reich initially and how it was analyzed there. the supreme court now regards the necessary and proper clause as just sort of the addenda to the commerce clause. maybe you can give me your overview. >> here it is that i can bring in. .

>> he says the regulatory authority of congress does not stop with interstate commerce, [unintelligible] can implement the banking activities on behalf of perez? he says that is not part of the commerce clause. ed it is a wonderful question

unconstitutional law. >> i think the majority has divided it. i think justice scalia once to collapse this. >> it is not on your and commerce? is that not correct? -- is that not in commerce? >> following the court's lead -- i think there is completion either way with respect to that. it does not particularly matter. but the point that justice scalia makes is that the nesses sarid -- necessary regulation gives congress broad powers to wait. >> the real problem -- those

cases were on the supply challenges. >> what is the difference in commerce clause jurisprudence? >> i think the court has been a little bit uncertain after salnerno and morales. i think it is our view that it is necessary for proper clause. but the question you are facing here -- can congress regulate the decision to self-insure as part of an overall comprehensive scheme? i think the answer to that has to be yes.

they have to adopt a minimum coverage provision. >> it just does not go with their. >> not with draws it does not carry that weight. >> the government has opted to regulate -- >> i am saying without comprehensive legislation if i can explain what congress is doing first then we can talk about this. what congress said here. you have the evidence in the supreme court authority. it ensures -- insurers left

after the market cratered. it worked in massachusetts because households were guaranteed a provision so that our markets in southern states, where they gave people an option to buy insurance -- you could buy it once your house was on fire, everyone would needed in those cases and premiums would go up. the only way to make sure insurance reform worked was to make sure it was comprehensive. >> exclusively? >> exactly. >> there was evidence on this point. that makes a difference about morrison. >> did massachusetts and not only -- not also have something about pre-existing conditions? think about states. it does not mean it does not

affect the state. what can states do this? it may be a distinction on pre- existing conditions. >> i do not know about distinctions with pre-existing conditions. the answer to your question is -- individual states on the rhone find it very difficult to do this because whenever they do -- on their own find it very difficult to do this because whenever they do, the costs are borne by them and not other states. it would work a lot better in a strong reform and help our system work. >> just one quick question. when you are talking about states if you want to move one state, the united states -- it

would seem to me, i just do not know how you can do it in a state's unless the other residents have requirement changes, and -- >> exactly judge wynn, and that is exactly the argument. virginia people going to maryland for medical care. that is one of the things congress is worried about, in tra-state questions one way or another. it is different in the environment against women as well. >> if we can go back to this -- [unintelligible]

it was "physical" and it was held there. you don't make that contention here, do you? >> no. >> ok. so, do you think people are required to buy things and it will come out the same way? >> i think that is a question the court does not have to confront here. >> but it is a question you will get, i daresay, in another court at another time. [laughter] >> some of my friend's remarks earlier make it seemed that that is what we are doing here. i would just _ that's what congress is doing is regulating -- underscore that what congress is doing is regulating the means of payment.

there are huge economic aspects -- effects capable. we do not think -- congress is reacting to the first finding. >> it seems to come down when you talk about means of payment. he talked about responsibility. but ultimately, somebody has to pay for it. whether it is a representative in government. the question is will government require citizens to be responsible, or can you simply do nothing and wait until folks get sick?

that goes back to the question of how you form the issue? that is the difficulty in having here. how do you form the issue? when i listen, the state makes a very good argument. now, you come from the other ankle -- angle with another choice to make which i guess makes it a little bit difficult. >> the answer is exactly for the first half of your question, and say the objective characterization, what congress is doing is regulating activity. i know it is my friend's argument in some rhetorical courts but what congress is doing is dealing with a situation in which everyone is participating in the health-care market. many are doing it in a responsible way. >> but responsibility -- i

guess in a broad sense when you think of social welfare and stuff, people can choose. you do not choose to work. you'll need all kinds of social- type help. basically, you are saying, you can choose not to get health insurance for be responsible for paying, but the information will not allow them to go and say you do not pay so we are not going to treat you. because someone is ultimately going to treat them in the process. from my perspective, doocy to be 100% "we are going to be making you responsible as citizens and not put you in a position of not being responsible."

i'm just trying to understand that distinction. am i wrong on that? >> you are wrapping yourself around that. the whole argument -- we now have a federal government that is big brother. >> no, no, no. this is a situation in which people are invariably going to seek help here, ok, and they are asking to be part of that market. like other markets -- for gm cars and other hypothetical -- you cannot show what at a lot and drive off with a car and the lead to your neighbor yourbill it to your neighbor. it is different with health care. it is different because of federal regulations, state law professional obligations. someone is going to pay.

that is what congress found. to the tune of $33 billion a year. >> [unintelligible] by taxing everybody. they build the bridges and they pave the streets and that is how it is taking care of. >> exactly. >> congress knows how to do it that way. >> we can talk about that for a few minutes, because i think congress is using the tax power here, and it is certainly justified by the tax power. >> [unintelligible] >> no. there is one case in d.c. that is on appeal. >> on appeal. that part of it? >> we won the case. >> [unintelligible]

