sponsored by c-span and white house historical association. if you can't get to indiana, see the entire collection online on c-span's website americanpresidents.org. >> the latest snowstorm has moved out and the federal government will be closed again tomorrow. in a few moments, a look at the future of financial institutions on the recent world economic forum. in a little more than an hour, a brief look at the career of the late representative charlie wilson, the subject of the film "charlie wilson's war." he died today at age 76. after that, a discussion on the future of american culture. . .

>> now a discussion of the implications of government assistance on the future of financial institutions. panelists including david cameron looked at how banks have feared after receiving government aid. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to this panel on government assistance and where we go from here.

i see people are coming in. the time is short. let us begin. i think the theme of this panel is a reflection of the extraordinary period we have been true and are involved in in which government has intervened in the private sector and intervened in the economy and in extraordinary ways. government has put massive amounts of capital into the private sector. it has established ownership stakes in many companies. it has been involved in intervention in a variety of ways. that are really a break in a long term trend. we had a long-term trend toward left government direct involvement in the economy. that trend has been broken. often with discomfort on the

part of governments that felt they were required or compelled to take this action. the question we face today as the economic crisis is not over but it is abating, and there is a return to more normal say, whatever that means, the question is where do we go from here? what assistance should government be providing going forward? should we go back to the previous model? this being a temporary introduction or break in the model or is there some new role of government assistance that we should be pursuing going forward? in order to discuss this question, we have a distinguished panel. you know who most of them are but very briefly, we have a deputy chairman of the planning commission of india.

dominic barton, john evans, a trade union leader, david cameron, the leader of the conservative party in the u.k., andre kosten and peter sand, the group ceo of standard chartered bank and jean-claude trichet. in attacking this topic with a large and distinguished panel, we have divided the topic into three broad areas. we have -- we would propose to proceed through those areas as follows. the focus on the financial sector. that is the area where the most

government assistance and intervention has taken place. what next? what should the government's role in the financial sector? should the government involvement be wound down? in what way? how? where do we go from here? second, the corporate sector. government has ownership stakes in many companies and what is the path forward? how should we rethink or restructure those stakes? finally, the issue of economic and job growth. we're in a relatively fragile recovery. growth is perceived to be slow in many parts of the world. we have lost millions of jobs around the world. what should government be doing to assist in jump starting economic growth and job creation going forward. let's start with the financial

sector and let's start with mr. kosten. -- kistin ostin. where do we go from here? >> i think the crisis showed unprecedented involvement of the government in the financial sector and the level of preparation between the financial banking committee and the government. president reagan said that the most terrible work in english is from the government and i am here to help. -- terrible phrase in english is i am from the government and i am here to help. most of the governments made a brave step. they spent a huge amount of taxpayer money to support the financial sector. and again, i would like to underline that there was a very high level of cooperation between the financial sector and

governments. unfortunately, in my opinion, the spirit of cooperation was lost over the last few months, probably, and we definitely see a growing concern among the banking community that the government is not quite correctly understanding the financial sector. they're not correctly addressing this issue and they are probably, there is extremely harsh criticism on bankers, their activity, their position. though generally, banking community understands the necessity of changing the system, changing the regulatory rules, not necessarily by more regulations, but rather better regulations, and more probably efforts to have the regulations on an international level to control the activity of global, international institutions.

i think if we take russia for example, the associations are a bit different because we still enjoy a very good understanding between the government and the financial sector of what steps should be taken in order to reach economic growth. there is public opinion is quite reasonably good to russian bankers. what is going to happen now after the government has spent a lot of money and sometimes even when they're directly involved in financial institutions that the american government would buy direct stakes in leading american banks? in the midterm, the role of the government and financial sector, the direct involvement will be diminishing. i do not think there is a strategy in the united states or europe or in russia that the

government should keep the controlling or even the big stakes in leading financial institutions. in america, the banks are trying to return whatever money they have got from the government. if the market permits. i am sure that the british parent sooner or later will think how to privatize whatever assets the acquired during the crisis. in russia that is the same. there is no political or strategic decision that the government should necessarily keep the higher stake or higher role in the russian banking sector. where the government would concentrate its effort is having a bigger say in controlling and monitoring the financial institutions and sector. before the crisis there was a trend that the largest bank was claiming the self-regulatory system was the best and the large institutions can supervise themselves. that the regulations can be organized on a different basis. i think that is the end of this trend. we're coming back to a stricter

control of the government and the creation of some kind of international bodies or international efforts to have the global regulation of the financial sector. >> peter sands? >> the relationship between banks and governments and by extension, society has changed irreversibly. none of us should be kidding itself it will go back to the way it was before the crisis. which is not necessarily the way it is now but it is going to be different from what it was before the crisis. there is a set of issues which is around extricating or exiting the emergency measures put in place in the crisis. i want to focus on the broader issue of the relationship of banks to government and society. that includes banks that took no

help whatsoever. i think that is fundamentally change. there were two aspects. one is a regulatory relationship. the relationship with the central banks, a supervisory relationship. we're in the process of working out how to craft a new relationship. the discussions are not necessarily easy. some of them are tangible. there is an acceptance and a common language and understanding between banks and bankers, when a better regulation and we need to put the crisis and we need to address the too big to fail problem. there is a sense of understanding. there is a constructive dialogue. i can see that week craft a better relationship there. the more challenging strand is

on the political side. it is a much more challenging to see how we get to a better place. banks have not held themselves at all. we have managed to be town deafen shooting ourselves in the foot. in sensitive. you can think of lots of metaphors. some politicians have not been helpful. sort of broad scale demonization of an industry that is actually is vital to the resumption of economic growth is not necessarily terribly helpful in working out how to construct a better relationship. in short, what i think is, on the technical regulatory side there are many tough debates to be had, many tough decisions, but i can see it happening. on the exit from the emergency measures, again some difficult

issues, but i can see it being manageable. the primary challenge for bankers and politicians is to address that broader relationship issue which comes down to values, comes down to the whole fundamental social purpose of banks, and that, i think, we have not done well. absolutely the banks have not played their part properly and that is the one we need to grapple with. if i could add one other complication, the trouble is we cannot just kraft individual solutions for individual countries. the solutions we work in terms of crafting this relationship have to work at the level of an individual country and the international level. like it or not, we have a globalized world and a globalized financial system. >> mr. trichet, you are a central banker. what is your perspective? >> i would echo what has just been said. on the amplitude of the public

involvement in the recent period, it is currently, i have to say, underestimated in my opinion that we were very close to a depression, a full-fledged depression, had not, as you just said, dear friend, the central banks on the one hand and then governments on the other hand stepped in to avoid what would have been a catastrophic development. the central bank did things on both sides of the channel, on both sides of the atlantic, everywhere in the world that were unthinkable before this crisis erupted. and the governments put on the table level of taxpayer risk which was necessary to avoid the depression, but represented on both sides of the atlantic, when all computation is made, recapitalization option, the option of our guaranteeing the loans of the banks, the impaired

assets options and so forth, i arrived to 25% of the gdp on both sides of the atlantic. it is surprising that if it finally appears that it is approximately the same amount, a gigantic amount which, very fortunately of course because we are succeeding, will not be transformed in spending or losses, but gives an order of magnitude of what was necessary to avoid a collapse of the system. that being said, where do we stand now in terms of public authority involvement? first of all, i have to say that and i echo again what has been just said. we have a global problem. we could see that a single event in the u.s. could have an immediate -- it was a question of half days, a dramatic influence of the changes of the decisionmaking process all over the world. we have to find out global

solution, that is absolutely clear. we're fortunate, if i may , in i difficultyperiod, because we have -- in this difficult p eriod, because we have a consensus that the level of the world, a consensus on principles. that market economy remains the best way to produce wealth, there is a consensus on that. we have to make this system more brazilian. we have a consensus on the methodology. we have a consensus on the enlargement of global governments to the g-20 and [unintelligible] better regulation. not necessarily much more regulation.

better regulation. there is one thing that is clear. the public authority will not be forgiven if they do not care for the system to be much more resilient, much more resilient. this means we have to improve everything, in my opinion, not scapegoating every part and parcel of the system. i would echo what has been said. the scapegoating exercise is a bad exercise. when you scapegoat one part and parcel, banks or rating agencies or accounting rules or whatever, then you forget the other. if we have to improve everything, including of course, the risk management of banks and the behavior of banks, but not exclusively banks, everything. let me only conclude on that. we're working very actively. a lot of ideas are examined. the jeep 20 -- g-20 methodology

is accepted. the financial stability board does a good job. the bows a committee -- basel committee is working extremely actively at all over working groups that have but a global level with the emerging world. we have to make tail this level playing field. we have to be sure that we will find out solutions at the global level. of the solutions are local, regional, continental, national, it is a recipe for catastrophe. i elaborate no more because we have another side of the coin at the global level which is the surveillance of macro policies macrothe g-20. it is another story. >> david? >> i wanted to agree with what was just said. it is right that we must base our response on hard-headed practical self interests and not politics of envy, not

scapegoating. that is incredibly important. for politicians to understand. i wanted to draw out what i think are two lessons. one on the point about regulation and one on the point about relationships that peter was talking about. on regulation, the u.k. experience i think shows it is not so much an issue of the quantity of regulation, it is the quality. as well as the quality, it is the authority of the regulator and the clarity of the regulatory structure and that is why our view is that we need to change the regulatory system to end the so-called tripartite of having three different players in it, and invest much more power and authority in the central bank. we think the central bank has that -- is the best place to put the natural authority and discretion you need in the regulation rather than believing you can write a perfect set of rules. if you will get the u.k. experience where there was such

