♪ >> tonight, on c-span,"q&a." diane abbott gives -- then former supreme court justices discuss their judicial careers and later, our interview with frank luntz. . .

>> i'm the labour party's spokeswoman on issues and i have a small staff so i'm the spokesperson for issues of the media and i'm part of the top team for the labour party now. host: why did you run for m.p. in the first place?

guest: i wanted to speak up for those that don't have a voice. out of 650, there were about 20 labour women and no black people at all. it was an opportunity to speak up for peek -- speak up for people who wouldn't have been heard otherwise. host: first black woman to be in the parliament of this country. guest: yes, and i was elected 150 years after the abolition of slavery in the british empire. it shows you there is such a thing as progress. host: what were the circumstances in your constituency and what it is? guest: my constituency in london is in a very poor part of london with a large minority community and high unemployment. when i was selected, all the way back in 1986, that district believed they wanted a

representative who was selected from the district. they had a wonderful member of parliament, but they felt in 1986 that it was going to be a change election and they wanted to change candidates. but i should say that it wasn't an all-black district by any manner of means. that's never been the case in britain that black minority candidates can only get elected in all black minority districts. it was a diverse district and had solid support from white voters. host: how many constituents do you have? guest: about 65,000 people. host: what does it cost you to run? guest: well, we have really tough campaign finance rules when you're running as a member of parliament, congressman. and the amount of money you can

spend is fixed and it's calculated according to your population and you -- nobody else, no political action committee or your national party is not allowed to run ads in your campaign. you can't buy television time if you're a british parliamentary candidate so that cuts a lot of spending. people can't buy television time on your behalf and i think the first time i ran for parliament, which was 20 years ago, i remember my cash limit was 4,500 pounds. host: $4,500, is close to $8,000. how do you raise that?

guest: the party raises it through bake soles -- sales and inviting donations. the campaigns are about going door to doing and circulating literature. now you can have a campaign web site but the districts are smaller than american districts and we very much rely on door to door and the national party gets -- and that's the subject of much criticism but we have tough campaign rules and i can't imagine if i had to raise a lot of money that a radical young black woman would have been elected 23 years ago. host: don't big business and unions pour money into the parties and they -- is there a limit to how much you can spend in a campaign? guest: there's a limit to how much you can spend. my first campaign was 4,500

pounds and you have to submit all your campaign accounts at the end of the campaign and if anybody can find that have spent money you don't account for, your election can be struck down. that happened once in recent years. a woman got elected but one of her own party members complained that she used cash and didn't put them in the account and she was taken back to court to be reinstated so transparency makes it very easy to police and people can't put extra money into a campaign because you'd have to declare it. host: you mentioned just before we started that you're very much connected into the american media. guest: yes. it all goes back to the democratic primaries and obama. i mean, i was so astounded when obama ran the iowa primaries and i went online and heard him

speak, i was completely spellbound and after that, i followed it relentlessly. i followed it on the bbc and the world service, which is great. but i also went online and listened to u.s. media like pbs, like npr, like c span, because you can get most of it online and some of it i would download and listen to it on my mp3 player. host: do you still do that? guest: i listen to u.s. political media nearly every day. i listen to npr, i listen to "washington week" with gwen eiffel and "meet the press" so i listen to it all the time. i've always been interested in american politics but obama has made it rivetting. host: we found in our archive an

appearance you made in 1994 on the c-span network and i want to run it and let you see not only what you looked like back in 1994 but what you were talking about then. >> diane abbott, you are a member of the british house of commons and a member of the minority population here in great britain. does it matter at all in the house if you are an ethnic minority? any difference from other members? >> you've got to remember that when i and my colleagues were re-elected in 1987, it was the first time certainly that people of african descent were elected to british parliament. in the 18th century, they generally created mayhem and i think they felt that black people like the second coming of 18th century irish and the speaker took good care to give a

sort of drink earlier on, when we started, they were frightened we would be disruptive, but to their surprise, we were quite pleasant and it's settled down now. but at the advent, there was trepidation. the thing to remember in the house of commons is not about color so much as it's about change. in the house of commons clerk where we hang up our coats, every peg has a loop of red ribbon to hang up your sword but no one has had a sword to hang up for 200 years so that's how long had takes to adjust to change so certainly having m.p.'s of color in '87 was a great deal of change. host: what's happened to the parliament since 16 years ago in the way of minority members?

guest: there's a great deal more minority members now on both sides of the aisle and the ruling party has done very well, actually. and there are about half a dozen black minority members when they didn't have any when they first came in. so there has been an advance, not as many as i think it should be, but it's a big advance. host: given the system, in the united states, we have over 40 members of the u.s. house of representatives out of 435. what's the total number? i think i read it's 3% of 646 members. guest: i think it's about 20-something now. host: so under your system, how do you get more minorities elected? guest: what the conservative party did is they put pressure on the local organization to vote for minority members.

we don't have what happens in the united states, districts that are entirely minority and will elect a minority member. we don't have the history of segregation and so on. so in the labour party, it's progressive wants to see more minorities and in the conservative party, i think they began to think in the 21st century they should look more diverse and so they encouraged -- that's probably the politest thing, they encouraged associations to vote minorities. host: what did you think of what you said 16 years ago? guest: it's true, they really thought -- because the irish that came in in the 19th century were republicans and they thought that of us when we came in, afraid that we would be disrupting. host: what issues are the most important to you?

guest: the most important issues to me are speaking up for my district and in particular speaking up for the poor, speaking up for the marginalized. i'm very concerned about civil liberties. i was against the iraq war, and i'm very concerned about equality and justice. host: so what's a district look like? we call them districts. you call them constituencies. what's the makeup? guest: traditionally, the people that lived in my district worked on the docks and in small workshops but it now has some very high unemployment because patented employment in poor districts have changed and jobs have moved away. in terms of the makeup of my district, traditionally, it was actually a center of jewish

migration. i have one of the oldest synagogues in london in my district, but largely that you're community has moved away, apart from a very vibrant hasidic jewish community that lives in my district and they're the largest such community in europe but because they like to live near their synagogues, they stay put so the traditional jewish communities are the hasidic like you have in brooklyn are still there. it's also hard -- originally a lot of people from the west indies, now people from africa. we always have people from south asia, vietnamese, very diverse district. the minority in my district is white anglo saxon protestants. host: there was an article in

"the sun" and i read the headlines, "white britains are a minority in 2066." guest: i think these scare stories about migration are very wrong. migration has incredibly enriched london, whether it's american bankers who have come here to work in our financial services,, whether it's french businessmen, vietnamese shopkeepers, african painters, london, like new york, is a great city because of migration. the type of politician that wants to scare people about it but it makes london a great city and it would be surprising if england, which was the center of an empire and on a whole number of trading routes across europe, was not a diverse country.

host: what's the feeling that you're not only a minority but you're a minority in the government. in other words, as the labour party for years -- 11 years you were in the majority and tony blair was the prime minister. what'se/9 the different feel#!m! a brilliant intern named carey sewell and she was a brilliant young woman. i'm really pleased to see that she'll be sering her country at

the level of congress. host: how did she become an intern under you? guest: she wrote to me. she was studying at oxford at the time and she wrote to me that she wanted to be my intern and i know she'll be a brilliant congresswoman. host: in the u.s. house of representatives and the senate, they have 15, 18, 30 members on their staff. when she was an intern, how many other people did you have on your staff? guest: i had half a dozen people on my staff so i got to know her very well and i would call her a friend. host: did you teach her anything? guest: i hope maybe she picked up a little bit about what it is to be a black woman in politics and how you have to carry yourself. i hope i helped her a little bit. host: what's the difference from being a black woman in politics and being a white guy in politics.

guest: all your mistakes are made in full public glare and the community has very high expectations. it's a privilege and honor but also a challenge to be a minority in politics even after all these years. host: are you aware that you're in a minority as you walk around the house of commons? guest: i read history at cambridge. i worked in the media years before it was common to see minorities in the media so i long ago learned to just take no notice of people looking at me. when i was in ump and friends would come for coffee, they would say, you have all these people looking at you, but i would just ignore it. you have to do what you want to do in life, carry yourself in a humble but assured matter. host: a short time ago, you ran for the leader of your party. explain what you were doing? guest: we lost the last election so we had -- it was not quite

the primary system we had in the united states but it did mean traveling all around the country speaking to party members and trying to win support. after the election, there were three or four men who brought themselves forward but i was concerned that first, there was no woman. they were guys. second of all, they were all what you would call inside the beltway, sort of insiders. i thought the party needed a broader range of candidates and i had a political message that i wanted to be heard, a political message. i was the only one of the candidates that stood out against the iraq war, that stood up for the civil liberties, that was concerned about equality and diversity. so i felt i had a progressive message that needed to be heard so i put myself forward in

leadership and went up and down the country for three months. host: did the others running go with you? guest: the way the party worked it, all the meetings that we attended we all went together so party members would see all five of us on the platform and judge between the five of us. we organized other meetings, there were 50 meetings up and down the country where we all stood on the platform and party members questioned us all and see us all side by side. host: i listened to the speech that you gave at a party convention and one of the things, my memory is, that you were talking about, was it red ed? guest: i've been calling him red ed, saying he's a dangerous liberal, dangerous progressive. it's not true and it's not fair. he's a man of center.

i am a progressive but i support our new leader. host: what's the difference in being a man of the center and being a progressive in the kind of things that you're for that a center person wouldn't be for? guest: i was against the war. he supported the war at the time. i have stood out against what i believe are infringement on liberty. there's a long-running campaign in this country about the extent that the british have been complicit with guantanamo bay and i've been against torture. ed is more centrist on that but he does support trade unions and i believe personally, i think, that coming out of the credit crunch, because we both had the same collapse that you had in

america, coming out of this credit crunch, we shouldn't be just expecting ordinary people to take a hit. we should actually being putting up taxes on bankers and making bankers pay some of the costs that it's cost this country to bail out banks. i think we should bear down on bonuses. ed takes a more moderate view on these things. host: you said something in your speech about the 90-day detention without trial. what is that? guest: that was something that the last labour government tried to bring in, on the back of 9/11 and fear of terrorism, they wanted to bring in 90-days detention for terror suspects without trial. i thought that was an appalling example to set for the rest of the world and i fought against it in parliament and i defeated it and the speech i made against this, i won an award for it as

the parliamentary speech of the year. host: why? guest: because it was quite a good speech. host: when did you give the speech? guest: i gave it in parliament. it would have been in 1998. host: so the idea was -- one of the things you talk about in your speech, 90-day detention without trial did not become effective, then, in this country. guest: we blocked it on the floor of the house. it was defeated on the floor of the house partly by opposition members but also by the labour party members who stood up to their own party and said, we're not doing this, britain is better than this, we cannot detain innocent people for 90 days without telling them what the charge is, without allowing them to organize their own defense. it would be a victory for terrorism if we infringed our own traditions of civil liberties and civil rights. that's what many of us believed

and i still think we were right. host: let me show a clip from that speech. when did you give this speech? i'm sorry, the speech you gave for the party nomination. guest: i gave this speech this year in the summer. host: in the summer. you talk about your upbringing and that's what i want to get into. >> my parents immigrated to this country from jamaica over 50 years ago. they were that generation of western immigrants that helped to rebuild our public services after the war, and they would have been so proud to see their daughter contend for the leadership of one of the greatest socialist parties in europe and the party they loved. [applause] but we face, now, george osborne