>> i do not believe we filed the brief in d.c. but i am not sure. certainly, it is affecting in this case the tax power. >> [unintelligible] >> a little more so then the supreme court's where it was found it was justified that -- it was justified by the tax power or by something called a " premium." >> what is this if it is not a tax? >> i think even if congress says it is not a tax, i think the supreme court's was clear in saying tax is not a magic word. the question is what is congress doing at a certain point in time. really the court is supposed to

figure out practically what this congress doing, not what they said at the time, but really what is going on. hear what is going on is this is a tax. >> do we have a robust enforcement mechanism that would change anything? >> i do not believe so. when this court has looked to enforcement, they have asked the question, who is doing the enforcement? here, it is the secretary of the treasury. >> i understand the brief. the only potential enforcement mechanism here is the upholding -- the withholding of the tax refund. >> there are two different enforcement mechanisms. one is if someone overpays their taxes, they cannot get it returned in the future. the irs may be able to file a

lawsuit with the secretary of the treasury and obtain information. >> if the taxpayer committed fraud? >> excuse me? >> what if the taxpayer committed fraud with this filing they were supposed to make? with the internal revenue service have cause of action? >> my sense is that they would but i would be hesitant to give you an authoritative answer on something that has not come up and will not come up until 2014. i will not give you an answer to that at this point. here are things that the court has looked to to determine the penalty is. one is, as judge mott said, it is undoubtedly revenue raising. is it for the general welfare?

finally, the hardest question for us, it looks something like a criminal punishment, so therefore is it justified by the tax power? there are several problems with it. one is on the child labor cases -- that is a good example -- is their requirement here? it is not in the ordinary punitive context. they are tied to the problem. like any other criminal penalty which i am familiar with when you take the penalty here, you are excused altogether from the underlying thing to government is asking you to do, which does have insurance. i do not think it looks like a penalty. i think it looks very much like a tax. it functions like a tax. >> one of the things in the child labor case was it was not

taxation. it was a commodity. it is the commodity being "tax ed." >> i think that is true, but congress cannot -- congress can tax any number of things. >> under the labor laws. >> i understand that. but i think congress has bravado power of taxation. >> isn't a new application tax? >> i do not think so. everyone pays the same amount of money. it is linked to an dividual --

to individual conduct. every april 15, we are going to know because of this law they have to pay a certain of money or do not because of their -- whether they met the minimum coverage requirement. >> so, you are looking at two different points. is it a tax or is it not a tax? >> i think congress was very clear in many different places that they called it a tax. i think it is a constitutional point of order in the senate on the grounds that it is a legitimate exercise of tax law. >> the president said that it did not matter what congress called it. it does not matter what congress says about it, in your view?

>> absolutely. absolutely. >> [unintelligible] the supreme court has obviously been very concerned about limits. are we just opening this up to unlimited congressional power here? >> not at all. >> what limited would remain? >> it is about regulating the finance and transactions -- >> a portion of your argument in all of these incredible statistics about how huge the industry is whether you call it health care or health insurance then all of a sudden this huge industry with this huge amount of legislation comes as narrow

provision? >> it is a huge industry, but i do not think the legal sense expands the limit at all. but this does is it establishes two fundamental limits. on page 491 -- where federal staff has only tenuous connection to commerce and traditional concerns, the statute exceeds federal power. our point is we completely agree with what the court said. there are two locked solid limits on the ability of government to act using the power of congress. [unintelligible] and it cannot infringe on areas of traditional state responsibility.

it is truly local and truly national in scope. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> judge, in answer to your question about whether this was forced responsibility, i think that is in fact what this is. everyone needs to have some sort of purpose for the home. it is like having a federal need to eat vegetables instead of meat and potatoes every night. because people are irresponsible and do not exercise and need to join a

health facility. it was the testimony by a harvard law professor and the record that says congress could force people to join a health club. i think what we have here is a concern, as you have raised judge motz -- >> let me make sure i understand. [unintelligible] it is not a choice if you are going to use their services. i not think he could make that argument that in aggregate people are going to be obese or going to become fit. i want to make that connection. help me out with that distinction. if the argument is that you in

the aggregate, will get health care services and this is a necessary or essential component to make this act by congress work to deal with what you will inevitably deal with, as the obesity example you gave, then you have this legislation? >> [unintelligible] non->> that is what i want to know from you. in the aggregate individuals will require health care services at some points. and somebody is going to have to take care of it. but you dispute that. >> i would dispute that everyone is going to go into the

competitive health care market. >> the aggregation of the problem -- if you're 80 years old to probably go to your doctor for most of your life. >> and my mom as well. if you look at the aggregate perhaps. if you look at the industry, there is universal participation in that and there are consequences. people are irresponsible in the way they take care of their bodies. congress can force others to consume certain kinds of fruit. as judge motz mentioned, they will have to bridges debate in a scheme that would otherwise be exempt out of -- participate in

the scheme that they would otherwise be exempt out of. >> [unintelligible] >> in wilford there is no challenge to the law. they just wanted to be exempt. they did not challenge the authority of congress. they just wanted to be exempt. they as individuals wanted to be exempt from the application where it is the clear the challenge is a special challenge to a component of this law, the mandate. it would not apply to anyone else. >> so, actually to my original question -- as a challenge to the original mandate? >> yes. >> thank you very much.