a problem of excess of leverage, greater centralization of the bank of england would have held on that. on the issue of the relationship between politicians and banks, societies and banks, i think peter is right. it does need to change quite fundamentally because of what has happened. the where i think about it is simple. the banks now know that the taxpayers will not allow them, rightly, to go under, because the risk to the economy of a depression, rather than a recession is there. in return, the taxpayer through the government is entitled to say to the base, that means this relationship needs to change in other ways. that is why i think the two things that president obama said, we particularly welcome. there are things at the very riskiest and, the large-scale proprietary trading that should not be backed by retail deposits. and the second thing, perhaps controversy 04 in conservative

politician, is, as we look at how we create a more robust system for the future, the idea of some short of insurance levy to pay for the mistakes of the past and protect and enhance our system for the future, if that can be agreed internationally, we think that is something that is worthwhile. that is a reflection, i hope not a knee-jerk reaction, it is a reflection of the changed relationship, given all that has happened, given the relationships and how it needs to be -- work in the future. >> just a contextual point before we leave the banking sector. it would be wrong if anyone were to underestimate what was said, how close we were to a total may -- total meltdown 18 months ago of the financial system

which would have sparked a major recession. it was the government's, the court nation which put the patient on to life support when it was about to have a fatal heart attack. the patient is still on the life-support system and it would be wrong to underestimate the degree of anger which, certainly in the represent -- organizations i represent, you feel would go to meetings with groups of workers, people who have lost their jobs or homes at that situation and what went wrong. so again, unfortunately for this panel, i am agreeing with what has been said. the idea that governments can walk away spent -- having spent trillions and say, get on with it as it was, is just unthinkable. the accountability, how the system works in the future and to ensure that that does not happen again and we have a financial system which returns to the job of supporting the real economy and not the real economy, just supporting a speculative bubble seems to be unthinkable that governments and public policy could move away from that responsibility.

>> what are the key elements of that responsibility? >> one message i hear in the discussions and we watch very closely the discussions in the financial stability board. my message would be is open up that process. people say these are the people who brought you the crisis. jean-claude may have helped solve the crisis but it has been seen as being bankers and financiers to worst possible in the first place or designing the same system which is supposed to prevent a future crisis. you have to have a sig holder approach of engaging the interested parties about where they balances between regulation is and the balance between liberalization is. where the balance between ownership is, brick of the banking sector as well into feasible units and be on that you have to have a structure which is credible also to the public and not to the financial sector. now, there are different ways you do that in different countries and i certainly believe you need to coordinate

that to avoid regulatory arbitrage internationally, but i think that has to be some of the agenda rolling out in the future on the financial sector. >> i am not a banker but i am coming at it from the government sort of perspective. in one respect we have been fortunate in india because the direct government assistance to bail out banks was not an issue. banks were very conservatively run and were completely stable. we do not have the problem of how we handled the special assistance that has been given. the larger issue of what is happening to the regulatory structure is something very relevant to us. mr. trichet pointed out that a whole new regulatory structure is being worked out in the financial stability board. we participate in it. the expansion of what used to be the financial stability form into a financial stability board into -- which includes the g-20

countries is an important democratization of the way in which banking regulations are going to be done, so we're but dissipating in that. i think the real issue for us is going to be questions that will be raised and are raised at home. you know, in the light of the fact that the global financial system rather than the financial system in industrialized countries is now seen to have been engaged in too much of risk-taking, too much of a market knows best ideology which is changing. what does this imply from our point of view? our view is we have been fairly conservative. we were nearly near -- nowhere near the frontiers of this kind of financial innovation, and our strategy then was that we should gradually move to what is the consensus on good financing. that is -- consensus changed in the sense that there is less of the innovative free-for-all activity. we are so far internal to the

frontier that we have to keep on moving in the same direction. i think you'll get -- we have to persuade our population and public that even as the industrialized countries seem to be shrinking, we may well be expanding the scope for liberalization in the financial system and that is what we have been doing. we have been saying that, we have been introducing new instruments and giving a clear signal that financial liberalization in india is necessary. it will continue but it will be targeted to reach the end result of whatever emerges out of the fsb as a regulatory structure that makes sense. all these issues of too big to fail, how much innovation, leverage caps, all this, well built -- get built into our own structure. we were no where near a position where we would be directly affected so we escaped from the financial system -- crisis with a system that was: did not require much government assistance, other than short-

term liquidity support in the first six months. >> this is not an excuse to back off of liberalization? >> definitely not. >> in russia as well, in eastern europe and other emerging countries, is this an excuse to stop progress toward liberalization? >> not at all. i have to say that the russian financial system just like in india, probably, differs very much from the western and so if mr. sarkozy here said that the banks should give loans to the real sector rather than playing in the stock market that is what russian banks are doing. that is when the threat for us came from. when the real economy started actually not to perform to will, then we had the problem of nonperforming loans. i would say yes, we have a little bit different situation and for us, the financial sector was maybe not as severe as we saw in the west.

the will also understand that we are already part of international community and we are very much dependent on the international capital markets, international debt markets, so for us there is no way back. that is important because we're not talking a regulations now. it is important not to say, in the 1930's there were good legislation is adopted in the u.s. let's come back to that legislation and that will have another 50, 60, 80 years of comfortable life. i think we should build up a new system of this and the concern of the banking community is, if we have too much limits on this and to much supervision, the industry will not be developing or producing enough funding for the real economy. there will be no economic growth without the proper organization of financial sector so not to overkill, that is a big concern among the banking community. >> we will make a transition soon hear -- here.

>> by now, everyone in dallas has had their fill of talking about banking but i will make one closing comment. at the heart of much of the debates around the future of the banking system and the regulatory frameworks and so on, is the trade-off between how safe to what the banking system to become less of minimizing the risk of another crisis versus how efficient and effective we wanted to be in supporting the real economy, generating jobs and so on. there are many things we can do that pursue both objectives. we all want both objectives, but there also some trade-offs between those two objectives and we need to tease those out and understand those very carefully, and that is something i isthe basel committed the -- the basel committee and the financial

stability board is working on end is in engaged in -- is engaged in. societiethe stakes are very big. if we get it wrong one way, we run the risk of having another crisis. if we get a wrong the of the way, we run the risk of starting the real economy of enough credit and capital and not having a -- not having the kind of recovery, the kind of job creation that the world need so it is a high-stakes game. >> in this discussion -- this discussion about the financial sector and regulation and banking is a mature discussion at this point. we have been talking about this for the last 12 months and for the six months. but there is the real economy. there is the corporate sector. the businesses that have to create the jobs that are going to replace the millions of jobs that were lost. there is real concern about how

quickly that process restarts and how many jobs are created. there are grave concerns that job creation will be too slow and it will be years and years before we recover. you are starting to hear discussion about what government needs to do to stimulate economic growth, what government needs to create jobs. we hear all kinds of schemes floating around. in our country, the whole grain jobs movement is a very hot thing. green jobs are going to save as. there are many other discussions around the world. government of course still have some ownership stakes that it picked up in the economy in a variety of industries for emergency reasons like in our auto industry. could you lead us into this discussion? where do we go from here? what should be the role of

government going forward in trying to stimulate and enhance economic growth and improved job creation? >> a couple things i would say at the beginning is that there is no doubt that government has increased its role in the economy, particularly in industrialized economies in some countries up to 10 percentage points of gdp. in many of the emerging markets it is going the other way. you are seeing less involvement. i do not think as we have heard here that that will switch back. it is moving that way but the governments are more involved. there is a worry from the corporate sector that you can have -- there is good government and bad government or there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol and in terms of how you move it through. the view of government picking winners or the government trying to decide where jobs should be treated and how the move, i think it's people concerned. what i call sound bite policy analysis, the pressure that

governments are under to make decisions quickly in what are complicated long-term issues, i think korea's people. so you mentioned the green growth side, we'll get it on the u.s. side of things. that seems a great opportunity. when you look at potential good job creation, it is relatively small. it is less than a percent of what could be there in terms of the other picture. when you look at those jobs, many of those jobs in seller may be treated in china, not the u.s. unit to get a more granular look. if i look to the good government involvement that involves the private sector and the public sector working together to figure out what these problems are. we need more long-term policy work and cooperation together to move it forward. to give you a couple of examples, again, from the emerging markets, if you look at what china did with their ndrc which is a long-term vehicle in

terms of thinking about where the economy is going which involves private sector people, there realized if you want to create jobs and you have a stimulation program, one of the things you have to deal with is the health care system which is broken and not there. you're not going to get consumers to save less and less to have a better health-care system. being able to parse that ended down is quite important in coming up with the solutions. the singaporeans with their economic strategy committee, you have a mixture of government, private sector, academics, they are thinking long term, more through cycles used to work on the opportunities and issues that i think where there could be real opportunity. i hope we can move to more of that type of a model, a long- term perspective, looking at the fundamentals and trying to contribute because with whatever 34 million jobs have been lost in the last 18 months around the world, it is in business interests to help figure that out, but it will take business

and government working together to work on some of those issues and incentives. >> strategic thinking is a great idea. we agree on that. perhaps we could turn to david cameron. what should government be doing to restart economic growth, to make sure those jobs come back? we need to work public private sectors together and the thoughtful and a strategic, take a long-term perspective but there is a lot of pressure to do something. >> the first thing is we have to make sure we learned the right blesses -- lessons. it was a financial bubble and balances -- imbalances that cause the problem so we must not go to a failed corporate is model of picking winners. not every country is in the same situation. when it comes to stimulating growth, the situation many

countries face, the u.k. in bid to killer is that there is not government money to do this. the british government faces a 13% budget deficit. the greatest threat is not from taking on the deficit, the greatest threat is putting off the action that needs to be taken. not every country is in the same situation. that is important. the challenge for policy makers is how do we balance the economy? we have been too dependent on financial services and housing booms and government money. in the u.k. case that was 70% of our growth. how do we will balance the economy without a failed strategy of picking winners? how do we get growth when there is not any money around, when we should be in the face of deficit reduction rather than deficit spending? one thing i think policy makers should be grabbing hold of and putting back to the top of the agenda is something that, sadly,

