and the administration has focused on economic ways of entering pakistan and helping them and providing incentives so that we are in sync with our strategies with the eradication of those forces. we are players. the alliance is players, but all the countries in the region also have a role to play. that includes pakistan in this case. finally, i would say that, with regard to iraq, let me transfer over the same points that made in afghanistan. when i look back on track in terms of the evolution and the development, i do think that the combination of hard power and

soft power makes a difference. i am a very strong proponent of soft power. in this case, when you look at where iraq was and where it is now, i do think that the kind of assistance that has been rendered, let me pick out a different sector, not only our allies, but, by the way, public- private partnerships. so many private partnerships, non-governmental organizations have played a very key role on the ground in iraq. institutions, organizations, like the national endowment for democracy, the national democratic institute, the international republican institute -- i can go on for a whole variety. i can complement somebody sectors, whether it is held, basic public services, political training, all of these areas have mattered.

i wanted to mention someone who is now affiliated with harvard and has been a strong supporter of this kind of an agenda, the former ambassador to afghanistan, said lead to what -- sahid jewad is here in the audience. >> thank you. >> let me also begin by think telling -- but taking all of you for inviting me here tonight and imichele for being here tonight. i would like to begin by endorsing your final officer list.

our classrooms are filled with students who have served in a variety of capacities and are eager to find ways to serve going forward. i am sure many of them here and elsewhere will heed your call and i look forward to that. again, let me mention three things. the first is that the u.s. role and the importance of psychology -- when i think about what i have learned in being involved in iraq and afghanistan over the last year, when the united states brings many things to these theaters, it brings military power, financial resources, technical expertise, diplomatic hat. but one thing i certainly undervalued was the importance of studying a psychological environment. what i mean by that is that we are looking -- the international community, broadly speaking -- we look at them to make very hard decisions about their

future. we cannot make those decisions for them. but we can help create a climate in which it is easy for them -- in which it is easier for them to choose a decision that may not be one that is personally aligned with their sectarian group or their tribe and prioritize as a nation. -- and prioritizes a nation. we are asking people to make decisions that could be very costly, not just financially, but primarily in terms of security and their future. if the united states helps to create psychological merman for them to make those decisions -- -- psychological environment for them to make those decisions, at the end of the day, what does it all added to? does it add up to a psychological environment in which afghans, iraqis, and others can take the risk that we want them to take to create a

better society? that is certainly one of the issues behind the timeline that secretary for elaborated on. -- secretary fornoy elaborated on. the second is building on the sock power issue. in our classrooms, many of us have talked about the importance of the civilian side of the equation. we're all very well trained to articulate that point as 80% of non-military and 20% military. in reality, i think we all know that our civilian side still falls short in many ways despite very serious effort on the part of the obama administration and the administration for the civilian side. i want to build that into our conversation, the apartments of

keeping at that, either by your own personal service, but also to our congress in recognizing that allocating money for the civilian efforts is as every bit as important as the military side. certainly, the civilian side and its ability to partner and work in a whole government approach, the military approach will be a key in the success in afghanistan, but also a key in consolidating the good things that happened in iraq in the last two years. if you talk to iraqis now, they're concerned about a lot of things, but one thing is will they be able to maintain a strategic relationship with the united states? we have an interest in seeing that that relationship has many, many dimensions, not just the military dimension. lastly, let me just conclude with a big topic. i will say two things on it. the whole issue of what are the lessons from iraq to afghanistan

-- we could spend months discussing it. i can tell you one area that i worry about people drawing lessons and another area where it is right to draw lessons. reconciliation, in some ways, we talk more about reconciliation in afghanistan. we recognize that that has to be a key component. i think there is a danger that we have the iraqi experience in our mind. if we look at what happened in iraq, reconciliation was very much a part of improved security environment in politics that both of my co-panelists described. but a lot of those people came into the political process without the iraqis in power having to make major changes to the constitution or the political order. it was not so much a negotiation where people had to make really hard decisions about what was fundamental to the new iraq and what was something that could be

given away. it basically was insurgents and others accommodating themselves to the new iraq. that is not irreversible, but that, in some ways, suggests that reconciliation in afghanistan may be easier than it probably will be paired in afghanistan, there will be tougher conversations and tougher decisions made about what is something that could be compromised and something that is not. i think there is a lot of room for drawing good lessons on the issue of transition. we talked about how the combat role in iraq shifted to supporting and training role in iraq and how that has been. that actually masked what was in fact a very sophisticated abolition of the relationship between the united states and the iraqis, particularly on the military side, but not exclusively.

the move in the u.s. was the front line actor, one where it became a supporting actor and now a behind-the-scenes actor. it was one that was much more gradual, constantly taking assessments about is it possible to move forward? we have to move back? it took a lot of calibration. as the obama administration thinks about transition in afghanistan, something that is on people's minds, they are thinking about a model that will reflect the kind of sophisticated sequencing of both civilian and military relationships. let me stop there and turn it back to our chair.

>> can you tell us how it works in the pakistani peace? >> we have been investing in trying to develop a full- fledged strategic partnership with pakistan. we have had strong areas of cooperation on counterterrorism. one of the things that few americans know is that, over 30,000 pakistanis have actually died, either in the military or civilians who were targeted, in dealing with these militant and extremist groups. they are paying a heavy price. we believe that the more we can invest in pakistan, reassure

them of our commitment to their stability, their economic and democratic development, the more they will be able to shift their strategic calculus in a way that buys and stability in the region and does not adopt some of their historical approaches to sort of hedging their bets, if you will turn the strategic partnership -- if you will. the strategic partnership is beginning to pay dividends. that shift will not happen overnight. we will continue continue investing in the cooperation to try to find more and more ways that we can cooperate to bring greater stability to the region. >> let me invite the audience to join the conversation. we have two microphones on the ground floor. and there are two microphones

here. the rules are that you stand up by the microphone, introduce yourself, put your questions succinctly. we only have three speakers tonight. we have a great opportunity for about 20 minutes to have a serious conversation. >> my name is eugene hogan. i am stating for a doctoral degree at brandeis university where i am studying nuclear proliferation or ways to prevent it. since tonight's topic is women and war, alice hoping to -- i was hoping to ask about challenges and opportunities that women face in public service. the challenges and opportunities

for women in america, especially in the area of national security. thank you. >> i would start by noting how much things have opened up. my first tour in the pentagon, i remember hosting a lunch for senior women in the pentagon. all nine or 10 of us sat at one table. now, if i issued a similar invitation, we would burst out of the dining room. are we where we want to be? no. is it much improved? yes. what really gives me great confidence and inspiration is that there are a couple of generations right behind us. the women who are now serving as deputy assistant and at the office director level, recently out of graduate school, several years of work experience, they are coming into leadership roles. there you see tremendous talent,

gates wide-open, and i think lots of progress in terms of creating openings and opportunities for women. >> i think that's the situation has really opened up very widely for women. there are lots of opportunities. i am going to give a flip side to this. i remember when, as an ad -- as an undergraduate, i decided early on that i would go into international affairs. the fact of the matter was that there were not a lot of women who were going down that path. maybe some of the numbers at that time did not match up because some were not going into the foreign service. some were not going because that was not the educational path that they pursued. i went as an undergraduate to the school of foreign service at georgetown and did my graduate work here at harvard.

one of my professors, a huntington, he was very big on internships. i became an intern at the national security council. there were lots of doors opened up if you wanted to go through it and have the expertise. i will add to your question and said, basically, i think i have seen a market shift where a lot more women are pursuing careers in this path where they had not before, at least during my time and in the beginning of my career. but i think there are a lot of opportunities afforded now. >> let me put in 1 foot note and see if megan will speak to this. advertising, remembering sam huntingtons intellectual contributions with one of his students and the usual suspects,

that is november 30. megan, would you comment on this? >> yes. i have benefited from women in generations before mine and i did push some of those doors open. i have been very thankful for that in my career. this is a slightly different angle. there's the question of whether women should go into middle eastern studies? should they look to work in national security in the middle east? i would wholeheartedly say yes. i have found this to be a very fruitful and interesting and gratifying place to build relationships and to work with other people in other parts of the world. it could be from all kinds of things i have found, especially as a midwestern woman, being able to sit with the men and being able to sit with the women. i also get to see both sides of a society which has sometimes been closed to only one sex.

>> maybe i could pursue a little further. after the invasion of iraq, it was part of the first wave and it was hard to do with the politics of iraq. it was two years before you were working in policy. there were difficulties in putting the government back together again. you went back there for several months. tell us a steady to about why it is difficult for women to do this in iraq? >> i found that advantages were much greater than the difficulties. when i think about the ability to be effective in the middle east and in iraq and afghanistan, i think about the key factor being the ability to build relationships. i think you have experience that in your different forms of

service. that is the key thing. there's a people who say that women are better than that -- better at that than men. i don't get into that debate. but that was the key thing. having those relationships, some of them come from growing yourself at a great point of uncertainty. when i look at some of the relationships that i built with iraqis letter of -- with iraq is that are important to me, they got a great start because i arrived before a lot of the iraqis returned from exile. we were on the ground together. those days were both terrifying and inspiring. whether you're a man or woman, an american, an iraqi, any of this has more of a bearing on

gender. that has been my experience. >> thank you so much, ladies, for coming. number one, the important correlation between poverty and terrorism -- i remember working in the northern frontier province. i believe much terrorism comes out of poverty in many of these areas. the only social services presented are from groups such as the period after the earthquake in pakistan, i remember the relations between america and pakistanis improved quite a bit. they are very appreciative that we were one of the first responders, our government, to the tragedy there. i wanted to get your insight on the role we're playing their t'o eradicate poverty. also, on behalf of my colleague here, an officer in the army who is returning iraqi veteran,

she was surprised that the lack of investment on women and children in iraq. there were doing a good job at educating the men and job skills training and what not, but not for the women. she fears for the future security of the country in this way. i wanted to know, for you, what we're doing as a government to help the women and children in iraq. >> and take the last part? i thought, as you were asking your question, my first visit to iraq was because there was a conference, the voices of women of iraq conference. starting in 2003, many women in iraq were trying to organize and reach out and they had set an agenda for themselves as to what they wanted to achieve and how they wanted to achieve it.

