the public that it defies with republicans and conservatives. that is a difficult combination. i think the first element may be the one that is most important. that is applying ourselves to new issues, the issues that we've not been used to thinking of. it is absolutely crucial. there is 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 were wary of. we have to think creatively about our ideas can solve a global problem >> i agree with all of that with the corrections of the populate de -- popularity of the iraq war. another huge thing that you cannot ignore is the financial crisis.

for a lot of people, that is the most discouraging event for free market capitalism in a generation. a huge part of our tour in coming back is going to have to be explaining the true roots of that crisis. however instrument of policy was applied to make the bubble much much worse. that is going to be the work. >> that is a bull's-eye? there is a reason for this. it is still favorable. the republican party discredited itself. . . 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 income, lower educated groups, it dips a little bit in the middle, and then it goes up among the high income, higher educated folks. that is probably inherently unstable, because how is he going to pay for all of the government programs to support the people at the lower end? eventually, it is going to be taxes, and quite stiff taxes, on people on the upper end. we asked to implement those taxes, -- when he asks to implement those taxes, i think we will see the suburbs populated by the better educated professionals swing back into the republican direction. >> i think there's a lot of truth to that. also, you have to think about these groups. each person belongs to more than one group. we think about the people who

are considered to be highly educated in the polling from the last two elections, they also tend to be unusually young and they also tend to be wealthy. i think we have to think about the appeal of republicans and conservatives across this spectrum. democratic governance tends to make the wealthier is little more conservative because it taxes them more highly. i think that edge of things will tend to balance out, flat out a little bit. but there is no question@@@@@@@

are you in what used to be the humanities, whatever it is now. so you're going to see a left-ward tilt in people who have p.h.d.'s. that in itself is not a huge problem. we have to think whether it points to things that underlie it that are problems that we ought to be thinking about. >> governor, do you have anything to add to that? >> it is too soon i think to say. with the enthusiasm for obama last year that stemmed from a lot of miscellaneous sources, it was a luxury purchase. in the sense that he didn't seem a threat economically, and there was the history. i think there was the natural

desire for change after a period of poor results, but quite honestly it was a fashion statement vote for some people. i am not disparaging that, people who wanted to demonstrate their enthusiasm for a asset in which we could elect finally an african-american president and things like this. n sure how that holds up over time. the luxury is gone now. even since the election, there has been a heck of a scare for a lot of people that are not quite so certain of their economic futures. there is the threat of higher taxes and severe restrictions on their life and lifestyles. it'll be more evident. let's wait a while and see whether it is a pattern or a one time thing. >> also, in terms of obama's use and sensibility, it was the first opportunity in american history to vote for a graduate

student for a united states president. i think there was an element of identity to it, in that sense. >> if i can meld arguments. what they are saying is the democrats disproportionately has the support of people who did not finish high school and those that study gender studies. [laughter] the republicans continue to win those with a bachelor's degree and go to work. where the future leads, it is your guess. >> admittedly, i have a question. i heard a lot of descriptions that may sound like conservatives -- conservatism is

not being held these days by the republican party. it is a logical conclusion that either a nonpolitical approach to pushing conservatism is right or looking for some sort of structural change for new party is right as opposed to banning all our hopes on the other party. >> that is not that of not is of a question. -- of noxious of a question. i think it should be political expression for conservative goals. the only viable one of the moment and over the last 30 years is and has been the republican party. we have to be concerned about its health and direction. >> governor? >> we focus on either side by the time -- by the way.

they are trying to construct something new. it is not very practical. the system tends to find an equilibrium and will again. the reference more than once was anything is today's american of all ages. there are lots of choices. i'd think that the would not sit still for the distinguished -- extension of one of the two that they have. >> we should not be to dismiss the of the republican party conservatives. it is important for an electrical -- and intellectual party to be winning elections and do something for the country rather than arguing about if we could. the republican party has been an effective vehicle for