is far too low down the agenda which is the doha trade round. if you want something that would get growth going, that would benefit developing countries and developed countries, it is there in front of us and it is a pity we can seem to get them moving. a lot of the deal is there, ready to be done. that is hugely important. dominic is right about the scale of green tech jobs. it is not an area that is about -- not about picking winners. it is about deregulation as well as putting in place of the infrastructure. that could make a difference. the big challenges try to do this in a new wave rather than trying to return some sort of failed 1970's corporatist model. >> mr. evans? >> when message i drawn is precisely this point that employment has to come center stage. the real risk of a jobless

recovery and the degree of complacency sitting in now that growth is picking up slightly that the pressure can come off, that is a key danger for tackling the job crisis over the next six months. governments have got a short- term crisis to deal with, how to try to get more employment growth out of the growth that is taking place, how to reorient some of the stimulus packages which relatively little has been spent on job creation, training, skills development, ideas that can produce a better long-term situation in that short term. i would say on the green jobs debate, we're at the beginning. we have to tackle climate change. you have to link agendas on jobs. there is a longer-term lesson. if i could comment on one point that david cameron made, if you look at what has happened over the last 20 years on labor markets, the industrialized countries have seen this rise in inequality and the growth of

poverty in some areas at the same time as a great deal of wealth at the top of scale. i do not think it will be a question of the politics of envy in the future. we have does -- to design a growth model. the challenge is in this crisis, how do we strengthen institutions which could show as in some economies, they are good at getting distribution of income warfare. there is a certain amount of evidence that a show that the fare societies tend to work better economically over the longer term. you have to reproduce that globally and nationally and that issue of how you deal with it is crucial. the international labor organization in a tripartite way through employers, trade unions, and governments last summer and negotiated global jobs pact, which tried to get agreement on the measures which need to be taken. i take a state colder -- i would

say a stakeholder approach seems to be crucial if we are getting out of this crisis and not return to the problems of the past. >> could you give us some hints? what are some of the steps that you were referring to? you did not come out -- >> there are schemes that can keep people in work. people have been able to be rescheduled and trained. the issue is how does that translate and can resources be put into job creation? one key issue is confidence. an issue is how we have resources for that. that has to be addressed. i just came from a job panel where we put a question to the audience, if you had to choose between reducing deficits and creating jobs, what would be the choice? three-quarters said greeting jobs. i would say that is statistically relevant -- a

statistically relevant of the view of davos i hope you will come paid to bond markets in the future. we have to look at new measures of taxation, a transaction taxes as well, try to pull in more resources from sectors which have to be responsible for this crisis. we have to strengthen the institutions, collective bargaining but also labor market interventions which are successful in distributing -- redistricting. that is part of the model of the last on20 years that has gone wrong. >> i would pick up what my neighbor just said to draw the attention to the fact that, if we want to create jobs as soon as possible, we need confidence.

we need confidence in the household constituency, confidence in the entrepreneur constituencies, and also in the market constituency. and to get confidence, you have to be credible in having a path permitting it to be back to normal and to a sustainable position where as regards public finance. so i would recommend -- it depends on the country to country basis -- being able to as soon as possible to demonstrate they have a credible path towards the stable -- sustainable position is essential for confidence day and jobs today. i do not see -- in the question which was asked, i see a slight contradiction because it is a little bit more complex than that. confidence is of the essence and it is what the central banks are trying to do, to be anchor of

stability and confidence. i would say that we have some of the challenges being sure that the system is more resilient. let's make the assumption that we do that. we have also science and technology which are moving at the speed which is incredible and probably for dozens and dozens of years. we have the success of india, china, the emerging world, latin america, which calls were incredible changes at the level of the planet. in the industrialized world, the problem is to be sufficiently flexible to take advantage of those enormous successes, because we have to run a scientific success, a technological success, success in development, in what we call before the third world, which is now the emerging world and which is taking a dominant position. this of course calls for being

flexible if we want to have all the benefits of this new world and the jobs that we need so i would call for structural reforms and appropriate flexibility. >> i think those are very wise words. i think a phrase like we must protect jobs, it is understandable that in a crisis that would come up and there would be a great demand for ideas, but what i fear is that the supply of bad ideas will greatly exceed the supply of good ideas, so a lot of things can be done under the guise of protecting jobs, which will actually undermine the long term objectives that will have in mind. in india, we're keeping that very much in mind. let me comment on how we see it. our situation is a bit different. in the sense that we were happily growing at 9% for four years. in the two years that the crisis has affected us, the growth rate

has gone to an average of 7%. that is a big drop but it is still a pretty good growth rate. the demand in india is, what is happening to the jobs that you promised would be created? of course, our answer is the solution lies in getting back to 9%. government policy is really focusing on how we get ourselves back to 9% growth. the challenge there is pretty obvious in the sense that we know that, in the industrialized world, there is a lot of global rebalancing of demand that has to take place. hopefully the g-20 summits will bring about greater consensus on how that is to be done. even if that transition is manage very well, most people would think that the new normal for the world is not going to be like the old normal. can a country like india growing 9% if the industrialized countries at best will grow 1% less or 1.5% less than they were

doing in the previous five years. we recognize that the world has changed and export growth and therefore demand from the export side will be less than it was earlier, and so the issue arises, we do not have any doubt that on the supply side we have the capacity to grow 9%. the challenges for us, where is the demand going to come from? it will not come from exports to the same extent. our internal thinking is that that demand should come from enhanced domestic investment, and that investment should be in infrastructure, because that is the biggest supply constraints affecting india in the medium term. how do we do that? i do not think we images that -- envisaged that in -- doing it by a huge increase in public investment, i do not think the fiscal situation would stand that. the strategy is to rely on public-private partnership. use public money where private

money would not come in, or rural infrastructure, all kinds of things that are important for the rural economy but to use the available public money to leverage private investment through every restructuring of projects and arrangements and we're doing that from telecom to roads and shipping, ports, airports, railway movement and so on. the strategies are different, but in each case, the effort is to put in place a framework that will bring in private money. we're doing this in a background where private investment in india has done well. we have a stake in the global economy stabilizing as quickly as possible. one new issue that this does raise in connection with financing of such investment, is there a case for more innovative, publicly supported financing mechanisms, or believe it to the normal financing system to provide the finance providing the projects out

there? this is something that we're really looking at, because the truth of the matter is, there are many areas were covered regulation, differential treatment of regulatory standards, hidden subsidies and so i managed to push finance in a more attractive way in certain areas. in our case, we have a financial system which is still developing, so there would still be more of a case for doing something. we do not have a firm conclusion on this, but that is an area that we are trying to export. essentially, jobs are going to come when growth recovers and we think we can get back to 9%. if we can manage these particular challenge is properly. >> we have talked about confidence. we talked about the path to sustainable growth, rebalancing of demand, and need to establish more domestic demand in investment of the emerging markets, may perhaps new financial tools. peter, how would you --

>> the point i would like to emphasize is trade and avoiding protectionism. the challenge is that for understandable reasons, discussions about job protection, dealing with unemployment, in many countries quickly translates into how can we protect jobs from the threat of being migrated overseas or from exports from other countries. one area in which both businesses and governments are endlessly creative is finding new ways of being protectionist, new and more obscure and less visible ways, beatrice that -- be it through trade protection or financial regulations, environmental regulations, currency policy and so on. it would be a tragedy if we do see that. there are a lot of pressures for the world. the general direction of the world despite some noble efforts in the other direction is to be more protectionist at the

moment. i would echo david's comments about the protection of trying to progress the doha round. trade policy is one of these areas where, if you're not pushing the bicycle for, if you are now riding the bicycle forward to my your falling off, you're going backwards. the world has a lot of steak -- at stake in making sure we do not quietly and up in a more fragmented protectionist system. >> david? >> i would agree with that, as peter said. one of the successes in this this very difficult recession is that although there has been protectionist rhetoric and there have been some protectionist moves, there has not been a wholesale -- i agree with you. you have to keep moving forward. it is one of the biggest opportunities in a world where we need to rebalance, where the countries in the west, we need to trade more and export more.

we need this growth model which needs to be a model were based on saving and investment and export rather than housing and finance and government. i want to echo something jean- claude said. it is wrong to say that there is a choice for countries between an early deficit reduction and job creation. for some countries there is not a choice. if we do not get on and make early steps toward deficit reduction, we have seen in greece where this can lead and the pain it can cause. there is a great danger particularly as the crisis phase of the difficulty passes, that whereas political leaders were saying, we must not put off what needs to be done. we must take this action. as the crisis point fades, politicians say, let's wait and see. let's put these decisions of. it is a dangerous thing to do. as many economists have been saying, the debt and deficit crisis could actually replace

the leverage prices that we have seen. i was very interested in what montek was saying about private penance. we have huge experience of this in the uk. there's a danger of what should be about sharing risk between public and private sector becomes a way of government keeping its liabilities of the balance sheet. i would like to take part in department finance initiatives. i am sure there are all sorts of opportunities in this but there are risks to be aborted about building up liabilities for future generations when there is not a transfer of risk involved. >> i am aware of the u.k. experience. we have tried to find out what is working in the u.k. and we're not. this issue of the balance of risks and the appearance of transparency is very important. in india, one man's public- private partnership can become

another man's crony capitalism. we officially say that the role of the nature of public-private partnership is putting private money into public projects, not public money into private projects. the danger is there and we handle that, first of all, by a very robust competitive system. every public project, at least for the central government, is guided by a concession agreement, which is a detailed document link out all the risks. we do not bid -- negotiate this with an individual investor. we have a concession agreement and invite bids so they bid on the basis of a revenue share which is positive, or, where the project is not going to sustain itself by earned revenues, they can ask for capital subsidy up to a certain maximum which is preannounced and whoever wants the lowest capital subsidy gets the project. the system is transparent. the concession agreement is known, the standards that are

