managed to dampen at

times in our history. >> and the issue that comes right out of that is, of course, the presidency of barack obama. so i would like to raise this question. if we are discussing the heart and soul of voter anger, to what extent, i don't want to sort of prejudice my question, to what extent do you believe that the presence of the first black president in the white house in the last eight years has led to the depth of anger? or is that irrelevant to the depth of anger? >> it's totally relevant. and i was going to raise my hand and ask if i could add in a second thing that i think is so important to the context in the

past 20 years. and it is the presidency of barack obama. and also our heightened attention to racism in this country. i think the events of the pass few years have been -- i mean, i believe it's largely because of cellphones, and that white america has seen in an inescapable fashion the kind of violence that's going on in our country. i think all of us are trying to make sense of the many bewildering things going on in this world. and i think when people are given a story and targets of blame, it rallies emotion, including anger, in a very kind of effective way. and i think the manner in which anxiety about the changing cultural composition of our country has been rallied or targeted toward barack obama, is a very big part of the story. he has become a target for a lot of the angst and emotion about the fact that we are no longer a

white country. >> anyone want to pick that up? pat? >> i think that what we have seen is a code word for racism in the attacks on barack obama. and the whole question about birtherism. i find it astounding that something like 60% of republican voters believe that this president was not born in the united states, which means they believe he has not a legitimate office holder to the position. at the same time, i think what we're also seeing here is misogyny on a massive scale in the reactions to hillary clinton. and again, it is deep seated misogyny. this is deep seated racism. and we're in the process of moving our way across that. i would like to say to tom, on the question of citizens united, it is true, i agree with him on trump, he has been able to do earned media magnificently well. but the influence of that money has felt itself in this campaign

downticket, inside the republican party. the very fact that an mcconnell and that a ryan and other republican leaders are intimidated to not say anything lest they lose their funders has a major role. i mean, what we should have seen is the republican establishment responding forcefully to many of the statements and attitudes that trump has put out. it's that fear of the dark money that holds them away. >> would one of the toms like to comment on the role of barack obama in explaining the depth of the voter rage? >> i mean, you just think the fact that he is black and you have the enactment of obamacare, which is a redistributional

program, shifting benefits and taxes downward to a population that is disproportionately minority, contributed to this idea. the two echo each other. he becomes the embodiment of liberalism and he is black. the two conflate. so you then get a higher level of what pollsters call racial affect. >> i agree with that. but obama's more than that. i think he's also the epitome of a meritocracy, someone who goes to good schools and learns a lot and speaks, you know, in very refined ways, not like hillbillies speak. >> a professor. >> a professor. this is the -- >> only for a brief time. >> the race is an important part, but it by no means limits the sense of cultural alienation. these are the kind of people that are taking over our

country. racism is a part of it. but it's also gender feeling. obama doesn't act like strong males, assertive males are supposed to in many ways, you know? and that has i think opened an avenue for trump. >> another question that thea raised in her presentation that has to do with immigration. and the number of people who are coming into this country, now, number one, a very high number, but number two, of them, many of them are not white. so that adds to the perception and the problem. and i'm wondering if you put those two together, the immigration itself, without any linkage, could be a very

significant reason for the rage that does exist among the white male, not college educated supporter of donald trump. >> yes. yes. i think immigration is a great example of the way in which cultural anxiety and economic anxiety are intertwined, because so often the conversation about immigration is about certain people taking our jobs or tree trade being a bad economic idea. i think the fact that -- that great map that thea showed, so many states, the largest immigrant population coming from mexico, there again, it's a very kind of clear, blatant target for people to tap into. so i absolutely agree.

