what mike milken is doing on cancer is incredible, and he is doing its separate from the government. i have been involved with alzheimer's. i want us to focus on those diseases because if we can make this country more healthy, that in itself will save billions of dollars and improve quality of life and make it worth living for millions and millions of people. host: one more call from north carolina caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two points, one point and one question. here we sit in our country with the un implement rate, and yet we are spending $2 billion a week over in afghanistan doing what i have no idea. the other question i have --

you'd say you speak with corporate people. what are their thoughts on rebuilding our very, very badly eroded industrial base in this country? guest: i think that is a great way to go out. in 2011, the number of the job postings on line had increased considerably over the last few weeks. in addition to higher consumption and more purchases, we are seeing more job opportunities. we are just starting, i think, to see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the recession we have been in. what i appreciate the most about corporate america is a new sense of commitment to the community, a sense that profit is not the be-all, end-all.

i love the idea that over the past two years, with town hall meetings, there have been get together recessions. -- get-together sessions. i have interviewed some of the top ceos in america. they are engaged. you can e-mail them, calls them, challenge them. this did not exist 10 years ago. the more accountable we are and the more there is a give-and- take, the healthier the society is and the healthier the business relationship. i think that will rebuild what was destroyed over the past couple of years. i am a pessimist. i work 16 hours a day in the hope that i can change that. i think we have learned a lot over the past few years, and i

think we are ready to change the direction. i just hope that on shows and organizations like c-span, which >> on tomorrow's "washington journal" the future of the president's relationship with political progressives. lynn stanton on the net neutrality rules for the internet. and brian stan on higher heroes u.s.a. on job prospects for american veterans. begins live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> tonight on q&a, diane abbott. from the labor party. she talks about the budget

measures and supreme court court justices sandra day o'connor and justice souter on their new careers. also a panel discussion on limited government. monday is day one of american university's campaign manual institute, training students to work on political campaigns. we'll hear from political consultants and strategists on both parties, topics include the general political environment and the chicago mayor's race. we'll have live coverage starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. c-span's orange 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 staffs and you'll hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice elena kagen.

and learn of the court's recent developments, the supreme court, home to america's highest court, airing for the first time in high definition, sunday, january 2, 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning copyright national cable satellite corps. 2010] host: what does it mean to be a member of the shadow cabinet? host: guest: it means you're shadowing government ministers. i place a particular emphasis

on public health. >> when you mean shadow, what do you do, do you have a budget or a staff? >> i have no budget but i'm the labor party spokeswoman on health issues and i have a small staff. so i'm a spokesman on legislation coming through and issues in the media. i'm part of a top team of the labor party now. host: why did you run for house of commons in the first place? guest: why did i run? i wanted to speak up for people who didn't have a voice and became an m.p. three years ago. there were very view labor members and i was the first black woman elected to parliament. because i speak up for people who wouldn't have got heard otherwise. host: first black woman to be

in the parliament of this country? guest: yes,ened aye was elect 1d50 years after the abolition of slavery in the british empire so shows you there's such thing as progress. >> what were the circumstances in your constituency and where is it? guest: my constituency in london is in a very poor part of london with a very large minority community. and very high unemployment. when i was selected that district believed they wanted a representative who would help in the district and had a wonderful member parliament well into the 1970's but they felt in 19786 it would be a changed election and they wanted to change candidates. but it wasn't an all black district and never has been the case in britain where black

minority candidates can only get elected in all black or minority districts. it's about a diverse district. host: how many constituents do you have? >> about 65,000 people. host: what does it cost you to run? >> we have really tough finance campaign rules when you're running. and the amount of money you can spend is six and calculated according to your population and nobody else knows political action committee or the national party, is not allowed to run ads in your campaign and you can't buy television time if you're a british

parliamentary candidate. so that cuts a lot of spending. and i think the first time i ran for parliament, i remember like it was yesterday. 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 door and you don't have a huge budget and about circulating literature. nowadays you can have a campaign website. but the districts are smaller, the american districts and we very much rely on door to door

and in the national party gets donations and that's the subject of much criticism. but if you're talking about local parliament, 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 -- cloakroom, 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's the different feel now? guest: it's very different i had 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. one of our elite universities. 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. thngallo3