's cuts which we face in a very few weeks and these will be cuts of a magnitude that we have not seen in our lifetime and thrsk is no question that we would have had to take tough action on the deficit, but let us be clear and let us keep repeating, these are not inevitable cuts caused by labor issues, these are ideological cuts. it is the intention to cut back the welfare state once and for all. host: there's a lot in that we can talk about, but start with your parents. when did they come to great britain? guest: my parents were amongst the first wave of westerners that came to the country. they came to britain in 1951, both from the same village in rural jamaica and came to london separately but met and fell in love and married.

my father worked in a factory all his life and my mother was a nurse. they, themselves, had left school at 14 but they instilled in me the importance of hard work, the importance of aspiration and the importance of getting an education. host: how did you get into cambridge? guest: i went to local public schools, ordinary schools. in the books i read, the people were involved in politics so i thought, why not me? i went to my teachers and i remember one teacher looking at me and saying "i don't think you're up to it" because it was very unusual for somebody from my background, working class immigrant background, to go to a top university, but i looked her in the eye and said, well, i

think i am. so i had to take a special exam and be interviewed but i was successful and i went up to study at cambridge university, the only black girl in my year. host: the only black girl in the entire -- and you went to an all women school. guest: yeah. host: i got a big kick out of it, this morning, in "the sun," they have an article about -- the 40th anniversary of page three. but the article was written by an alum of the same college. jermaine greer and for those who don't know what page three is of the "sun," every day they have a photograph of a bare-chested woman and every one of them were white. is that the case? guest: very unusual to see one

of those pin-up girls being a woman of color, which is probably a good thing because i don't think being a pin-up girl is a great aspiration in life. host: why is it so popular in this country? guest: i think in many ways britain is more open around issues of sex than maybe america that might partly be the answer but the real answer is it's owned by rupert murdoch and he'll do anything to sell newspapers and watch his t.v. stations. guest: it's a successful feature, the 40th anniversary. guest: i think a lot of the guys buy "the sun" just for the page three. host: what was the name of the college? guest: all sorts of academics and scientists have been there. it's been a leading women's

college since victorian times. host: how did you get interested in reading? guest: i've always loved books. my main ambition when i eventually leave politics is to write because i think there's something about the written word, even now in the age of the internet, something about the written word, there's a permanence that allows you to reflect. so my ambition when i finish being a politician is to write. host: what was your major? guest: history. i believe if you don't know where you're coming from, you don't know where you're going. i've always loved history. host: what part of history is your favorite? guest: i suppose i'm interested in british history, i'm interested in 19th century history because that was when britain was moving from being largely rural to being industrial, that was the crucible of socialism and organized labor. i find that fascinating.

i'm also interested in american history. host: what part of american history have you read? guest: well, i've read about the trade union organizers and that period of the 19th century when american workers had to fight for their rights, people like the carnegies and the manufacturers of great wealth. host: what did you learn in history that you've applied to your own life in the commons? guest: i think what i've learned from history is the fact that it can take an awful long time to make change, but change eventually does come. one of the songs i associate with president obama's campaign and one was a sam cook song called "change is going to come." in history change comes but you have to be patient. the other thing i learned are

you have to hold on to your beliefs and the people that hold on to their beliefs in the end are vindicated. in my speech this summer, i quoted from a speech made by kennedy when he conceded the leadership of the democratic party in that contested election. and he finishes by saying, the dream shall never die. even recent history can teach you that. of course, edward kennedy, even at the point of his greatest law, this was the beginning of his life as a tremendous speaker of progressive politics in america and i thought you couldn't have a more appropriate speech for a woman of the left to quote from in conceding the leadership of her party. host: who are the people in history, in the british history, for that matter, that you're the fondest of? guest: the queen, queen victoria

, mrs. thatcher is an interesting character. i don't share her politics but it was according for her to dominate all of those guys. she was the nancy pelosi of her time and in more generally, we have an understated leader after the second world war called atlee and he was quiet and understated but the most progressive leader we've ever had and he was the one that brought in free, comprehensive healthcare. host: when you look across the pond at the united states, what do you make of president obama's victory? guest: i thought it was incredible. i thought -- first of all, president obama, to beat the clinton machine is extraordinary

and i witnessed it blow by blow. he did what people at the beginning thought he couldn't do, to defeat the most powerful machine in democratic politics, then went on to defeat george w. bush and everything you could think of was thrown at him on the media, rumors running on the internet, yet he drove through and he won and the night he won, the night he gave his speech, even though it was in chicago, i was watching it at a friend's home and i was in tears and most of the people i knew, i was texting people across the world, and we were all in tears. a fantastically moving moment for people of color. host: what's the impact around the world that you know, what do people say who have followed it and are in minorities that the impact has been on the way people view the united states? guest: first of all, i think for

people of color, minorities around the world, it's made them think a little better of america. nobody believed racism in america has been eradicated, and yet the majority were able to rise above their history and maybe even their own personal prejudices, and elect a black man as president. that says something about the american capacity for renewal. if you're the mother or parent of a black man can be leader of the free world, that's a fantastic role model and encouragement to young black men everywhere and around the world, people of color often have to read and hear quite negative things about black people in america and black people generally and now you have this wonderful family in the white house, michelle, barack, the two girls and it's a great thing to

see. all over the world, whatever happens, all around the world, people of color will feel tremendous pride and a great sense of ownership in the barack obama presidency. host: what special requirement do you put on yourself because you were the first black person elected to the british house of commons? guest: the special requirement i put on myself and have put on myself ever since i came out of university is i should behave in such a way, take on the right battles, be brave enough, be courageous enough so that for the next generation of black women that come after me, things will be a little bit easier. host: what did you notice when you were in cambridge? you were the only black person in cambridge? guest: most of the other black people were post graduates who had come there from overseas. i never met anybody who was actually black and brought up in britain who got there. it was a very -- it's a very

kind of elite university, and at cambridge i had to handle myself in an elite institution. host: give me an example of how you handled yourself. guest: you don't let it intimidate you. you're no less intelligent than anybody else in the room. it's helped me not to be intimidated and give me the courage to go further. host: as a shadow cabinet member, the labour party, and your responsibility is public health. what's that mean? guest: it's a range of issues around things like obesity, around things like alcoholism, around drug abuse, around

maternity, about vaccination, immunization programs, about dealing with health quotas in poor areas and rich areas. it's all of the health issues that concern the public, all of those issues. host: you have on your web site at the bottom, i read this, "advice surgery for constituents." what does that mean? guest: what that means is every week i have an open session in my office and constituents can come to me for advice and help with their problems, with their housing, problems with the police, problems with their benefits, problems with their schools. it's just an advice-giving session and we have it every week and it helps me to keep close to what's happening on the ground in my district. host: you say in the subsentence, housing, immigration or welfare rights problems. so, what are they saying to you

now after the coalition announced here in great britain and as you promised george osborne, the chancellor of the new government, was going to announce the cuts, what are people now coming to you in this advice session that is a direct result of the cuts? guest: they're very frightened for their jobs because one of the things the new government is going to do is make very big cuts in jobs in the public sector and some government departments will lose 20%, 30%. and most people in my district who work work for the government in some form or fashion -- hospitals, schools, government departments. and they're very frightened for their jobs. that's the big thing. host: what special payments are there in this country for either children or older people? guest: in this country, we have benefit payments for unemployment people and obviously we pay an old-age

pension to the elderly and the other thing people are worried about apart from the jobs, is the fact that the government will cut these benefits and people are worried about how they're going to manage and how much worse the situation will get. host: how much does an older person who is retired get in a pension? how is it determined? guest: you get a standard amount of money. i think it's about 70 pounds a week for a single person. host: so about $110 a week. guest: but they can also get other payments. they get a payment to help with fuel in the winter. but the basic payment is about 70 pounds a week. what's happened is, the government has altered the basic payments but other payments they could get, whether payments for medical conditions or help with other things, those are being cut back and people are very worried about it. host: what are some of the complaints you get in your office all the time from your

constituents? guest: they are just worried about how they're going to manage without a job. people are very concerned that the government has trickled fees that people have to pay and people are frightened of that. people are worried about the future. in my district, we have an unprecedentedly high turnout and i've doubled my majority, an increased electorate, and they came out to support me and my party because they knew the government coming in is not good for poor people. host: you seem to know a lot about the united states and how we govern. what's the difference in the two countries? you started out by talking about the money, which is considerably different. what else is different about politics in this country versus the united states? guest: we don't have a religious right and issues like abortion are not party political.

we have access to abortion in this country. and people sometimes debate about the timing because you can't have an abortion in this country easily if the child is a certain -- if the child in the womb is too far advanced. but nobody disputes the woman's right to choose and it's not a political matter to have a religious right debating it. gun control is not an issue in this country because it's very unusual outside of the countryside where people need guns to shoot birds or whatever, very unusual for people to have guns in their homes. there is no right to bear arms. we have the strictest gun control laws in the world. the number of people killed by guns in london in a year is probably less than that killed by guns in new york in a month.