>> tom? >> it's probably important to remember that even when the immigrants were primarily white, once they moved to southern european, and when they involved jews, things got pretty, pretty nasty in our politics back at the early part of the last century. but you do think, and that's the point thea was making, that the period of rapid immigration and its changing composition has returned us to a -- given us a problem. and now, in many ways, our party system isn't able to manage it as well as it has before, for various reasons. and i think that contributes to it. one last thing, maybe one of the scariest things about what's

going on. there are people who are angry, and then there are people just filled with hate and have been for decades on end, that had hate groups and neo-nazi groups and white supremacists. what's stunning is the extent to which, in their conversations on twitter and on their websites, and now we have good investigative reporting going on following these social media channels and everything, and the extent to which the -- you know, the alt-right, as we call it now, has come to feel they've been brought into the mainstream of american politics by the trump campaign. it's really scary. so a lot of this stuff has been around before. but this time it broke through from the fringes to the

mainstream. >> and the mainstream, of course, is the fact that donald trump represents one of the two major parties in this country. just to share something with you all, it's kind of interesting, i think, last week trump did a speech down in florida which was different from most of his other speeches in the way in which he delivered it. it wasn't a teleprompter, but he recalls it in full sentences, whole paragraphs, long words, very complicated thoughts. and i was saying to myself, this is not donald trump. so who was it? on a hunch, i read up on some of the editorials that breitbart has been publishing over the last six months.

much to my astonishment, the phraseology was exact. the long phrases were simply pulled out of editorials that had appeared on breitbart. so here we have now a major candidate who is expressing something that is not within the normal range of our politics, but has broken out of the normal range. at least that's my sense of it. and i wonder if you share that, you panelists share that view. tom? >> i'm a little less pessimistic than you on this. i think it's possible that if you bring alt-right into the mainstream, they're going to be the ones who have to compromise. they're going to have to start dealing with a larger political

reality. when they were in isolation off in mountain cabins where they're keeping their, you know, antinuclear devices all wound up, they are totally separate, and they're totally isolated from society. if they have to get engaged, they're going to have to learn a little bit about what the real world is or else they're going to just get pushed out again. >> if that was the case, tom, we have found its political expression in trump becoming more a movement toward the center. and he seems to be, in the last couple of weeks, hunkering down now and exaggerating the relationship with the breitbart people rather than putting distance between himself and then. >> i'm talking about the alt-right in terms of storm front and these kind of places. >> montana militia. >> the montana militia. those people have separated themselves, insofar as the society in general, they become

part of it, i think it's possible. i'm probably candy-eyed in this point of view, but they will possibly become a little more reasonable. >> you guys on "the new york times" are so sensible. [ laughter ] that's wonderful. you want to say something. >> i do. i'm sort of puzzling through this. i'm not sure if i have this right. but i don't think -- i don't think that people -- i think we are setting ourselves up for a bit of a disaster if we discount these people as so far from the mainstream. so for example -- may i read you a quote from a conversation i

heard not that long ago among a group of trump supporters. this is a man who is just a regular member of his community, who gets together with a group of his pals every morning in a service station. and i happened upon -- i was visiting them early one morning a few months ago. and he seems like a very reasonable person to me. but this is what he said. when i was asking about their support for trump, he said, "it's time for the reckoning. these politicians, they're going to lose their jobs because they haven't represented us, and they've put us in debt. do you even hear from the democrats so far how to clear the debt? all you hear is free education, and that can never happen." he goes on and on. he says, "i think if a guy like that," trump, "got in there, he would probably start to straighten things out so we start paying this debt back some day. everybody in their 70s and 80s and 90s are fine and dandy, but everybody that's behind us,"

meaning younger people, "brace up, because we're going to head into a third world country. we're heading there." this is a pretty regular guy telling me the armageddon is coming. my point is the alt-right is not just among recluses but relatively mainstream people. >> the conspiracies have gone mainstream. if birtherism can, as you said, continue to attract that percentage, there's a lot of people that believe this stuff. and that's -- you know, that's what's scary. what's scary is the rejection of evidence and facts and science. in fact, people -- you were saying this earlier -- follow conversations like this, they'll listen to ours on c-span, and feel, yeah, it's the same old people, you know, ignoring, you know -- throwing this stuff at us and they don't -- you know, we know what's going on, they don't know what they're talking about. and we can't ever get in a situation where we can actually sit down and talk it out. because they won't do it in congress, because there's not an inclination on the part of