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? how to get interested in reading? >> i have always loved reading. i want to write. even now, there is something about the written word. my remaining ambition is to write. >> what was your major? >> history. >> i have always loved history. what part of history was sure favorite? >> i suppose that i'm interested in british history because that was when we move from a rural society. that was the crucible. i found it very fascinating. >> what part of american history have you read? >> there were manufacturers of great wealth. >> what did you learn in history

that you applied to your own life in the common? >> i think what i learned from history is the fact it to take an awful long time to make change, but change eventually does come. one of the songs i associate with president obama is campaign and was a sam cooke song called "changes " to come." the only thing i learned about history is that you have to hold on to your beliefs. people who hold on to their beliefs are -- 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 contest the 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 corporate speech for a woman of the left to quote from in conceding the leadership of her party. >> who are the people in history, in the british history, for that matter, that your the fondest of. >> the queen, queen victoria, mrs. thatcher is an interesting character. share her politics, but it was according to her to dominate all of those guys. she was the nancy pelosi of her time and in more general, we have an understated leader after the second world war called

badly 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 health care. >> when you look across the pond at the united states, what do you make of president obama is 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. aroundon't see anything 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. neutrale's this 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? jobt: well, i'm doing the 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] >> for e d v d copy of this

program, called the number on your screen. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q &a.org. 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. later, a look at the problem of child soldiers and africa. >> monday, it is day one of american university's annual campaign management institute. we will hear from political

consultants and strategists from both parties. topics include the general political environment and the -- in the chicago mayor's race. we will have live coverage starting at 9 a year in eastern on c-span >> a closing speech is extraordinary. my dominant feeling is pride in the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for fear will speeches from retire senators. more than 160,000 hours of video online, all free. as washington, your way. >> sandra day o'connor and david souter next on legal issues and

what it is like to serve on the nation's highest court. the event was moderated by a journalist and it is about one hour 10 minutes. >> did evening come up in the ceo of the john f. kennedy presidential library organization. on behalf of my colleagues and the library director, i'd like to thank all of you for coming this evening. we count on your support and if you are not already, i encourage you to become a member of the library could please visit our web site for more affirmation to rid of also like to express particular thanks to those that make these forms possible. -- forums possible. along with our media sponsors, the boston globe and others.

this forum will be broadcast on c-span. we're honored to have with us justices sandra day o'connor and david souter. they are here to discuss their shared passion. justice david souter recalls that when he was a boy, the functions of the three branches of government were in town meetings did he called those meetings the most radical exercise in history that you can find. it does not matter if someone was rich or poor, young or old, sensible or foolish, this was governed by fairness. today, when two-thirds of americans cannot name the three branches of government, education is needed to have

justices that stand up for individual rights. it is time to reeducate the american public. sandra day o'connor was born in el paso texas and spent time on her family ranch for if she received her b.a. before settling in phoenix, arizona. she served as an assistant attorney general, and in 1974, ran successfully for the child -- for a trial judge. she was nominated to the supreme court by ronald reagan and confirmed by the u.s. senate 99-

the road. -- 99-0. she is the first female in our states -- our nation's history to serve on the highest court. [applause] >> 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 -- oh, 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, sandra 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 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 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. to you know, they're raring 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 --

thele don't like to use word "testing" anymore. they like to talk about accountability. 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. canhat's where i think we 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. i it's really a success, 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 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'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 dispiriting 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. . .

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 robes 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 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 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 massey 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 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 recent 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 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 ent ldclaha the 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 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 principle 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 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 non due process court anymore than it's a non first 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] >> and that may be one answer >> 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 laminable 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 pabulum but it was pabulum 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 re-include 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 3 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 his ll 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 gover sient and dissatisfaction

with government has been as great and as volatile as it is today. the responses to that frustration, and a f/3stration, by the way, which i think probably everyone on this platform also shares, the response is to the f/3stration have not been merely political responses, throw these bums out and bring in someone new, the responses have included suggestions 6 c13 pr st/3ctural change. you have heard the suggestions for constitutional amendment and they go even so far as modification of theamou4th amendment. when that kind of possibility is being bruited around in the public discourse, we have got to be very, very worried about the inafility of a majoribe v 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. to be -- like most political questions cannot be intelligently looked at as simply a question, would it beoo a good idea to do thus and so. it's variablely in awe. and the questions, is this aopo proposal which would be better than that or that which weopo have? the fundamental nature of these moral and social political