expected are laid down, and there is a lot of discussion before bids are invited so anyone has an idea how to improve that agreement can do so. the standards -- the parts are awarded on a competitive basis. i would like to say this has gone on for 10 years and you're the projects and they have worked successfully and i know some of the difficult -- the channel tunnel comes to mind. you can run into big problems but so far, we seem to be finding the private sector responds in many areas, and it is quite encouraging but i think we need to do more. it is a work in progress and we keep consulting to find out whether we can do it better. >> from russia, i think confidence is extremely important. but whether it is enough for economic growth -- china, which shows the quickest possible

growth definitely has the confidence, but spending huge amounts of public money on developing specific industries. what the treasury -- russian government is trying to do is focus not on building bridges which should be important because there are few bridges in russia but concentrating on innovative high-tech areas. recently, the nanotechnology fund was set, but to venture capital public government fund was set. we think that to provide government growth and eight -- create more jobs, definitely there should not be any growth without new jobs -- i think we should focus on these innovative new technologies, rather than probably creating some additional demand to buy cars or keep inefficient the prices like the government was doing during the crisis to protect jobs. >> i wanted to build on the innovation point because i think while i fully agree that we do not protection is a man

driving the doha round ford is critical, it is important to look at where we are going to get the growth for these jobs to occur and what is the innovation policy that we're going to have. that is another area where you can get cooperation. it is not about picking the winners in it but ensuring that the conditions are in place. you look at health care which is not a very popular were to be talking about in the u.s. but if you look at it from a growth opportunity and where technology can play a role, there is a mass of opportunity. it is an under-penetrated area and jobs could be greeted from that. to pinpoint these areas where we could help create the conditions to generate more jobs and growth and there are a number of them, health care, education, agri- food, let alone what is happening in emerging markets. >> that brings to four. i think we can lose a time like

this. there is a lot of human needs in the world. huge numbers of human needs in health care and education and so many areas of life, improving conditions, housing, environmental impact. it can find a way to restore enough confidence we can start focusing on those, growth opportunities rather than thinking there is this fixed pool of demand we have to fight over who was going to get it, i think will be better off. mr. evans? >> a comment on perhaps trying to rephrase the protectionist question because the organizations i represent, we have members in exporting sectors, importing, people who feel threatened, it does not actually help. we internalize that discussion. so far i would agree that there is not this protectionist response, which would get into really killing growth at the moment. whether that stays that way, if there is not a backlash, i think is a key issue we should all be concerned about. the solution to that depends

upon our success on the job creation agenda and the confidence agenda and i would say engaging people in the discussion agenda which is crucial. there is the medium term issue which has come up in the g-20. it is how you try to remove the wider imbalances, trade and demands and the points you have made, poverty in the world and needs in the world and supply which gets away with the -- to the imbalances of unsustainable trade deficits and unsustainable surpluses on the other. that will not just be done on trade policy. you need to embed the trade policy in other policies including import -- employment. you need to restore a balance global system. the g-20 ministers said they are going to look at different indicators on that process and the imf has been given the job.

heads of government. it would be a fundamental mistake not to have employment as a key indicator with a review of the quality of employment in the process. i think that is something that could be done immediately. it can help to get a balanced view on what is happening in the world cannot go back to of you we have got to look at deficits. >> i want to open it up to their audience for questions. if you could be thinking of a short focused question for panel about these two big topics, please be thinking of those right now and let's give mr. trichet the last word. >> i wanted to say that it is extremely important that we do not forget the other side of the coin of global governance, the mutual assessment process of the g-20, the framework for a strong system and balanced growth. it has to be run by the imf, it

should go to the g-20 for appear assessment and peer pressure in order to reduce the level of imbalances are the heart of the problem that we have to cope with. we had a financial sector that was extraordinarily fragile, but we had this accumulation of imbalances and there, i have to say, it is a formidable challenge for the members of the g-20, because they have to except that their own domestic policies could be changed for the sake of the stability and prosperity of the global economy, which is now the only permanent entity at the global level. again, it is a challenge for all the countries and certainly for the western democracies also. >> we have about 15 minutes in a recession left. .

. we think that as we trade out of this recession, we should be trying to use tax as a signal to help encourage people to get out there and create jobs and create new businesses. for instance, saying that any business that sets up should not have to pay national insurance on the first 10 employees, for

instance, something like that to try and stimulate the creation of new businesses and small businesses that will provide some of the growth and wealth, i think that as possible. i also think that in the western economies, our tax systems have become phenomenally complicated. there's a case for your release and exemptions and disregards and all the rest of it, and flatter simpler rates of corporation tax. that is something else that we can look at as well, which is while everyone knows we've got this difficult and potentially painful readjustment as we get back to some normal budget balances, i think we should send a very clear signal that we want our countries to be successful, entrepreneurial, enterprising places where we want companies maybe that have left and gone to relocate elsewhere to come back. one of the clearer signals we can send is on long-term targets for corporate tax rates to say this is how we see the future

and be in no doubt that this is going to be of very business- friendly country, as we need to be, if we're going to get out of what has been a terrible year and a half. >> any other thoughts? >> may ask about new tax on bankers? >> the government has set out a bonus tax which they have put in for one year only, and i think that is going to happen. we have not oppose that, but i do not think it is a long-term answer to the problem. i think actually what president obama was talking about, the idea of some sort of levy that could be agreed internationally in order to try to ensure against future problems such as the ones we have had. i think that it's more practical and more thought through. as i said the beginning, we need to be hard-headed, practical, acting in strong natural interest, rather than knee-jerk politics of envy, which may make

us feel good for five minutes but it will not solve the problem for five years. >> another question? >> i am from a fund management company in the uk. i have a question today in terms of -- i see a strong imbalance today. u.s. is printing money through the treasury. the japanese are doing the same. europe is the only country there right now does not have the treasury, and it is hard to compensate the global imbalances through currencies, which at the end of the day, create jobs or blocks of jobs. president sarkozy so that this is going to be a key item of the agenda when france takes over the presidency for the g-eight, and i think, d-20. can you comment on what you think are the imbalances created by today's currencies that do not trade in the same way? the central bank, they do not have the same freedom at a time

when jobs or it risk in the various areas, and this has an impact, both on the g-20 emerging, and most of portly japan, euro area, and the dollar area. thank you. >> you are the central banker. >> i want to be sure i heard that the central bank had not the same freedom. did you say that? [inaudible] it seems to me that the federal reserve is independent, and i do not doubt that for one second. on the currencies, i would only say that, as you know, ben bernanke and tim geithner are saying a strong dollar is in the interests of the united states, in relation to the other major floating currencies.

i say myself, on my part, i fully agree. a strong dollar is in the interests of the united states. i would also say that it corresponds to the overall superiority interest of the global economy as a whole, and certainly of the interest of europe. i echo what they say. i would also say that, as major floating currencies, we have the sentiment that a number of other currencies that are not floating could themselves have a progressive and orderly and timely appreciation. that is the way i see the running of the present situation. in the very long run, we could imagine other solutions, but at the present moment we are running a set of free floating major currencies, and there you have the terms of reference that we agree upon.

>> another question? yes, sir. in the front row. >> while every country has its own problems and is thinking of its own solution, how do you see the doha round will succeed? if it would not, what would be the challenges? the key. -- thank you. >> peter, you brought it up. >> i think it is a good point. i wish i was more confident that it would succeed than i am confident in my knowledge that it is important that it succeeds. i think it is very important that we continue to make progress on trade, but i am not expecting that doha is suddenly going to become easy. but i think even the process of trying to make it happen is helpful, because you tend to get small victories on the way and

you also stop sliding backwards. but i think the realities of the positions of the different governments, the political pressures they are rendered, means that we're not going to see an early and quick resolution to doha. just building on the earlier question and the role of currency, i do think there is an interplay between the trade and protectionism issues and the currency issue. ultimately over time what we have seen is a shift in economic power and wealth from the west, broadly speaking, to the east -- asia, middle east and so on -- and that is a good thing. it is a good thing because it is a reflection of the fact that asia has got wealthier. i think there will ultimately translate through to currency movement. asian currencies will ultimately become more valuable be estop western currencies. it will not be an immediate neat, smooth, unidirectional path, but actually the less

movement we have a map, the more issue -- the more pressure we are going to have on the protectionist issues and the more difficult it will be to resolve things like doha. >> mr. shay? -- mr. trichet? >> to say that the future is not written, it depends on us that doha would be in a successor not and that we can achieve what we want. we all agree, and i would say not only on my own behalf but on behalf of all central banks, that we have an immense stake in the success of the doha round -- immense not only for the global prosperity, but also for maintaining appropriate price stability because protectionism would be the worst enemy in this respect. it depends on us, and we have to all work to convince our own people, it seems to me, and what you said was very right, it had -- to have the most lucid possible public opinion to understand that there is a

superior interest in solving the problem. >> is very hard to keep forcing yourself at this moment to think that there is a positive solution here. this is a moment where it is very easy to start to think about how i can avoid losing, and that is a very dangerous approach indeed. another question? over here. >> david mullins, i think regulatory failure was absolutely at the center of the problems that we have had, and i would like your assessment of the realistic prospects for improvement in regulatory structure and practice. and to put it in perspective, i would like to remind everyone that we in the u.s. have six separate federal regulatory agencies. i will not name them all here, and i am not including the smaller ones that regulate -- >> and you were part of it, david.