republicans to engage in that kind of effort now. >> pat? >> there's some demonization of the right in this situation. if these people are inclined to see birtherism, there must be something underlying that. they're not ignorant, dumb people. there must be something about liberalism and the democratic party that lends itself among some people to producing this kind of idea, that the head of the democratic party, barack obama, is a sort of alien non-american to them. i'm not justifying that point of view. but there must be something going on, unless you're going to dismiss this, say, 30% of the population, as a bunch of mentally ill people. >> how would you describe them, tom? >> i'm not saying that, tom. >> but unless you start talking about what is it that is prompting them -- >> well, what is it? >> i think that there is a lot of deep resentment at the

democratic party having what ronald reagan tapped into years ago, when he said, i didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me. you see this throughout white working class areas. you see this anger at the left and liberalism. you see it in hillary clinton's e-mails, the e-mails where she tells goldman sachs one thing and says another thing when she's debating with bernie sanders. she says things about dodd/frank. >> it really isn't. >> it is. >> read the followup stories. >> wait a minute. hang on. thea, we don't hear you, this is on c-span. do you want to -- >> okay. we can argue this. >> would you like a microphone?

>> there is this huge sense that the democratic party is now the party of elites. and that's how the party is perceived. and if you look at the democratic party, who the activist wing of the democratic

party is made up of, it's elites. i'm part of that elite. most of this room is part of that elite. but that's what the party is, in many respects. and it's going to be perceived that way. people are going to see the party in ways that are not going to be nice and sometimes they're going to be kind of off the

wall. but there are -- people better do some respecting. >> pat, you want to come in. >> i agree with tom. >> hold that microphone near your mouth. >> i agree with tom on this whole country, that there's going to be a moderating force on the right. it's going to be around the dynamism that is going to occurring after this election. i think there is going to be a three-party civil war inside the republican party. there's going to be the

alt-right with trump. that's going to be the libertarians with the koch brothers. and there's going to be the traditional white shoe republicans, john kasich, et cetera. and it's going to be very brutal. they're going to have to find compromise with each other. the only thing that they're going to find compromise on is they all hate hillary clinton and the clinton administration. and i think that they will go into excess. so i think the dynamics here is going to have a leveling effect on the right. they are going to i think make it possible because she's a very skilled politician, very skilled. look at the comments of the senators, republican and democrat, when she was a senator. i think it's going to create a dynamic where she will be able to do deals and compromises and have accomplishment and set herself up for a nice rerun in 2020. >> we have ten minutes left. i'm delighted that you have jumped ahead to my final question, because i'm very interested in what you all feel, given the emphasis on the background and the reasons for the voter rage. what is going to happen on november 9th? does the voter rage then just stop? does it get more intensified? what are the reasons, what happens at that point? and with that easy question, catherine, give us the answer. or try. >> well, i'm worried about it. i guess i'll answer with a question. and the question in my mind is, just how much establishment pop technicians, elites, from both the democratic party and the republican party, come out in the next few weeks talking about how this is not a rigged election and sort of setting us up for those claims when mr. trump, assuming he does not win, i think it would just be extremely dangerous in terms of fomenting even further anger and very disruptive anger to claim that it was somehow a fraudulent election. i have been very happy to see so many people coming out in the past few days saying, it's a legit election and we'll abide

by the results. >> i'm going to jump you, pat, and go to tom. tom one, i'll say. and ask you that same thing, tom. november 9th, what is it that in your judgment is going to happen at that point, in terms of voter rage, in terms of where the politics may go? >> if hillary clinton is going to be able to accomplish something, i think she's going to have to have both branches of congress. and i don't think she's going to. odds are that the house will stay republican and the odds are that if anything, the republicans who remain will be more conservative on average than the ones who were there. the middle of the road is always what gets hurt in elections. i foresee a -- frankly, another four years of gridlock, and very