i have to say that i was very impressed, first with the fact that the word definitive about what they wanted to achieve. it really ranged everything from educational opportunities that they wanted to further and solidify, although they had some educational opportunities. at the same time, even to the area of sports and their ability and desire to participate in sports. over the past years, i think there has been a vigorous campaign and outreach fundamentally through government funding many ngos that are on the ground and that are specifically working with the ministries, the women's ministry, with the various women's organizations, legal organizations that have been set up, even garnering support for women to run for political office.

i remember meeting a number of iraqi women who had never had anything to do with politics and were actually having the opportunity to come forward and to be able to do this. i will say that, in my view, a lot of the good work is done by a lot of grassroots organizations who are on the ground, who are working very closely with iraqi women, and trying to advance their goals and objectives as they have set them forth for themselves. at the state department, a woman has been designated as the ambassador for women's issues at large. we have worked with her over these years, both when she was in the private sector and now in government. this has been one of the priorities that both the government and private-sector lives have been established. >> i want to address your

question about poverty and terrorism. we do not find a strong correlation between economic background and those who choose terrorism. i do think there is a correlation in the un governed and under-governed spaces or places that tend to be more ground for safe havens for extra mr. groups. when you look across the fox up, parts of yemen, sumatra, they have deep and abiding grievance these between the and power groups, disaffected or disempowered groups, where you find only limited access for certain portions of the population to a basic services where government is not --

government is seen more as predatory than services. you have another group come in and inside an extreme ideology and gain since thesympathy. what that has told us is that you need to take a look at government in a very integrated approach to fight terrorism. admiral wilson says that you cannot kill your way to victory in counter-terrorism. you have to drop some of the conditions that create fertile soil for terrorists to take root. >> good evening. i am hoping to take advantage of the broad title of this evening's top. i was very happy -- >> i would like you to introduce yourself. >> i am writing my thesis on governance and its impact on the army corps of engineers on

afghanistan. i think this is a place where you have an audience that is very devoted to public service and we have a lot of students in the room. we have a lot of different interests. professor alison has obviously gone less concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. what are you most excited about it? you have each gun much bigger perspectives than these current conflicts. what is the next big thing? what else should we be putting our time and energy behind in the school of government? >> i will pick up on that. one of the areas that i think is really important and worth looking at is what is happening in the arctic. we have witnessed in the arctic a warming trend. as a result, you have passages

that are being opened. on one hand, this has commercial opportunities. but it also has a race for resources and other ramifications, in fact, for many countries, including our own, that border the arctic. actually, i think that there will be number of challenges. the united states has not signed the treaty. we we should be -- we should be a signatory for the law of the sea treaty. there will be a lot of interesting challenges as well as debates and discussions over that arena, which will loom larger. for those looking for new research topics, i would say to take a look at the arctic. it has energy ramifications, commercial ramifications, environmental ramifications, and questions of sovereignty. >> i would agree with that. i would also nominate two more

-- asia is a regional one. when you look at our economic prosperity and interest, the changing power dynamics in asia, the rise of china and the rise of india, the reconsidering of international norms, commerce and trade, i think issue will be a focal point for our strategic interest for the next several decades. the other one that i have been talking about and that i am trying to recruit people to is cyber. cyber is a completely uncharted conceptual territory. it is like what the nuclear domain was before. most of our inherited friends fall short war are completely -- inherited frames fall short or

are completely misleading. thinking through how we integrate cyberspace and are thinking about cyber and terms economy and national security, it is very important. >> that was a very good question. >> good evening. i am a mid-career student here at the kennedy school. in january 2011, it will mark the 20-year anniversary of the collapse of the somali government. thank you for the insights into iraq and afghanistan. my question for the panel is what are the prospects for u.s. engagement or in engagement in the somalia situation? i would love to hear about that. >> we are just completing a

review of our smaller policies. it is an extremely complex and vexing situation with great humanitarian consequences. we are redoubling our efforts to work with the transitional government to support the u.n. force and to increase the capacity to provide greater security forces. we also will be seeking to engage the other somali autonomoust or commissariea areas. it is an extremely difficult set of columns. frankly, our leverage is limited. but we want to try to build capacity and the will of those

who are more able to leverage the situation, make a difference on the ground, and help to make them more effective. >> we spoke a lot about the conflicts and iraq and afghanistan and we have not yet shifted gears about other issues, like proliferation with iran and north korea. seeing that the obama administration ran on a platform of increasing diplomatic engagement and talking with adversarial states, i was wondering if you get to comment on why we have not seen more of a push for diplomatic engagement and other things as well, such as sanctions. we have state clinton, at her confirmation hearing, there was a lot of talk by many about pushing for moves like trying to the open an interest section,

more cultural exchanges. i wanted to know if you have any insight why these things have not been happening. >> i will take the first if you will take the second. on the non-proliferation front, obama came into office with a very strong desire and effort to engage iran on its nuclear program. the fact that it is out of compliance with the non- proliferation treaty and a number of u.n. resolutions and problems with the iaea, the engagement was quite serious. it was largely robust. however, the fact that we made such an effort at engagement and it was in good faith, it allowed others in the international committee to join with us when it came time to push for

sanctions. you had russia as a very strong supporter of sanctions. china and others, that you -- that is part of what is making -- the eu, that is part of what is making the sanctions effective. the fact of our engagement made to the international effort stronger. in other areas, whether it was reinvigorating the nonproliferation review conference, convening the national security summit, the non-proliferation area has been a long line of diplomacy for the administration. but we could do more. >> if 5 heard the second part of your question as to what i take away from this, something that i think all three of us in our comments have referred to in a way, in your opening comments,

you referred to that. that has been one of the challenges. i believe secretary gates has been very direct on this issue as has secretary clinton -- about the need for not only addressing our defense and military-related issues, but looking at the integration of these components and how critical it is and putting resources into the diplomatic side, which involves many of the soft power elements that we have discussed. i would simply say that i would start with the fact that there still needs to be a vigorous redressing of that issue. i know that the state department has emulated the talk apartment of defense with this quadrennial -- has emulated the state

department of defense with this quadrennial review. right now, the percentage of the moneys is very minimal. i think most think that it comprises a substantial part of our budget. it does not. >> michele was commenting on this that lost it. do you want to say more on that topic? >> one of the things that i think that those who serve in government find in this day and age is that it is difficult to find a challenge that you can effectively address with just one instrument of national power. what is needed is a much more whole-government approach and integrated approach. yet, what we find as a nation, as we invest in one instrument, we put the military on steroids

and everything else is on life support. i think that a strong military serves our national interest fundamentally and very well. but it does not serve our interests in not being able to deploy civilians in an expeditionary manner to seek diplomacy and economic assistance. they can prevent situations become a conflict situation or can help them come out of conflict and gain political objectives. the politics of this on capitol hill are extremely challenging. it is much more difficult to get resources for the civilian side of the house than the military side of the house. yet it complicates -- that

amounts complicates our ability to achieve our objectives. the transition in iraq is a case of point. the military part of the transition is well-founded. the civilian part is not. it is a real challenge for coherent policy going forward. >> we have time for two final questions. this gentleman and this lady, thank you. >> numbest de, shalom -- namaste, cholon -- i am on racial them. i study women and war. that is why i'm here tonight. i would like to submit that to address the issues of psychological and garments and civility -- psychological arguments and civility, the initiative of nonviolence would be a way to go forward.

but because it would be a people movement. a. people move that would be political. it would be an interaction of government and the people. in particular, right now, on the west bank, there is a documentary coming out and the people of israel that together with the people in the west bank and they promoted non- violence with women leading the way. so there is some strength. if women take the lead in the movement of non-violence, then we have the empathetic house that you alluded to in the beginning. then we also have a mobilized people. when obama took office, he reached out with the olive branch in his first television interview. he said, we're not enemies to

the islamic world. to get to my question, if there was a movement -- i have been working on a global strategy of nonviolence if anyone is interested with an initiative called "a call to women" -- if there was a call to women, not only in the united states, but there is evidence in afghanistan of the women getting together -- with the government be open -- would the government be open to the movement of nonviolence led by women and with the work together? >> think that there are -- over the course of history, there have been many times where grass-roots movements have come out of civil society and have been very powerful proponents of

positive change. our own experience is the civil rights movement, the experience of the nonviolent movement in india's formation -- there are many examples of this in history where there is initially difficult and the productive dialogue with a society. -- with a society and government. it is hard for me to speculate and know exactly what you are envisioning. but a dialogue with a civil society on how to move on a wide range of national security issues is a positive thing, especially in a dramatic -- especially in a democratic

society like ours. >> tony shays was undersecretary, one of the early people opening some of the doors. >> now i am just a lowly professor at fletcher. [laughter] michele, i credit you with being the parent of pdd 56 and the whole concept. we worked on this a bit together here at the kennedy school. the concept of civil military planning, it now seems to me to be more important than ever under the kind of irregular warfare and the kind of strategy. what kind of power can you put behind it or are you putting behind this concept? that really goes to the question and discussion just prior to the last question on the shortage of

resources. but in the government, in the planning phase, knowing what'we failed that in iraq, what are you planning to do? >> there have been several iterations. it is something that we actively use. there was one plan developed in iraq -- i am not sure when they started, but i was there by the later stages -- and it is also being used in a more pro-active way as we contemplate potential future crises. we're trying to bring together people to think through them and hold government, approach,

identify, everything from strategy to resources and so forth. i think the planning phase has come a long way. what has not come with it as fully as we have been discussing is the resourced ching to fully enabled the civilian plant. >> unfortunately, we have come to the end. let me say again what an honor it is to have such great public servants here and how much we especially appreciate michele for taking so much time out of her incredible schedule. thank you. [applause] i forgot one thing. , admiral mike a

mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, will be here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> friday, on "washington journal," a discussion of the repeal of the don't ask/don't tell policy in the military and held below will be implemented.