so abortion, the right to bear arms, the whole issue of civil partnerships and gay marriage. we've had civil partnerships and gay marriage in this country for years and years. these are not subjects of dispute. all of these lifestyle, ethics issues are not politicized in this country. host: why not? guest: because the british don't think it's right. the british think these are matters of conscience. when abortion came up before the british parliament, people were allowed to vote with their conscience. the major etof m.p.'s are in favor of it. we don't have a death penalty, we haven't had it for years and years because the british don't think it's right or humane. host: no death penalty. the abortion issue, has it ever been a political issue? guest: no. host: have you ever had a vote on it in parliament for anything? guest: we've had votes on it but

the people that want to have a woman's right to choose have always won easily. host: why do you think there's not a religious right that's vocal in this country? guest: i think the british don't think you should mix religion and politics. and i don't see anything around the world to make me think that we're wrong about that. we just do not have a religious right. host: how much of that would be the fact that you have an official church in the country and members of the anglican church are members of the house of lourdes and the government has been involved in it and would that be the predominant religion by far in the country? guest: in my district, i have a large jewish community, increasing community from south asia that are hindu. we have rabbis and muslims. no, i just think the british temperament is that we respect religion, we just do not in believe confusing religion with

politics. host: so you have a government that's going to be here for how many years? guest: five years, it looks like. host: the cuts have been laid down for how many years? guest: into the foreseeable future. what they're aiming to do is to clair up the deficit. they want to eliminate the deficit in the course of this parliament. host: do you agree with that? guest: i agree with eliminating the deficit but i think in order to eliminate the deficit, you have to grow the economy, people have to have jobs, have to earn money so they can spend and help grow the economy. i think the sorts of cuts they're making run the risk of just putting us -- so rather than getting rid of the deficit, things will get worse for people, more joblessness, no hope. host: as you know in the american system, for instance, the next year, the republicans will control the house, the democrats control the senate, you have a democratic president in the white house and things

move a lot slower. once you've got a government in power for five years here, what do you do to make you're case? and can you stop things? could you drop a bill, as we say in the, in the hopper, and have anyone pay attention to it when you're in the minority? guest: one of the things we have in this country in the system we have, once you win the election, you have a lot of power but what you don't have is this kind of balance of power. we have a very -- an unwritten constitution, for one thing, and the way it works, kind of winner-takes-all in that the party that wins the election provides the prime minister and the cabinet ministers. but what can you do? well, i think that we're going to see a lot more activism, a lot more demonstrations. we had to demonstrate a couple of weeks ago, one of the biggest cuts that have come in a long

time, i think there's going to be a lot of anger and people will look to the leadership in parliament to offer leadership, to offer an alternative to what the government is doing. host: we'll go back to when we talked about money, are you really saying that money is no issue here when it comes to politicians? guest: at a local level, no, because campaign finance laws are so strict and you don't have political advertising. so you just don't have any at all. all you have is, in the course of an election, official course of an election, which is about four weeks, each of the main parties can run three or four ads, just one, and the air time for those ads is provided free and they pay to make their little ad but it's three or four ads in the course of four weeks, not in the course of an hour. so the fact that you don't have political advertising of any kind eliminates the need to spend any money. the fact that at a local level you have a limit on how much you can spend and the fact that

political action committees and lobbyists cannot run ads or do stuff on your behalf, that means that money plays a much smaller role in this country's elections than it does in america. host: how much do they pay you for your job? guest: i think it's about 65,000 pounds. host: that would be somewhere close to $100,000. $110,000. is that enough to live comfortably? guest: i'm fine with you. host: you've laid out many differences to your country and the united states, the money in the campaigns, no religious right, gun laws, no death penalty. what are we like, then? we've taken a lot of what the

british minds of history suggested and formulated our own government. what are we more alike than different on? guest: i think we're alike, just historically, there's much in common. the big difference is you have a written constitution and that written constitution means that you have a supreme court and a president and house of representatives and they all balance each other. i think our common history brings us together. i think that you having fought, to be honest, in the second world war side by side has brought us together. there's a lot that britain and america have in common. i think the way obama could sweep through the american system and become president couldn't really happen in this country. i think in some ways american

society is a more open society than british society and it's much less class-ridden than british society and i think that's a good thing. host: what part of your life here is regulated? in other words, do you have a lot of regulatory agencies that regulate the media, regulate energy, all the aspects of life? guest: for instance, in the media, you can not have a station like fox in this country. host: you cannot or you could. guest: you cannot. host: mr. murdoch owns sky. guest: but it's a very different station than fox. host: do you feel the news is balanced here? guest: i think it is when you

compare it to fox and msnbc. host: americans would say this is freedom, freedom to say whatever you want to say, freedom to have a gun in your house if you want to have it, all the things we've been talking about, the first amendment protects speech, many people arguing you ought to be able to spend whatever you want to on politicians and politics. guest: it's a freedom at the expense of those who don't have money and a freedom at the expense of the poor and a freedom at the expense of those at the bottom of the pile and the expense of truth is extraordinary. it's a freedom to continually repeat things which are wholly misleading. if people are accustomed to hearing things about contradiction which are just not true. host: one of the things you see when you walk down the house of the parliament is very tight security. when you ride the subways here,

it doesn't look any more secure than any of our subways. as a matter of fact, you don't hardly see a policeman anywhere. you had that tragic subway accident where terrorists blew it up and killed 150 people. what has that done to your society? guest: we have a slightly different view of terrorism than america partly because when we went through the second world war we were bombed. the day after we had the attacks on the subway i was back on the subway. but there's this neutral feeling, we're not going to let terrorists stop us from living our lives and going to work. british people are a little more pragmatic about terrorist violence than americans. it's the stiff upper lip.

guest: what impact do you think the attack on the united states affected people in the world? guest: it affected tony blair, which is one of the things that made him quite unpopular in this country. his party was very close to george w. bush. it did not impress the british people, i'm afraid. now blair is more popular in the united states than he is in this country. the last time he was here, he had to cut some of his book signings because of demonstrations but i know in america he is revered. they used it as an excuse to cut back on freedom and civil liberties but i think the british have this thing, keep calm and carry on. host: mrs. thatcher at one time was more popular in the united states than she was here.

guest: yeah. host: why do you think that? guest: i think americans like that sort of british figure, they love royalty. when princess diana was alive, americans were much more interested in her than british people were. host: what about the current excitement over the wedding and i read in the paper, expect a billion pounds to come to the city over the fact that prince william and -- guest: i wonder. i remember prince charles and diana getting wed and that was a huge thing. i wonder in this economic climate when everyone is cutting back whether they won't have a slightly more modest wedding than people are expecting. i'm not sure that the country's in the mood for a very extravagant wedding. host: what do your constituents that have voted for you think of royalty? guest: they -- people have a lot of respect for the queen. host: why?

guest: i think there's a feeling that she's always done her duty, there's this handle attached to her, she's been there for over half a century. the younger royals, there's less respect for and i suspect that when the queen finally dies, a debate will reopen in this country about, do we really need a royal family? host: any chance they would say no? guest: i don't know. but i think there will be debate around it. host: what would you say? guest: i think maybe the royal family should be more like the scandinavian royal family, more low key. in the 21st century in a democracy, the type of monarchy that we have, is that really appropriate? does that really encourage an equal society? host: you ran for leadership in

your party and didn't get it. do you have any plans in the future to go back after leadership or any other job in public life here in great britain? guest: well, i'm doing the job i'm doing on health, my party's spokesperson on health. i'll see what options arise in the future. but one thing about my campaign, i had fantastic response all around the country from the public and obviously you want to meet the expectations of your supporters. host: who's your favorite historical figure in history of all time? guest: who's my favorite historical figure? oh, so many. you know, i think perhaps my favorite historical figure is emily banker and she was an activist in britain and got the vote for women.

host: when did she live? guest: she lived at the beginning of the 20th century. host: diane abbott, we're out of time. thank you very much for joining us. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> i think a mistake at a lot of british people who follow british politics make is that they're broadly comparable, the british and the american system,

that your president is like our prime minister and that you have two houses of your parliament and we have two of ours. well, no, our prime minister has much more power than your president. >> "q&a" continues as we talk about the power of the prime minister, taxes, social issues and the cost of living. >> the redesigned "book notes" web site featured over 800 notable authors interviewed about their books. you can view the programs, and use the searchable database. booknotes.org with a brand new look and feel and a great way to watch and enjoy the authors and their books. >> coming up next on c-span, former supreme court justices

sandra day o'connor and david souter discuss their careers. and another chance to see "q&a" can british labour party m.p., diane abbott. tomorrow's "washington journal," roger hickey, reporter lynn stanton on the fcc's neutrality rules. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated and airs sunday, january 2. you'll see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff and you'll hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elaina kagan. also, learn about some of the

court's most recent developments. the supreme court, airing for the first time in high definition, sunday, january 2, at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> former supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david souter are next on legal issues and what it's like to serve on the nation's highest court. the event is about an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> good evening, i'm david mccain, the c.e.o. of the john f. kennedy presidential library foundation and on behalf of my colleagues and the director, tom putnam, i thank all of you for coming this evening. we count on your support and i encourage you to become a member of the library. please visit our web site, jfklibrary.org for more information. i would like to express particular thanks to the friends and institutions that make these

forums possible. bank of america, our lead sponsor of the kennedy library forum series, boston capital, the lowell institute and the boston foundation, along with our media sponsors, "the boston globe," wbur. we are honored to have with us tonight retired supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david souter. they are here to discuss their shared passion, the importance of civic education. justice david souter recalls that when he was a boy, he learned the lessons of democracy and the functions of the three branches of government at new england town meetings. he's called those meetings the most radical exercise of american democracy that you can find. it didn't matter if someone or rich or poor, young or old, sensible or foolish, these

meetings were governed by fundamental fairness. today, when 2/3 of americans can't name the three branches of government, a rebirth of civic education is needed to assure, as justice souter has said, a nation of people who will stand up for individual rights against the popular will. justice o'connor is even blunter. [laughter] ..

