the paper has been moved back to next tuesday. on thursday as i mentioned, plan on coming in and talking more or less informally about our research program. what we have learned and how we have adapted to but we have found in our resources. thank you everybody. announcer: listen to lectures in history on the go by streaming our podcast anywhere anytime. you're watching american history tv. only on c-span3. announcer:, the u.s. capital historical society hosts a constitution day program thebrating their "we people" education initiative followed by a panel discussion on how schools and institutions can foster engagement. >> good evening. it is great to see everyone.

happy constitution day. welcome to the united states capital. my name is beth clements and i'm the ceo here at the visitor center. we are pleased to be hosting this event with our good friends the united states capital historical society. i can't think of a better way to mark constitution day than with a program devoted to citizenship. our founders knew that our democratic system of government would depend on having an informed citizenry. john adams said that livery cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people. his successor put it even more simply. life and liberty go together. of the reasons that the capitol visitors center was established was to inform, involve and inspire citizens of all ages. we do that every day through our

debt expanding series of public programs and educational programs. ongoing contributions to achieving these civic education goals is the partnership of the we the people program. share ourighted to constitutional system with so many students from the washington dc area. our entire education team proudly supports this partnership, i wanted to give a special note of thanks to education programs manager. [applause] lauren created and produces program which we use in every we the people participant. it gives students a sense of what it is like to be a member of congress and to make difficult decisions that impact the entire nation. version is about

women's suffrage. we try to stay current with our programming and are always updating and developing and doing our part to strengthen the we the people program. thank you. we appreciate you. it is exciting to think that we the people will now be accessible to students across the country. this is a fantastic way for all of us to share the we the people experience as broadly as possible. i want to think you all again for being here tonight. and for this program. i know everyone is looking forward to the distinguished panel we will be hearing from shortly. theuld like to introduce president and ceo if the historical society. [applause] dr. thank you. what are we doing?

we are talking about we the people. that phrase is so familiar to us today. so familiar that we might not stop to think about what a radical concept those three that --re at the time the preamble distills the underlying values that move the framers and their long debates in philadelphia. in 1780 nine, government leaders were kings or dictators. the idea that the power rested in the hands of the people being governed was revolutionary. the words we the people stood in striking variance to the norm, because even in earlier founding documents of this country, the treaty of alliance with france, articles of confederation, the

treaty of paris recognizing american independence, the word people was never used. the phrase the united states was always followed by a delineation of the states, and it was the rights of the states, not the rights of the people. when the framers of our constitution said we were going to create a document to form a more perfect union to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, very lofty goals. in many ways, the constitution stood as a document that took the declaration of independence, which was a statement of intent, to a statement of how we were going to get this done. a truly democratic society

relies, as best described, on the ability of its citizens to be informed and to be ready to act. what good is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, if the people themselves have no idea what their role as citizens entails, or what civic rights they are even entitled to? this is the mission that brings us here tonight. fred schwengel, a former history teacher and congressman from iowa, founded the society in 1962. he knew that by sharing the history of the capital and the congress, he could help everyone, as he said, catch something of the fire that burned in the hearts of those who walked and talked in these

halls. the schwengel family continues to be involved in the society and we are happy to have fred's daughter here with us today. [applause] last week, the annenberg public policy center at the university of pennsylvania released their report on public knowledge in the u.s.. the good news, americans know about the constitution and separations of power more now than they did last year. two in five adults can name all three branches of government. that means that three in five cannot. in fact, a quarter of the adults can name only one. and one in five cannot name any branch of government. today the u.s. historical society works to address that gap in knowledge, and to instill

our congressionally-chartered mission that states we are responsible to foster and increase an informed citizenry about the founders of this nation and the continuing thread of principles as exemplified by their success source. -- successors. through educational programming, ongoing research, and partnerships. that is what the we the people constitution tour is. 14 years ago, two visionary leaders had an idea to improve civic participation, and gathered others. thank you to steve, our chief tour guide, and dee hoffman. i thought her name was dee the people. [laughter]