then sally quinn, founder of the interactive forum on face, she will stop by and talk about religion and politics. starting 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> on c-span christmas eve, speaker of the house nancy pelosi and other members of the house like the capitol christmas tree and president obama and the first family attend the first annual pageant of peace. then the first televised presidential debate, michael dukakis and charles gibson talk about the preparation for presidential debate. christmas day, former kurdish prime minister tony blair on the role of religion. radio host garrison keeler talks about him in public life. and sandra day o'connor and david souter discuss life on the high court. it is a three-day holiday weekend on book tv. friday morning, the latest

nonfiction titles and authors, including jimmy carter, rebecca salute, ted gump, ron turnout, and michael porter. afterwards, james smiley on the man who changed the world. the man who invented the computer. find the complete holiday schedule on booktv.org. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs ever. every morning, we bring you "washington journal." during the week, watch the u.s. house and the continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. every weeknight, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court or zero arguments. on the weekend, you can see your signature interview programs.

you can also watch our programming anytime on c-span board. it is all searchable on our c- c-span.org.-- c-span got bore it is all searchable on our c- span 2 library. >> no changes on the political landscape. this is 40 minutes. journal" continues. host: robert groves, director of senses. . "usa today" headline. the subheading is, the nation sees the slowest growth, 9.7%, since the great depression. why? guest: if you look at many decades of the last hundred years, like a lot of developed countries in the world we are gradually reducing the rate of growth.

still growing but the rate is slowing. two exceptional decades -- the decade of the great depression had the lowest overall growth rebid, then the decade of the 1950's that saw the baby boom had the huge growth rate. you take bid two points out, gradually reducing. a 9.7 over the past 10 years. we are still growing. the why of that generally believed to be the combination of the aging of the population -- as we see in this society, but also the lower fertility rate of developed countries. all the countries are experiencing immigration but the net effect is the slowing of growth. host: in the growth, how much ease immigration? guest: we do not know exactly. if we look outside to other data sources, are best best in this

decade would be maybe 60% of the growth was natural increase of resin and population and maybe 40% migration. host: if you look at this knapp from yesterday, it looks as if michigan is the only state that lost population in the last 10 years. guest: in the 2000 census, no state lost population but in the 1990 census, four states lost population. it goes up and down and changes over time. host: what surprised you about the senses this year? you come i think there are several notable things. this is the first time we have gone over 300 million. the last senses was 208 1 million. that is a bit of a threshold. the second, the slowing of growth. and then the third that you can see on every map that we

produce is a reduction of of the growth rate in of the northeast and midwest regions. so, your example of michigan shows some of that. and then higher growth rates in the south and the west. this has been going on for some time. host: will that continue? guest: who knows? you first have to ask why it is happening. it is really quite complex. we know the midwest was the heartland of the manufacturing sector. we know what happened to that sector recently. we also know the aging of the population is producing retirement mobility to the southern areas. so, there are a lot of different regions. host: 202 is the area code for all of our numbers. roves is our guest --

demographically, how does the u.s. now breakdown by race? guest: we don't know that from this census yet. the reason that we did a couple of days ago was to fulfill the constitutional purpose of the senses, which is to guide the reapportionment of the house of representatives. we based that on state population totals. starting in february, all of the details of the data will start coming out. host: any other details that you released yesterday or that you have that you can share? guest: i think some things are kind of interesting. we tracked the population center -- what do we mean by that? imagine the united states was on a balance beam and everyone weighed the same amount and we try to find that point that

balances the country. it has been moving west and south for decade after decade. in fact, in 1790, do you know where the center of the nation was? kent county, maryland. so, it has gradually moved west and south. right now it is sitting in the state of missouri. we have not calculated this yet, but we've speculated it may have slipped to arkansas. that it is going to go south and west a little more. we have not seen it yet. host: you have quite an interactive web site. guest: thank you. we love our website. it's could tell us about it. guest: it is 2010census.gov. i think you will enjoy it, and history buff or anyone mildly curious about their state over time for their region. it is interactive and it allows you to click through the years to see how the country or your state change.

it also allows you to look at apportionment figures over time. host: do we have economic data yet? guest: not yet. i need to remind you we had a very short questionnaire. we did it deliberately to keep the burden down. so the amount of information will be less than the prior decade. we have this wonderful new sample survey, of the american community survey that annually will pump out estimates on socio-economic issues and housing and so on. host: ok. so, you released the apportionment data for reapportionment. we know who gain seats and who does not. we have that information out there. texas is the big winner. new york and ohio, the big losers. california didn't change for the first time. guest: that's right. california did not change the

the first time. it is remarkable. california in the last century had the momentum of the largest single growth. in 1960, california got eight new seats based on the senses because of its gigantic growth. but it is not that california is not growing. it is indeed. it is not growing as fast as other states in the region or country. for host: have you made any predictions regarding politics with regard to the senses? guest: that is the thing i know least about, as it turns out. one of the things i am very proud of about the census bureau is that we are a nonpartisan agency. we, like you, are devoted to getting information out to the public and letting them decide what it means. so, there will be tons of political scientist who will comment on the politics. host: february of 2011 is when we can see a more and more comprehensive information.

guest: let me tell you how it works. the next step in the political or governmental process is the redistricting. they do that on their own. we have nothing to do with that. but we supply them the data for doing that. that starts in february. that is very rich, block-level data. population counts broken by race and ethnicity. so, jumping on those data, which millions of people do, will allow description of things as small as school districts and other things. later on we will produce other products with richard deyton. host: west palm beach, florida. kathleen, democrat. you are on what the director of the census bureau. caller: good morning and happy holidays first and foremost. i wanted to find out -- in social science we say that there are too many variations within any group to constitute a true

race. how as americans are we supposed to identify ourselves if we are interracial or hispanic -- black-hispanic. how is it done? or is it whenever you feel? it's got i think we got the point, kathleen. guest: that is a great question. let me give a little history. in the year 2000, for the very first time all of us were able to check multiple boxes for our racial identity and ethnicity. not too many people did it. we, again, gave ourselves the opportunity of doing that in the 2010 census. now, what has happened between 2000 and 2010 -- the decade of tiger woods and barack obama, we have had tons of discussions

about combinations of racial identity. so, one of the very interesting things i think sociologically as you referenced is how many people check multiple boxes on the race question. we will know that in a matter of months. the second thing that you raised is how we measure race. we left that to the individuals. that is, we self-identified our racial categories, and that is how we have done it for host: we are going to go to california, and dana, caller: independent line good morning and merry christmas. i was just wondering if with all of the anti-government, anti- incumbent air, if you notice a

drop in the amount of census forms returned because of that? was it more or less, compared to other years? do people seem more cooperative or less cooperative? guest: great question. something i gave daily attention to a few months ago, because of all the press about this. first, i want to remind us that throughout history the census, during the taking of the senses there is often the controversy of one sort or another, so that is not unusual. second, the data analysis could not pick up that trend. we don't have any evidence. there were press stories on this and did dividual comments made by folks around the country, but it did not seem to have an effect on the bulk of the american public. despite -- in other surveys and

those done throughout the country, and the lowering of participation rates year by year, we ask the american public achieved the same rates that we did in 2000 -- we as the american public. we came through. host: robert groves. and the estimates of the illegal population? guest: we don't have that. we released on december 6 another way of estimating the population, which is based on birth certificates and death certificates and estimates of migration. dare we brought in the best stenographers in the country to help us do that. there was an agreement that we cannot estimate the immigration write very well as a community because of the lack of documentation on some illustration -- immigration.

we had a range of numbers between 306 million and 313 million. when the census came in at 308.7 million, that is just a little higher than the middle of that range, so that makes us feel good about the census. we never know the answer to your question from the measurements we do. host: does the census bureau estimates that in any way? guest:no, but the carefully estimate the total number of immigrants. piecing those two things apart is a really hard demographic problem. host: one of the states with the biggest population game was idaho. barrie, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to wish those unfortunate people in this

country a very merry christmas and i pray for them every day. my second point is i was wondering if the "dream act" is passed, what effect will this have on our census? thank you. guest: let's go back in history. maybe that is the best way to do this. in march of 1790, the first house of representatives passed a census act of 1790. a lot of the founding fathers were members of that first congress, by the way. they specified that we count everyone in the country whether they were citizens or not. although this is, a controversy that comes up every 10 years, for every census since 1790 we have counted everyone, whether they were citizens or not. so, unless there's a change all

a part of congressional action with regard to who we count in the census, which by the way the constitution gives as a responsibility to congress, we will continue counting everyone who lives in the country. the "dream act" would have no effect on who we attempt to account. host: robert groves, people are moving to the south and the west. where are they moving? guest: we can see the big gainers. texas received four states because it grew at a rate of 20.6. the biggest percentage growth is nevada where a 35.1%. nevada is not a really large state in terms of overpopulation, but that is an enormous growth rate. in the year 2000, nevada in 10 years grew 66%.