>> justice o'connor retired from the court in 2005 and has been known to refer to herself as just as unemployed cowgirl. but as our moderator recently wrote in "the new york times," justice o'connor basically lives in airplanes traveling the country to support her causes.

let me read you one newspaper article that illustrates that commitment. in september, justice o'connor visited wrigley field in chicago to attend a cubs game wearing a royal blue cubs jacket, she delivered the game ball to the umpires on the field and then visited the broadcast booth. where she delivered the following commentary, i never thought i'd see the day when we stopped teaching civics and government. it could be a little boring how they're teaching it but nonetheless it is an important function of the schools. . and then justice o'connor suddenly interrupted herself -- ooh, big hit out there. you have to love a supreme court justice who jumps in to give the play-by-play at a cubs game. david souter was born in melrose, massachusetts and received his b.a. from harvard university and was a rhodes scholar in oxford before settling in new hampshire where

he served as attorney general and on the state supreme court. he was nominated to the u.s. supreme court in 1990 by president h.w. bush -- excuse me, george h.w. bush. our moderator also has written about justice souter. just after he announced his retirement in 2009, she called him, quote, perfectly suited to his job. his polite, persistent questioning of lawyers who appear before the court display his preparation and mastery of the case at hand and the cases relevant to it. far from being out of touch with the modern world, he is simply refused to surrender to it control over aspects of his own life that give him deep contentment, hiking, sailing, times with old friends, reading history. these days justice souter is doing some of the things he loves but he is also very occasionally speaking out about some important issues, at a commencement speech at harvard

university this past may, justice souter spoke out about the different mode of constitutional interpretation. ian deone said it was a philosophical shock that should be heard across the country. our moderator, mrs. greenhouse, is one of the foremost authorities on the supreme court, reporting on the court for "the new york times" from 1978-1998 she won the pulitzer prize in 1988 and now teaches at the law school. in a recent op-ed about the three former justices, john paul stevens, sand a a day o'connor and david souter she noted their shared capacity for blunt talk and of tonight's speakers she writes, free from the structures of incumbency and the need to garner votes, each is in a public position to help the public understand a bit more about how a supreme court justice thinks.

as well as about the supreme court itself, its processes and its challenges. with that in mind, please join me in welcoming justice sandra day o'connor, justice david souter and our moderator linda greenhouse. [applause] >> thank you. it's a personal thrill to be here, really, here in the kennedy library on the 50th anniversary of his election. i was a young teenager at that time and i have to say that he did inspire my own interest in public affairs and the public live life -- public life of the country and i remember my friend and i in school hanging on every development of the 1960 campaign and the startup of the new administration and that's kind of a deliberate

segue into our topic tonight which is the civics education deficit in the country's schools, you know, just kind of makes me wonder whether the same energy and enthusiasm with which i and my 12 and 13-year-old friends in 1960 approached what was going on in the country based on some knowledge of what we had been taught in public school, whether that still exists today. so i'll just start off by asking both of you, since you made this really a project of your -- of this phase of your professional careers, what motivated you to choose this topic to really devote yourself to? we started public schools in this country in the early 1,800's on the basis of

arguments, but we had an obligation to teach our young people how our government worked so they could be part of making it work in the future. that was the whole idea. that was the justification to getting public schools in this country. and i went to school -- there weren't any out on the lazy b ranch so i was packed off to my grandmother in el paso, and went to school there and i had a lot of civics but it was largely texas. i got so tired of steven f. austin, i never wanted to hear another word about him. it was just endless. >> hearing about the alamo doesn't help much. >> no, i wasn't? san antonio, we went el paso. so anyway, we had a lot of civics in my day, and i guess i

just thought that was what schools were supposed to do. and i was stunned to learn that half the states no longer makes civics and government a retirement, no longer. and we had a lot of concern about what young people were learning and i can understand why some of it was getting boring. the leading text book for civics was 790 pages long. now, i'm sorry, you can't give that to some young person and expect them to just read it and absorb it. it doesn't happen. so i felt we needed a little help. and that's how i got involved. >> and you recruited your colleague. >> well, yes. she got me into this. i mean really, she did. i didn't have any particular sense of what was going on in

civics teaching in the united states. i remembered mine, but five to six years ago, justice o'connor and justice breyer convened a conference in washington to address the threats to judicial independence which seemed to be snowballing at the time. and the most significant thing and the most shocking thing i think that i learned the first day that we were there was the statistic that you've already heard this evening that depending on who does the measuring, only about 2/3 at best 60% of the people in the united states, can name three branches of government. they simply are unaware of a tripod type scheme of government and a separation of powers. the implication of that for judicial independence is that if one does not know about three branches of government,

and the distinctive obligations of each branch, then talking about judicial independence makes absolutely no sense whatever. independence why? independence from what? independence for what reason? you get absolutely nowhere because there is not a common basis in knowledge for discourse. and when i and others left that meeting, we realized that yeah, we had a lot to worry about on attacks on judicial independence, but we had a broader problem to worry about in the united states, and i have only become more convinced that it is a serious problem, not a kind of chicken little problem or a reflection of nose taling yeah of dinosaurs -- nostalgia of dinosaurs the way government was taught when we were kids. but my awakeness started at

that conference on judicial independence. >> there's one other part of this story that i thought was disturbing, american high school students were tested along with 20 other nations a few years ago and they were -- they came in near the bottom of the 20 nations in scores on math and science. and it was so frightening that our then president and congress said we had to do something. that means money, federal money. so they put together federal money to give to schools based on good test scores in those schools for math and science and reading. >> you're talking about no child left behind. >> no child left behind. you've heard of that, and that was the program. and no doubt a good thing but the problem was that it turned

out that because none of the federal money was given to teach civics or american history or government, the schools started dropping it and half the states today no longer make civics and government a requirement for high school. only three states in the united states require it for middle school. i mean, we're in bad shape and we need to do something. >> you are doing something. >> we are. >> the relevance of no child left behind today i think is indicated by what justice o'connor said, we've got a kind of testing culture in america's schools which is all the good on subjects of science, reading and math which are being tested, the effectiveness i don't know, but the objective is obviously ok. the trouble is that as everybody says, schools have a

tendency to teach to the test. and if finances or educational ratings or other sort of measures of decency and excellence are going to be tied to the tests on these three subjects, the natural human tendency is everything else will be short shrift. we have to be careful not to suggest that no child left behind is the source of the problem because american schools started dropping the teaching of civics as we remember it back around 1970. there was a series of conclusions drawn by educators to the effect that teaching civics really had no affect, in fact, on what people -- what young adult people ended up knowing about their government. this seems counterintuitive, but that was the theory and

that's why civics started getting dropped. the problem with no child left behind for those who want to revitalize civics education, you've got too find room in the school day to fit it in and your competitor is in effect no child left behind in the subjects which are getting tested. that suggests an ultimately pragmatic solution and that is you've got to start testing on civics. >> right. >> and the only good news, i guess, in this particular tension, is that there is an absolute tension in fulfilling no child left behind and finding time for civics. the fact is, a lot, for example, of the material take can be used to the civic segment of no child left behind

can be civics reading, not 700 pages at a time but there's a way to infiltrate no child left behind with some civics. the problem has to be faced on how you provide an incentive to the school administration and the school districts to work this in. and i use the reference to administration advisedly because one thing i've learned just from being on a group in new hampshire that is trying to beef things up up there is that the civics teachers are out there and they're dying to teach, and i happen to have met some, both on the grade school level and high school level. and you know, they're raring to go. we do not have a problem of conversion among teachers. and what we've got to do is

find a way to find room in a finite school day to get this done. and as i said, at the end of the line, we've got to have -- people don't like to use the word "testing" anymore. they like to talk about accountability. and -- but we've got to get a civics test squeezed back in. >> you're directly involved in a curriculum reform effort in new hampshire. >> yeah. >> tell us a bit about that. >> well, i'm a johnny-come-lately to it in a way because it was a group formed by an organization called new hampshire supreme court society, which is what of a historical society but of the new hampshire supreme court but a society that wants to have some public relevance beyond even the teaching of history. and it took up as a project actually before i had retired,

a review of new hampshire curricula practice and the question, is there something useful we can do? and that process of examination, as i said, i joined up when i left washington. and i have at this point a fairly good sense of what is going on in new hampshire schools. i've met some teachers and actually met a bunch of kids, some classes i've gone to. and i think, by the way, to just not leave the subject hanging, what a group like mine can do and what i suspect a group like mine can do probably in most states is not convince teachers that they ought to teach civics, that's there, at least in new hampshire experience, we don't have to sell them on that. what we have to do is provide in effect the whole teaching apparatus, an incentive to make

room for this. and the second thing we've got to do is provide them with some materials to teach from. there simply is not readily available standardized universally accepted text books of the sort, i think i remember, of course there is no testing. new hampshire, like most states dropped testing from civics. and we've also got to provide, if we can do it and raise some money to do it, a kind of continuing education scheme for the teachers of civics to get them together, very much like the supreme court of the united states is historical society does for teachers of constitutional history. and give them some beefed up education of their own which they are dying to have.

so that's where i think we can do something useful. and my guess is that what is missing in new hampshire and what would be accepted by the educational systems in new hampshire is probably going to be true in most states. >> so the effort would be to kind of model some best practices that could be exported? >> i've got another idea. >> i'm sure you do. [laughter] >> you under why we write concurring opinions now. >> i think young people today like to spend time in front of computer screens and videos. and in fact, they spend on the average 40 hours a week doing that, if you can believe it. that's more time than they spend with parents or in school. and so i think we have to capture some of that.

and i've been -- have organized a program to do that and to put the material for civics education in a series of games that kids can play on computers. and believe me, they love it. and if you want to look at it and if any teacher wants to look at it, it's www.icivics.org. and it is, if i have to say so, fabulous. it really is. >> actually in preparing for this -- >> i have heard other people say that, too. >> justice souter doesn't actually have a computer, so this is all by mouth. >> that's why i said other people. >> but i did go on the website and it's very engaging and comes with curricular guides so teachers can use it as real material.

i went on to one about the judicial system and it's a series of actual supreme court cases where there's ways that you click on the various arguments and the students are asked to pick the best argument to such such and such a proposition. and it's really -- i found myself really getting into it. >> it's really a success, i think, and can be except, do you know what the worst bureaucracy in our country is today? it's the schools. they're in 50 states there is not one state where there is one person in that state who can tell the schools what to do and they have to do it. not one. we are organized with separate individual school districts. we have close to, you know -- many hundreds in my little state of arizona. and so to get something like this conveyed to all the

schools means you have to contact each one, and it's kind of a nightmare. that's what we're running into with my program, how do you get everybody acquainted? so i have chair people now in 49 of the 50 states. now, whether they'll succeed in contacting all of the schools remains to be seen. maybe you can volunteer. let me hear from you. >> how closely have you been involved in actually doing the gaming and deciding what needs to be -- >> i actually sat with some and previewed some and made suggestions on some. i mean, i've not -- we have experts like mcarthur genius award-winners who are better at doing this, but i have participated in some to figure out what we have got to do or not do. >> justice souter talks about the impact of the deficit and

knowledge about the courts, and obviously that's one thing. are there other particular deficits that you've noticed as you've talked to people or followed this issue? >> no knowledge. >> yeah. >> it's total. to start with, they don't know their three branches of government. we've already covered that. and even if they do, how to course work, what do they do, who is in charge, how do they approach cases. in the case of congress, they don't know how things happen. >> i don't either. >> well, not much does, i guess. now and then there's a little trickle down somewhere. anyway, we know what's supposed to happen. and so there's a lot to teach, a lot to learn. >> and things really have changed, again, from the time when we were kids. when i say things have changed,

not merely the dropping of teaching but the resulting deficit. one of the difficulties in -- at least that i've found in trying to put all of this in perspective is that we have much better studies about what's going on today than we had about what was going on 50 years ago. people weren't making the same kind of surveys, at least i haven't run into them, but i have been impressed with one summary which went through a series of rather detailed survey findings in the mid 1990's. and the conclusions to be drawn from it were summarized by one of the educators in the field named william gallton he -- william galston, he said the numbers seemed to show that the

degree of civic and broader political knowledge on behalf of a high school graduate in the mid 1990's was equivalent to that of a high school dropout in the 1940's. >> wow. >> and the degree, again, of com probable knowledge of a college graduate in the mid 1990'ses -- 190's, was about that of a high school graduate in the 1940's. and if anything needs -- can further be said to underline what is shocking and disparitying to that is during the same period of time, the growth in the availability of higher education was explosive. and yet in effect what we said is the level of collegiate knowledge dropped to high school and high school dropped to dropout.