unpleasant, and people getting angrier and angrier at inaction. i think the prospects in 2018 in the senate are not good for the democrats. and even if they take back the senate in 2018, they could lose it. so that the idea of a government that can coherently do something is going to be problematic. if they get the senate, i think there's going to be a lot of pressure to change the rules on filibusters on supreme court nominations in addition to federal appellate courts, because it looks like the republicans are going to take a very hard line even on supreme court nominations. i think that might be someplace -- and there might even be changes in the filibuster rules more generally speaking. >> tom mann, before you go, let me interject a question. >> okay. >> assuming for a moment that hillary clinton wins, is there anything she can do to head off

the future that edsall has just described? >> yes, by following edsall's advice and putting everything she can into electing a democratic house as well as a senate, i mean, tom is absolutely right on this. and the notion that sort of an individual, because she has experience in a different context in the senate on second or third level issues, having had some success working with republicans, can't match up with the structural forces that are at work here. and so all this talk about, oh, it's so awful, well, hillary needs to spend her last week laying out a vision so she has a mandate. hello? there are no mandates. there are unified governments and divided party governments.

and she needs troops. and she needs control. and then she needs to do and make clear that while the democratic party is changing, it's more educated, there are more higher income people, it's still, one, represents the lowest income whites as well as virtually all of the minorities, and that the prime policies being pursued by the other side are -- i mean, paul ryan is attractive in many respects, but he's still singing the ayn rand hymnal. it's stunning how much the program of the national republican party is unresponsive to the concerns. it's so cynical, the opposition

to government, the demonization of other people, the withholding legitimacy from the normal democratic routines. . . . . . there was an article two or three days ago about people coming from el salvador and other south american countries. my opinion was this should be a way to solve it. or resolve it. so it's not lost message from trump. he's talking about something many people care about. that's not on the defense of trump. in regard of the kind of rhetoric, i think this is everybody's job. to do the fact check, and to

write. write to the editors, write about these are not facts. for example, one of the things that trump keeps throwing out that illegal immigrants are causing more crime. while statistics are proving they're causing less crime. because most of them are worried about committing crime and being deported. so they really don't commit such crime. but they always highlight when an illegal alien killed -- that student in san francisco. it was a story on fox news for five days. that illegal alien, the city of san francisco allowing illegal aliens in the city. which i think it's wrong, but anyways, but focusing on that

crime as if americans don't commit crime is wrong. but going back to the subject that during the debate and even in the discussion that lots of stuff that comes out that's inaccurate, i think it's everybody's job, number one, people who have a letter to the editor forms that people can go to the website and fill out and have a list of addresses, or where to send it to e-mail to u.s. "today," so that is the job of everyone here in the room, including abc. >> i heard a correlation by the president of naacp, that i'm going to use. his formulation is protest polls policy. we need to pay similar attention to the policy that comes after the election and engage and

ensure that we are engaing with our elected officials. because we foet for someone, and then we disappear, and then we come back in the next two or four years to have our voice heard again. we really do need to engage on our city council, our legislators, as well as within our congress to make sure that the policies we care about are the ones that they're talking about, and voting on. >> okay. we're going to take two quick questions back-to-back. and then we're going to wrap it up. we have one there. and this gentleman over here has been patiently waiting.

>> thank you. i come from tucson, southern arizona. we are close to mexico than other states. this month bodies were discovered. and this is a very mild month. one of the messages that we do with election protection is to ask people to verify their voter registration. you don't have to wait until you show up at the polls to find out you're no longer on the rolls rose. if you've registered, you can look it up to verify your voter registration. because often now we as individuals have to do some groundwork, some legwork before the election to make sure that this our registration is in order. we know what documentation we need to vote. we know where we need to go to vote. so that we don't encounter these

unexpected problems on election day. it is a problem that is being addressed by the state board and civil rights groups. but the voters also need to take all is well before we show up at the polls, to know about these problems ahead of time. we talk about the supreme court case where the court ruled it unconstitutional to try civilians in military courts while civilian courts are operating. >> the trial was part of this debate.