clark had a good growth rate this year as well. -- florida had a good growth rate. the south and the west are growing with each decade. for the first time, the west region has larger population than the midwest. this is a shift, a turning point. those states that came to the union at the last point are gradually filling up and getting more balance in terms of the population. host: city's growing, rural areas growing? guest: we don't have that yet. we will in a few months. host: ohio on the line. caller: i am the owner of a

property in ohio and another in florida. i got in the mail the florida property house. i called the post office. i never received the ohio property. they said they returned it to the census. they did not afford that mail to me for my ohio property. i have many friends that filled out the one for florida, but they don't live in florida. they live in ohio. guest: it's a great question. kind of complicated answer, but let me talk you through its. first of all, the folks like you that have multiple properties do get multiple forms often. we ask that they report on the form where they usually live. the second -- so i don't know

your personal circumstance, but the second thing to notice bais that on all the houses whee we don't get a return form, we go back and knock on doors. if we knock on the door and no one answers, then we get information from a proxy respondent, which could be a building manager in a condominium development or it could be a neighbor. many times, people who don't remember getting interviewed face-to-face are correct in their memory, but we have obtained the information from other sources. at the end of this process, i can promise you that for every address that we had on our list, over 135 million addresses, we have a disposition that came

either from the mail questionnaire returned, a face- to-face interview, or the reports from the and knowledgeable other person. host: census 2010, 380 million, 745,000 people in the u.s.. -- 380.7 million. when it comes to reapportionments and redistricting, texas got four new house seats. florida got two. arizona, nevada, south carolina, utah, and washington state all got another seat. new york and ohio each lost two seats. losing one seat are louisiana, michigan, missouri, new jersey,

and pennsylvania. guest: indiana grew at a lower than average rate, 6.2%. its population was suspect in the algorithm, they retain their same seats. the same in minnesota, which was on the edge. the very last seat was assigned to minnesota, under the algorithm. that allowed them to keep all of their seats. the state that just barely lost out, you could think of that as they 436th seat, if we had one, was north carolina, which would have been a jump for north carolina. the difference between those two states was about 15,700 or so

population, so that's a pretty big gap. in the last decade that was less than a thousand, much smaller. host: alabama did not do as well. guest: alabama grew at a 7.5% rate. the way that the assignment of seats goes, it is a function of the relative size of the state, but also the population count. the first thing that is done is that we assign one seat to every state and then we rank the states after that. and we start filling out the other seats. in that ordering, the big states get all of the nice seats and then gradually you get down host: california has 37 million people, so you do a 37 million/500,000? guest: actually, it is the harmonic mean.

it is the square root of the population over the rank, times the rank minus one. we have done this in baseball. it's a fascinating thing the this is in law since 1940. the 1920 census was a unique one in that the legislature did not reapportion itself in 1920. this was the first year that it decided to be 435 total. suddenly there was a zero sum gain. it was also a massive movement from rural areas to urban areas before that. so they went 10 years without reapportioning themselves. finally agreed on these terms that have stock since 1940. host: in 1920, did some of the longtime rural districts have a

lot more power than they should have? guest: yes. the 1910 reapportionment, we were a more rural area. also, in 1910, we went up to a larger town. the nation was growing. restarted with the hosts of rep with 65 members and they kept expanding -- kept expanding overtime. that made it easy. as soon as you say 435 and no more, then it becomes a zero sum game. host: this will take effect in 2013. so the 2012 election will be the old? guest: the congress that begins in january, 2013, based on the election of 2012, will do the reapportionment -- will reflect the reapportionment.

the states have a lot of work to do in redrawing boundaries. even though the states have not changed in numbers, internally, the population distribution might have shifted and they are redrawing boundaries as well. host: next call from mary on the independent line from minnesota. thanks for holding. caller: good morning. i have two questions. one is for c-span and one is for the gentle man. tryinging a good job in to educate the americans, but since the early 1900's there has not been that much change in terms of representation. because of that and since up to the 1960's, we are not getting civics lessons. americans don't understand how things are different up -- divied up.

wyoming has less than 600 with one representative. states like california or minnesota, we keep getting shafted. that is why the founders made it possible in the early days so that it was 30,000 41 representatives, and 30,000 population -- for one representative. please help educate the americans that they need to push congress to make it more representative so that you don't have smaller states all the time micromanaging what happens to this country. host: thanks for the question. what is your question for the census bureau director? guest: i know that he cannot change it because i listened to what he said a few days ago when the report came out. could he help educate americans so that they can know what

things are so they can get congress to change because we are a democratic republic after all. role in this is to supply to the congress itself these numbers as honestly and as professionally as we can. then it is the role of congress to make these decisions. i remind us, for brief time there were 437 members of congress when alaska and hawaii came in before the census and then it went back down to 435. the problem of equal representation across the states is a been shoveling problem. if you agree that every state gets at least one representative, then by definition no matter what, your population size is you are going to have at least one.

there was the wyoming case in that regard that you cited. the only way to make this work in terms of arithmetic is if we have many, many more representatives and then we could make things a little more equal. returning to the days -- and you correctly cited -- that very first congress where each representative was attached to about 34,000 people. we are now over 700,000 per rep. there is no end to this process unless we increase the numbers of people in the house. that is an issue for congress and the voters. host: this is a tweet.

now to annapolis, maryland on the republican line. caller: i worked for the census in annapolis. guest: thank you. caller: i have some questions. one of the things we did was we went to soup kitchens and counted the number of people. people do not live at soup kitchens. in some cases when a few days later we would go to another soup kitchen i would see the same people that i already counted. it's about three blocks from the other soup kitchen. what is that about? guest: thank you. you are one of our heroes. there were about 1 million people like you who, as a public service, even though we did not pay you very much, you helped america to count itself and you are one of my heroes. let me go to your question.

the difficulty of counting people who are homeless is enormous. we do the best we can, but we admit we are not perfect. how do we do this? on march 29, 30, and 31, we had three days of operations, which was the culmination of months about reached to community organizations, working with them to find out where homeless folks congregate. we went to where they get services. soup kitchens, shelters. we also identified the outdoor locations where they sleep. over those three days, we reached out and tried to account folks. when we had full identities of folks, for example, you encounter the two people at two -- the same person at two superstitions, we tried not to duplicate cases when we had

identifications of people enumerated multiply, we did that. we added goes to the aggregates. the number of 308.7 million includes all of the homeless folks that we counted in that way. let me tell you, we admit imperfections in that. i know that there is probably somebody in florida living out in the woods in a tent and i suspect we did not count that person. we did not count people who want to evade the account that are homeless. we do the best we can. we tried to improve with every census, but it is a challenge. host: how did it out meyers of the hawaii and alaska do -- out ?lliers

guest: alaska grew at a higher rates, 13.3%. to 630,000 people. the population density of alaska remains the lowest in the country with 1.1 persons per square mile. host: the highest census? guest: on the east coast. d.c. is the highest for sure. host: but of the state's? guest: it could be rhode island. i don't have in front of me. host:paul from massachusetts. caller: two questions. first, with respect to residents of the united states who are undocumented, how did you reach out to try to count as many of

those people as possible? second question, on the map you showed, the largest increase in members of congress, the shift was to the southwestern part of the united states, which many of the governors of those states have indicated that they have the largest population of undocumented residents. i was wondering if that -- those undocumented residents -- has contributed to the increase in population there for the increase in the number of house seats? guest: two great questions. first, how did we go about counting the undocumented? we counted them the same way as all other people. what did we do to reach out to

them? this was, i think, one of the most heartwarming stories of this census. we had over 250,000 partner organizations, small community groups, sometimes these were things like residents associations in an apartment building or it could be a community group, the ymca or community center. they got the word out. these or all volunteer activities. no money exchanged hands. they helped us get the word out to their communities. in the immigrant communities, especially the latino community, the energy and activity countrywide was just enormous. all sorts of activities were going on especially in the southwestern states. we worked with community leaders to convey the message

that the way we do a census in this country is completely separate from any enforcement agency activity. when you answer the questions in the census, the data is kept constaand confidential. your group, your community, benefits through those counts. to the extent that message got out, we feel good about the the results. it's a tough problem. consistently getting the message, we do the best we can. over the next few weeks and months, i think, instead of expressing my opinion, we will have real data to evaluate so we can compare to the benchmarks. host: tina tweets this: guest: it is an important

responsibility that is shared by state governors. in some states, under the voting rights act, the department of justice, the u.s. department of justice, oversees the construction, the boundaries of districts in order to make sure it is fair for minority representation. host: the next call for the census bureau director robert groves, milton, from new york. caller: good morning. why does it cost $13 billion? you just said that you cannot count the immigrants. if they are undocumented immigrants, this documentation, so you should be able to count them. if they are not documented, why are they not sent back? all ice and send them back. -- call ice.

guest: economy reiterate, we count every resident. we count people whether they are documented or not. by the way, remember, on the census questionnaire, we never ask whether you are a citizen or not or whether you have documentation. so we really don't know the breakdown of the immigrant population. in terms of estimating the immigration, because of the undocumented portion of immigrant populations, it is very difficult for us to use records along to estimate. your first question was about the cost of the census? the census is an expensive activity of the federal government. i think the final tally will be about 13 billion.

the-- when i came into my appointment in 2009 our estimate was it was going to cost 14.5 or $13.7 billion. since i've been in, some wonderful things have happened. we have a budget this year, this fiscal year, a $7.4 billion. we were able to return $1.8 billion of that to the treasury because we did not need it. since we did not need it, we returned to the treasury. host: how did that happen? guest: $800 million of that was a contingency fund in case that things happened likes hurricanes. we were reported about age the h1n1 epidemic. none of those bad things happened. we saved $800 million on that. the rest of the money, kudos to

the american public for returning the forms, which means we did not have to pay salaries to people to knock on as many doors as we were prepared to do. the other thing that happened was we hired people in this recession with job skills and experience and with desire to work that need the money that were so productive that they finished the work at very high quality levels faster than we thought. that yielded savings. i am worried about the cost of the census. i believe in these economic times we have to plan for the most cost-efficient sense as we can. we are working on that and try to be as cost-efficient as we can in 2020. tweet:here's a guest: i would guess new york or california.

