recovering from a real disaster, natural disaster, wars, that sort of thing. why? because old ideas, old institutions get swept away and more rapidly than anyone would have ever expected. new sprouts come up, and i think that will happen here. new people, new ideas, reformulations of old ideas adapted to the problems of today. i choose to believe that we will see that. >> i also think that if barack obama had run on this agenda that he is actually implemented, i have serious doubts that he would have won last fall. he ran on fiscal probity, going through the budget line by line and cutting out waste. he was excoriating bush's deficit spending, and he ran on tax cuts. .

i think obama has an approval rating because he has done a number of things that are called whistles to us. for most people, he has not really done anything wrong yet and he has not done anything to upset them yet. when he has to pay for his agenda or does not pay for it and you see practical consequences from that, i think we will see things turn around. >> it will get worse. >> i will roundup what we just heard. there are two reasons you should be optimistic.

number one, every conservative knows that good things come to those who wait. no. 2, the democrats will blow themselves up eventually. let's go to the next question. >> i am a syndicated columnist. you have all touched on the importance of the family and traditional virtues in one way or another. we have new data showing the illegitimacy rate in the united states is 40% overall and a much higher in a number of committees, the black community and hispanic community. in light of the importance of the family, how do you think we could make the case either intellectually or through government policies for strengthening family without seeming to be critics it? -- without seeming to be critics? >> first of all, as you have for a long time, it is the number

one social problem facing the country. i tell people if they gave me the proverbial want, by which would be that every child in the state grow up in an intact family. in which case every social problem that tears at our hearts with diminished dramatically. i would answer your question by saying i would try to come at it as with many other issues, always from the standpoint of, what would our policy mean to the most vulnerable people, to those presently left behind? this is very easy to talk about in that way. when i say to african-american audiences as i have on dozens of occasions that we have children and our state who have $100 sneakers but no one to read to them at home, who have electronic gizmos that princes and barons would never have but

nobody who helps shake their character, every head in the room agrees. it cannot be by scolding. that has to be spoken on behalf of the defenseless. there is a common sense about it i did not find most people argue with. the only people who argue with the sense of what you say empirically, the himalaya of data, the only people who argue are the privileged to say they can actually get by without respecting the traditional forms that have worked for so long. >> i think it is a really important question, and one that is hard to get your hands around perry one thing i would suggest is talking about it in terms of economic aspirations. if you want to succeed and get ahead in this society, this is what you need. so long as we have a high

illegitimacy rates, we're looking at permanently bifurcated society. the people i hang out with on the upper west side, a support libertinism, but they are rich and walking around pushing baby strollers with their wife or husband. and it is good for them, but they did not really live what they preach. i think one message we have to get out is if you are really concerned about economic inequality and you really want help people get ahead, you have to have a stable foundation and a two-parent family. >> i totally agree. this subject is a way for conservatives to enter into arguments about cultural and social policy that could on one side seems scolding. this is the reason to care about social mobility, this is the reason to care about the next generation. the attack on the family, the

failure of the family is an attack by the rich and the poor. it is not about class warfare, it is about a failure of our culture to explain to our self poway culture survives and thrives. i think consumers should look at it -- i think conservatives should look at it as a way to say it is an agenda for the people most in need in the country and why caring about the people most in need is not figuring out about it whose tax money should go to who else but what kind of society we should be. is difficult to argue without seeming like we are lecturing. >> it is not a lecture about how people should live but a promise of better life. couching it in those terms makes the conservative movement a movement of optimism and reform and real change for america. right here. >> thank you. i am with the fund for american

studies. governor daniels, you said we have to speak to young people, and arthur burks in his opening comments provided the polling data which was fairly depressing -- arthur c. brooks came out with the polling data that came out a month ago which was fairly depressing. could you tell us how we speak to the young people? >> first of all, i am not particularly surprised were ejected that some pollster -- or dejected that some pollster find some flirtation with socialism among the young. duke and the room does not remember how malleable your views were when you were young? mine were. i think it is still game on there. first of all, as a practical strategy, we cannot force that

-- we cannot force it -- it -- forfiet the ability to speak to the next generation, and you are simply stepping yourself as a movement that is facing forward. there is so much to say the young people right now, so much at stake to them. the way they structure their family, and specifically the debt that a pilot. if they think student loans or a problem, just wait. they are becoming aware of this. i probably recklessly gave a commencement speech years ago about standing on the shoulders of the last generation, don't do that. >> you want to hear something depressing? i went back and i was reading a biography of ronald reagan and he was talking about reagan in