>> yes, i am part of it, thanks. and more than that, the administration looked at the regulatory problem and last year came up with their solution, which was to propose a new regulatory agency in the u.s. to regulate consumer financial products. now it is true they did propose merging of t.s. into occ to keep the total number at half a dozen for regulatory agencies. i would just mention further that there are strong provisions in the congress currently to strip the federal reserve of regulatory authority. so given thatçó outlook, what is your view realistically of the potential for progress here, given the sort of critical role that i think regulatory failure played in this crisis? thank you. >> anybody want to take that? mr. evans? >> i think the regulators are

all a bit timid on responding. >> not this one, good. >> there is an awful lot of blame to go around on this crisis, so i don't think anybody should be modest about sec -- accepting blame, but some of the criticism of regulators sounds a bit like you have a massive fire, the fire brigade comes in and then you blame them for flooding your house. we're so close down to meltdown, regulatory failure was a part of that -- it is in the cultural context where three years ago public bodies, opinion makers, many, and i would exclude mature trees a -- mr. dshtrichet from this, were saying kenji a look, we have entered a new world. we can all make 30% rates of return against 5% average world growth, because we are so

intelligent. we are such good investors. light regulation is the solution." that culture brought us to the edge of the abyss. i think you certainly need some regulatory changes, some structural changes, you need to deal with the problem. >> what should the role of government be. could each panelist give one sentence of your answer to that question? >> learn the lessons of regulatory failure in finance and i think they are being learned, and recognize that particularly in the west, we need a new economic model based on saving, investment, a broader economy and export, rather than just housing, finance and government. >> he did it in one sentence. excellent. dominic?

>> i would say focus on the long-term health metrics, which are things like tax, less regulation, education, and how the infrastructure works. >> peter? >> i think we all need little humility. we all, businesses and governments, got a lot wrong and as we work out what to do in the future, we should condition our recommendations knowing that we do not know all the answers. >> i would say the main lesson is to recognize that, whatever the rules were when you started , if something goes badly wrong, the government will be blamed. so you better be watchful about the economy. keep your eye on the longer-term growth prospects which depend on individual countries, and certainly as far as the financial sector is concerned, its health is very important and you need to look at what is a global consensus what -- of what

constitutes a good financial sector, and keep moving toward it. >> i think the goal -- the role of the government will be increasing in particular areas of regulatory work and others. i would underline that whatever decisions are undertaken, the efficient model will be when they are based on the agreed principle with the business with conventional community. otherwise, we might engage in the game when one side is setting the rules, the other side is trying to find loopholes, which normally the private business is quite successful in this. >> in the short term, it would be to give the same financial -- political attention which governments gave a year ago to resolving the banking crisis to the employment crisis. in the more medium term, it is opening out decision making and accountability and a much broader stakeholder model. >> not being complacent in any respect, which means that we need to work tirelessly for having a system which will be at the global level much more

resilient, be sure that we are really having a governance as has been decided at the global level to run the global economy, which is now the pertinent entity. and be sure that the information, the quality of information of our own people, the lucidity of public opinion enlightened by this quality of the affirmation, is such that governments can really play the game of global governance. >> thanks to our panel for a very thoughtful and rational discussion. i only hope what really happens is so rational. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> former congressman charlie wilson did -- died today at age 76. in 2008, a former israeli diplomat discuss his political career. this is about 10 minutes. >> thank you, howard. i want to assure you it would have been a lot up on if charlie were here speaking to me and telling you all about how he became so friendly with israel and how he supported israel throughout his years in the house of representatives. unfortunately, as you have

heard, he fell ill and he is unable. how can i try to fill them? no one can fit into his shoes. but i have to tell you a little bit about him which i am happy to do. as a matter of fact, last wednesday here at the hotel, charlie and his wife and my family had dinner together. he was in a great mood and in great spirits, and we had an exchange about what are we going to do and mentioned? there was a whole gamut of information that we wanted to share with you. the relationship with charlie and israel started right in the yom kippur war in 1973.

he was just elected to the house of representatives from texas. he joined the house in january of 1973, and then the young couple or war came. i was in washington as a congressional liaison for the embassy. i had a visit from our defense attache and talk to this congressman in texas, who wanted a briefing on the war. you should know, members of congress don't go to embassies. embassies go to members of congress. and he was a member of congress who came to the embassy.

he came up and joined in the meeting. he was a tall congressman, with a hat and texas boots, and i suggested, mr. congressman, when we talk, we have to be seated because otherwise it will be difficult to converse. he was a real gentleman and said, it is a deal. i want to assure you, from then on, for over 35 years, charlie and i had been talking while seated. [laughter] then he got a briefing from the defense attache, and in that general and myself, we were impressed by the knowledge, held thursday was with the movement of the armies -- how burst --

versed he was with the movement of the armies. it was a graduate of annapolis, and he had served in the suez canal. he was a real navy man. so we this briefing and it was very good, but at least he got a briefing and went back to his office. and then when the first cease- fire was announced, mr. wilson called. how was [unintelligible] no, i am going there. charlie wants to go, so he goes. what can you do?

you large the people in israel and tell them that the congressman is coming and treat them nicely. so he went there, and he spent some time, and he came back and declared to was that he is from now on a friend of israel. why? he has no jews in his district. now we have some, but at the time he had no dues. he said you are the davide and they are the goliath. we will make you stronger. i said, great. and i proceeded to my for success in washington. [laughter] from then on, for 35 years until

this very moment, charlie has been one of the greatest friends that we have on capitol hill. this is not to diminish the support or french above any other member of congress. but charlie has been an outstanding congressman and his support for israel. on every move that israel was involved with, charlie was at the forefront. he was among -- among the first 20 or 30 who initiated the congressional moves. he was a member of two subcommittees, very important for israel. the subcommittee is of

appropriation. the most important committee is the appropriations committee because they write the checks. he was a member of the subcommittee of assistance to israel which we have been getting ever since, billions of dollars. it was a great supporter and we could always rely on him. and danny was and member of that the rigid of the subcommittee on defense appropriations. we were not getting any support from the defense department in terms of money. but charlie was supporting promoting cooperation between israel and the united states, letting israeli company share technology with american companies to get assistance that would be helpful to the u.s.. and he was very gracious there.

i should mention many projects he did single-handedly with the help of his colleagues, one project [unintelligible] it was charlie wilson's project. he convince members of congress to support israel and provide assistance until the government of israel decided to cancel the program, and the rest is history. charlie became very friendly with india and then with pakistan. some of you have seen the movie. you know his relationship with pakistan. but at no time when he cherished

his relationship with egypt and pakistan, it never came at the expense of his support for israel. not only was he not discounted for his support for israel, on the contrary. charlie tried to work with israel and pakistan at the time, to put them together, establish some contact between israelis and pakistan is. some contacts were made thanks to him. there would be no reason why these two countries would not cooperate with each other. the same thing with egypt. he tried to put some meetings to gather that did not materialize unfortunately. it only shows you how wide the horizon was for charlie to see

is for playing a role in the middle east. -- to see is real playing a role in the middle east. charlie did not push for a peace treaty with the palestinians but he placed one day that there would be peace between the israelis and palestinians, and then he could celebrate the good faith of israel. he went to jerusalem numerous times. he would check on what is happening, meet with members of congress, and my wife and i would entertain him and it was a distinct pleasure, because everybody like charlie. he was a very likable person. i wish that he were here and you could get your own impression of him.

he helped bring down the collapse of the evil empire, he said that if the russians were defeated, it would be good for israel. they would collapse and let they millions of jews out, and lo and behold, it happened. we all owe a debt to charlie in some way. i could go on an hour or two or three and skip lunch and tell you more about charlie, but the gentleman are waiting. let me conclude by saying, let us wish charlie wilson a very speedy recovery, and mention his support of israel. [applause]

>> in a few moments, regent university hosts a discussion on the future of american culture. in a little more than two hours, all washington journal segment on civic literacy. after that, a forum on the future of financial institutions from the world economic forum. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," we are joined by dan maffei and aaron schock. tom schatz is also our guest. >> his film "hillary -- the movie" was the focus of a recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. documentary producer and head of citzens united david bossie sunday night on c-span's "q&a."

>> now forum on the future of american culture hosted by regent university. this is a little more than two hours. [no audio] >> good morning. we can do better than that. good morning. welcome to region university's fifth annual symposium in honor of our nation's 40th president, ronald wilson reagan. our first symposium in 2006, the future of conservatism, is no published in the book.

received a review in the "new york times." our second symposium in 2007 came out as a favorable review in a university press book. our third symposium in 2008, the legacy of ronald reagan, came out in the book title "the in during reagan." it was the finest compilation of ronald reagan, and no compilation comes close to matching his insight and credibility. our fourth symposium in 2009, the future of the american presidency, will come out as a university press book later this year. so is that what we have said and done here reaches an audience of around the world, but not just in books. each year c-span televises are reagan symposium nationwide, and

this year is no exception. let's welcome c-span and the c- span television crew with a hearty round of applause. [applause] 30 years ago, when america struggled from the malaise of the 1970's, ronald reagan rejected the notion that the sun had set on a once great country. he countered kenji it is morning in america." what better time than now, with a forceful challenge to our dignity at home and abroad to reexamine the character of american culture? in a traditional view, can it successfully compete against

post-modernism? is the promotion of traditional american cultural values and antiquated relic of the past? to those questions, president reagan responded vigorously, " the greatness of america is our people and in churches, neighborhoods, communities, the institutes that foster values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law." ronald reagan encouraged americans to return to their fundamental roots of faith, family, and freedom. here to address the volatile subject of the future of american culture are seven of our nation's foremost authorities.

hadley arkes, ken myers, and wilfred mccloy. once our speakers conclude their remarks, we will have a 10 minute break and then return for a robust question and answer session. to allow for ample opportunity for you to answer questions, i have asked our speakers to limit their formal presentations to approximately 20-25 minutes. upon your return, please line now behind one of the two microphones ahead of the child. during our first four symposia, we have had 20 people standing down each file waiting to answer questions -- ask questions. so let's get in line early. [laughter] and now, let's begin.