sauestions is compared withopo what? and if you don't know -- the pragmatic how to do it to the question is we've got -- those of us who are beating the drum like this and who are on commissions like the one i'm on in new hampshire have got to be very practical in helping people who would like to do the right thing, find a way to do it. i mentioned one sort of

mitigation of the conflict between the testing scheme and nontested subjects, and that is get the nontesting subjects worked into the reading curriculum which is a tested subject. i personally think and i think most educators today think in order to really compete with the pressure for testing, if it persists you'll have to have some testing in civics. we use to have it, we did in my state. >> we don't now and i've been trying to promote changes in the no child left behind and congress is not apparently going to entertain that. >> oh, no -- -- i shouldn't say oh,, no." but people like us have got to make a two-pronged argument. we've got to make the argument clear on why this is not funny. why we have got something to worry about in the united states of america today. and then we've got to be

pragmatists and say if you want to do what we're pushing for, get testing back in on the state level, get this reading material into no child left behind, or even consider cutting back on some other things that may not be as fundamental as the -- to the political stability of the united states as civic education. >> that's right. >> to make sure i understand the basis of the urgency that you're speaking from, it's not that the people who are coming up with these ideas are lacking in civic knowledge, it's that the population as a whole lacking of it -- >> correct. >> lacking in it is vulnerable to kind of manipulation? >> yep. >> correct. right. >> we don't have a brad basis for critical judgment in the

united states when 2/3 of the population don't know the structure of the government. >> question, what do you believe are the three most important pieces of knowledge american students should possess about our government? you can come up with three between you. >> you go ahead, sandra. >> oh, heck. you know, i'd start with how is it organized within what are the three branches, what does it do, how does it work? how do citizens get to know about them and participate? these are the fundamentals that we would hope would be taught in a classroom. >> i agree. know at least the basic structure, three branches. two, have an idea of what those three branches do. i've listened to fourth grade classes who can answer those two kind of questions fairly

well. so it's not an overly ambitious agenda. and i guess the third thing i would hope people would know about government is illustrated by a story that a friend of mine told me, she's a lawyer in new hampshire, and a very close friend of mine, and he was visiting some new hampshire school on law day once, this is back about 10 or 15 years ago. and the subject of the exclusionary rule in criminal cases came up, the rule that if the evidence is illegally seized, seized in violation of constitutional standards, it may not be used by the government in its case in chief against a criminal defendant. and some kid in the class, this was junior high, probably high school, i guess, said the basic question, why should the public

interest suffer by letting some criminal go free because a law enforcement officer didn't get a warrant? and my friend said his response to the kid was because you're next. and the -- if there is any one fundamental principle of good government, it is the principle behind the exclusionary rule and other constitutional limitations. and ultimately it is the golden rule. treat others the way you want to be treated, with the corollary, if you don't, you're not going to be treated that way either. if you had to erase everything in the united states constitution, or let's say the wrights constitution as opposed to the structural constitution and you could leave one thing, the one thing i would leave 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'd take my chances on substantive outcome and that is the fundamental lesson, i think, behind the government of powers that are limited both structurally and for the sake of individual liberty. so that would be my third lesson. and i'll put it in the terms of you're next. >> well put. >> >> no further question could top that seriously. i'll thank you both for being willing to do this and thank the audience. [applause] >> that's good. >> thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corps.2010]

>> coming up next on c-span, "new criterium" magazine holds a discussion on limited government and a look at child soldiers in africa. later, public radio host garrison keillor talks about humor in politicks. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal" roger hickey on the campaign for america's future on the president's relationship with political aggressives. reporter lynn stanton on the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules on the internet and brian stann on higher heroes u.s.a. on job prospects for returning veterans. "washington journal" begins live 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 and 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 elena kagen. also learn of the court's recent developments, the supreme court, home to america's highest court, airing for the first time in high definition, sunday, january 2, 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. the future of limited government was discussed at a conference organized by "new criterion" magazine. roger chem balance the editor and publisher introduced the speakers including the weekly standard editor william crystal. from new york, this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning. good morning. bismarck once observed we march separately but we fight together.