whenever you have 600,000 people on the streets, a lot of things happen. we had over 700 incidents when our folks knocked on the door, they were greeted with a gun in their face. 600,000 people on the streets. people knocking on 50 million households doors. out of 100 million knocks on the door, 700 times of guns in the face. we had one shooting death and another due to a traffic accident. each of these things are real tragedies. it hurt us as a family, but it is a relatively rare event. 700 over 100 million.

host: last call for robert groves, from baltimore. caller: i have a question regarding redistricting as it relates to the 2010 census. look at the states where the population might have shifted. if you can answer this, why are the district's gerrymandered? could there be a case uses for the results of the senses to make the case that the district's need to be more square and true and truly represent the people? guest: this is truly out of my domain of authority. i do know that the data we are given can be analyzed by anyone. in some states, citizens commissions have been appointed for the redistricting process, in an attempt to address the issues you have raised. in other states, this is a

straight political process, it would be subject to negotiations. the ability with cheap computers now to form geographical boundaries to achieve all sorts of desired ends is almost unlimited. this will be an interesting decade redistricting, but it is not part of our job. host: robert groves, director of the census bureau, how much longer will you be in this position? guest: i serve at the pleasure of the president. i may have a memo on my desk tomorrow. if not, it will be in >> friday, a discussion of the "don't ask don't tell"policy.

then, sally quinn, of the washington post and interactive forum on faith. she will talk about religion and politics. "washington journal" takes your calls and e-mail's every morning. >> coming up next, a discussion about partisanship in american politics. scholars will discuss the importance of the constitution in society. later a panel looks at women working in the national security field. >> on c-span christmas eve, speaker of the house and nancy pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree. president obama and the first family attended the "pageant of peace." michael dukakis and charles gibson will talk about the

preparations for a presidential debate. tony blair and author christopher hitchens on the role of religion. former supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david souter discuss life on the high court. this weekend on c-span3, we visit the museum of the confederacy in richmond -- -- in richmond, and va. also, from the nixon presidential library oral history project, a former astronaut frank borman on the early space program. alita black reveals the politics, controversies, and media savvy of a former first lady. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history.

>> it should not take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity. america cannot afford to wait. >> hear farewell speeches on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. all on line, all free. it is washington your way. >> next, a discussion on part of schism -- on -- this is one hour. >> thank you.

panel.ring out our good morning, everyone. there should be four of them. good morning, everyone. our topic this hour, it is 6:00 in the evening for you. otherwise, it is morning. we have a great panel. we will start with the senior political analyst for cnn. [applause] as well as a director for the center for public leadership. david began his career in public service in the nixon white house back in 1971. is that not right? he did go on to become director of communications in both the

ford and reagan administration. he was the adviser to the 1980 george h. w. bush presidential campaign. >> you left out grover cleveland. >> good lord. we have the junior senator from indiana. [applause] during -- he has written legislation calling upon congress to fully implement the 9/11 commission recommendations, help close the bermuda a tax loophole, and cast the tie- breaking vote to advance credit card reform. the senator also spearheaded the creation of an organization on developing common sense legislation solutions. prior to this election and the u.s. senate, he served two terms

as governor of indiana. >> we refer to that as the good old days. >> to my right, joe was elected to the united states senate for west virginia last month. prior to this election, he served as the governor of west virginia. during his five years as governor, he led the efforts to pay down a $1.7 billion in underfunded state liability and cut the food tax in half, saving west virginia consumers millions of dollars. to my left, joe scarborough. [applause]

serving as a member of the u.s. congress -- is this the young republicans club? >> there are three of them out there. >> not here, not today. it is not about labels. he was a member of the judiciary committee and the armed services committee. he was also part of a smolt -- a small group of republican congressmen that invested some surprising amount of power given their youth and lack of years in congress. he is 2004 book -- his 2004 book predicted the collapse of the republican majority. his recent book predicted that democratic policies and massive spending would not revive the economy. today, a joke is co-host of a show that time magazine called the revolutionary morning.

i want to start the panel. david, we will start with you because you have been around a lot is, obviously. [laughter] >> your day will come. >> i am already there. you worked for presidents of both sides of the aisle. is hyper partisanship worse than ever? >> it is about 15 on a scale of one to 10. it is far worse than it was. i have reached an age -- it takes me an hour-and-a-half to watch "60 minutes." i came to washington in the early 1970's. the world war two generation was running things. that generation -- it was a very

civic experience. they consider themselves strong democrats or strong republicans, but first and foremost of americans. the country came first. richard nixon told me shortly before he died, one of its proudest moments in politics came early on in his career. nixon was part of the world generation. that was the year of the big republican sweep. harry truman really down in the polls. in 1947, he wanted to have a rescue plan. he asked george marshall if he would have it under his name. it became the marshall plan. it was very unpopular.

truman called in a lot of republicans. they gradually got public support. one of its proudest moments came when the marshall plan would to a vote on the floor of the house and heat stood up on one side of the aisle in favor of this democratic plan. on the other side of the aisle was another freshman member standing up in favor, john f. kennedy. the importance of american politics is when the chips are down, we stand up together. that was the spirit of the world war oii generation. [applause] >> i wonder if some of the worst of it is in the echo chamber. maybe america does not reflect what we are seeing on television or hearing on the radio.

there is a media component. >> one of the most fascinating feelings that i have heard of our show was when pat buchanan and tom brokaw started talking in 2009 during the health-care debate. i said, you guys cover the civil rights struggle, 1968. chicago was on fire. that was about as bad as it had gotten, right? pat buchanan said, nope. this is much worse. it is interesting now. when i thought the survivors of the clinton administration and the new gingrich congress, but we got together, despite the fact that it seemed so ugly back in the 1990's, we talk about how we did not like each other, when the chips are down, we had to do

the right thing. balance forbes -- balance the budget for first time -- for the first time in a generation. we grow the economy. we did a lot of very positive things together. that is before the hyper partisanship really got fuelled by the new media components. i am not saying that it is the responsibility of bloggers to be more tactful. the responsibility falls, the responsibility lies and politicians being grown ups and knowing what to filter out. washington has not done a good job at distinguishing between ground noise and the signal. i think that it is beginning to

change. i really do. there is no doubt that there is immediate compounded to this that we did not have during the clinton administration. >> be a found that -- we have found that our show has been a breakthrough in the national conversation. we did not attack each other. there is ultimately peace at the end, usually. >> it is not possible -- it is not personal and that is the bottom line. >> better, tired, cynical, but still idealistic. looking for a different role. >> tell us why. i want to hear from both senators. why are you here today? this obviously resonates with you and it is something that you think we need as we move

forward. >> i have the perspective of someone who grew up in public life by virtue of my service. i think we searched in vain for a golden era. it has already -- it has always been a rough and tumble. it is worse today than it was before. my father tells the story that in 1968, he is running for his first reelection. the republican leader -- he comes to my father in the floor of the senate and put to his arm around his shoulder and asked what he could do to help with his reelection. this would never happen today. you look for sharp instruments. it was different in those days. my message is that to -- there are gathering challenges that will define the future of our country. my children, who are now 15, will inherit from me an america

that is less than what we inherited from our parents. i fill a deep moral responsibility not let that happen. [applause] the current political process is not delivering the result of the american people want. to the unfortunate part is that that middle, at near where i'm from, they do not care what party he belongs to. they want practical progress. it also can be good politics. look at what happened the last couple election cycles. my party won independence by 9%. they are looking for something better, something different. that is what this organization has the chance to deliver. we will make a remarkable contribution to public welfare. they said, what is your

audience? we also have an inside audience. if i stay out that sensible center, i will get shot from both sides. now there is a movement that will support you in during the right thing. that is very important. [applause] >> i sit here with a sign that says no labels behind me. was i wrong to label you as idealistic? we were talking about some of the things that you see in washington and tell separates the parties are when they're trying to work together. >> i was in the legislature in west virginia and in the state senate for 10 years and became secretary of state and then governor. i've been in washington for three weeks.

as soon as the election is certified, we take office. at 12:00 on november the 15th, i was governor. was gone.i i had four hours of transition. the first week, i was labeled a conservative and a liberal. >> that is a good day. >> my first observation -- i go to my first armed services committee and you're listening to the joint chief of staffs, and i'm thinking, here is the chairman. we have john mccain. then we have all the republicans on one side and the democrats on the other side. the body itself, i know we will have separation. in committees, we all sat together. we talk to.

-- we talked. we started to build a relationship. what i've observed and three weeks is designed to push us apart traded as gone to the point where committees respondence is based on who had the best lobbying. not where you can make the most in plant and have more input for america. i ran on this, my observation of washington was that to they put their party first, they put their personal politics second, and their government last. i put my country first and let the rest fall where it may. no labels is giving us the vehicle to do it. >> we also want to talk about how we can get the two existing parties talking again. >> look at the tea party. the tea party had a movement because -- in my little state,

people did not believe that you can spend yourself to prosperity. things are tough. the are having a hard time. -- we are having a hard time. we do not believe that in west virginia. >> this is -- i wrote a column about a month ago before the election. it made a lot of my republican friends very angry and a lot of my democratic enemies very angry. i need the overall point that nancy pelosi is going around saying, elected democrats for the future of our democracy is resting on it. then you have republican leaders saying, in socialism, collect republicans. at the end of the day, when you talk about this issue, it is not that much of a difference. the bottom line is we have a deficit commission that work

forever to pay down $4 trillion in debt. it got voted down and then the next weekend, both parties got together and agreed to a $1 trillion stimulus plan. this is what americans -- david, you have seen it time and time again. everybody is screaming and yelling and is calling on the other side. they are all working together to give us deeper and deeper in debt. at her -- it is a charade. it is a scam. >> all of us are discouraged about what we see in washington. at around the country, there are examples where government is working. it happens in cities and states. you find this happening. here in new york city, mayor bloomberg has gone a lot of progress in schools, creation of

jobs. it has not -- chicago has been an extremely well-run city. both of you guys had to learn to work across. it was much more productive in your state. it was a more satisfying job to be a governor as you got some things done. >> they are the most oppressed people on earth. >> they thought it was an upgrade. >> evan i do not know what it is like in the senate, not only do you get committee assignments based on the money you can bring into the party, but they see how loyal you are. it is kind of like "the sopranos." you do not get credit for being

loyal to the family 95% of the time. >> there are some important institutional reforms that should be made. it is almost tribal. democrats have lunch together. we do not eat with the republicans. literally, in my 12 years, there have been three times we have sat down to actual listen to one another. first was when president clinton was impeached. there were no rules. it was a constitutional crisis. we gathered in the senate chamber and listen to each other for three or four hours. the trial went forward. the balance of power was preserved. three days after 9/11, the senators to could make it back to washington gathered in the

senate dining room and nobody was thinking like a democrat or republican. you want to protect the country. about a month ago, when the midterm elections came by, it was immediately following the financial panic. we were called down and ben bernanke was sitting there. it will take millions of jobs with it, thousands of businesses. we looked at each other, okay. what do we need to do? it should not take a constitutional crisis, an attack on the nation, or a financial panic to have our government function in a way that it is in the american people's best interest. [applause] there are a couple of reasons why we got to this point.