and therefore the military trials were justified. and it worked. and at 8:00, chad heat on the origins of the gay rights movement. the whole other array of social and cultural movements from this period are developing. the anti-war movement, the civil rights and black power movement. women's liberation movement. they're taking the best aspects of those and building upon them. >> then sunday evening at 6:00, on american artifacts, we take a tour of the woodrow wilson house in washington, d.c. with, the executive director, robert enholm where the 28th president retired in 1921 and died three years later. >> he responded to that crisis by sending food aid to armenia.

the armenian people were very grateful and a group of armenian women touring the united states raising money for armenian charts were here just after we declared war and presented this painting for president wilson. >> and at 8:00 -- ♪ >> neil oxman, talks about the history of presidential campaign ads, beginning with dwight eisenhower's tv jingles through the 2016 presidential campaign. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. >> will america have its first important born first lady or will we have a former president as first gentleman? learn more about the influence of america's presidential

spouses from c-span's first ladies now available in paper back, first ladies gets readers a look into the personal lives and impact of every first lady in american history. first ladies is a companion to c-span's well regard bide og if i series. and features interviews with the leading first ladies historians. each chapter also offers brief biographies of 45 presidential spouses and photos from their lives. first ladies, in paper back, published by public affairs is now available at your favorite book seller and also as an e-book. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce recently held its fifth health care summit in washington. we'll hear about innovations in medicine, improving hedge outcomes and reducing costs.

>> good morning. i've got wide open spaces up here. i'm glad to see very few down there. welcome. good morning. thank you for joining us here at the u.s. chamber of commerce for our fifth annual health care summit. part of the chamber's foundation future state series. my name is katie mahoney. i'm the executive director of health policy at the chamber. this year our theme is health forward. a very appropriate title as we look towards the coming year and new opportunities to drive positive change in the health care system. we have a wealth of experts here today who will talk about everything from personalized medicine to how employers are investing in population health to what the next five years of delivery system reform may look like. before we dive into the rest of the program, we would like to thank novant health for sponsoring as our gateway host this year and thank bayer for serving as a co-host. we're also thrilled to have blue

cross blue shield and fti consulting as partner level sponsors. we appreciate their support and yours. we're so lucky to have you all here today. it seems like just yesterday we were working on the first annual health care summit, and now here we are five years later. looking back, we focused on improving transparency and rewarding innovations, advancing delivery system reform. and optimizing the next generation of health care. and this year it's on our app. today's event builds on the summit's history of highlighting private sector innovation. while the theme is similar, we're focusing a bit more today on technology and data and their role in targeting personalized treatments through custom analytics and digital health and assessing the needs of different communities and populations in order to best treat conditions and manage health. speaking of how far we've come, please don't forget to download that app on your phones. just search for health forward in your app store. within the app, you'll find today's agenda and speaker bios

and a lot of great content from our speakers. given the focus of this morning's event, we're honored to have bob pearson, president of w20 with insights how to accelerate innovation. bob has had an esteemed career in communications technology and communications and health and is globally recognized as a marketing visionary who's driving pragmatic disruption. at the chamber we take pride and applaud pragmatic disruption and could not be more pleased to welcome you as our first speak tore the stage. bob? ♪ >> a pleasure to be here. i come out of the pharmaceutical industry. originally for novartis, in the technology industry at dell. and today we work with over 100 health care companies, many tech companies and a majority of the

venture capital firms. i thought, let's consolidate the thinking of what we're learning from all these folks into a 20-minute talk and see how we do here. so, three things are driving innovation in our business like never before. and what we're seeing is this convergence of technology in health care that we're all aware of, but i think the future is unbelievably bright for this country. with big data, everyone knows about big data, but what's really happening is we move from having an app here, a tool here and a platform here to starting to think like an information