where he here, you would be told now is the time to congregate and attend, which is to say take your seats, please. we have only a few hours, only a few hours to raise and dispose of some very naughty problem, and i hope we'll be able to proceed with that freshent -- with that precien efficiency when it comes time for the questions and responses, please go to the microphone in the center of the room and say who you are and then address your question or comment. now, as your program will have intimated, i'm roger kimball, the editor of "the new criterion" and would like to almost you to this conference on the wisdom of the founders and the ideal of limited government. i'm not sure whether there's a more pressing topic facing the republic now than the future of

limited government. but before we begin, i'd like to take a moment to thank the organizations and the individuals that made our deliberations possible. first of all, i'd like to thank the thomas w. smith foundation without whose generous support we would not have been able to put this conference together at all. the smith foundation is a conspicuous friend of liberty and we are honored as well as grateful for their help. we are also grateful for the important contributions of the honorable bruce gelb, kenneth gilman and lionel goldfrank, these are, i need hardly remind you, economically perilous times and we are fortunate indeed to have committed such committed co-collaborators in our efforts. those contemplating a closer association with this august group will find some interesting literature about "the new criterion" in your conference folders. let me repeat what the voice

which failed the young st. augustine old allege. take it and read it when you have an unoccupied moment. finally, i'd like to thank my colleague kelly siskel for her expert logistical intervention which is is a fancy way of saying she organized the whole bloody affair and without her we'd probably be holding this colloquy outside without the benefit of chairs and central heating not to mention the prospect of luncheon at the appointed hour, so thank you, kelly. now, the wisdom of the founders, what was that wisdom? i believe ronald reagan articulated a central part of it when he observed that democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to keep government limited, unintrusive, a system of constraints on power, keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life, the true

sources of value found only in family and in faith. now, whether what reagan says is true of democracy itself is something that we might with tocqueville and with sadness want to question. too often democracy has been prey to deformations that encourage rather than retard the growth of government. that indeed was part of what the founders had to conjure with as they combed through history for a new model for america. but reagan was right about what we might call, again, adopting tocqueville, democracy rightly understood. democracy, that is to say as constrained and redefined by the founders. let me begin, then, by acknowledging a certain irony. we will be talking a good deal today and praising, i think, the ideal of limited government. the founders, to be sure, were deeply concerned to protect

individual and states' rights against the prerogatives of the federal government. for example, james madison in federalist 45 explicitly declared the powers delegated by the constitution to the federal government were few and defined. having to do mostly with external objects like war, peace, and foreign commerce. the powers delegated to the individual states, on the other hand, were numerous and indefinite madison said. having to do with all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concerned the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. but that is a prescription i think we've forgotten and i think we might do well to try to resuscitate. still, it is worth acknowledging the founders, although deeply concerned with limiting the sphere of government power, were also

concerned with forging a strong and efficient federal government. the federalist papers, after all, took aim at the abundant anti-federal list commentary that opposed the u.s. constitution precisely because so thought the anti-federalists it delegated too much power at the central authority at the expense of the states. but just this, the founders argued, was the price of creating and maintaining that more perfect union of which the constitution speaks. the vigor of government, alexander hamilton wrote in the very first of the federalist papers is essential to the security of liberty. the goal, he put it later on in the federalist, is a happy mean which combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. well, so much for acknowledging the requirements of the vigor of government. i promise not to say another word in its favor. for our problem today is not to

assure the energy of government but quite the opposite. to redress the balance, to re-establish that happy mean hamilton spoke of by asserting the legitimate jurisdiction of private rights against a rampant and engorging bureaucratic leviacinth. as i thought about this conference a couple lines kept recurring to me, one line came toward the end of october 2008 when the then presidential candidate barack obama addressed a throng of supporters and told them they were only a few days away from, and i quote, fundamentally transforming the united states of america. fundamentally transforming the united states of america. what could that mean? at the moment he spoke the united states was the mightiest, the richest, most secure and most

freedom-welcoming republic in the history of the world. if someone were to come along and effect a fundamental transformation of this country, which of those things would he change? ? how serious was barack obama when he spoke of fundamentally transforming this country? i believe the last two years demonstrate that he was utterly in ernestst. -- in earnest. what mitch daniels calls barack obama's shock and awe statism has gone a long way towards transforming this country to changing its status as a world power, its economic vibrancy, his hospitableness -- hospitableness and its commitment to individual government and treatment, to what the preamble of the constitution of the united states called the blessings of