conservatives for getting in power. it has not always work out we are in power, but we could've said the same thing in the 1970's. we could said the same thing in the early 1990's. we could have said the same thing in 1998. it is worth the investment and effort to make the republican party a vehicle for conservative ideas. there are not a lot of options. in the democrats decided, it helps to have to filter yourself for some sign of process that forces you to talk to voters. they need to think about what the political system ask the people of one to exercise power. our two parties do an excellent job of this. it is going to take a lot of effort to revise the republican party. it is worth the effort. >> would be benefit to the country if the conservative movement detached from the

republican party and able to influence right minded democrats? >> yes, that should obviously be our goal. one of the great political watchwords of the 1980's was "reagan democrat." of course you want to appeal to the democrats. >> reagan democrats were voters, not politicians. you have the sentimental influenced by speaking to voters through the vehicle of a party. reagan democrats voted for republicans. >> we have time for one more question. i am sorry i will have to make a decision between both of you. you've had your hand up for a long time. this will be our last question today. >> john goodman, national center for policy elements. one of the thing that -- they

have talked to blue-collar workers and explain what capitalism is good for them. except for a few references to healthcare, i've not heard anything like that on this panel today. there is no real interest in using a conservative point of view to solve economic problems for the americans. >> governor? >> i do all the time. i guess it did not come to mind here. i talk to people all the time about what it will mean in their life and their job and their economic prospects if we dramatically raise the price of energy in our state. i talk to them all the time about why higher taxes not only means higher paychecks, but less chance for their son and daughter to get a job.

your questions are very important. i think we did not give the right illustrations. i think you heard each of us in different ways recognize that to be a credible preeti credible -- to be credible and earn the right to be in a leader and a part of this country, we have to address ourselves and put ourselves in the shoes of the large majority of american citizens. we need to reserve our greatest concern. our greatest concern for those who have shared the blessings the freedoms that are brought to this country. you are right to remind us. it is every breath that he started from the standpoint of decisions that have not got up

the ladder yet. he will always be a great his role model in that respect. >> i think your question exactly the essence of the challenge that we face. we have not gone that across, then we did that to do our job. that is exactly the poitn where conservatives need to see -- point where concerts is me to speak to voters. america does not need to stand back and think about accountants. it means to think about the lives of a family. it means to think about apparent to confront a difficult balance between the needs of raising a family of prospering and making money. it is a balance that exists at the core of conservatism. there is this tension between what we think of now social consumer system and visible consumers and. that is not a philosophical problem. that is in the life of every

american family. our effort to deal with that needs to express itself. in the to speak to the problem that middle-class parents face, that inner-city parents face, and speak to the challenges of bringing up a new generation of americans to bling in the american dream of social mobility. that is what conservatives need to do. that is what it means to think about the problems that we face. >> absolutely. i agree with all of that. it is not just john campeau's on to this. abraham lincoln said a good if there is any measure that will help the lot of the average working man, i am for that measure." i think that attitude should be at the core of what we are about as conservatives. >> we end on the note that free

enterprise is at the center of american culture. it is the essence of opportunity and freedom. on to greener should is a question of character. it is a vehicle on which we will take not as a conservative moments, but take americans to greater heights. before we break up, i do want to remind you or ask you to join me in thanks the bradley foundation. as many of you know, and they have been the leader of a lender -- of philanthropy in expanding access -- entrepreneurship. it is something that has been a great benefit to our communities and to the united states. please, join me in thanking the bradley foundation. [applause]

thanks also to the hudson institute for their hard work and organize in this event. and to our panelists who will be here after war. i am sure these conversations will spill over. thank all of you for your attention and energy in a conversation we had today. thank you very much. [applause] >> you're watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, a look at public opinion in pakistan. after that, a state department briefing with the u.s. representative to muslim communities. and later, more about pakistan. a retired general talks about the future of pakistan's

military. >> tomorrow morning, a discussion on american presidential succession in the event of a terrorist attack. we will hear about a new report on the topic. live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> how is c-span funded? >> publicly funded? >> donations maybe? i have no idea. >> government. >> c-span gets its funding through taxes. >> federal funding. >> sort of a public funding thing. >> how is c-span funded? >> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> a new pakistani survey found most of those polled view al qaeda and the taliban as a major security threat. at the same time, most are also