only tonight did i learn her last name. those two put their heads together and said, what are we going to do to change the situation? out of that the society built the consortium to teach d.c. students about the constitution by visiting the places represented by the first three articles. each member of the consortium has a unique role no one else can fail, and together we make a bigger impact than any of us can make on our own. we now know the program makes an impact, because we have followed the students. students who take the tour tell us they are more likely to vote, run for student government, and contact their elected officials. there -- there teachers tell us they help the students will see the constitution is relevant in their lives and make them more

likely to be involved in public service. the curriculum covers 12 items, and because of some of the people in this room and some who are not with us today, 14,000 d.c. public school students have participated in this experience. you can see the names of consortium partners on the screen, and i would like them all to stand so we can thank you people from the national archives, the national park service, come on, guys, [applause] restaurant associates, usa guided tours, capitol visitors center, the white house historical association and the white house visitor center. it is an incredible group. i want to tell you that having a group is great, but there has to be someone who is willing to pull the strings.

and that someone in this instance is laura mcnulty. stand up. [applause] laura answered a cold email, and she said, i think this is a logical thing, let's try it. so she talked to people and said we should do this, and laura is fantastic. but she can't do it by yourself. -- herself. i want the rest of the society staff, wherever you are, thank you. [applause] thank you. now i get to introduce the person that sent the cold email.

i told you we were inspired by our program and wanted to expand it. enter soraya of nbc. she learned about our program and thought there might be a way to make it available to everyone, and nbc news learn was the answer. the consortium agreed it was a great opportunity, a donation was made to make it possible, and over this past year we have worked in concert with nbc news learn. so we thank you, soraya gage, who is not just the head of nbc caller: but an emmy award journalist who has taken this on is a passion project. [applause] soraya: thank you, jane. i don't want to brag, but i have a pocket constitution on me. [laughter]

when i reached out to laura and she started asking questions, she was so engaged. i actually sent out 100 emails over the past week and nobody got back to us with the passion and interest laura did. and then, i was coming down to washington and i said i am coming to washington and can i visit you, she said sure, we set with laura and talked about the fact you are reaching 14,000 students in washington dc. we could take this project and reach 6 million students across the u.s. why should it only come to the kids of washington? what about kids in iowa? she got it. the spark was lit. alan and i left, got on the train, laura called a week

later and said we are going to do it. we got the funding. partnerships are really about one person on each side, and the passion of nbc news met the passion of the team under laura. yay, laura. [applause] nbc learn started 14 years ago with visionaries who said, how do we take the archives of nbc news from a vault in new jersey where the fall of the berlin wall, the moon landing, hours of incredible material, so it was a passion project. we put together a platform. 14 years later we are reaching 6 million students and teachers. we had a lot of luck in stem. we have been trying to get civics going for 13 years. this is the really first time we have put together an original content collection around civics. again, thank you to all of you.

i want to introduce one of the most talented reporters with us tonight, kristen welker. kristen is an nbc news white house correspondent whose political reporting appears on nbc news and msnbc, including nightly news with lester holt, today, meet the press and nbc news.com. she began covering the white house in 2011 and her dynamic questioning and white house briefings is frequently highlighted by outlets across the world and across social media. we are so proud to have her here to moderate this battle. -- we are proud to have her here to moderates this panel. welcome kristen welker. [applause] kristen: thank you, soraya. that was a wonderful introduction. i appreciate it. i'm honored to be here tonight. it was an absolute pleasure to

work on the we the people constitution video series. we put a lot of work into it. it meant a lot to me. and for me, it was personal. i go to work every day and exercise my first amendment rights, try to participate in our democracy by holding the people of the white house and capitol hill to account. and this is something i take so seriously and something i never take for granted. i remember when i was in eighth grade coming to washington for the first time with my history class, really learning about the way the capital works firsthand, the way the government works, i was awestruck to be here. that was one of the moments that inspired the work i do every day. so this is such an important project, important day, that we are commemorating. i am honored to be a part of it.

and we could not have a better panel to discuss this incredibly important issue tonight. the panel of experts here to discuss civic knowledge, it's challenges and also its opportunities in our country today. they are panelists that are filled with talent and accomplishment. we have their full bio in the program, but i am going to introduce them one by one. from the pew research center we have carroll doherty. [applause] take your seat as i call your name. from george washington university we have dr. denver brunsman. [applause] from the ashbrook center at ashland university, we have dr. tim haglund. take a seat, dr. haglund. [applause]

from mckinley technology hi in -- high school here in washington dc, we have the 2019 history teacher of the year, miss alicia butler. [applause] >> i'm going to take my seat next to you. thanks for being here. kristen: mr. doherty, give us a sense of the data. how would you rate overall knowledge about civic engagement. based on everything i have read, we are getting better but have a long way to go. professor doherty: it often depends, as the annenberg survey showed, our survey, all surveys about civic literacy and political awareness, it depends on how u.s. the question.