first on stage, hadley arkes, the edward ney professor of american institutions at amherst college, who also serves as the senior fellow of the ethics and public policy center in washington, d.c. cambridge university press have published all his books, including the most recent, "natural rights and the rights to choose." his writings appear in such publications as the "washington post," "weekly standard," and "national review." here is the rest of the story. [laughter] when i asked a friend to describe hadley arkes, he said that he is that groucho marx of american professors.

he always manages to leave the wake of funny stories. and would you believe, he drove here from amherst listening on his mp3 player to jack benny, the shadow, captain midnight, mr. district attorney, and orson welles' mercury theater. let's welcome to the regent university stage, reagan and the recovery. [applause] >> lovely to be back. i'm looking around to see who walked in the room. ladies and gentlemen, and the

1980's, in the days of president reagan, there was a article called "reaganism of the week." he offered a case an interview and how the president talk about the legal office of the government supporting the necker what once the overthrow the legitimate government. the president said, "it is true it is not good to take power at the point and the good. but the sandinistas' hold power at the point of the government. i'm not sure what you would call the legitimate government of nicaragua."

he probably cannot explain the difference between an international appositive law and one influenced by the axioms of natural law. 's of law remains something that is positive, now and acted by the people whose needs are given the force of law. when the positives ask who formed the government of nicaragua, it was the legitimate government with effective control of the territory. is not necessarily the government -- it could be a hitlerite regime, but whoever firmly controlled the territory is reckoned as the legitimate government.

the alternative view, drawing on the moral tradition, [unintelligible] that perspective affected international law because it reflected the standing between morality and law. he famously hope that every word of significance can be banished from the law altogether, and replaced with a legal terms nicely purged of any moral shape. the connection between that and the logic of law is inescapable. it cannot be removed. when we move from moral judgment, we move away from merely personal taste and to

things that are just and unjust , for others as well as ourselves. if we come to the judgment that is wrong for people to torture infants, it is not there for to give them tax incentives. if we think that the torture is wrong, we do not make contracts with people [unintelligible] we forbid it with the force of law. that i think was the classic connection. in spite of the best efforts of understanding of what held by ordinary people, ronald reagan

anger the world and talk about the politics of law and not wait without knowing that he was speaking then language of natural law after people had stopped taking natural law seriously. [unintelligible] as one commentator observed, the accomplishments maybe even more impressive when they know that lincoln was not familiar with the writings of aristotle and aquinas, but move naturally along the paths of these greater mines. i think that something similar happened with reagan. he read widely [unintelligible]

the striking thing about him was that in his own curiosity, he moved along the paths of reflection followed by writers more accomplished than he. one of the most notable examples here occurred earlier in the ministration. it seemed to be losing traction and the winter of 1982, and the political predicament [unintelligible] reagan's future would depend on where interest rates would be in the fall. that led me to write a critical piece in 1982, "oh lovers lament

for the reagan administration." how could be that the standards a prospect for the administration with could hinge on something as the level of interest rates? [unintelligible] abortion, suffocating taxes, regulation, i am voting for people were trying to protect unborn people from the killing of abortion. for people who are intensely concerned over abortion or anything else, the ups and downs will not be the size it anymore than ford democrat if

interest rates are at 10%. in any case, this was my lament , i had worked in a minor way with the speechwriting shop during that campaign in 1980, and i said that i wrote some of the best things of ronald reagan never said. still i could stay in touch. tony invited me and for lunch to press my case, and i cited a passage that the president said in the stated the union. giving subsidies to people who lose their jobs as a result of competition with international firms, but we do not give it to them who lose their jobs as a

result of competition with domestic firms. we should do both if we do one. but we cannot do both and so we should repeal it. tunney said that it was perfectly reagan s. it is a question of where interest rates will be next fall. who did write that "? >> the president through that again when he was working out the speech. let reagan be himself. leave it with questions of principle. he will find a way that is universally susceptible. in 1980 [unintelligible] people were heating up the economy and generating inflation. reagan insisted that we have

lived too well. then he turned to that modem -- when we spend our money, it is inflationary. with a jolt, he delivers us from the haze and smoke and leads is more closely to the real cause of inflation. in that famous speech dealing with the passion of environmentalism, determined to block the extraction of oil here at home, he said he would not permit the safety of our heritage to be jeopardized, but we're going to reaffirmed that the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment. what is curious in striking about this is that it

anticipated the argument that could be made more fully 30 years later. the pointpulledit takes a certae genius to conceive of nature detached from the existence of those creatures who have a moral purpose and can attach a moral purpose. those beings whose premise marks the existence of a moral purpose. as a scheme of an formalism, we must save the planet as though human beings were not as much a part of that nature as trees or flowers.

you drive from the greatest. that in our minimalist seem unaware that what they do in saving nature does damage to the integrity and character of the human person, that moral being who is every bit of much a part of nature, and that is by inducing people to believe that you can discard him alive to citron interest -- to suit your own interests. as it human life had no importance. we seek to extend the span of human life while we purge from marshall any sense of reverence for those lives. ronald reagan was nowhere near a world-class philosopher, recognized by a french academy,

deeply versed in latin and german and french, but what is notable here is that reagan grasp the essential truth of the matter, at the root of it. he understood that people with intellectual pretensions have not manage to grasp even yet. plato recognized what the philosopher understands in deliberating about things that are just and unjust, but they had to be acceptable to the multitudes of people who were not philosophers. the task was to speak in a mode that was accessible. to impart the central idea give it the most human examples. mr. reagan had something close

to that, and was combined with his common understanding, the personal touch, the primary truth. one of my own disappointments was that i couldn't get my friends in the campaign [unintelligible] is it because you may be likely on slave question are is because he is darker than you? you may be a slave by the next door candidate comes along. the upshot is that there is nothing that justifies the and

slavery of black people that does not apply to white people as well. this was simply a model of reasoning. it was successful to people across divisions. he could be understood by catholics and protestants, even 80 as. it was some speaking in a manner that could be understood. while that child is in the one, it does not speak and does not have arms or legs the people lose arms and legs and the course of their lives without losing the protections of balal. to disqualify the unborn child in the womb would disqualify

people walking outside the womb. he could deliver it with considerable effect, but mr. reagan decided not to make abortion central, but to his credit, he sought to teach people about this question by raising questions. in those radio talk seagate, the first time it faced the question of abortion, he was strong but is curiosity. the same legislature in california trying to seek the right for abortion, made it murder to kill unborn child. he also noted that the child in the womb had standing to inherit property. he put this question to a staff. let's say a woman became aware that through her pregnancy, and

had left the estate to the child in the womb. could she ordered the killing of the child in order to keep the state for herself? would that not the murder? was reagan not leading us back to the central question in the most engaging way? many dismiss reagan as simplistic, but the problem recognize that many may be tempted to absorber themselves in details while avoiding the moral questions. we often find ourselves hinging on certain rules of proof and

technical issues. ronald reagan would produce one part of the conflict with conjecture. and regime of our control, who could peace for more accessible and closing off the leaks? and then the advantage tills to decide what the history of innovation. reagan did it out of moral convention to be built to run the notion of protecting the lives of our own people, not the people bogle to nuclear to his critics, reagan was

grounded, and he knew that this could put the soviet leadership under pressure. ronald reagan was famous for his knack of telling jokes. but the jokes were part of his teaching. the playoff principles we hope people will understand. but printed on it for a long while, know that i make the argument that comedians and philosophers are often in the same business. they play around with the logic tucked away in our language. twice a week my wife and i have an intimate candlelight dinner. [unintelligible] [laughter]

people have not seen the real reach that philosophy can be conveyed with jokes. laughter rising from an audience is a sure sign that people understood the point. people see through the lab what cannot be seen in the form of argument. ñiwhen i drive, i am listening r radio shows that chuck and i listened to when we were growing up. and i find that listening to the old, the show is -- those old comedy shows, they offer an anthropological matrix. you get in remarkably -- you get

a remarkably accurate picture of what people understood of natural law in 1940. jack benny was a bow and arrow that was lethal. someone offers some of that the chair cannot hit the apple off the top of the head. jack said that he would take that bet. and then jack said, what you getting upset about? it is our money. we cannot risk human life as a sporting event. the premise is in place for something cutting closed to foreign policy. [unintelligible]

this does not offer a sensibility overly refined. people in the audience would get the joke. human life is not a plaything, all for recreation. i submit that people laugh at that joke and and are essentially put in place every critical premise with the moral judgment running this way. the young man tells his girlfriend is all right. we can do this for fun. and if anything happens, we can throw it away. that this house something once regarded as serious as suddenly reduced to a matter so trivial that someone could separate not

the least hesitation and throw it away. red skelton said, they had a military wedding well, guns were there. [laughter] that joke is purely -- this is the reflection of a culture vanish. it is when the rest of us realize that we did not our franchise for getting rid of a child in the world. they don't do shotgun weddings and a more because marriage is not the necessary framework of sex and no reason to force a marriage. it's a clear sign of a culture that has shifted from the 1940's or even the 1960's. and now recovering that culture

-- it has been dramatically eroded. but just as we have seen conversions in the past, conversions and balding persons. .

if i am right to, those recognitions that cannot be extinguished because they are truly primal, things are constituted, you might say, wherever we are. and certain things we are accustomed to know that basically fade from our awareness. with slavery, we recognize things we should crest. ronald reagan argued in this same way, and the reaction was often, of course. there are things we should have known, if only someone had posed the question in the right way or

framed the problem for us. in the aftermath, several commentator's remark was that the democrats thought it was 1965 all over again, and they could reelect the great society. that surge of 1965 followed a landslide victory of barry goldwater in 1964. when ronald reagan split up to give that speech for barry goldwater in 1964, the speech that marked his career, he was not standing up for the country understood at the time. it responded advice. it is our ruled that if we have a sense of right country, it is

because ronald reagan fought a new for us in a manner that was acceptable and appealing. he promised to understand us as a political people in a different way that the intellectuals told us could never be recovered from the way we used to be. the case for it was always there, always could be made a new by politicians with the skill to make the permanent thingst( are not always to be seen, but it is precisely the function of teaching or statesmanship to bring them back to us. we have found ourselves again in the lessons plato taught us, that soñi much of our knowledges

already passed away with an usç, and we drown out the things we come to feel we have known all along. ñiit reminds us of the things we used to know, and it also serves the recognitionçóp, that thesee things we have never ceased to know. thank you. [applause] ñrçóçóñrñrñjr>> steve carlson if the howard center for family, religion, and society.