joe gives in coming senator and vice. -- advice. >> i do not need to give him advice. >> be your own man. do not sell your boat. -- vote. did not sell your vote to party leaders. i see it time and time again they separate the freshmen and this around them. this is about a movement. this is about freedom. this is about whatever. you've got to learn to see note from the one. >> it is also about -- if you want that committee assignment -- they look that solidarity. that and then that you are bringing up, we might be able to find time for that.

but we are counting on you for that other thing. those trade-offs are constant. but you have to have the strength of character. >> that is easy to say. in this atmosphere, there are a lot of different dynamics. years ago, you talked about how people on the hill interacted. they went to church with each other. they knew each other. they were not just competing megaphones. isn't that a problem? >> they moved their families to washington. i cannot call him a socialist if i have to eat dinner with his wife the next night. that is a huge cultural disconnect. >> they talk about getting

disconnected from your voters back home. in three weeks, i feel there is a disconnect. i felt like i had to go home. i went home this last weekend. you start -- the best politics is good government. what we ran it was a retail government. identify your customer. the government does not know who its customer is. they do not have to react to the bottom line. most of the people that are in legislature have never been a in a business where they had to get a loan.

they did not know the pressures. [applause] >> david, is and what we assault this week giving the customers what they want? >> -- isn't what we saw this week giving the customers what they want? >> i think that what has happened is that the generation -- we lost a lot of that civic culture that was there. to me, you the question is not only what the folks in washington do. the real question is what you do. especially those of you are younger. my sense from teaching and i just talked to david brooks about this backstage, a number of us to have been exposed to the younger generation believe that you represent the new hope for the country. you are going to look beyond partisanship. there are a lot of view that will be successful in making change. you have been out working.

we have 24 -- people want to go out and work. we have all these military doctors coming back from iraq and afghanistan who are deeply committed to this country. a very loyal. there is a culture of service coming up in the other generation that will save the country over time. you can bring us back to some sort of greater sense to commitment. we are all in this together. of course, we have sharp differences. at the end of the day, you need to put the country first. that is represented here on the stage. we need a whole flood of young people coming into our politics and into the political arena. if you could do that, you could save the country. [applause] >> the message of no labels has -- has its time come?

>> its time has come. this is an example of where the public is ahead of the politicians. the politicians are not done. they see this movement gathering force. they will catch on. i share your concerns about the debt and deficit. i really do. i would look at the vote next spring on raising the debt levels. nobody is going to want to vote for that. that might be the kind of moment that forces meaningful tax reforms and spending restraints that will have the added effect of getting the deficit on the right path. it may take that kind of misogynist events to make it happen -- and misogynist to --

event to make it happen. >> you are exactly right. there is such a fundamental disconnect from more washington is and where in new york is compared to where most american voters are. we have seen it time and time again. we have gone out with a couple of different folks and given 200 speeches all across the country. it shocks me. it shocks me -- we give the same speech that we gave at pat robertson's university. people laugh at the same lines. they nodded the same lines. they agree time and time again. this country is a lot closer together than you would believe watching television. are these republican issues or democratic issues?

balancing the budget. the americans do not care how long it will take, they wanted done. most americans are tired of this fighting this war in afghanistan. we have been there for a decade. it is costing us $2 billion a week. i do not care if you are republican or democrat, we have people saying, let's rebuild our own country. let's stop rebuilding the other countries. energy and independence. americans want their governments -- we a been saying this for two years. they want this government to invest in energy liked it is a sputnik moment. it is happening in china, among our competitors, and we're going to be left behind. it does not.

if you brought out some of those things to democrats, you'd be mocked. if you brought up and getting out to afghanistan to republicans, we would kick you out. you have to set parties. >> you have to have a vision where you want this country to be and how we will get there. i've been talking to all different -- liberals and conservatives. they all have a vision. if you talk long enough, you'll find out that everyone agrees on something. once you find that common denominator, you honan. you've everybody moving in the same direction. it does not matter if you are right. if we do not bring together, we

cannot figure it out at all. >> it is fascinating. we were talking about the fact that you got the endorsement of the chamber of commerce and it is not because they knew you were going to win. you did nothing before first bringing them into the room. let's find a common ground. we will build a better west virginia and it will be a west virginia were the chamber of commerce thrives. that is a revolutionary concept. >> i walked into republican caucuses as a democrat. the last time i checked, we both have the same decision. we are both serving the same people. this is a plan. let's see if we can work together.

energy security, if you did not put security at the highest level, every war in history has been fought over energy. we are paying money -- they are using their money against us to rate hike. every state should be energy independent. >> this is where i get discouraged. i was in the white house when the -- i wrote a lot of those early speeches for president nixon and president ford, that we would become independent -- energy independent. we were 30% dependent on foreign oil at that time. where now 60% dependent. both speeches were very effective. did those speeches were very effective.

it is one area after another where the partisanship and the special interest have blocked our capacity to deal with the problem. we have almost 40 years of trying to deal with this energy problem. we still do not have a comprehensive energy policy. i was in the white house when president reagan got the report on the terrible state of our schools. it was an alarming indictment. a lot of good governors went out and push on education reform. here we are, some 30 years later, and we still have not reached for schools. if we're going to get serious, all of these problems, they're all coming down on us at once. either we're going to deal with

them now and compete with china or we are going to surrender to these problems and we will go down as a great nation. it is about that simple. i think the reason this moment is here is not just because -- it is because the country is on the edge. if we do not deal with these problems now, we're going to condemn our future. i do not think we have much time. >> what is the way forward? you have two parties that look very much alike. in terms of the way they follow the wrong policies. in spending, he really cannot see much of a difference. what is the way forward? is it a third party? >> i just think that it is inevitable. i read a number somewhere or nancy pelosi into a dozen sex

won independence by a 16 percentage points -- in 2006 won independence by a 16 percentage points. four years later, just four years later, republic -- -- republicans won independence by a 16 percentage points. that is still 32%. it is inevitable that is both parties continue doing what they have been doing, ignoring the challenges, ignoring the challenges of our deficit, ignoring the challenges of grundy economy and bring our troops home, it is inevitable that to a third-party candidate

start winning and breaking this 150 years old of power that the republicans and democrats have had. >> what is most likely is that because of the state of the economy and some of the unsustainable imbalances you mentioned it, what is most likely is that we'll have a sustained period of turning where there'll be a swing on the independent voters that you just mentioned. there is still in material chance that one of the portable parties -- they will change what they're doing credit all lot like when ross perot ran. suddenly, deficit reduction became popular. they got it. there was a movement out there and people were voting based on that. >> how did we go from barack obama being the candidate of

change to 2010? it is mind bending. >> it might make you cry. >> on hold those two thoughts simultaneously. -- hold us to assaad simultaneously. >> there is a chance that -- i wish i could say that it was a devotion to higher ideals, but it is more likely to be self preservation, one of the two major parties will get act and have a platform that will embrace dealing with some of these issues. the practical barriers to having a national third party are so substantial, it is pretty

difficult to pull off. one of the two existing policies will get it. >> david, do you agree with that? >> look for this vote on the debt ceiling. look for the credit markets reacting if we do not get our act together. look for a run on the dollar, perhaps. an event is most likely to bring that about. >> the history has bent wendy's popular movements, -- has been a when a popular movements have sprung up, another party has moved in. look at the tea party. it is a movement. the question is whether in an effort to revise this -- the

center of our economy is that we have a vibrant middle class. our economic landscape has been hollowed out. the issue becomes, in time you get something that has enough spontaneity to which some of people show up its various downhauls -- town halls, the voices they are hearing more from the ends of the spectrum. if you are a republican, you are hearing mostly tea party voices. they can be intimidating. >> look at this last election. blanche lincoln in arkansas, $11 million. that was a clear message to moderate democrats. if you are not with the program, this is what will happen to you.

look at bob bennett in utah. look at mike castle. he is the state's ban. he would have won that election by 20%. that is where a group like this can serve a real purpose. [applause] >> it comes down to this crippling debts. my grandfather was an immigrant and the had a little grocery store. he would also say, if you are inclined to want to help people, keep ourselves strong. -- keep yourself strong. i mean strong financially. he would show me an example. how about old charlie of there? >> charlie is the best guy in

the remote -- and the world. charlie does not have an extra shirt to give you. that was emblazoned in my mind. i'm standing there taking that of, keep yourself strong. indebtedness -- we are making cowardly decisions now. we will continue to make them. [applause] >> if it all comes down to the crippling debt, what in the world happened in the past week? it all sounds good. you are about to have your taxes increased. >> you are looking at the 700 billion extending any of the taxes. >> my biggest problem is -- i do

not think the federal government should take a fair verdict -- 40% of our money. we are $14 trillion in debt. if you're going to extend tax cuts, and you are going to do all these other things i cost of $960 billion, and you are already $14 trillion in debt, you better pay for it. this is where both parties come together. it is a national emergency. we have to get people back to work. barack obama said two years ago, a national emergency, we have to do this to revive our economy. it is the same thing that we heard george w. bush say about their tax cuts. we have to get america back to work. we have to keep americans -- and that is fine. we have all these priorities.