-- how you ask the question. but it is a mixed bag. last year we did a major survey on democracy. how the public views democracy. one question we asked, what is important to be a good citizen? obviously, voting. 91% say that is important. look at the darker bars. this is where you see variance. 49% say it is very important to follow what happens in government and politics. not such a great measure may be. i would say, vote, pay taxes, a broad consensus, following what happens in politics and government, less so. we gave people a seven-item quiz about current political matters, the constitution, guarantees under the constitution.

here is the good news. when we ask people what right is guaranteed by the first amendment, an easy question for the people in this room, not so much for people around the country. 86% got that correct. pretty good. . and this was done in 2018. we asked about which party controlled the house and senate. about 80% knew the republican party controlled both houses. not a bad result, perhaps reflected that there was a midterm election coming in partisan control would be up for grabs, but still not bad. the electoral college, people know at least the basic function. and then you get a little less knowledge about procedures, say the vice president has the tie-breaking vote in the senate as opposed to the majority leader or somebody else. only about half know that.

and for many years we have studied public knowledge of the filibuster, not so great. fewer than half know that 60 votes are needed to end the filibuster, an important marker in american politics. so here is really the story of who knows what. we did a scale of what high knowledge would be, the four questions we selected from this group of seven. you have high knowledge if you get them all correct. 14% of the young people were high knowledge. we see this throughout surveys we have done on civic literacy and political engagement. wide educational and age differences, every time. we also know this is associated, what you know about the government, the constitution, is associated with your own political participation. have you contacted an elected

official? have you publicly expressed support for a candidate on social media? those with high civic knowledge are most likely to engage in these behaviors. so it is related to political participation. you can see a lot of numbers here, but these are numbers of people who have actually done things over the past year, past five years, in terms of political participation, beyond voting. volunteered for a campaign, low numbers there, not much age difference, interesting and encouraging perhaps. also, attending a local government meeting, big differences in contacting an elected official. local more likely to do that, -- older people are more likely to do that. educated more likely to do that. you see these persistent agent education differences, where people who know more tend to be older people and people with greater education.

with that i will wrap it up. kristen: let me do a quick follow-up. the disparity between the number of people who say it is important to vote versus the number of people paying attention to politics, that stood out to me. you have a sense of why that is? carroll: there are universal principles about civic engagement that people all embrace, and that is one of them. voting is, in spite of the fact our turnout rate may not be the highest of western countries, at least people recognize the fact that voting is important. following government, not so much, people don't feel an obligation to follow news about government does much. it is very interesting and again, you see big age differences. young people tend to grow into it over time, but they start out at a low level. kristen: miss butler, what did

you take away from the classroom, and how does that inform the ways in which we need to enhance lessons about civic engagement in the classroom? >> one thing i have learned is that our students desperately want to be engaged. last year we were teaching about world war i. i made sure i brought in discussion about the harlem hell fighters. there was a gentleman named james butler who lives in maryland and fought in the war, he was given the french medal of honor, came here and did not receive any recognition. he ended up committing suicide.

the article was talking about how he should have gotten recognition. so i set out to do something. the kids were engaged. they loved the article. we were doing class activities. and i was alright, let's go onto the next topic and the kids were like, that is it? what are we going to do about it? he is from the area, he should have a street named after him, the metal of honor, what can we do as students? and i didn't allow my lesson to be open enough to be open to civic action. kristen: what did you learn and what is the lesson for other teachers to incorporate civic projects into their classrooms? --e >> open up your lessons, number one. allow those opportunities, even if it is not something you initially planned for. make sure it matters. no longer just write a letter to

your representative. kids want to go out like members of sncc back in the 1960's, they don't want to just sit, they want to act, and they want to go in their neighborhood, what is happening in the area? finding an article about somebody that lives in their area that they care about. kristen: dr., what do you think accounts for the lack of civic knowledge, not only in classrooms, but more broadly in these numbers we saw? >> alicia's answer hits on it a little. part of it, sounds weird to say, but we are addressing it as an information problem. and we are shedding its significance in doing that.