1983, 1984, he had 82% approval rating among the young. 82%. this reminded me, last fall, i was talking about how i became a conservative when i was a teenager, and i said there was this discredited incumbent who was an office at the time of economic turmoil and crisis who seemed to be out of -- events abroad seem to be out of control and is amazingly particulate and culpable figure promising change. somehow through this litany i thought, damn, we have the exact opposite happening now. how you crack the nut of appealing to the youth again, i am not sure i have an answer, but a lot of it just comes about by having answers to the key questions of the day. it is not as though reagan went out of his way to appeal to

youth. is just that he seemed to have a better way and a forward-looking attitude. >> the younger, experimental naturally gravitate toward people giving a motion rather than somebody reacting to somebody else's motion. am i think being in touch with the problems of the moment -- >> i think being in touch with the problems of the moment, this is also a generation that has grown up with a lot of choices, a lot of control over their own life, the internet generation of itunes and ebay and facebook that is not going to take well to the experience of going to the dmv to get a doctor. they are not going to take well to economic control at the time. if we could make that way in a case that really explains what they are saying when we see

socialism, if they could explain what it means about arguing in these terms, talk about the debt and the way it speaks to them, it has always been a problem to explain the meaning of debt in the abstract. we're getting to the point where it is very real, the effect on the next generation is growing easier to explain. it still makes for a dull economic argument, but if conservatives can speak to the language and the effect of all of this, that will speak to some younger voters. >> every business person knows, the difference is that they see the tragedy is that everybody else sees and sees opportunity that could make meaningful change, make lots of money, whatever happens to be. your formative years and mine, when we were jr.s -- when we were our junior year in high

school, what is the message that we have to be inculcating right now among young people in the conservative media and a movement? what are the parts of the message? >> as the government -- as the governor touched on, dad and entitlements are something that you think -- debt and entitlements are something that catch the eyes of the young people because it will be something they ultimately pay for. we really need four things in general. we need new leaders, which we do not have yet, but you see some rising up. you need policy, new policy that connects our principles and ideas to the challenges of the day. you need the right tone, which is another very important point the government -- the governor made. the idea that the mccain campaign did not talk about

social issues at all i think is bunk, but i think there is a problem about how they talked about culturally charged issues. fourth, you need circumstances to turn your way. we do not have any of these things right now, but you can see how they will turn in our direction. in the absence of those four things, trying to target specific groups, i am not sure how useful exercise that is. >> and real son. -- henry olson. it is almost like you are all doctors and you were talking about sick patients. i like to ask you to be a little more clinical. why is the patient sick? why is conservatism not acceptable among wide breaths of people? is it because of things we fail

to do over the last few years? is it largely due to long-term changes in public opinion or demographics with which we are currently out of touch? or is it a mixture? >> i think there is a real combination of those sorts of factors. to begin with, there's an element of paying the price for our success. if you had asked a conservative and early 1980's with the major issues were on the table, he would have heard about crime and welfare and taxes. if you asked somebody today, it is likely none of those issues would be the top of their list. the reason of that are conservative successes, successful reforms from a conservative roomette -- from a conservative movement that change the welfare system dramatically, that changed law enforcement dramatically. the kinds of things about which conservatives were very creative a generation ago are not issues.

the challenge of directing yourself to new issues is very complicated. conservatives have been very uncomfortable with health care a long time, and it takes real work and effort to get to the point where you see health care issue like you see the welfare issue. it is begging for conservative, market oriented solutions that would address the problems. i think that is one reason. another reason has to do with the fatigue of being in power for a long time. in a certain respect, conservatives are experiencing this fatigue. we tend to think about ideas. we have a different notion. power is not everything to us. that means being on the defense has an effect of us -- effect on us that is probably a little bit different. there are certain particular failures that i think are

identified with republicans and conservatives. that is a difficult combination. i think the first element may be the most important thinking about our recovery, that is applying ourselves to new issues, issues that we have not been used to thinking of as ours is absolutely crucial. health care is one. there are others, energy, the environment. we have to remember that welfare did not always look like a conservative issue. it was something that conservatives a generation or two ago were wary of just as we are with health care recently. we have to think creatively about how to solve the real social problem. >> i agree with that. there was corruption and policy exhaustion, stemming partly from our successes, but also another huge thing that we cannot ignore that has been touched on a little bit this morning is the financial crisis. for a lot of people, that is the most discredited event for free

market capitalism in a generation, perhaps more. a huge part of march or coming back -- a huge part of our chore coming back has to be how exploiting every instrument of government policy was applied to make the ball much worse than it should have been. that will be the work over years. >> a lot is so circumstantial. do not misdiagnose the patient. there is a reason why basic world view, the picture is still favorable. it is the republican party that is in the direct -- that is in the drink. they discredited themselves to a large extent, and rich just gave you the reasons as to why. let's just remember, but policies are not the ones that

were campaigned on just a few months ago. the republican party for the moment than the views have been associated with the -- you know, we have to repair the jalopy. >> it is not a repudiation of conservative is some, per se, it is less about the iraq war and conservative views than the bridge to nowhere which ultimately came home roost. once the republicans start to remember principals over sheer power, it will perhaps start to win again and become the voice of conservatism that they once were and perhaps could be in the future. back here, yes, sir? >> thank you. i'm with the center for equal opportunity. i like to ask you all what