but the only thing that you -- they want something for nothing. they want a free lunch. [applause] they do not have the political courage. we were $14 trillion in debt. here is the reality. at some point, we will understand that if we do not start to saying that we have to pay for it, we will become greece, ireland, but worse, california. >> you'll have quite a few states, up. the stimulus of runs out 2011.

all the states that stimulus money. it's a tough choices are not made, that you will have many states that cannot meet their general obligations. >> no doubt about it. we have the deficit commission get together and work for months to try to figure out how to trim $4 trillion of the debt. it was to have the left. after they adjourned, that weekend, they add another trillion dollars. >> i want to come back to you wall. here is the situation. some really tough choices are coming out on spending and taxes. everybody was looked at this and said the only way you can get the financing of this country a better place is that you have to both cut spending and raise

taxes. you have to do both. the problem is, if you are a democrats' anti-war past to vote on spending cuts, there is a real danger that they will run at you from the left about the trend the party. if you are republican and your vote to raise taxes, you are guaranteed -- they are guaranteed to take you out. what these folks need, we cannot put the many situation -- a few votes to put the country -- if you vote to put the country first, you will die. what is needed here is some kind of move and that gives some protection to people to do the right thing for the country. it gives them some kind of support that salutes them for doing something courageous. [applause]

>> i think it was abraham lincoln that said we cannot escape history. we basically have -- we can either make these decisions ourselves and give them a way that is best for the american people. or we can wait for outside forces to force them upon us at a time where it will be more difficult and largely beyond our control. those are the two choices we have. expect to take the reins ourselves and choose our own destiny. my best guest is that perhaps -- look at great britain. we have a conservative party and a moderate party together in a coalition government. they have come up with a very aggressive package. if you can do their revenue,

there is another side to that. if we wait for the markets to impose it on us, it will be all pain and no gain. >> that is what happens politically. leaders in washington have to follow up the governor's mansion approach great when you were governor, that would be extraordinarily difficult. figuring out to raise taxes. figuring out how to cut spending. these are all rails -- these are all third rails of american politics. you touch them and you die. you have to get everybody in the room talking. these are the challenges we face. china is destroying us. china is going to allow us in the next century if we do not stop investing money in wars and

start investing in new energy sources. the way we do it -- the way you do it in was tradition is the way we need to do in washington. >> we wanted to cut the food packs. tax. it was a big part of our revenue stream. that is a big chunk of money for us. we will cut its one. a year and we will do it as we it afford to do it. we put a trigger on it, too. if we start dipping into our rainy day accounts, we might raise taxes. the first indicator is that when your savings or your rainy day

account starts dwindling, that means you went into the piggy bank and that is the trigger that goes off. that gets everybody's attention. >> ok. before we get to final thoughts, just a question. did the white house and the democrats miss a major opportunity this week? >> it is a wish list. they miss an opportunity to say, this is our priority. i heard about the purpose of this. unless you take its stake to state and expand on this and you have real input and said downs

with their elected officials, it might be the only chance that we have left to bring every ready together. [applause] >> we are going to take a few moments for some final thoughts. what i would love to hear is what is the way forward? it will start in order of seniority. david? >> i think we are at a strategic inflection point for the country. we eat keep doing business the way we are doing it and we go down as a country. or that we change the way we are doing it in washington. we cannot keep doing what we are doing. what we need is a citizen

engagements. my plea to you would be is to have a launch pad were you go from here and put real pressure on the political class to fix these problems and get support to those who are brave enough to take the right steps. to prepare yourself from this point, to get into the political arena and change the underlying culture. if you can change the culture, a lot of other things will follow and we can still change -- we can still save the country. if you just leave it, our future is very cloudy. if you get into the arena and you fight, we still have a shot. [applause] >> i am the new guy. i is that all the senators and they are all great people. they are there for the right

reasons. there is something that is driving them to make things that you normally would not do it every day life. the pressures of the meetings. the pressures of always chasing the dollar. you better tell your story before someone tells one on you. that happens. i am seeing the pressures from the outside turning good hard- working people into a political animal. it does not seem to take that long to do that. you might be becoming voice -- calming voice. >> i think the senator is right. a lot of this has to do with the 24/7 news cycle. you guys are selling portions.

this organization is so important. to even with what we do every day, we had an idea several years ago that we would do something radical on cable news. we're going to allow people to talk. we're always going to respect what they had to say and it was born to be a safe house. it worked. like all of these guys up here, i know it is the reality. you go on the internet, your read articles about you, or if you see your child reading an article about you, you have to say, do not leave a comment. the hatred and the vitriol poured people who try to find a common ground -- you would not believe what was launched against people who are trying to keep the conversation going. i know these guys have dealt

with it. you get discouraged. we would go out on this book torras and people would come up and they would not say thank you, they would come up and how does. you find that time after time after time, there are normal people all their that do not live in their mother's basement blogging about what aid terrible human being we are -- what a terrible human being we are. i cannot state enough. all of these guys can put up with 100 people screaming at them at a town hall meeting. they see five people there in orange shirt saying, hold your ground. it has nothing to do with ideology. it has nothing to do with

politics. did everything to do with civility -- it has everything to do with civility. that is the one thing that we have forgotten to do in washington, d.c.. [applause] >> the whole notion of compromise seems to of gotten a dirty name on both the far right and far left. we would not have a united states of america if our forbearers had not been willing to compromise. small states against large states, north versus south. and almost fell apart. but they decided we had more in

common. before chasing gold country. -- they forged a single country. it is american. i have been on the intelligence committee for 10 years. i hope that is not it's an oxymoron. we are at an inflection point. you are privy to some information that you normally would not have access to. when you see and read what the chinese leadership says, they really do think we are a declining power. they think going forward, we will continue to be a military power. but because of our inability to deal with our financial imbalances and energy independence, they think that we will be an eclipse and less and

less significant. that has profound adverse implications for our future. we must not let that happen. that is number two. i am sometimes asked, what is it going to do to make things better? you have the far right out there and the far left. i should give you the names of the least half a dozen republicans. i can give you the name of lots of democrats, same kind of thing. what needs to change? if you see people out there who are being partisan or ideological, do not support them. supports the same candidate regardless of party. that is what needs to happen.

drawing the their raging center. harry truman used to say that the united states of america, it is not the politicians who run the government. it is the people. the politicians, we are just a hired help. tell the hired help what to do. [applause] >> if you can believe this, there is someone by the name of show that wants to make one other point. but by the name of a joke. >> rick warren gave a sermon one time. are you on the right wing or the left wing? they kept talking about the different wings.

if a bird had just a right wing or left wing, what would it do? it would be going in circles. i want bad bird to have both wings. that is what -- i want that person to have both wings. thank you for starting this. let's keep it going. [applause] >> thank you very much. a great conversation am. thank you for having us. we appreciated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> great job. thank you very much. >> friday, a discussion on the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy on gays in the military. how the law will be implemented. our guest is a defense correspondent.

then sally quinn stops by to talk about religion and politics. we take your calls and e-mails live forever morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> christmas eve, speaker of the house nancy pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree. president obama and the first family attend the annual pageant of peace. on the 50th anniversary of the first presidential debate that was televised, the talk about the preparation and their impact on the campaign. christmas day, a former prime minister tony blair and christopher hichens on the role of religion. garrison keeler talked about humor in public life. and life on the high court. it is a three day holiday weekend starting friday morning at 8:00 eastern.

the latest nonfiction titles and authors. then jane smiley on the man who invented the computer. find the complete schedule online. sign up to get our schedule to your in box. >> now discussion on how the constitution is interpreted by today's politicians, judges, and the public. the speakers are the senior editor of the american spectator and jeffrey rosen. this is 90 minutes. i want toome you to the institute is an educational

nonprofit. constitution. do that to a variety of a curricula that we distribute to schools. we provide handouts to teachers and students about the constitution. we put on an essay contest. lots of students entered this year. we are excited about that. if we want students to understand the constitution, but also the issues surrounding the constitution. that is the purpose of today's form. we hope to pull educational products from the remarks we were here today. we want to develop the material so we can distribute it in classrooms. the commission did a survey to test america's knowledge of the bill of rights. that press release is i in your packet. i want to share a couple of particulars with you. -- of americans attribute

one in five americans believe that is in the bill of rights. 60% of americando not recognize that the united states stands apart from other nations in that our government derives its powe from the people rather than the other way around. clearly ther is work to be done. we are glad you are here today and that you are interested in the bill of rights. i did not mention this earlier, but one of the requirements to ge in the room is that you have read the bill of rights. i will send you all have. there is a test before you leave the room. [laughter] be prepared for that. i am going to introduce our moderator. michael cromartie is the vice president at the ethics and policy cenr. he is a senior adviser to the ku form on religion and public

life. mr. cromartie is the editor of 16 books on society and politics. he was appointed by president bush to a six-year term on the commission on religious freedom. he was eleed chairman twice. thank you for being here. >> thank you, tony. it is a great privilege for me to be here at the institute for this important conversation and dialogue. we could not have two better people to address the question at hand than the two people i will introduce you to. is there an upcoming cultural war over the constitution? it is a complex subject. it is an urgent subject. we could not have o better people to address it. i am delighted that it could be here. i first want to explain to you a couple of realm rules before i introduce our speakers.