the issue isn't that kids aren't getting the right information, it is that we are not finding the right ways to make it something meaningful to them. this is stuff that matters the most, matters of injustice and justice, right and wrong, that kind of thing. i had my daughter watch one of the videos about george mason and at the end i said, what did you think, and she said, so he is good, right? [laughter] she's trying to figure out who is this person, what is he stand for, so you can imagine, as you meet this mind, whether that is your primary source document door in the classroom, otherwise you are trying to figure out their mind, the principles it stood for, and evaluate that life and see how it applies to your own life. kristen: this goes back to the idea of personalizing it and

drawing those connections and finding those opportunities. tim: absolutely. kristen: why is that such a challenge? tim: education is an information delivery service too often, and that is almost exactly backwards. what we need to do is jar students and make them think and almost begin from a place of questioning rather than, here are the answers. and doing that, i think they will naturally start to want to know more and you will get better test scores out of the process, but that would be a coincidence, or a happy byproduct rather than the thing you are going for. kristen: i hate to say we have been too focused on stem

curriculum, but obviously that is critical, how do we readjust and say both are equally critical? alicia: we just need to allow opportunity for that in our lessons. our district principals, we need to put as much focus on that as we do test scores. it is not as easy to assess levels of civic engagement. kristen: let's go back to the 1st constitution day in 1787. what was the environment like then? what was the level of political divisiveness at that time? how difficult was that moment? professor brunsman: great question. it was 232 years ago.

not that anybody is counting. [laughter] and we celebrate correctly the constitution today as the most successful frame of national government that ever existed. but i think we would be surprised how divided america was then. if we had the pew research center then, we would have seen there was probably more support for the existing government and -- under the articles of confederation then this new experiment that was forming in philadelphia. you have to really think about how new this was. it was different from what they were used to. they had a government that had defeated great britain. and even the framers of the constitution, they weren't happy with the end product, but they had a lot of humility about it. james madison took the best

notes of the constitutional convention. and benjamin franklin made sure he gave the last big speech. he said, i confess there are several parts of this constitution which i do not at present to prove. -- approve. but i am not sure i shall never approve them, for having lived long, i have experienced many instances of being obliged by many considerations or forward information to change opinions on many subjects which i once found right, but found otherwise. it is therefore that the older i grow, the more apt i am to doubt my own judgment and pay more respect to the judgment of others. with our students, if we could get them act to that place where they understood this was a contested process, and franklin ends the day by talking about how optimistic he was, the chair george washington had been sitting in, he had been staring at it at the convention and it

had a sun on it, and he said that that was a rising sun, not a setting sun. so to bring the energy that existed at that time and bring it back to the classroom, is crucial. kristen: one thing that is powerful about those remarks that you read for us, thank you, is that we think about it in today's context. so often we hear the phrase, everyone is so divided, we have never been more divided, and yet they accomplished that act then went arguably they were dealing with very significant divisions as well. how did they push beyond them? take us back to how the american people felt at the time?

professor brunsman: it was then called the pennsylvania state house. it wasn't until the 1820's it became known as independence hall. when they were meeting at the pennsylvania state house, there were sworn to secrecy. imagine meeting from may to september in philadelphia how , hot it would have been with the windows closed. you might not want to be the reporter in the room. [laughter] although it might be a big scoop. professor brunsman: i would give anything kristen: i would give anything. professor brunsman: they took it very seriously. there weren't a lot of leaks of what was happening. so when the plan came out, there was incredible interest people had, and vigorous debate. that gets back to the we the people. what gave honesty to those words was the ratifying conventions in the states to approve or not approve this document.