conservatives should and can do to ensure the principle of e pluribus unum is vindicated in a country that is increasingly multi-ethnic and racial? >> want to take that off, yuval? >> i think in light of that general concern and the immigration debate not long ago, this is a time for civic education to be a priority. it does not have to be simply a government priority, it has to be a priority of society. republicans, conservatives, everybody else has to be talking about assimilation in ways that would probably have been uncomfortable talking about for a while, civic education, american history, the importance of teaching our young children why this is a special country. this is a place to begin that type of work. rather than taking on the kind of abstract problem of

multiculturalism, to explain to particular uniqueness of this country and this society to our children who are going have to carry it on i think is a challenge that we have been remiss about the need to take seriously again. >> governor? >> i think we have to walk the balance beam here. but i opt for the heavy lane of embracing new comers -- newcomers as this country always has. i do not have much trouble as i travel to my say -- as i travel my state and i do this all the time, to me there is a simple three part test. tres partes. obey the law, be a patriotic american, support yourself, and speak english or teacher children.

-- or teach your children. i think this is something the vast majority of average citizens, whether they came at plymouth rock or cross the border recently can subscribe to. i think it is a grave mistake that somehow we'll to pull up the fences, that we in any way become a more multiethnic society is a threat to america. the strength of america as it has always been if we embrace it, and it emphasized the e pluribus unum is still the model and must be. >> i agree with everything that has been said about assimilation. i think it is really hard to maintain the agenda. at the same time you have mass,

uncontrolled immigration. people from mexico and points south before coming here for good reasons but who also have very little in the way of education, very good little in the way of skills, and tend to settle in areas with masses of people with exactly the same characteristics, which the fact is that just makes it very hard to assimilate them. this is a delicate balancing act, because i think we need to try to restrict that immigration, and at the same time we do not alienate a hugely important and growing part of the electorate. that is just an extremely difficult balancing act and one that i sometimes despair republicans being able to pull off. >> roger, your own views on this are prominent and important. could we hear them? >> well, thank you.

the center for equal opportunity believes very strongly and the principal, but we also are on the side of the conservative defied that the leaves relatively high emigration levels are not a bad thing. that in fact they are something that is necessary for the economy to work well. but in order to ensure that those relatively high emigration levels do not jeopardize the principle of e pluribus unum, there needs to be more attention given by the federal government to assimilation. it is not a dirty word. i like the three part test. as you note, arthur, i have expanded that to 10 -- a top 10

list for immigrants, that includes a speaking english and some other things as well, working hard, studying hard. i have also read about the importance of having children happily married. i should say a lot of these assimilation dos and requirements are things that apply not only to recent immigrants but to all immigrants. i think it will be a challenge, but it is a challenge that i think conservatives can meet and are in a good position to make this an issue that works for them. i think as you all have said,

there is a failure sometimes for critical service to recognize issues that are actually good issues before us. i think the overwhelming majority of americans, including recent immigrants, agree that assimilation is important. they are here for a reason. they think this is a great country. they understand that "in god we trust" is written on the dollar bills in english, and that is the language their children need to understand. therefore, this is an issue -- and i should say one of the items on my top 10 list is you cannot ask for special preferences for your group on the basis of your skin color or what country your ancestors came from. i think that is an issue that works very well for conservatives, not to.

we're not -- but i think the worst ever well for conservatives, too. this summer, we have a lot of opportunities to drive home that point with the new supreme court nomination with supreme court cases coming down. >> thank you. moving on to the next topic, one ectopic question i will address you, governor, happily married, spanish-speaking immigrants, if she were here, she would ask the question, does not the relevance of the conservative movement depend on having effective spokespeople from the immigrant community, including the spanish speaking immigrant community? if so, how we get them not to just understand that we share their values but indeed bring them into the leadership of the future of the movement? >> enormously helpful, and we all have seen over and over there is no more hazardous

assignment in public life than to be a distant group and a minority, a dissident and a sense that the reigning leaders will look to kill you for stepping forward or coming prominent. so it is not merely a matter. i think there is a lot of us eagerly and actively recruiting, trying to promote the leadership opportunities for these folks, but sometimes it is a risky business for them to undertake. yes, of course, it is very important. you know, please, let us remember how important people of indian and other nationalities are, disproportionately so, how what wonderful personifications of the virtues, values, the commitment to businesses they

represent. their family commitments. i have given awards for the top math and science students purely on academic achievements within two years, three of the four were indian youngsters, and the fourth was a mormon. so, you know, there are many people like that who i believe can also be invited and welcome to this debate. maybe their presence would attract those from the other nationalities. >> thank you. yes, sir? we will go to the other side after this. >> i'm from the republican staff of the u.s. joint economic committee. voting results over the recent past few elections show that well educated people are turning away from the republican party.

why is that, and how we reverse it? thank you. -- and how do we reverse it? thank you. >> rich? >> we had a peace in our last issue -- we had a piece in our last issue, and he points out there is maybe in inherits instability to the obama coalition. if you look at bush's coalition, he picked up the middle income groups and steadily went on board, the sloping line. i do not know the technical term. is "sloping line" ok? if you look at obama's coalition, is more of a shallow u-shape? it is higher in the lower me