hisçzixdñujjj)qxdñiñi amerif w, family, community, and th shaping of the american identity, and continue america, the public purposes of marriage. he has appeared on the pbs knew our -- news hour, voice of and eight special pbs çóbut nowñi, allen lives on a m in illinois where he and his a m wife attend a 1 acre vegetable garden. perhaps reflecting his swedish peasant roots, the favorite crop

as the potato. his fellow swedish americans think he is a very funny guy, which places a low bar on the humor scale. swedes are notoriously humor- challenged. but because of their high desire for his low levels british humor, he served as master of ceremonies at the scandinavian christmas party. he modestly reports knocking them dead. let's welcome him to address us. [applause]

>> thank you, and it is a pleasure to be with you today. oddly enough, i want talk about choice. a mythical swedish american couple, probably residing in minnesota, with a remarkably dysfunctional marriage, and the story goes like this. they were growing old, and one day, the husband became sick. he was confined to an upstairs bedroom, barely conscious and that britain. after several weeks of this, the doctor visits and tells of the white, he is just about a gardener -- he tells the white he is just about a goner, he will not survive the night. so as a practical woman, she decides she had better start preparing for the guests who will come to the funeral.

she started baking loves of sweet ride right. the smell of baking bread is wafting for the house soon. so upstairs, his nose twitches. his eyes open. he goes to a sitting position and strings his legs around. it is like a miracle. half walking, have stocking, he worked his way down the stairs. he reaches the ground floor. stumbles across the kitchen, pulled himself into a chair to get a look of freshly sliced bread. he reaches over to take a slice. stop that, but shoves his wife and she grabs his hand.

that loaf of bread is for after the funeral. [laughter] we can still laugh, because they are now out of time. characters from a much earlier era of swedish immigration into america, a tight that no longer exists. more importantly, and this is a point made in the paris conference, their marriage also belongs to another era. several generations ago, when there were people like them, they would have been rare in their community. persons state in unhappy or troubled marriages for the sake of the children, perhaps for other cultural reasons. making

fun of institutions that are strong were stableñ"i. the marriage joke, a staple of 1960's, seems to be fading in our timeñi. symbolically, rodney dangerfield, perhaps the last master of the marriage joke, is a recently deceased. it is hard to make fun of an institution that is battered and bruised. such are married and the family and america. ñimarriage rates are at all-time lows. çócohabitation,çó living togethr

without benefit of the clergy, ì(lc@&c+ ever more popular as an alternative to marriage. while the american divorce rate has been stable for a decade or two, it remains at a high level. oneñi of two marriages still ens in divorce. and we are clamoring for the break to marry. there are successes in many of the states. there are those who argued these changes simply represent the inevitable evolution of marriage and family. a plastic institution print industrialization, modernization, and the quest for a quality helps free marriage

from the shackles of the past, hoping it involved -- helping it evolved. there is no doubt that the vast process of the industrial revolution brought new pressures to bear. at the most basic level, this process is severed the workplace from the home. before, the great majority of humans lived and worked in the same place, albeit a small farm or a tent. and did the -- under the industrial regime, adults would be pulled out of their homes. however, in most of europe and north america, families recovered significant autonomy.

these systems hold only one person each household, a husband or father, and that person in terms should return a sustaining wage. for working-class women, a liberation came to me as freedom meant not having to work and the factories. this allows them to focus on maintaining autonomous homes for children. in this way, the family roots on marriage and accommodated itself. it is also true that such regime is largely vanished during the

last three decades, and now is mostly forgotten. business is important, one of the most important steps. a more accurate interpretation is that it is because of the deterioration seen since 1965. systems out flaws. nothing compensates with a loss of those strengthsñrñr. and aspects of social evolution, j juáttion of private lightñiñi was the direct resulta project designed to create a first family order. this unique ideological project has a socialist and feminist

groups. its first expression came in sweden. the project began in the early 1930's, when declining marriage rates led to calls for radical changes. in 1932, a young socialist generated fierceu by asking for meals to be prepared in collectivized kitchens. ñishe co-authored it the best- selling book, "crisis in the populations that theñi --

populations." fathers should be freexd from te breadwinner role. mothers should be free from homemaking. ñiñrall of this work and outside ñrhome. universal health care, meals of school, summer camps, low- interest marriage loans. on the surface, it appeared to elevate the importance of marriage. at a deeper level, they saw it shrink. it would largely ceased to be an idea. as a contemporary feminist explains, they adopted here a successful program horse tactic.

there are social reforms put in capitalist society at its most vulnerable spot, the home. family population policies set the stage for politicization of private life by radically altering everyday life. while enjoying successes, they enjoyed the 1940's an 1950's. remarkably, the mothers and homemakers of sweden both in the middle class and among the remarkable group that could be fairly labeled the best swedish socialist housewives -- that would be a great television show. they honored a successful political counterattack. that offended family wages for high schools and insured that

era reinforced the mother at home. in the late-1960's, socialist feminists pushed against the change. the big victory came in 1970 when they replaced the taxation of couples as a unit income splitting on the joint return with mandatory individual taxation. this change had the immediate effect of sharply raising taxes. a homemaker. meanwhile, up the government ramped up day care subsidies. in 1965, only 3% had been from non-parental.

virtually all one-four year olds were with the state. that was good for young women, allowing them to move to challenging positions of power and authority. in fact, something much more peculiar had occurred. to this day, for example, female corporate ceo's in sweden are almost unknown, and the number of women working in agriculture and industry has changed little. however, female employment rose by over three under% -- 300% in social service, day care, education, and health. ñiñiin the words of two israeli sociologists, they actually challenged women in disproportionate numbers into spending occupational riches, such as child care, elder care,

nursing, and elementary education. swedish women still do so-called women's work, but they did not do so for the government -- they do so for the government, rather than their own families. put another wa0a sweden successfully socialized the labor ofñi womençó. the goal of socialism has always ñibeen to eliminate the family s a meaningful economic and social unit. the husband would no longer be di -- dependent on his wife, or young children onñ@qarents, r overly parent and young children. all would be equally dependent on the comprehensive welfare state. the leading feminist historian in sweden describes this culture as the triumph, and adds new

ideas of gender replace old- fashioned ideas about the public. we have been speaking about the explicit ideal. we have old ideas blogging -- looking up, ideas that quickly found their advocates and became developed. people and men and women, eager to seek a new town of gender. has the same family culture made any progress in america? have we americans also learned how to speak the new town of gender? and accommodate ourselves to the vast expansion of government which it seems to require?

we have, although in more convoluted, less obvious ways. the swedesçó debated these issus more or less in the open. our debate was clear and focuse d. all the same, there have been few changes. the u.s. house of representatives added sex to the title 7 of the proposed civil rights act prohibiting discrimination in employment. the amendment was offered by a curious coalition of republican feminists. the latter group saw an opportunity to tear down the american family wage system. they learned that dire

consequences of this curious coalition. starting in 1969, equal employment opportunity commission moved aggressively and successfully to eliminate the american family wage, and predictably, between 1970 and 1990, real wages have been over 20%, which pushed more women into the labour market to make ends meet. also in 1969, the congress approved a major tax reform. the house winds and meet its chairman -- ways and means chairman, responding to criticism, and it the practice of income splitting in america, and the marriage tax penalty which emerged today. in 1973, the u.s. came within a hairsbreadth of creating a

massive federal child development entitlement. president nixon vetoed the measure in a statement crafted by his aide patrick buchanan, saying that the bill use the vast authority of government to decide children against the child centered approach. congress turned around and approved other measures providing day care and child tax credits to the middle and upper class is. the broad results in america have also been in the same direction as sweden. it is true our welfare state still remains limited, although president obama is trying to change that.

the accelerated flow of merit and womenñi to the labour force has been more complex. all the samñi, -- same, welfare state activity has grown from 263 billionxd in 1982 1.55 trillion in 2006, and even taking inflation into account, the number has nearly tripled. and the great influx of women in the work force has been channeled into the government sector. three out of every four american preschool children are on parental day care, federally subsidized.