liberty. how astonishing, for example, that the state should propose to fine you if you do not choose to acquire a health insurance policy deemed suitable by the state. how amazing that the state should oust the head of a private corporation, that it should tell banks how much they may pay their employees or use taxpayers money to reward people for buying certain brands of automobiles produced by companies for which the state is part owner? these are extraordinary innovations dangerous to the life of freedom. just friday the president told "60 minutes" that last week's election was not a reflection of the public's dissatisfaction with his policies but rather a comment on his administration's failed communication skills. now, i believe on the contrary that the election was essentially a referendum on the administration will policies, its efforts to fundamentally

transform the united states of america, and above all, its new assumptions about what the proper relationship between the individual and the state should be. whether that referendum will have much effect on what actually happens in washington in the coming months is another question we'll only know in the fullness of time. last week calling on republicans to put politics aside, the president said that the united states cannot afford to get mired in legislative gridlock for the next two years, we have to move forward. now, after what has happened these past two years, i'd like to put in a good word for gridlock or to give it a less appropriate name for prudence, for due deliberation, for the virtues of what walter badget called slow government.

rahm emanuel, president obama's former chief of staff, made headlines when he declared in the midst of the recent economic meltdown, you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste. what he meant was that a crisis makes people anxious and vulnerable and that it is easier in periods of crisis to exploit that vulnerability and push through initiatives to enlarge government, which is precisely why in periods of crisis one should, if one is prudent, exercise double diligence about acting hastily. as a british politician and journalist daniel hannan recently observed most disastrous policies have been introduced at times of emergency. consider the precipitous actions of new deal democrats under f.d.r. many commentators today acknowledge their sudden expansion of the government and proliferation of burdensome new regulations hampered business, retarded new hiring and

prolonged the depression. f.d.r. and his minions, hannan notes, were in the grip of one of the most dangerous of political fallousies, the idea at a time of crisis the government's response must be proportionate to the degree of public anxiety. a prudent government on the contrary ought to temper that anxiety with dispassionate judgment. how often have you heard a politician or government bureaucrat tell you that doing nothing is not an option? in fact, as hannan notes, aloysius anagonye -- doing nothing is always an option and sometimes the best option. this is something calvin coolidge, perhaps america's most underrated president acknowledged when he said to a busy body aide, don't just do something, stand there. [laughter] >> the point is that it is far, far easier to establish than to rid one's self of any bureaucracy. and of all mankind's

bureaucracies, the hardest to kill are government bureaucracies. when the economic crisis broke in the fall of 2008, the united states was quick off the mark to spend more, to borrow more, to intervene more in business, and impose a raft of paralyzing new regulations. in the past year and a half, president obama has greatly expanded the size and intrusiveness of the federal government, has spent trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars, and has, under the rubric of health care reform, put another 20% of the american economy under the control of washington. i think ruefully of thomas jefferson's advice that to preserve our independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt, we must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. as i speak, the fed is embracing another $600 billion of profusion.

where will it end? let me return to president obama's slightly comic speech we put things aside. i know there's a cynical interpretation where this admonition was political hypocrisy and that may be part of the story but i think it was something more or other than hypocrisy, too. i think that president obama was sincere. like many friends of humanity, barack obama believes that politics are what his opponent's, those whom he had an unguarded moment last week referred to as his enemies, engage in. his occupation is less politics than benevolence. he might indulge in politicks to get things done, but he believes his goals transcend politics. they occupy, he thinks, a realm of virtue that may guide politics but is not subject to

politics' self issue imperatives. that's when it comes to tax policy, president obama has said the chief issue not raising revenue but fairness. fairness. he just wants, as he famously told joe the plumber, to spread the wealth around, never mind the wealth is not his to spread. at some point, president obama said, i think he's made enough money. and if you are uncertain about what that meant, just wait. the i.r.s. will explain it to you. .

every marxist society that we know anything about has spread wide and then.

hence one of oregon's observation. the intention behind it isthat is one of the reasons whyit is a hero when of the enlightened. and ruinous. seeing something beingsome individuals succeed better than others. to encourage innovation in hard work by crowning it with success. in 1800, thomas jefferson said lies and frugal government would another but would leave them the bread that was burned. of freedom to the demand of thehenry kissinger and noted certain things about this. dictatorship is a rain created and supported by benevolence. chief affects our to institutionalize tension on the state will also assuring that the steady growth of the bureaucracy would be two things that will first it does. both help to explain why the welfare state has proven so difficult to dismantle.