rhode island in particular took more than a year to approve the document. so they continued through that process. the lesson today is that it required that the bank. it also required compromise. the original constitution didn't have the first 10 amendments, didn't have the bill of rights. the federalists, people who supported the constitution, didn't think there were necessary, they thought they were implied. but by giving in and saying, we will add those formal protections of individual liberties, people who opposed the constitution, antifederalists, came on board. once they did, an amazing thing happened. there was no permanent opposition in the united states to that form of government. you didn't have a group that ran to the hills and waged a board becauseon the government. there had been that political

process and compromise. >> go-ahead. word of compromise, that is such a powerful word and we look for that and i think the inrican people look for that their government today. how critical is it when you're in the classroom, talking to your students that you teach them about the constitution and their rights in the context of how to compromise, how to get there, that that is part of civic engagement as well? it is very important. that is one of the most important aspects of being a citizen of this country. can you hear me better now? making sure that is part of the discussion when we talk governments.s and

when we say compromise, we are making a promise together. the origin of that word. we need to have trust and mutual respect. jefferson, late in his life wrote this letter to a fellow reflecting on the declaration of independence and jefferson had squabbles with everybody. you can read about that. but in that particular letter, he said with respect to our rights and the british, their contravention of those rights -- we thought the same way about this thing, and as americans, there has to be this super .artisan agreement on something that is something we have to work on.

>> how adaptable are these primary texts? sort of a living document? >> yes, yes. i guess it depends on which way you're using adaptable. ourink we all bring experience to the documents. i think you can have a variety of levels of education. there is the student who learned to read via the declaration of independence. the first day, it was handed out, and he brought this paperback to the teacher and he said, i can't read that. he checked his file. third grade reading level. he said, we will work through this together.

every wordto circle you don't know. provingove is he is that everyone is created equal. >> mr. doherty, when you look at the data, but when you look at the constitution specifically, do you get the sense that they know, that they understand it, that they grasp it? >> i think they grabbed the generality area they haven't good sense of our generality. they've a good sense of going .eyond the basics you get a lot more unfamiliarity

. education is part of it. maybe information. media, people did not use to have so many choices as they did today. people can often choose to opt out in a way that maybe they ,ouldn't 30, 40, 50 years ago and i think you have the impacts of that as well. brunson, in historical terms, when you think back to the 18th century, what made this so remarkable? dr. brunson: the constitution was something that really had not been done up to that point, something the british had struggled with in north america

and something the new american states struggled with after winning their independence, and that was figuring out how to share power between a national, central government and the local government here is the answer the british ad was we have all the power in london. parliament is sovereign. the answer the american states had up to independence was, no, it of us individual states have the sovereignty. there were literally 13 republics in the united states, much closer to the european union today that our present day united states. point,nd of show that the word that followed the notted states was"are" "is."

what the constitution did was say, no, the people are sovereign. we, the people. the people grant permission to their representatives to make decisions for them in a republic. through the system of federalism, the sharing of power between the national government and the state governments, they figured out something the british were not able to do. it was a real benefit. we talk about exceptionalism. america was very exceptional at the end of the 18th century. if it were less exceptional more haveis because adopted them. , people these ideas have looked at them in different ways.

good teaching.t there's no plagiarism in good teaching. there's just best rock this. things that work. there are best practices. we kind of have the formula. >> one of the things that strikes me about the framers of , they seem toon have the ability to envision scenarios that have not yet happened and that continues to be tested. absolutely. probably the worst feature of the articles of confederation that really doomed it was it took all 13 states to change it. all of them. one could argue that may be the constitution itself is very, very difficult to change. that is part of its stability.

but it has happened 27 times with 27 amendments. i think that was one of the really important things. everything from the right to vote for african-american men with the 15th amendment, you get the 19th amendment, women voting , 18-year-olds voting, 26 amendment. waysf a sudden, in many something that was not very democratic the way that we think about democracy, has been made democratic over time. >> do you want to weigh in on that? >> yes. i am a renaissance and reformation scholar -- [laughter] to that point though, is we do like about it

have to be very sure about the direction we're going. this forces coalitions to emerge. and that makes citizens have to work together. i like that about it. we made a couple mistakes there, but on the whole, i think the changes have been pretty good. mr. doherty, what do you think about the missing links in our civic engagement, civic knowledge? thingserty, one of the -- mr. doherty: where the things i am struck by, you can argue about people not knowing about the filibuster, say. it's a technical detail that matters a lot in today's world,