primary health care, infants, toddlers, after-school care, and so on down, these have been turned over to the states. public patriarchs, some theorists call it. higher taxes, which have fallen with particular force on one- income homes. achieved incrementally and the few open ideological pluses, it might be called the swedish post family model via the american plan. schools have begun to focus on

the most important of family responsibilities, education. they have won legal recognition across the country and are producing a number of the nation's morally grounded critical adults. they are a special and burst into public schools, which had longñr operated on a socialist model with discouraging results. some american religious groups the national family, under xdleadership. the southern baptist convention is developing a powerful new pro-family apologetic. another group, the latter-day saints, or the mormons, provide an important contemporary example of how the corporal

turmoil can maintain its own culture of merit with measurable positive results. i also find a reason for optimism in the growing number of small businesses in america. taking advantage of new technology such as the home computer and economic democracy of the internet, they are powering a new age of entrepreneurship. more importantly, from the historic perspective, they are beginning to heal the breach between work and home close to family order. ronald reagan understood that this was at stake. in a speech given in chicago, in 1988, he said the family is the bedrock of our nation, but it is also the engine that gives our country live. it is for our families that we work, so we conjoined around the dinner table, bring children up

the right way for those less fortunate. it is the power of the family that draws the nation together and gives america her conscience, serving as the cradle of our nation's soul. even the swedish couple would agree. [applause] >> colorado, population 85. she began a community paper at

age 10. she has risen to international prominence, writing and editing over 20 books and 500 essays. designing several hundred lectures around the world, earning 900 degrees, with positions at princeton, oberlin, georgetown, and chicago, receiving awards from the guggenheim and rockefeller foundations,çó the institute for advanced study at princeton and the humanities center, and the university of edinburg. she holds a lot fellowship at the university of chicago, and oundation for american freedom at georgetown

university. she is all about and much more. she is a mother of four children and a grandmother of three. she is a woman for all seasons. ñishe wants to address the critc and the culture. [applause] >> on like our first speakers, i am going to be joking this morning, because you have to bear with me. everybody's a critic. it seems to be a natural right among americans to gripe about pretty much everything, but politics above all. how many times have you heard,

they are all a bunch of [unintelligible] trust appears to be at 8 needier -- a nadir. for many decades, cultural elite anointed themselves as the designated critics of the culture. today's elite criticism finds in the outpourings of ordinary citizens about the state of ouri union, ignorance and fanaticism. in turn, some of those attacks suggest that criticizing the country in severe terms is tantamount to a lack of patriotism. the terms, others reply, and shout, it is a heart -- harsh

critic. it is not my intent to make my way through all of this noise. instead, i want to start at another place. when we think about the huber profits of old, we are reminded they were part of and loved the people there were criticizing. they did not see themselves as above it all or somehow on the outside. i recall the very wise comment by cardinal francis george of chicago, who said you cannot criticize effectively what you do not love. we had in mind criticism of the church that frequently enough comes from a stance.

similarly, we see animals at work, too many critics of contemporary america. it is the flip side of the old notion of american exceptional listen. you have some idea of what that entails. american exceptional some. claiming that america was an exceptional nation that was ordained and anointed to carry on a particular notion in the world, one that lifted up at all times and carried forward the message of freedom. disposition of american exception alyssum gets a very bad press and now days. but there were and are several versions of it. one lent itself to a breath of nationalism. the other to request patriotism

-- robust patriotism. for the patriot, america is exceptional in a number of ways. that is simply a fact. but that does not at all demand to treat the love others have for their country slightly. instead, we recognize it and work within. abraham lincoln's idea put forward in the agony of this country at the time is that america is the last, best hope on earth, is an expression of the gentler form of american exceptional loss of. still, there are critics who make no distinction whatsoever between belligerence and other versions of american exceptions at right. but to do so and in a

particularly noxious form of exceptional is some, with america as the exemplar of classism, imperialism, capitalism, globalism, you name it, if it is bad, america embodies it somehow. put forward as criticism, it is in fact a type of conspiracy theory. if anything bad is happening anywhere, america's hands are bound to be involved. we want to exonerate it

we have a great deal of criticism, but it takes us nowhere. it is by now so much black grout splashing. it does not affect the ordinary citizen thinking about how we might love our country and criticizing it at the same time. we are entirely unmoved by what was set forth. in "price and culture,"

greenberg identified five different possible positions taken this starkly, and their relationship to the approach in which they find themselves. and these were priced against culture, the price of culture, priced above culture, price and culture in paradox, and price as the transformer of culture. can we take our bearings as we think about criticism more generally, accounting to a stand of christian belief or not in these categories? i think we can. is the critic against or above his own society? as the critics seek to transform society? is there a paradoxical relationship? why is it importance.

they're not airtight categories, they blend as part of an overall stance. but the event cards cannot be one that stand-alone, involving condemnation from a hobby provide more for superiority. when i hear contemporary radical critics that appear too low of the american the criticize, i am reminded of the nazi germany assessment of radicals. we argued that the radical has his creation. the radical takes a self

solvency in compatible with our indebtedness to others and the past as well as the present, and our in deadness and the first instance to our creator. every goal is an open it -- ultimate goal in history. all good is located at some future point we have contempt for the present, but if we destroy this and that, we can get to the point where we have good. we can raise ourselves for any and all means. trampling above, ignoring cries

for understanding, so be it. now, donovan concludes that this is not a stand christians can abate, because we are taught creation is good. that does not mean everything happening at the present is good, but it does mean there must be some good, that there are, after all, losses of around us, even in the most dire circumstances, and those are dire boy on anything we can imagine. if you believe the critics, they are in danger of eight gestapo entity hauling them off of political advocacy at any moment. i'm not exaggerating. a few years ago, in berlin,

there were prominent intellectuals, both american and german, who claimed that guantanamo bay was really set up to become a prison camp for american citizens critical of the bush administration. at this was so preposterous, we did not know to set -- what to say. you are either a suspicious sympathizer of that administration or you have your head in the stand and do not want to face what is coming down the pike. of course, there is an exact mirror image to be found in what we called equally vulnerable

radicalization. this would call on the price to difficulties side. critical distance, if you will. we equate all that is good with culture, if you note our historic shortcomings on display from time to time. as radicals are in league with the enemy, as we do not agree with them, the defender of all things america is a religious project, perhaps on patriotic.

-- unpatriotic. the other rejects the abandonment of birthrights by endorsing what is going on. surely this cannot be ok if you are a christian and hold that human beings are fine and christian. christians are assigned to both love the world and be against the world. similarly, if a country is a minimally decent place, they need to go beyond it to account and chastise. they love her, and water to rise closer to the blessed community.

but may offer an example -- let me offer an example of what political fears are called the connected critic. the person who speaks of deep immersion in that which she and she criticizes does not exist in some lofty world apart, does not send it down lightning bolt of condemnation on any and all that disagree with them. here, there are many examples to choose from. frederick douglass, the great abolitionist, in a speech delivered in rochester july 4, 1862, independence day, much of it is better. you cannot recommend in fetters and chains of fort the altar of liberty, and expect him to

celebrate. çóxdby comparison, the conditiof the slaves against the declaration of independence and the preamble to the constitution. he then goes on to say, i am not condemning these principles. i do not think they are false and nothing but hypocrites. he says no, i share those principles and aspire to them. we want to be part of the country, not apart from it. so you see the dynamic here. you are against culture position, so you see the would- be citizens with and against culture.

çóso the critical patriot, he or she is a believer or not. the critic in america is both fortunate, because our civic ames can always be measured against our founding documents. we do not haveñr to invent new every day some principle to guide us, something impossibleñ. so the basic question for the critics are measured against our ideals for liberty, freedom, and america as the last, best hope, a learning it -- alerting us to our responsibility at large. the critic functions outside the

framework, and the function was at best entirely irrelevant. we do not need to import ideologies from marxism or libertarianism or other areas to serve as a basis for criticism, not if we are deeply connected to american policy, it acknowledged our love for her, and are indebted to her. i have thought about that indebtedness a lot recently. perhaps as one grows older, one reflects in better detail on one's past. my immigrant grandparents came here as children, impoverished, bulger germans. a distinct label in northern colorado, living at first in huts, finding themselves covered with layers of dirt as they awaken every morning.

eventually, once my grandparents married, they slowly acquired a bit of land that expanded to a bit more, but the dawn to dusk work did not light and very much. that is the image with which i associate them, working hard, loving family, insisting that grandchildren got an uninterrupted education. how quickly it went two

grandchildren and great grandchildren for lawyers, said a -- civic benefactors, mothers and fathers, and great grandparents before them, beating and legacy of decency, hard work, loving families. how could i possibly condemn a country that made all of this possible for me and so many others? we all know loathing and resentment and so much contemporary criticism is coming from people living lives america made possible is simply beyond me. so i will remain a connected critic, a critical patriot, one who understands what an

astonishing proposition america is and how you must never be an object of idolatry, but neither should she be an object of scorn. thank you very much. [applause] >> i feel the need for a 30- second stand up. just a bit. 30 seconds.

>> all right. you may now be seated.

the house will be in order. thank you. this is such a large crowd. good to see so many young people in the audience. [applause] our age range here is from mid- teens up to -- well. [laughter] my age. [laughter]

a varsity athlete at harvard college. yes, our renowned shakespearean scholar was on the fencing team , and two years of competition, a perfect record. eight bouts, eight losses, no wins. [laughter] paul may not have been an athlete, but the anti-

shakespeare crowd attacked him in the next issue. he came with a brilliant scholarly rebuttal from none other than trout and heston. -- charlton heston. english romanticism, shakespeare. "gilligan on bound," pop culture in globalization. he writes for the "weekly standard," "reason," "the

claremont review of books." he served on the council to amenities from -- of humanities from 1992 to 1999. the unpredictability of culture. [applause] >> i should have told him that i should have just waited for my lecture. humiliating fact. [laughter] i am taken very seriously with the topic, and i will speak on the top of culture. as an english professor, i think of culture as the arts, and i

have recently become regarded as one of the foremost authorities on "of the simpsons." so i will talk about television and movies here. in the presence of ronald reagan and groucho marx, i feel i can talk about the movies with some respectability here, even still. so focusing on the topic of culture, i make predictions about the future of america. american production over the next decade will increase at an average rate of 3.7% each year, topping out at 7.6% on an annualized basis. [applause] this will match the time and percentage of motion pictures relative to that of television. motion picture production will peak in 2014 and thereafter suffered.

with production of the release of "grand theft auto 7," which will be purchased by everybody on the planet. america's share of production depends on how closely the chinese are able to develop video games. on a more optimistic note, it has long since been taken over by the federal government for reasons of national security. there you have it. eight timesñi -- a time set of

predictions complete with figures. americans like to believe that the future is predictable and precise mathematical terms. we assume that it must be predictable, and listened eagerly when people tell us what will happen tomorrow, the next day, or one year from now. the world is awash with predictions at any given moment, and we think we have discovered the new notre thomas -- mr. thomas. if we look at history, we see an unending suppression of predictions that turned out to be wrong. there is skepticism about the ability to tell the future. this is especially true even in the short run. movies that are supposed to be short