after we hear from them, i am ing to allow them to dialogue with each other for a few minutes. i am short they will say something the other one may want to address. after that, i want you all to comment. still free to answer any questions you like. raise your hand and i will keep a running list of people who want to get in so that we can move in an orderly and civil faion. do not be shy. we are putting this on for you. if we want you to be able to answer the questions you have -- be able task the questions you have. please pull the microphone so close so we can hear you and be able to transcribe his conversation later. it is easier to transcribe if we can hear you. the best way to hear you is to have the microphone near your mouth. please pull it near when you talk. let me begin by introducing professor codevilla from boston

university. many of you here at the biography of our speakers. since we do have the viewing audience, i want to go through for our viewing audience the credentials of our speakers. professor codevilla is a professor at boston university. he is the author of 12 books. the most rect is "the ruling class -- how they corrupted america and what we can do about it." he was a u.s. navy officer in the u.s. foreign service. he was a member of president reagan's transition team. he served as a senior staff member on the u.s. committee on intelligence. in his article -- he has written several articles. it is great to have professor codevilla with us to address this question, is there a coming culture clash over the

constitution? will speak for 25 minutes and then i will present dr. rosen. >> i wrote a paper, which i had assumed wou be distributed to all of you before the session, but that is good to come to you afterward. please do read it. >> we did not want to read it while you were presenting. >> it does not matter. sooner or later. look, why am i here? white meat? i am -- why me? i am it sort oin a position of the whitman who has lived among the natives, speaks the native language, and have to explain why the natives are restless. i will do that. beginning with a fundamental

point, which brings us to the constitution -- the assumption within the white man's for is that the natives are restless because they lack wampum. they lack beads. they lack economic goods. everyone seems to agree on that from bill o'reilly on the right to barack obama on the left. economic conditions improve, -- once the economic conditions improve, the natives will stop messing around. there is nothing in there about beads, but there is a lot in there about the constitution.

why are people so exercised about the constitution? there is something going on fundamtally out there. it has very little to do with economics, but has to do with sothing much more fundamental. to bring it to the point of the bill of rights, some of you are likely to have read professor rose and's article in the "new york times" last month which pointed to a certain weird view which is an out there. the weird view being the first

clause of the first amendment was actually itten to protect religious establishment. >> "congress shall make no law establishing -- respecting regious establishment." it is a weird view expanded by a fellow i have never heard of. gosh, i got that weird view from somebody else, namely james madison. i think you will all agree that madison and everybody else to associated with the negotiations and went into this first calls what did the first amdment to be ratified by all 13 states. seven of those states had

religious establishment. there is a prime facia case even if you have never read the debate or the accounts of the debates in the first congress about the first amendment. the case is we would not have a first amendment if it had not been written to protect religious establishment. then, of course, there is another view out there. forgive me for records a professor rosen's work, but there is this thing out there that did in modern constitutional law that this is a position between the first and second clauses, namely

prohibition of religious establishment and free exercise of religion. well, i can assure you that not only is there no prohibition of religious establishment in the minds of the folks who wrote the first amendment, but there was also note notion that religious establishments, at least tell their understood in the 18th century -- i am not talking about the early 17th century. that is another matter. there is no opposition between them and religious freedom. if you are free, concerning religion, collectively, you may well establish a church, but

establishing a church by in the sense of america inhe 18th century and, in fact, until very recently, did not mean that you could not practice their religion fely, publicly, as well as privately. the fact that the opposition is an artifact of modern constitutional law brings us to the main point, which is what does the constitution mean, all of it, every part of it, including, of course, the bill of rights? what do these words mean? there are two views on that as you all well know.

the official view nowadays goes somewhat as follows -- obviously agreed to beforehand between senator leahy and elena kagan. once upon a time i worked on the hill. i am it very familiar with all these are written. they are very useful. it does not take. the duo expressed a concordance of views. senator leahy said to protest -- set to prospective supreme court justice elena kagan, there are two views about the constitution. the word's meaning what they actually say -- by the way, you

may have read the "new york times" yesterday in which a lot of the editorials excoriated justice scalia for actually reading the law as written. there is another view that says that you really ought to read those words in a way that makes the case, out in a way that serves the public good -- makes the case come out in a way that serves the public good. what do you say, taken? her reply was designed to show how moderate she was. she said, "i see some good in both sides. surely there are times when you read the words to mean what they say and applied them that way.

there are times when you should not and should look at them on a case-by-case basis." a lot of dumb heads nodded/ . if they had thought about it a little bit, and i assure you that some did think about it and did not have to think about it very long, did come to the conclusion that if in fact a judge or anybody can choose when and if words mean something, it is because they have already decided they mean thing. that is clear, is it not? in other words, if i can decide when the words of the document mean something and when ey do not, it is only because i am the decider, not the words

themselves. the words are important only so far as i game at them. from time to time, they fit my needs. that is the dominant view of the constitution here inside the -- hear inside washington. outside, whe the natives are restless, it is something very different. you see these supplements to -- simpletons to only know how to read. to them, the words mean what they say. that is very strange. the effect of this is to set up a clash, not unlike the clash that took place between the clerics of the catholic church

and ordinary people when radicals like martin luther, etc., readclifycliff, these pictures of themselves. there is nothing in there about all sorts of things the church says are absolutely is central. what are we arguing -- what are these churches arguing about? what is left for us? we were reading the bible. just imagine that you have millions of people out there who are just plain reading the bible and the constitution. when they read it, they want to knowhat all the constitutional

law is about. the fine distinctions that are drawn, especially, these fine distinctions appeared to have broughus to conclusionthat seem to be at variance with the plain meaning of the word. for example, i do not think there is any clearer example of this. it is trivial compared to the other, but it is very clear. it has to do with the fourth amendment and what is going on at airports these days. shucks, was that the -- would be people who wrote the fourth amendment at gagged at the thought that someone would like a hand up their legs?

no. they would not have gone for that. yet there is a body of constitutional law which would lead some to conclude that that is a legitimate government purpose. it is a legitimate government purpose, then what is the worst of the constitution? one can go on to far more significant things, such as the invention of the right to abortion. it is an invention. i point outn my writings that it seems to me that anyone

who can't read and has read the dread scott decision, even though when they disagreed with the decision, it does not proceed from -- it does proceed from some of the words of the constitution. there is a certain approval of slavery even though the words were never mentioned. the constitution does envision the conclusion to which -- the conclusion that the black man -- that the white man needs respect. they say you are a draft on the high seas. wher does that come from? it does not. that is the answer. it just plain does not come out.

federalist letters 78 is very clear. that is alexander hamilton's main argument on the power of the supreme court. their main power is the power of persuasion. persuasion that those who are affected by government action ought to abide by the decisions of the gernment's because they are right -- decisions of the arernment because they right and consistent with the deal. the constitution, if anything, is a basic deal. that deal can be changed. thomas jefferson made it

perfectly clear and no one can disagree that the malls are for the living not be dead -- that the laws are for the living, not the dead. the constitution is very clear on hal the deal is to be changed -- on how the deal is to be changed. it is unconstitutional to suggest that the deal can be changed by other than amendment. you can interpret it, but you caot make b mean the opposite of a by interpretation. that is not kosher. that is a deal-breaker and leaves those who are affected --

if you do not abide by the deal, why should i? this brings me to what is really the central point. i have five minutes left. these clashes do not arise merely from a difference of how the constitution is read it, they rise from propelled cultural difrences which have deloped within our country. as i point out in my paper, those who live here in the white house fort are living by a culture very different from the natives.

the natives have lost faith in the ruling class. that is really the fundamental. -- that is really the fundamental fact. this does not deal primarily with economics. ' is is about ruling class performance in general and their attitude toward threst of america. it is, i would say, a good 50% actual performance and 50% attitude, and perhaps may be attitude is more important because, as we all know, it is

far more abrasive and injury. in a nutshell, the ordinary citizens now perceive the ruling class as having failed in everything it has touched in the past couple of generations. everythingou have told us has turned out to be wrong. we have all of you into wars and have had no victories, only blood, and no prospect for peace. anybody who has read it the common document, anybody who lives in the real world knows that what most americans expect from foreign policy is peace. white piece? peace? o we are not here to rule the

world, we are here to live our lives. living our lives requires a piece. this is not pacifism. we can fight a war so long as we get the peace. why fight a war that does not get to peace? victory and peace or the nural outcomes of war just as produce is the natural outcome of farming. people dig in the ground to get crops. people fight for peace. security -- economic security. social security was promised. no. social security is a ponzi scheme and everyone here knows it. people out there now with more than the people in here.

i could go down the line of all of the things that have gone to discredit the ruling class. this is not a matter of policy. it is a matter of identity. this loss of confidence is not something that can be remedied by changing policies or by elections. this is something that is a fundamental, cultural problem. how it may be addressed is the story. the obvious beginning of addressing it is to stop insulting the voters. in a democracy it kind of makes sense not to insult the voters. keeping faith with the voters, doing what you say you are going

to do -- but that is just the benning. again, tell the cultural chasm is to be remedied is the elephant in the room it is a big problem. the clashes over the constitution are merely one manifestation of that larger problem. thank you. >> thank you, sir. right on time. professor jeffrey rosen is a legal affairs editor. he is also a professor of law at george washington university. hes a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> for, not 6. >> two in the works. his essays have appeared in the "new york times" and " ththe

atlantic monthly." he is the most widely read legal commentator according to the "los angeles times." ank you for coming. >> thank you for including me in this stimulating conversation. thank you for prof. codevilla for having written this provocative paper. i know you have all enjoyed reading it. there is much in his paper that i very much admire. i'd like the fact that he understas that thesupreme court throughout history has not had a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. i liked the fact that he realizes it is a good thing th globalized americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making their own judgments about what the words mean. in meyer him at agree with them that constitutional change --