genome. how do we capture the information through multiple systems to actually use it for the benefit of transforming health? artificial intelligence, machine learning and neural networks had tremendous potential. i'll show you one example in a little bit, but the ability to allow software to understand what is happening in these bodies that we have is going to lead to breakthroughs that we can't even imagine today. and with science, we're well into the human genome, right? but there's something that's been going on for a while. and i think all the time about how science evolves, and you have to go back and realize that patience actually matters. and what you think of the web or the human genome project or artificial intelligence, they have been around for a very long time, but what happens is eventually enough areas mature that they collide, and when they collide, amazing stuff can happen. so let's just actually take a look and see what is happening and where are we today in terms of innovation? so, one example is this. what if we could actually combine a semiconductor technology and pharmaceutical technology? what would that do? there's a ceo of a company i met a few years ago, explaining what he was doing here. i thought this is amazing. this is something to do broadly. and that is, proteus digital health. they have a small biodegradable chip that you take with your

medicine and you can get through a patch, pharmokinetics of the drug. see the heart rate, pulse, where the drug was manufactured, everything. just a very beginning of what we can do putting bio digestible sensors into our body. but the thing that's immediate is if you're caring for a loved one 3,000 miles away, we can see if they took their medicine. we can say, mom, you need to they can that medicine right now. i saw you didn't take it at 10:00. what if we could figure out how to edit disease? we thought about this for years. is there a way to identify genes and we have all this knowledge on the genome, what do we do

with it? actually now we have that ability right in front of us. that's crispr. cass 9. what we're able to do now is have a system where scientifically we can find the places we need to snip, edit and actually improve the function of a gene. that just completely changed the game in looking at treatments, diagnostics, medicine in general. bayer and crispr therapeutics have gotten together. this is an example of where what we need is not bio tech on its own. we need pharma and bio tech and health systems, pioneering together earlier. innovation is so fast that we cannot go in a linear path like we have for many years. it just will not work. it requires a heck of a lot more teamwork. and the bayer crispr-jv is a great example of this happening. what new medical disciplines

result? this is something that there's many things to think of. i was actually speaking at the phoenix medical device meeting to about 75 ceos and so they were featuring new technologies. and one of the ones that really hit me was bio electronics medicine. it's a totally new field emerging because of technology and health. and chad bowden at the feinstein institute showed that with an implant in the brain and having the brain waves measured and basically using a.i. to look at how to scale the knowledge coming out of brain, you're able to allow the person who's paralyzed, person's paralyzed, to think and start to move their hand for the first time. and then over time, actually pick up a key. and this is all by understanding the brain waves, understanding what they're telling us, and able to make that motion go right through to have a person do a motion. showed video after video of

this. it's enough to bring tears to your eyes to see that if we could apply technology and health in different ways, what is it we can't do? right? we can change gene function. we can change how a paralyzed person sees their life. there's a lot that we can do if we partner together more effectively. now, next thing. i don't know why i'm pointing in the wrong direction here. what's the promise of virtual reality in health? this is an area of course a lot of hype with many other things. we think of it for our kids and what can we do there. that's great because we'll innovate faster by allowing the gamers of the world to play with virtual reality and augmented reality. but what we're already starting to see is that you can train physicians anywhere in the world so we can up the level of medical care worldwide through training of virtual reality. that is huge for the world. burn victims. burn victims, already showing that if you actually allow people to think of different things, like they have scenarios where they're thinking of being in the antarctic and, you know,

going through cooler areas, their pain actually goes down. it really does work. and so, you can start to see how do you help people deal with their pain? there's no new ways of post-traumatic stress syndrome. things that are part body and part mind are starting to be able to where we can make an impact of virtual reality and augmented reality. i look at the line here. it's a matter of our applied imagination. the issue is not is the technology available? is issue is our readiness to think through what's possible, test it and figure out where we can go from there. the immune system. the immune system is something that's -- i've been in the industry 30-plus years and talking about the immune system forever. when antibodies first came out, they were cute. no one really knew if they would take off, and here we are today. what we're seeing today are things like this with the