something really bad has happened. >> in preparing for this, i kind of cast a wide net and tried to find some other resources that are out there just to get a sense of how broadly this problem is being recognized and actually there's a lot going on. >> oh, yeah. >> i noticed richard dreyfus, the actor, has weighed in on this. he set something up called the dreyfus initiative which is the curricular development program. i looked at that website. and then on the judicial system in maine, a coalition of the federal and state judges organizes the maine federal state judicial council has started a program of video interviews of judges talking about their life and work. and it's really engaging. they had one judge, a state judge, i can't think of his

name, who talked about being a troublemaker in high school and dropping out of college and taking a long time to get his act together and eventually obviously becoming a judge. but the point was to make the judiciary not seem something remote, people are born with their ropes on or something. >> right. >> but to give citizens the sense that these are real people doing a job for the public who are, you know, more or less approachable and can be sort of understood on a human level. and i wonder just looking at the supreme court, for instance, we seem to be in an era where a number of justices are -- current as well as retired, are out and about and making the court a little more accessible. and you both have been around long enough to see that as a trend, this wasn't something that was so true when both of you became judges, and i'd just be interested in your

reflection whether there's anything the supreme court itself either institutionally or individual justices can do to address this. >> it was interesting because i'm not in washington, d.c. all the time anymore, just now and then. and i respectly was there and i sat in the courtroom to watch an oral argument and sat there and looked up at the bench, nine positions. and it was absolutely incredible. on the far right was a woman, boom, boom, boom, near the middle there was a woman. on the far left was a woman. three of them. now, think of it it. it was incredible. and it took 191 years to get the first. and we're building a little more rapidly now. i'm pretty impressed. >> heck, look at this group here. i'm the diversity.

[laughter] [applause] >> so things are happening. >> extrapolate from what you said, the court being able to sort of model. >> i just think that the image that americans overall have of the court have to change a little bit when they look up there and see what i saw. i thought that was a pretty big change. >> not many people get a chance to actually -- >> you know, everybody takes pictures of the court. >> here we are on c-span and c-span has kind of a dog in that fight. of why don't you bring the court in the living room for the america. >> a fight which i hope c-span loses. >> well, we won't go off on

that. but looking at the election this fall on some of the judicial issues. for instance, what happened in iowa where sitting judges were thrown out in their retention elections. >> now that is another subject on which i've been trying to be helpful. how we select state court judges. now, this is a really important topic. and it seems to me that many of the states need to consider some changes. when we started out, the framers of the constitution got busy and designed the federal system. and when they came to the judicial branch, they provided the judges would be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, no election of the

judges, right? no election. and the original 13 states all had similar systems. i mean, closely related to that. now, a few years went by and all of a sudden we had andrew jackson and he stated this down in new orleans. that was good. but you know what he did, he didn't say we should elect our state judges and he was the one who went through and said you have to change and elect your judges. the first state to do that was georgia. a bunch of others followed suit and now what do we have? we have this hodgepodge and many states, i think about 20, still have popular election of the state court judges and that means campaign contributions,

they run for office, who gives them money? the lawyers who appear before them, some of the clients that appear before them. there was that case the supreme court had from west virginia, big judge hunt against the massey coal company, $50 million or something of the sort. and the chairman of massey coals wanted that -- that judgment was in a trial court in west virginia. and in west virginia, they just have two levels of court, the trial court and supreme court. and massey wanted to appeal to the supreme court. that's fine. it's a five-member court and there was going to be an election the next general election and one member of the court had to run for office, his time was up. well, massey, co-chairman, gave the man about $3 million to

help with his election campaign in the state of west virginia. and guess what? he won. big surprise. then the case was heard and somebody on the other side said to the re-elected justice. maybe you should recuse yourself because of these -- oh, no, i can be fair. so i heard the case and in a 3-2 decision did not -- he voted to overturn the judgment against pasi with the participation, a 3-2 decision of this newly elected judge and the other side signed a petition to the u.s. supreme court saying we were denied due process here. that's a hard claim to make. i'm glad i wasn't sitting on the court for that case. that's tough. but the court ultimately

decided that was correct. there was a due process denial and that means states are going to have to be a little more careful with how -- about how they organize their courts and that was the right signal to send but many states still have their election of judges and that's not a good idea. i would like to see more states select a merit selection system where there is a bipartisan citizens commission formed that will receive applications from people who want to be a judge, review them, interview the people, make recommendations to the governor who can appoint from the list of recommended people and then tip lick in those so systems they will serve for something like 16 years and then stand for retention election. that's what happened in iowa.

their supreme court is a merit selection system court and three of the justices were up for resense elections. the court had unanimously decided a case involving a gay marriage law which irritated some voters in that state and they campaigned against these judges with the retention and a majority of the voters voted them out and said no, we don't want to keep them. that was a big signal. >> i wanted to ask you about that because the so-called missouri plan, the merit election and retention has been held up for years by you and others as the preferable way to go. and what happened in iowa, yes, some voters didn't like the outcome of the same-sex marriage case but i think kind of more to the point, outside

groups came in to use the election to teach a lesson. >> correct. >> spent a lot of money, the judges running for retention have never pondered anything like that. >> and they didn't do much in response. >> when was part of the problem. it hazes the question of these days, very aggressive, money-laden campaigns, whether the missouri plan still holds up as a civic improvement? >> it does. it does. and arizona has it, and i watched the process there. it doesn't mean you can't have a problem, you can. it is so much better than the alternative, you can't imagine. but it tells me you have to be aware and if there's something that happened in iowa, those hoping to be retained better be asking and do something in

response. >> so they need campaign committees and contributions. >> if there's going to be a major effort, yes. >> so you're kind of back in the soup. >> well, not as bad because you get over the hump and then go back to where it was. it's not going to happen every time. >> to draw a leaf between that and the problem, do you think if the public has a better understanding of the judiciary through some sort of education this sort of thing could be mitigated in some way or it's an issue, had enough, does it just kind of overwhelm? >> well, occasionally there will be a hot issue and in our country it tends to turn on abortion or gay marriage or something like that and voters can get pretty excited about some of those issues. >> justice souter, you were a state judge for years in your career. now, you were appointed.

>> i was appointed, yeah. and without a retention election. >> that's right. >> new hampshire is plain old -- >> the federal system except there's a mandatory retirement in new hampshire. so i didn't have to face that. but i agree with justice o'connor, if you're going to have an elective system, try to have the missouri plan. that's the best way. you still can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but you're along the way a bit. the missouri plan and in any system, even with retention elections is intentioned with the fundamental understanding that animates an appointed system with life or long-term appointment and that is the understanding that when the heat is on we tend to do the

wrong thing. we get excited, our judgment evaporates, and that is where why -- and that is why you want a branch of government which has reference to principles that are going to endure beyond the heat of the moment to say wait a minute, you just violated your own rules. and if you cannot have a branch of government with the power to do that and with the incentive to do it, nothing that those who make the declaration will not be thrown out on the street the next morning, you in fact are compromising the very concept behind the rule of law and the rule of enduring law. so that's the fundamental problem even under a missouri plan. the development that

exacerbated that problem is the development of money in judicial elections which has in its turn been exacerbated by the recent development in the law which took place after both justice o'connor's and my departure but on which we expressed opinions earlier, to the effect that corporations cannot be limited in the kind of expenditures that they make for political purposes. and if that were not sufficient exacerbation, that combined with the legal avenues now for disguising the sources of political contributions makes for a, a very general threat to political integrity and a particular one to the judiciary. how does the judiciary respond? the judiciary is political and

can't do anything about it, but there is one authority that the judiciary has got to start thinking of using because i assume the occasion is going to arise. think back for a second to justice o'connor's reference to the west virginia election case. the reason that case in one way was easy to focus, the reason the issue could easily be focused was that it was a matter of public record where the $3 million came from. it came from, i forget the president or the chairman, i think you said, of the company which was appealing the very large verdict against him. what does the litigant do now in a state of elected judges when in effect as a matter of federal law the limits are off on what corporations can do and

in fact are avenues of contribution which do not disclose the ultimate source of the money. it seems to me i know what i would do if i were a litigant in that kind of situation, i would require a -- i would demand in the name of due process a disclosure of all contributions on that court of which i was going to appear and an analysis of the sources if in fact the named source was or might be opaque. and i think it's inevitable this is going to come. and i don't know really of anything that litigants can do in the name of due process short of this. unless they are willing to take the chance of just being a fish shot at in a barrel and they don't know who's firing. i think this has got to come. >> i do, too. >> where this is leading, i

think, given the current supreme court majority's view of the first amendment is the clash between the first amendment and due process. >> which, you're right. but, you know, this oversimplifies a little bit but not by an awful lot most of the constitutional issues that come before the supreme court of the united states are not questions of should we apply this principle as it logically ought to be applied, but rather questions of should we apply this principle that might apply, or that plinnle -- principle that might apply? the essence of principled decisionmaking by a court like the supreme court of the united states is in the reasoning that

the select principalle that is going to dominate in the given case. principle decisionmaking isn't simply being logical, it is being reasonable in selecting from among legitimately competing principles. and as you say, linda, we're going to see that as between the current view of first amendment rights and enduring view of due process. >> there's a question of whether the current majority is willing to follow the logic that they -- on the path they've set out right over a cliff is what you're saying? >> you'll have to ask them. [laughter] >> but seriously, the process they have followed in the recent cases simply has not encountered the issue that we're talking about here. bear in mind, the same supreme

court that decided citizens united is also the supreme court, one personnel change, from the court -- at this point, two personnel changes different. it's the same court court that decided the west virginia contribution case. so you've got a court which has quite clearly and robustly espoused both the principles. this isn't a nondue process court anymore than it's a nonfirst amendment court. >> justice kennedy in the majority in both those case, right? >> and the -- so this is a court which has not shown itself shy of confronting either due process or first amendment issues, and i have no reason to believe it's going to be shy about being candid about

how you resolve the tension when that tension gets to them. >> just on a personal level, a person listening to you, what's it like having been on the court for a good chunk of time to watch them? obviously you feel a mistake was made in citizens united, what's that feel like? you say if only i'd been at the conference table, maybe i could have made a difference? it must be a strange feeling to be on the outside looking in after all those years? >> yeah, but you have to expect the fact that people are going to be serving there for different periods of time. you're not going to be there forever. and other people may disagree with some of the things that you have believed. so you just can't approach it from the standpoint that you will never be disappointed or concerned.