it does not matter that the welfare state action creates more poverty and independence than it was meant to abolish, the intention behind it is benevolent. that is one of the reasons why it is so seductive. benevolence is to hear what -- is the heroine of the enlightenment. like her when, benevolence is intoxicating, addictive, expensive, and ultimately ruinous. the intoxicating effects of benevolence helps to explain publicly correct attitudes from everything from the environment did you cannot go anywhere without seeing something as being green. the more abstract, the better. why are these policies not disabused? >> the policies have the sanctions of benevolence.

they are against poverty. they are against war. they are against pressure on the environment. why not, the intoxicating effects also explain why an anchor benevolence is inherently expansionists. the party of benevolence is always the party of big government. this is intrinsically opposed to the pragmatism that underlies limited government. the partisans want to reserve a space for private initiative. that can be in equitable. some individuals succeed better than others. that, indeed, is the point. to encourage innovation in hard work by crushing it with success. in 1800, thomas jefferson said allies and for all government would restrain them from injuring one another but would leave the otherwise free to

regulate their own pursuits of industry and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned. other restrictions would impose its own restrictions on the pursuits of industry, sacrificing the right of freedom to the demand of the quality. the larger the stage upon which the melodrama of benevolence operate, the more dangerous its potential. this is something than any kissinger -- that henry kissinger and acknowledged. they warn about the risk of substituting the tyranny of judges for that of the government. historically, the dictatorship of the virtuous has also led to which chance. that is the dictatorship of the virtuous that is created and supported by benevolence. obama talked about

fundamentally transforming america. another is an observation used as an epigraph. it is seldom that liberty of any kind was lost all at once. american troops away from the idea of government and has been gathering force for decades. as one fares, so fares the others. it is also something that we visit upon ourselves. one of the main points of this argument concerns the psychological change, the

extensive government control. it involves a process of innovation. in exchange for the challenges and liberty and freedom and self-reliance. it becomes more and more difficult. difficult but not impossible. i like to think that last tuesday's election was an illustration of the james madison and conservation. in the last resort, a remedy must be obtained from the people by the election of more faithful representatives. i hope we can tell more about the annulment of james madison. [applause]

>> thanks, roger. we have ground to cover. i would give you an opening show about princeton but i will dispense it. i want to discuss subjects. the political science of the founders. what is most impressive about the political science of the founders. the limited government and its connection to the constitution and what is limited government. someone may think that i should speak about the values of the founders.

i will speak about the political science of the founders. it is part of the identity. my value versus your value. they have no foundation. it could be otherwise. they are just opinions. political science, it is solid. it has a foundation in a human nature that is permanent and fix. political science is capable of progress. you can make innovation. political science today is based on values. it is historical. it is not timeless. it speaks of the living constitution.

limited government was acceptable in the 18th century, but not today. the government in constitution develops and grows. there is no end to it. what kind of growth is its? it is like the science of evolution. living constitution came from the progressives. they believe in progress. there is no way to define it. progress towards what? there must be some fixed end if there is to be progress or growth or development? if not, the living constitution

is a meandering constitution. the founders of political science announces progress in the understanding of republics. republicans is a popular government based on the consent of the people. it is a solid basis. to speak of the founders values is to accept the thinking of today. the progressives that believe in living constitution. what is most impressive about political science? introspection. america is a republic. there is a republican genius in american people. they rejected monarchies in the american revolution.

they do not need to establish the republic as opposed to the enemies of a republic. that is not a problem. opponents of the constitution who are also republicans. one person thought under it we would become an aristocracy. too much concentrated power. the anti-federalists were not for about this within. to them, the danger comes from outside. from other forms of government. the federalists come from within.