and making the connection between these principles, the seemingly dry principles and what is going on in government and policy today and making it relevant is really the key. you think about getting people energized and excited, because we are entering a very political moment, another election. their politicians out there on the campaign trail, and it's interesting because you have people paying attention. and a lot of them say, it's too early. i can't pay attention you. -- i can't pay attention yet. how do we as a society combat that exhaustion some people feel? our other data, political data, election data,

people are very excited about the full election. people are very engaged in the outcome of the election. the early tests, the early readings we are getting, and 2018, you know, turnout for to othercomparative nations is not that high, but it was a record in 2018. we are seeing the same trend continuing 2020 where people are following the news more than four years ago, a year ago. so the early indications are is a high-stakes election. people are paying attention. how do you foster the kind of excitement in the political system at an early age? twofold thing for me. one of the reasons we cannot get that much participation or an urbant, people in

setting do not feel connection constitution or its history. they start in 1787 and they end in 1787. people like me were not even able to debate about it. people like me were not even able to read the constitution. we have to expand the narrative. show that people like me challenge the constitution to make sure we were living up to the ideals with amendments. of the traditional amendments were there because of the effort of people who look like me, black americans, women, minorities in this country. think, i that, you have to get involved. >> there are a lot of missing

voices in this conversation. people of color. minorities. thato you make sure want to hear their own voices in these living documents? >> they will definitely say, what about people of color? that is the first question. ask thes open up, and i students, who is not present? the fact that certain groups are thatresent, have you think will influence this meeting? we have open discussions like this. to endot allow the story there. we continued talking about how this document makes more sense. >> when i talked to my father

when he was in school, he talked about how different the lessons looked. why did it take so long to start learning some of these lessons? it's important to find those missing voices in order to keep that connection going. dr. brunsman: yes, absolutely. , think the first thing to do note that there were people there not present. to point out one of the really valuable things about the founding was a lot of .alk created equal. if thomas jefferson was honesty would say all white men with a

certain amount of property and not women or people of color. said all people are ouritted -- of people all treated equal. aremight say that they liberal construction is. it's not just white men. it's not just men. it involves all americans. i think that is one reason why was he'll have a living resolution, in a sense in this country and we fight about a lot of the same issues people did to hundred years ago. in a sense, we are still a young country is still working out these issues. it's important to tell young people will they are part of this process.

what to the numbers show with communities of color and their level of engagement? doherty: the same age pattern and education -- on one -- we question we asked actually asked the survey question about the constitution and the supreme court, sabine supreme court based its rulings more on how the rounders law the constitution, or should it a differenceou see of opinion there. but the fact that people are still differing -- this is a debate for american citizens. i kind of like that question. >> to what extent are your

students aware of the contradictions and -- an emotion. that is great. our actionsnk sure are based on facts. we've got to do our research. we have to listen to each other as well. we can't just go off the rumor. that is definitely of a thing -- a big thing. can you support that with the facts, do some research. what you think the lesson is ?ith partisanship it was a very deeply divided society.

but what are the lessons from ?hat as they relate today >> i think the nature of ideology has changed over time and it has become more rigid. you used to have presidencies where we had our day-to-day but at the end of the day we are all americans. i do not know how much you see that anymore. we don't have statesmanlike henry clay anymore that people talk about as being able to overcome and compromise to the extent that we used to. yes. yes, so, the founders were extremely nervous about political parties. famously.hington most

why did he not? he thought the parties were in it for themselves, not for the country. so they were very cognizant of the fact they were founding republic. itis the common thing, and was a fateful step once they forged parties. i think hardee's are critical to the functioning of our country today and they are not necessarily a bad thing, but if olderld mix that with the understanding of republicanism happy- that would be a place to be. >> we are largely still a two-party system. obviously there are all who run as independent. the framers envisioned that? and do you anticipate that ever-changing at any point?

dr. brunsman: they did not plan very well for parties to be honest. they thought more about the different branches of government . the checksum bounces. parties through is a little bit of a wrench into that. again, the historical context, the knowledge that we know our totem is not set up for that make everyone aware it is necessary to be on their best the hader, to be civil, to work together because you do have to compromise in the american system to get anything done. about ifadison talks you are a member of congress, you can protect the interest of congress -- that is hilarious, right? i don't think that was anticipated. it is so much more a problem now. your numbers show anything

about third parties, partisanship. have people weighed in on that? do people want there to be more ?olitical parties >> just very briefly, i know you brought some of your students here. what you hope that your students would take from a discussion like this. they have every right to be part of the constitution.