it's very possible you will. but that's life. [laughter] >> there's one possibly radical answer to your question and comes from the old psychiatrist joke about the young and old psychiatrist talking at the end of the day and the young psychiatrist, he looks exhausted and harried and the older guy looks as fresh as he did at 9:00. and the young doctor says, you they, how can you seem so fresh, how can you stand it listening to these patients all day long? everything is wrong. you sit there listening to them. why doesn't it get to you? and the older doctor says oh, that's the secret, who listens? [laughter] ter]

>> i have no desire to leave the supreme court. i loved my colleagues, i liked the work i was doing. there were days i wished things had turned out differently, but i still love the court and just about everybody in that building. but i feel liberated to do things that i couldn't do on that court. it is confining in time as well as in discretion, and there were other things that i wanted to do while i was still in a condition to do them. so i'm liberated to do things rather than liberated from things that i disliked. because i didn't really like -- >> a better way to put it. >> i know people in the audience have been writing down

questions and this may be a good time to turn to some of them, if there are any? >> did we have some questions? >> and amy mcdonald has a set of them. and i'm sure we'll collect more. >> what's happened to her? >> great. ok. >> you have some man who is trying to hand you stuff down here. >> ok. do you think any of the decline in enthusiasm for civics results from a change in the rhetoric of the purpose of government? that is, today the focus is much more on privatization,

enabling a free market. so i guess that means we don't hear much talk about the higher purposes of government maybe. is it there's a lack of liberation? >> i don't think that's what i'm hearing out there. i think it's the fact you have young people who aren't learning anything about it. and so it's not unexpected that there's not much discussion or concern. >> yeah, i would say the same thing. and again, historical perspective helps here, this decline started 40 years ago. and it wasn't -- i hope i'm not going out on a limb here. i don't think it was until around 1990 and into the 1990's people began to say hey, wait a minute, there's something going wrong here. and the unfortunate state of public relate rick -- public rhetoric in the united states had not reached anything like today's characteristics at that time.

and i've also -- i alluded a moment ago to the fact that i've seen a good many civics teachers in the last year and i've seen some of the kids that they teach. and i'll just give you two examples. i listened to a fourth grade class from one of the new hampshire towns who was visiting the statehouse one day and i happened to be around and that town happened to be blessed with teachers in the fourth grade who had themselves enthusiasm for teaching. and, you know, the kids were a bunch of winners, they knew more -- i listened to the governor asking them questions to know how much they knew. those kids knew more about civic organization in the fourth grade than i knew in the fourth grade. and you know, the arms were

going out of the shoulder sockets trying to answer the questions. it was terrific. >> good. >> and i visited a combined couple of high school classes in my own town. again, they were blessed with a couple of teachers who are real sparks. and, i mean, they were gung ho. so i don't have any reason to believe that the lamitable state of public rhetoric in the united states is going to be itself a roadblock to educational reform. >> no. i agree. >> here's a question that's maybe somewhat related, is the decline in the teaching of civics related to a general decline in educational standards? some would argue that in 1935 high school diploma is the equivalent to a 2010 college degree. >> well, i think there is a decline. i would share some of that concern. i think that at an earlier

period in our history, a great deal more was learned in the early grades than is today. and we've just kind of diluted it as we've gone along. >> i'll take a pass on that. i don't know enough to answer that question. >> here's a question, is it reasonable to think that states as divergent as massachusetts and texas can be brought to teach a common civics curriculum? >> good question. [laughter] >> i think it's possible. but you may have a hard time on certain principles, like how should you organize the courts? in massachusetts, you don't have the popular election of judges in this state. you've got a pretty decent system. and there are long-term appointments. and in texas, you know, i was

born there and spent time in texas. and if you're a lawyer and have a trial in the texas court, the first thing you have to do is do some research on the journal and try to find out how much money the judge has been given by whom to get elected. there are few records and sometimes you can find out some of that. that's what you have to do. and then you have to see that you're not going to get a fair hearing in the judge's courtroom. it's pretty sick. now, why would you want a system like that? and i've been to texas to talk to them, the legislature, to see if they wouldn't be motivated to propose a change in their system. nope. thank you. we like it. so it's very discouraging. >> it's hard to think the texas railroad commission or whoever makes the curriculum there would include in the curriculum any criticism of that kind of system.

>> there are lots of decent teachers and willing students and everything else in texas, a lot of good things, but i don't think their system of judicial selection is ideal. >> just going to the implication for civics teaching, i am guessing that one of the things that i am going to see -- that we are going to see if the efforts to beef up teaching in our respective states begins to pay off is a contrast between the teaching materials of our day and the teaching materials that are going to be used in the future. we had -- i remember the book in the ninth grade, the blue civics book. and it may have been -- it was probably pablum but it was pablum that got a lot of basic material on the page and we left i think pretty much with that in our heads. the notion, i think, of a

generally acceptable text book of that sort today on a national level is antique. any guess is we're not going to see such a book. what we are going to see is, i think, a combination of what is going on in those schools that are teaching civics today, and that is an awful lot of that material is getting downloaded and is then getting exchanged teachers to teachers. there's a decentralization of text going on. and i would be very surprised if that kind of decentralization trend is going to change. >> here's a question, how can we get schools to choose to reinclude civics in their curriculum when they say they don't even have enough time or money to teach math or literacy well? and the questioner works at

discovering justice, a civic education organization here in boston. she poses a financial question. >> well, it's hard. the fact that i am enthused about a program that can be used by kids on their own that they love and are having fun and they're going to learn from. now, that's one way to help get around it. and i'm excited about that. >> i think there are two answers to that question. one is sort of the fundamental value answer and the other one is the pragmatic how to do it answer. the fundamental value answer is something that i guess has been lost from the discourse or the consciousness, and people like us and people who take up this cause in other states is simply got to keep stating it and they've got to keep pushing it. and it's basically this, in the

aftermath -- a famous quotation, in the aftermath of a 1787 convention benjamin franklin was asked what kind of a government the constitution would give us. and his famous answer was, it will give you a republic if you can keep it. republics can be lost. jefferson made the remark that a people both free and ignorant has never been seen and never will be. there has got to be a component of knowledge and understanding if democracy is going to survive. and when 2/3 of a nation do not know the basic simple structure of their government when 6-10 people, adults in the united states, cannot answer questions which once would have been appropriate for school children, then we are getting to the point of the franklin

and jefferson source of words. if ever we were in a position of worry, it is a greater worry today than at any other time in our lives. there has been no time in my life or our lives in which the degree of frustration with government and dissatisfaction with government has been as great and as volatile as it is today. the responses to that frustration, and a frustration, by the way, which i think probably everyone on this platform also shares, the response is to the frustration have not been merely political responses, throw these bums out and bring in someone new, the responses have included suggestions for structural change. you have heard the suggestions

for constitutional amendment and they go even so far as modification of the 14th amendment. when that kind of possibility is being bruted around in the public discourse, we have got to be very, very worried about the inability of a majority of the population to understand the structure of what we have from which follows the location of responsibility within the quality and against which has to be measured in a proposal to change. .

most educators think in order to compete with the pressures of testing if it persists, he will have to have some testing in civics. we used to hack it. >> but we do not now. we are trying to promote changes and congress is apparently not going to get it

in there. >> no. people like this are going to make a two-prong government. we have to make the argument clear on why this is not funny. why we have something to worry about in the united states of america, today. if you want to do what we are pushing for, get testing back in on the state level, did this reading material into "no child left behind," and consider cutting back on some other things that may not be as fundamental to the political stability of the united states as civic education. >> the the urgency you are speaking from, it is not that the people who are coming up with these ideas are lacking in

civic knowledge, it is that -- it is the population as a whole. they are more durable to a kind of manipulation. >> we do not have a broad basis for political judgment in the united states. two-thirds of the population do not know the fundamental structure of the government. >> what do you believe are the three most important pieces of knowledge that american students should possess about our government? you can come up with the reet between you. [laughter] >> what are the three branches? what do they do? how does it work? how do citizens get to know about things and participate? these are the fundamentals we hope would be taught in the

classroom . >> i agree. note the basic structure. three branches. have an idea of what those three branches do. i have listened to fourth grade classes to can't answer those questions fairly well. it is not an overly ambitious agenda. the third bank i what -- the third thing i would hope people would know about government is illustrated by a story a friend of mine told me. he is a lawyer and a very close friend of mine. he was visiting a new hampshire school on what date 15 years ago. the subject of the exclusionary rule -- criminal cases came up. if evidence is illegally seized

in violation of constitutional standards, it may not be used by the government against a criminal defendant. some kid in the class, this was junior high, probably high school -- the asked why should the public interest sucker by letting some criminal go free because the law enforcement officer did not get a what? my friend said his response to the kid was, "because you are next." [laughter] if there is any one fundamental principle of good government, it is the principle behind the exclusionary rule and of constitutional limitations. ultimately, it is the golden rule. treat others the way you want to be treated with the corollary you are not going to be treated

that way either. if you have to erase everything in the united states constitution, you could leave one thing. the one thing i would leave it would be the equal protection clause. we are in this together and we are all going to be treated the same way. if that were understood, i take my chances on a substantive outcome. that is the fundamental lesson, i think, between the governments of powers who are limited structurally and for the sake of individual liberty. that would be my third lesson. i would put it in the terms of "you our next." >> i want to thank you both for being willing to do this.

[applause] i want to thank the audience. ok. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> monday is a day one of the annual campaign management institute, training students to work on political campaigns. we will hear from political consultant and strategist from both parties. topics include the general political environment and the chicago mayor's race. that does not o'clock a.m. eastern.

original documentary on the supreme court airs sunday, january 2. you'll see the grand public spaces and those only available to the justices and their staff. you will hear about how the court works from all the justices, including elena kagan. the supreme court, home to the -- on to america's highest court. sunday, january 2, at 6:30 eastern on c-span. >> now, the christmas but message from the president and first lady. after the remarks, we will also hear from the republican congressman from pennsylvania.