republics have weaknesses. there is a disastrous history in the past. no successful republic. the roman republic transformed itself into an empire. they lived through a recent experience in the american revolution. the contemporary scene for them. the founders took every principle of a set of modern psychology. if it says, you never know what you do. the most important faculty is your unconscious. you can stumble into happiness. some say be aware of your

weaknesses. you can have much more thought and it is much more dangerous than the weaknesses of your enemies. what are the weaknesses of republics? in the past, they have a destructive monarchies that they refuse to put a single or energetic executive in their constitutions. the government must work and have energy. power usually means potential. energy means something active. the second weakness was the and

fatter quit notion of representation. the use people to make little decisions directly. if they have representation, they looked for a representative who like their constituents as opposed to representatives who were more enlightened. they thought a federal organization was like a league of independent states like the united nations. never considered a couple of layers of government. they had no true understanding of responsibility. they thought it meant responsiveness to the people,

not taking initiative or charge of the situation. unable to act decisively in foreign affairs. there would argue without conclusion. there is no recognition of the property of majority fashion. they say it is the work of a minority. this is not the true danger in republics. it does so under the cover of the republican form. that is majority rules. today's political sciences

unable to recognize this fashion. the definition of a sanction is something excludable. therefore, it does not exist. in politics, there is no possibility of certainty. founders were aware of this. the solution to majority faction is to have a large republic. there is the phrase, extending the sphere. there needs to be repercussions within the government. it is not enough to make the

government accountable to the people. we must also require it to check itself. there is a new definition of separate powers. they must be dependent of each other. independence met they have to defend themselves on their own. to achieve this is necessary to mix the breed of powers together. there is a mixture of legislative power. this was another witness that it did not do this. the anti federalists were the american version of anti- republicans. they were against consolidated government. complex and consolidated. the founders wanted different things.

you must not go for one at the expense of another. both can be secured in the constitution. what is the constitution? a limited government and a way of life. in this view, the constitution is above ordinary government to limit ordinary government. the constitution is a fundamental law about ordinary law which is made under the constitution.

it is made by the people. you can change constitutional law by reference of the people. ordinary law is changed by ordinary legislature. the people on top make the constitution. second comes the constitution. not by a natural law but by constituting. our government owes a lot to john locke. constitution is a verbal noun. third, you have the people that of bay and left the legislature.

you have the people at the top and at the bottom. that is the magic of constitutional government. sovereignty of the people but the people cannot will. certain government our constitutional and others are not. the 1936 soviet constitution is an example. we see through such disguises. on the other hand, in this case, the people are divided.

constitutional government is not the whole. it is not the choice of how they want to live. this is the public way of life. it is not just say limited government. the limit is part of a republican way of life. it speaks of veneration. he thought it was a good thing. it should not be recklessly disturbed. the constitution was a choice in the past.

it is conceivable that americans could abandon their constitution. the constitutional way of life had a different meaning. the biological meaning of constitution for instance, you could have a strong or weak constitution. every country would have a constitution. just as the individual has a constitution. i think the u.s. constitution is one in both senses. it has made certain things how to make popular government safe and energetic. a separation of power, an elected senate. at first, the senate was

elected indirectly. it is not an aristocratic branch in either case. the constitution in the other sense includes details of our way of life. the fact that we have a strong executive in our constitution has legitimized the abundance of one-man rule in our private lives. you see ceo's in our private life everywhere. every organization has this. this is a main consequence a favor of a single, energetic executive. you focus responsibilities.

better to do this then have a commission which disburses possibilities. also they were brought in as part of the constitution. the bill of rights. he was the one who led to the adoption of this. he brought them in. the anti-federalists are part of the american tradition that we see today. above all, the phrase of american exceptional was some.

what does that mean? it means that america is exceptional. why? it is an idea to have a republic. republican governments make the republican idea work. this is an experiment for mankind. an experiment carried on for the sake of mankind in which america leads the way. you can do it to, we would say to other countries. we are not imperialists.

the success of america is the success of liberal democracies. it protected liberties and shows that liberties is something viable. this is the greatness of america. we are the can-do country. sometimes they may be impatient as in the 2006 election, but it is the feature of our greatness. it appeals to the desire of greatness. separation of powers is based on let ambition counteract

ambition. it is not good to have too much harmony. it is better to risks gridlock. limitations in the constitution these self interest. the truth pursues its interests or opinion. it does not think of the common good. you do not have to surrender to the community. it also has ambition misled by people of ambition. america has ambitions as opposed to europe's today, especially germany. some think it has nothing to do

in the world. france has only the memory of ambition. america is looking for the honor of mankind. why is that? undersell government, there is the human feeling of a victim of external forces and a kind of slave of nature or can he govern himself interest is not always in favor of self- government for liberty. you forget your honor in govern -- governing yourself. self-government meansol