>> i will go down the line. give me your closing thoughts, closing remarks. >> i do not want to be pollyanna-ish, but i think there -- thereof reason for were different ways. there are so many different americans who contributed to that story, and there someone for everyone. yes, so i began was franklin, so i guess i will end with franklin. it's a famous story. that woman.name of

female known as a politician. she hosted salons in her house in philadelphia and she asked what do we have a republic or a monarchy and he famously said "a republic, if you can keep it." and we have a primary source for that. some historians question whether it happened. it's a republic if you can keep it. , you can just sleep on the job. being a citizen requires education. it requires vigilance. --requires dissipation participation. feelings,impart those i think certainly knew citizens, they can go through it.

they have responsibilities, expectations. as a native philadelphian, that is one of my favorite stories. mr. doherty? mr. doherty: it is a mixed bag, but i think the rise of partisanship and this feeling we have run the 2020 election and things like that has, for better or worse, engaged a lot of americans. it is engaging people read these democratic debates are getting high ratings. we see a lot of interest in the 2020 election. there is the flipside of getting people more engaged with our government. fantastic. this is a fantastic conversation. thank you all for being here. [applause] gift and we special

want to thank each of our panelists -- one of the special , when theye have -- were redoing the capitol they donated the marble steps to the historical society, so we have been able to create various products, and so for you and every member of the panel, we have -- >> oh, wow. >> thank you so much. >> how fantastic. >> thank you. >> that is so lovely. >> beautiful. give oneeven going to to beth, but she could of course, buy it and she probably gets a discount. what can i say. i want to thank everyone who came.

this is an important event. this is how this goes. we are engaged in a process of teaching and engaging. we are so delighted the historical society has this with -- that lets us go from the 14,000 children to the people who are here today to the loo are looking at it in a virtual manner, and so we are blessed. we are blessed to live in a country with the declaration of independence. we are blessed to live in a country with the constitution. and we are blessed to have the kind of participation that we had. toaker pelosi took her time participate in these videos. you all may know, she's got a

lot of big things to do. senator blunt, senator murkowski, representative fox -- senators ande congresspeople who came and participated. so, i would like to think that we are in a place where there is a lot of work to be done, but we .ave a path to doing that work go back to the time of the constitution. else quotes the famous people. but i thought it would be good to quote some of the people that were actually in the framers document who maybe we never heard. is because i served a time in the state legislature where nobody ever hears of you. but edmund randolph one side, the government is for the wasle, and the misfortune

the people had no agency in the government before. and if the government is to be binding on the people, are not the people the proper persons to examine its merits or defects? so, we the people teaches the meritshow to examine the or the defects and how to change it. so there are more merits than defects. and our job now is to take what we learned and go forth and strengthen our democracy to help teachers like mrs. butler, by providing tools. the videos -- which you see on the screen, if you take your there is a the back, qr code, and if you have any clue how to use that -- which that would not be me -- you can

make the videos appear on your , absent knowing how to use it you can type in nbc learn/wet hepeople, for those of us who are from another generation. hope that thist and we will a step have many more opportunities like this. thank you to our panel. thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] american history tv products are not available at the new c-span online store. to checkpanstore.org

out all of the new c-span products. artist harvey pratt shares his vision for the national native american veterans memorial in a conversation with kevin gover, the director of the national museum of the american indian. mr. pratt discussed his background as an artist, as well as his own experience as a former u.s. marine in vietnam. this event was hosted by the smithsonian national museum of the american indian. right.all good afternoon. my name is kevin gover. the the director of national museum of the american indian. we are here to talk about the national native american veterans memorial. we've broke ground this morning and we will turn to the business of building the memorial next