>> machel and might lead to take a moment to send greetings from our family to yours. >> we are so fortunate to be able to celebrate the season together in this wonderful room. this is the people's house. we try to open it to as many people as we can, especially during the holiday season. this month, more than 100,000 americans have passed through these halls. the greatest blessings of all are the ones that do not call state bank. the comfort of spending time with loved ones, the july wheat field upon giving something of ourselves. in this kind of family, friends, and good cheer, let's also be sure to look al for those who are less fortunate. some are hungry and alone this holiday season. >> we celebrate the simplest,

but most profound gift of all. the birth of a child who devoted his life to peace, and redemption. no matter who we are, we are called to love one another. our separate stories in this busy world are really one. today, we are also thinking of those who cannot be home for the holidays, especially our courageous countrymen serving overseas. i visited our troops a few weeks ago. will you may be serving far from home, america supports you and your families. we are with you. i have no greater honor than serving as your commander in chief. to date's service people make up the finest fighting force in the world. they do extraordinary things for our country.

what makes it all the more remarkable, is our military is a double worst -- is a diverse force. >> i have had the honor to meet members of the military and their families all across the country. i have gotten to know husbands doing the painting of two of their spouses on another deployment. children trying their best in school, but always wondering when mom or dad are coming home. when our men and women in uniform answer the call to serve, their families serve, too. they are proud to do it. as long as that service keeps the rest of the state, this sacrifice should be our own. even heroes can use a hand, especially during the holidays.

we are encouraging americans to ask what you can do to support our troops and their families this holiday season. for some ideas, just visit serve.gov. >> if you do not have to be an expert to get back. there are countless ways to contribute. if you lived near a base, you can reach out to your local school or church. if not, you can volunteer organizations to support military families. anybody can send a care package for a pre-paid calling card. simply say, thank you periods >> -- thank you. >> these families carry for more than their fair share of the burden. they have done everything they

had been asked to do. they have been everything we have asked them to be. they are hiking in hopes that someday our children and grandchildren will not have to. we are thinking of them. america will forever be here for them as they have been there for us. on behalf of michele and our daughters, have a merry christmas. >> and a happy new year. >> i have the great honor of serving the people of pennsylvania's 16th congressional district. as the year comes to a close, the american people rise to meet the challenges of our time with resolve and determination. before tackling the challenges ahead, we join together to reflect on our blessings. behind the splendor of the christmas season lies a simple and inspiring story of how a

single bird spread a message of love and salvation -- a single spread a message of love and salvation. we gather to celebrate friends and fellowships. we are reminded of serving one another. we see the spirit of the season in a simple act of kindness, to eight families less fortunate. we see in our service members who raised their hands and volunteer for extraordinary task in defense of freedom. many of these men and women are spending the holiday season for from our shores. as a veteran, i know the stress of being separated this time of year. to those wearing the uniform in iraq, afghanistan, and the round the world at this hour, we are behind you enjoy your loved ones

in praying for your safe return home. all the doctors, nurses, and emergency responders, we thank you as well. we do not always realize how much you give of yourself. the story of christmas also reminds of -- reminds us of the glory of human life. in him was a light, and that with the light of all mankind. it shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it. as we look ahead to the new year, let's share the light and life here and throughout the world. we affirm the joy and dignity of life. we affirm our commitment to freedom and to those in dark corners to seek its protection.

let's keep our pledge to honor families and the values of which this great nation was founded. let us try to listen to one another. treat one another with dignity and respect. do our part to see that the promise of the american dream is fully realized for our children and their children. maybe peace and goodwill of this holiday season be with you and yours. thank you for listening. merry christmas. >> tonight on c-span, an interview with frank luntz. diane abbott will tell us about supreme court security measures. then david souter and sandra day o'connor discussed their careers. >> the speech as an aspect of

establishment. it is an extraordinary experience for me and is coming to an end. my dominant feeling is pride and great privilege to be a part of this state body. >> search for speeches and your retiring senators at the c-span video library. more than 160,000 hours. all on line, all free. it is washington your way. >> the c-span network. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is available to you on radio, television, an online. i'd are content online anytime at the c-span video library. bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way.

the c-span network. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> on western journal, we talk to frank luntz about the economy and politicians. this is 45 minutes. journal" continues. host: frank luntz joines us, republican pollster. guest: i do these focus groups on air for fox. i present to both political parties, but i come from a republican background. however you want to label me, it is christmas, i have no complaints. host: is the word doctors a recent effort of yours? guest: yes.

obviously i have not retired. the word doctors' name is about to change. as of the first of january, i have expanded. we are now in five different states, localities, and it is going to have a new name by january 1, but i cannot tell you what that is. host: talking to folks about their opinions on where we are going, one talking about america's best days. the results are as follows? -- are as follows -- guest: if you look at it over the last 50 years, this

question has been asked since the early 1950's. the numbers today are more negative than they have ever been. this is a very good shopping -- this was a very good shopping season, which is the good news. at some point, it had to happen. it is a better season based on a better overall number. the american people look at what is happening and they are angry and frustrated even though it is christmas. people are still going to yell and scream. it is a real tragedy. in the end, i think there is another -- i don't think there is another country that we would rather live in. with so many opportunities, you have an ipad and the iphone and the ipod, and you think of technology. all of the opportunities that we are given, a true global

society. i have already received a phone calls to wish me happy holidays from 2 people in europe, and they used sky which cost them nothing. half of americans think that our best days are behind us. my hope is that we can set aside some of this division, that we can treat each other with decency and civility. disagree -- because we do have disagreements, but do so how we are talking right now, and then we can begin to be optimistic and appreciate the things that we have in this country. host: a lot of it is because of messages sent from both sides, so you are a part of it. guest: i try to focus on the positive. i tried to focus not just on disagreement but on alternatives. don't just complain.

find something better. if you disagree with the president's health-care plan, you have the responsibility to offer an alternative. you have to explain why washington is in capable of solving the problem and why it needs to be solved at the local level and that the private -- and at the private sector level. finally, i do these focus groups all across the country, and i am losing control. i have been doing this for 20 years. i tell you, this year, i lost control. i have never lost control of market participants. host: what do you mean? guest: i cannot stop them from yelling at each other. i cannot bring the intensity of the conversation down. i did a session in southern california and i could hear behind me -- you never turn your

back on live television, however, no matter what is going on. my participants were yelling so loud behind me, that at one point, i thought there would be a $5,000 fine from the fcc. i turned my back and i said stop! they still didn't stop. that is how intense it has become. we have to chill out and yell a little bit less. host: this comes at a time with efforts from both sides coming to compromises. guest: yes, and the public did not give them credit for it. i would of thought that the approval rating for congress would have gone up, but when they made the deal on tax cuts and on jobless benefits and on the alternative minimum tax, you

would have thought that both sides would of been happy. in reality, both sides were complaining that there was compromise with one another. " did you determine what went into saying or what you asked folks about the best days behind us or ahead of us? what questions did you ask? guest: there is another chart below that the one to address it. to me, this is one of the greatest tragedies that is happening right now. look at that pie chart on the right. a 58% think their kids are going to have it worse than them. we are, as a country, the most optimistic, the most hopeful, but not anymore. this work was done for a

foundation, a study of how americans think about themselves, their responsibilities as citizens, their responsibilities as americans, and the tragedy is we are losing that fundamental faith, that tomorrow will be better than today. host: what is the foundation? guest: it looks at immigration issues. it looks at relationships between citizens and their country. he was one of the founders of the heritage foundation. this is one of the great think tank-type organizations that really does focus on why we think the way that they do, and they look for solutions on issues such as immigration and health care. host: if you would like to ask a question --

you can also reach us a couple of other ways. twitter.com. also, send us an e-mail at c- span.org. guest: you do is give people so many different ways to interact with you. i was doing the show 10 years ago, and none of that existed. this is why we should be so optimistic. you can yell at me by e-mail or twitter. isn't that a good thing? host: this is also the twitter -- from twitter -- guest: i have always explores the positive approach of some of the most fundamental issues.

you cannot just take your information from the web. frankly, you cannot take it to us from cable news. you have to read all sorts of sources. the greatest threat in american society in terms of information is that we get our news to be affirmed rather than in formed. we correct our news based on what we already believe rather than adding new information. it makes it so difficult because even our basic facts which do not agree on. i always read the new york times and the wall street journal because i want to get as many different perspectives as i can. host: lets start with pennsylvania, on the democrats online. good morning. caller: good morning.

c-span aired global warming hearing from the energy subcommittee during which it was asserted that the missions as a threatened to open a hole in the bottom of the food chain. this is a result of intense international research. from what i have seen, particularly from the 2007 lecture on global warming, you were somewhat the leader in the creation of the [unintelligible] i would like to know what you feel about the threat of climate change this time and what we think -- and what you think we should do. guest: " i have done research as recently as last year on this topic.

if we can be more energy independent, not dependent on fossil fuels in general, if we can create more homegrown feels, solar, wind, and in particular nuclear energy, which is safe, secure, and american, the more that we are energy independent, the more successful we will be and more economic strong we will be. i am a proponent of all of this. i think this battle on climate change is unproductive it. what kind of economy and environment we want to have it in the 21st century? all of the work i have done says that the american people want to explore innovative approaches. they don't want to give up what they have. they don't to lose jobs. i am a proponent of nuclear energy because that sells so

many of these issues. thank you for the call. host: how do you react aside from congress? guest: you have to hold people accountable. it was a concern when both democrats and republicans do it. when you have washington making unilateral decisions without the input of everyone involved, i start to get concerned. there has to be a way, which is why congress has to step up and say we can minute, let's take this as a step-by-step approach and allow voters into the process. host: that rouge, on our republican deadline. -- bad and rouge, louisiana, on our republican line. caller: i watch c-span often to

listen to different people in the united states. not as much as the people who appear on c-span. my question is where do we and how do we regain our trust in the maerican people? that includes the government, our local politicians, everyone. who do we believe today? what information today are we getting that is truthful > ? there is always someone who has an agenda. we have to guess what their agenda is. the one thing i think is a tragic is these two, three, four party system is available --

they get control of our money, control of the united states, control us, the american people, and by getting total control of the hour monday, they will control the world. guest: i'd think the result of the election of 2010 was a rejection of people taking control of your money and your decisions. there were so many surprises on election night. democrat incumbents were defeated. eight months ago, they were regarded as safe democrats, and then they lost. two points on this. and i have worked in italy and israel, to countries that have had significant political party participation. more like 10 or 12 parties.

it is very problematic, that you don't have a stable government, impossible to create coalitions, and the government constantly fall. in reality, you are not supposed to trust any one source. that is why it is so important that you read the editorial pages of multiple newspapers to collect more information and watching shows like c-span. juan williams comes on after me, and we have a very different points of view. you want to hear both of us. then you can come to the decision of what side you support. ipad. host: in defining the american dream? guest: yes. when you are asked who do you trust, it used to be about

freedom. now it is about economic security. one segment of society chooses home ownership. only one. that is the hispanic community. there was a great advertisement from a company i have worked with that promoted that idea of home ownership. this young woman comes into the living room, she is in tears. she is leaving home, so her mother is crying, she is crying. she goes down the stairs into the streets, across the street, up the stairs. casa.ys mi i am jewish. living across the street from my mother is the american nightmare. host: our next call is from michigan, on our independent

blind. caller: good morning. you have been a long time supporter of the republican agenda, you and fox. in 1992, [unintelligible] it seems to me that it is almost over. jobs went to mexico, and then from mexico to china, and then the sucking sound to buy chinese goods. the american dream has always been jobs and the future. you told us about all these benefits that we were going to recruit from these trade agreements. where are they? guest: we have a 9.8% unemployment rate at a time when washington has never spend like it has and yet it is not affecting jobs at all. washington cannot solve all the problems.

i know you want people to come on the air and say that happy days are here again. when i look at debt, that giant sucking sound of finances, it is tragic that we have record unemployment at a time when we also have a record deficit and a record debt. we are a global economy and that will not change. we will continue to buy from china and india if they can sell to us for less. items are going to be cheaper across the globe. how do you make america more competitive? one of the projects i have enjoyed the most is education. i think the focal point, to me, in 2011, a plan to do a lot of work on education issues. if we can hold educators accountable, if we can demand discipline among students, if we

can reward those who do better and still help those at the bottom come up, we can make such a difference. if our school system continues to fail our kids, i cannot find students to work for me because they cannot write well enough. it may not even be their fault, but something went wrong. i think the whole focus, almost every question i will be asked in the next half hour, goes back to education. if we improve the quality of schools, which can make a difference -- we can make a difference. it was a start in the right direction. you have a democratic mayor in newark. the two of them are working hadn in hand to make a difference and

new york city schools. both of them are investing time and effort and they are changing the way schools work. and that is how we should be working together. in the end, more than being a republican and democrat, we are mothers and fathers, and we care more about our kids. we need to give them an education that we can be proud of it. i feel it did not go far enough because in the end you have to challenge the system itself. if teachers say they will not teach the extra hour or they cannot get disciplined in the classroom or kids are not being taught basic subjects, then something is wrong in the education system. and there is a reason why some schools do better than others, because you have a principal who is so dedicated and involved. you have students who are

excited and energized to be there. that kind of environment, whether you are in the inner city or in a rural area, we can make these schools work. host: on our republican line, go ahead. caller: hello, frank luntz. a few years ago, i got hit by a drunk driver coming home from work. i had to stay home. i got very political. and i believe if people would listen to the words of politicians, they would get the truth out. america -- i believe america is the greatest land and the greatest united states. i would not want to live anywhere else. we take our freedom for granted.

people have to come back and see what is good of america. the greed and the fighting amongst republicans and democrats for power, that is not helping anything. and i love what you have been saying. i believe in it. i watch you on other channels. hey, you are right on. guest: i appreciate that. i like doing these focus groups. i like this interaction, even if people are angry at me. i do pay attention to the words. branson is so american. i used to be a collector of this snow globes. i could go there and get so many. looking at the people there, it

makes me appreciate this country. if i could give you an amount of money for you to never stepped foot in the 50 states, and the amount of money you could keep forever, you could live in toronto or vancouver, but you could never come back to america, was that i'm not be $1 million, $10 million, $100 million? no amount. host: you are asking me if you paid me a not the money to never step back in the country again. guest: correct. a 40% of americans say no amount. i don't care how much you could give me. i went to school in britain for three years, and i could not wait to come home. there is a different openness here. i appreciate what the caller had to say about this country.

host: talk a little bit about the last couple of weeks. the president had to get republicans and democrats on board for the tax bill. what do you see as a personal opinion for him going into 2011? guest: he had some of the best weeks of his presidency. no matter what party you are, if you are willing to compromise with the other side, you can move things forward. i know republicans and conservatives are mad as heck because they felt if you installed you could've gotten better legislation from their perspective. yet this is what the american people expect from our elected officials. don't go for 100% or 90%. move the country forward, even

if it is small steps. the way that obama held himself and the way the republicans worked with him was a success. democrats or agitated that the president compromise on taxes, but they supported "don't ask, don't tell," the continuation of the start treaty, and they approved most of the legislation that passed. they were very mad at the tax bill. you can't please all the people all the time. host: buttner, pa., the democrats' line. caller: merry christmas. my question is if you are so concerned about the american public and the direction we are headed, why do you spend all of your time working for republicans? you do not seem to do any bipartisan work.

guest: once again, i have presented to the democratic governors' association on many occasions. because of a lot of my work being public, it is all open and is all available to anybody. do they seek it out and extend invitations? the truth is, i am involved. a lot of my work now is a corporate so there is no public component of its. i have my own philosophy and convictions. one of the most important objectives in 2011 is the objective of the civility and the objective of engagement such as this. we are both more informed as a result of the process. i have reached out and have talked to a lot of people across the country. i have probably done now over

1000 of these focus groups, probably over 1 million people i have talked to. i am tired. host: the next call, on our republican line. caller: merry christmas to everyone that is out there. i think the reason that the country is now sounding a more pessimistic tone it is because of a couple of things, really, the first of which is this the galloping socialism which obama and the current party is trying to lead the country into, which i think will be the end of us if allowed to happen. secondly, is an effective surrender of our national sovereignty as made manifest

largely by this tremendous load of illegal immigration. i think we have arrived at a very sad point in the country where the moochers are now the majority. you can bet they will vote to keep it that way. have a good day, merry christmas. guest: i want to see if i can find a way to bridge the gap between parties. i will give you a summary. what the american people want are tall fences and wide gates. what most americans also want is to ensure that illegal immigration -- legal immigration is done in an effective fashion. i know many companies who are dying to hire the best talent from all across the country, from across the globe, yet they can do it because the

immigration rules are so tight and outdated. there is genuine and legitimate concern about the illegal population and what it is doing on social services, the demand on hospitals and schools. what we need to do is find a way to address the illegals. it is a matter of national security. quite you are going to find 80% of americans who agree with that boy. you send in the national guard, the troops, and you just say no. if we can't control our borders, we cannot control our future because we are a global economy, the brain drain. this was 20 years ago. i was trading with a student. he wanted my walkman, my genes,

all the stuff that i had which was american. i just wanted to talk about politics. i thought -- i want america to be the home of the best and brightest of the globe. of what the europeans, the agent, the africans, and south americans to come to this country. unlike the culture. unlike the brain power. i want us to have the best doctors and scientists, and that is not going to happen unless we change our legal immigration policy. we have to do both. let's open up the gates to come here the right way to contribute to all that is great about america, but let's build that wall or whatever it takes to ensure that illegal immigration stops. host: "don't ask, don't tell" was influenced heavily by polls.

guest: it was split 50/50. what is interesting is that the american pit be -- the american people believe in the defense of marriage and are opposed to any kind of discrimination whatsoever. that makes this so tough. right now, it is about 45% in favor -- in terms of the phrase gay marriage, is almost two to one opposed. this is agreed example of a words making a difference. if you talk about discrimination, several union, the public wants to make sure everyone is protected from discrimination. host: you: the phrase --

guest: i had a conversation with a reporter -- host: the lie of the year. guest: i coined that phrase back in 2010. it took them a year to get to it. they claimed they reached out to me. i never got a phone call. these guys is put it out. and i will give you the information. number one, there is now a mandate that everyone has to have health insurance. that did not exist before. based on the bulls are regulations, corporations are limited in what they can do and what they can do in changing policy, and they can face

serious financial consequences. there is a definition of what that care would be when the government steps in and when it doesn't. because of those aspects, a government that was not involved in health care is now involved in health care of every single american. that defines a government takeover. the last point is the american people clearly voted in november. i am sure the person that wrote that e-mail, and david from tampon, feels that it isn't, but the rest of america apparently feels like it does because florida elected a center that supports appeal by 20 points. florida kicked out three incumbent democrats. " of the republicans have more seats in the legislature than

any time since 1928. if that is not a repudiation of the takeover of health care, i don't know what is. host: we have a few more calls. caller: opinions and calls are based on public opinion. the public should be well informed to get a complete section of the facts. the regular public that is polled do not do that. they gather information from the immediate media. if it is not correct, there is no retraction. if a newspaper makes a mistake, they have to print a retraction. just recently, the sunday times in london had to print a retraction on the front page of the repudiation of global warming. there is no repudiation from the media. when it is also by the public,

they take it as a fact. guest: that is a fair point and an important one, one of the reasons why the public has so little faith in politics right now. we don't trust the media. c-span is an independent arbiter. we don't trust the courts because we regard lawyers as having polluted the system. we don't trust hollywood because we think it creates entertainment that is not good for our kids or the culture. i think we have even lost faith in the catholic church. all of these institutions, there is one institution that is still trusted. we still believe our american military, even if they make mistakes, that this still operate in a humane fashion, that they are still appreciated

for all that they do for us, but almost every other institution has lost significant credibility. who do we turn to? i think the answer is we have to turn ourselves -- i think we have to turn to ourselves. american citizenship is a right or irresponsibility? fortunately, 55% think it is a responsibility. there are things you are required to do to be in form, to vote, and to participate. that gives me hope for the future. host: bruce is on our democrat'' line. caller: i watch you on fox, msnbc, and you do a great job. can i just make a suggestion?

you have access to a lot of powerful people in washington. during world war two, we went from nothing with the manhattan project to ending the war by developing the atomic bomb. i would like to see you do something with your access to people in washington. i think the president should propose a project where in the next three years we are going to build a high-speed monorail system all around the country to supplement the airlines. we developed 21 nuclear power plants around america, all identical, and build a national monorail system, put millions of people to work. we have interstate 95. we have huge access to land where it is not being utilized.

we could put construction, trained builders, computer people. we could establish a model for the entire war world in three years, and the republicans in congress and in the senate and president obama, everybody would end up looking like a hero. we could create tens of millions of jobs and have the respect of the world and create something marvelous and magnificent for this country. guest: i do take it seriously. it was explained to me before the 2008 campaign, that the people that i know and what i can do have an impact. i was trying to figure out what i wanted to do. i appreciate the caller's point. i do believe our transportation system needs to be fixed in this country. our highway system needs to be upgraded.

i got fired from a speech in las vegas from what i am about to tell you. they hired these crews and as you are driving past, they will take up miles of space with cones and traffic. there are too many construction workers standing around and not doing anything. we have to hold these people much more accountable for how they build. we are paying too much because of the rules of this administration that said that if you have a government contract you have to be unionized. why? if they are charging more money and you are not getting better service, why require unions? why not go to the most efficient builder? i want us to do something bond incurable diseases. incurable diseases.