>> next house speaker john boehner's commencement address at catholic university followed by first lady michelle obama at the university of northern iowa. after that, a discussion of americanism in today's culture. next house speaker john boehner delivers the commencement address to the graduating class of catholic university in washington d.c. he also received an honorary doctorate in law did agree. -- doctorate in law degree. his remarks are about 15 minutes. >> as recommended by the president and authorized by the board of trustees. congratulations, mr. speaker. [applause]

[cheering] >> presidents garvey, thank you for that warm welcome. i don't know about you but i began monday by counting my blessings. my wife, my two daughters my 11 brothers and sisters and the great country that we live in, and the privilege to have all given me in allowing me to address catholic university's class of 2011.

this university has stood over the years and stands today at the center of catholic intellectual life in america. now i am all loyal alumnus of a xavier university, another great catholic university. being here today with your new president, cardinal wuerl and all the distinguished faculty and trustees, but me say that i am humbled to take part in this ceremony today. the cardinal and i have spent a lot of time since he came to washington d.c. as our archbishop, and i was proud last year when he became one of our brand new cardinals. for those of you who may have been out what you were waiting -- you should know about car dinal wuerl.

that fancy red tape is a professionally made raincoats of the appropriate color. [laughter] i was here two sundays ago attending mass and pondering the power and glory of the blessed mother. i felt the tug of of a memory long before i went to a xavier university. i played football in high school and our coach made sure that we earned every bit of our school nickname, the crusaders. for him, there was no distinction between the spiritual life in church and the physical brined on the football field, and he made no bones about it. he would tell us in no uncertain terms that life is a precious gift from god and therefore making the most of one's life is

a direct form of devotion to the virgin mary. he would have the whole team kneel down and pray the hail mary before every meeting practice and oh, my goodness come up on game day, we prayed all day long. [laughter] then we smashed heads with the other team for four quarters all in the name of the blessed mother. [laughter] that gives you an idea of what kind of guy coach faust was and still is. it was the basis for a lesson he taught us and one i have been repeating ever since. "there's nothing in this light you can achieve if you're willing to work hard enough and willing to make the sacrifices necessary to succeed." graduates, truly i believe that if you maintain that mind-set, you can accomplish just about everything.

after all, we live in america. a land of hope opportunity, and freedom. [cheering] this is a country where you can be anything that he wants. that would be an advantage each of you would have no matter what school you attended. the catholic has prepared to in a way no other institution can. the focus of your development here has been getting you to grapple more with who you want to be more than what you want to be. you have been challenged to think rationally, to use your heart and your conscience to guide your words and your actions. let me tell you there is no app for these skills. of course, to whom much is given, much is expected.

that's why each of you must be willing to work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to succeed. but what does hard work and sacrifice entailed? first and foremost, humility. if you remember one word that i will say today it should be humility. growing up with 11 brothers and sisters, playing for coach faust, serving in the united states congress, i have learned no one succeeds in life by themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, listen to others, and yes, love others. tony snow, a great public servant and former white house press secretary who lost his life to cancer, stood at this lectern in 2007 and told that klaus bridget told the class "to love is to acknowledge that life is not about you." he said "i know you to remember

that. it is not about you. it's a hard lesson that a lot of people go through life and never learned. it is to submit willingly, heart and soul to things that mattered." i think his wisdom is timeless. recently, i was asked a prepared question after my address. "what prayer do you say before you go to a meeting at the white house with the president?" i said, i always ask god for the courage and wisdom to do his will and not mine. serving others -- it is not how i lead in congress. it is how i lead my life. trust me on this one. i know you do not associate

patience with an occasion wrapped up in all this pop, but patience is how we come closer to knowing god's will. in your patience possess your souls according to live. after its savior, i stumbled into politics. -- after a xavier, i stumbled into politics. it is who you want to be that determines what you want to be. i came to congress in 1991 and before long i found myself in the leadership ranks in my party. being called a rising star. it was pretty heavy stuff. in the fall of 1998, after the election, i lost the support of my colleagues and my leadership post. i would love to stand here and tell you i shrugged it off and moved on. but that would not be true.

the truth is, i was devastated. i was not going to let anyone see me sweat. i was down. down but never out. because nobody, according to him in like, nobody ever loses their lives all the way up except bullfighters. [laughter] so, i told my staff, we are not going to talk our way back. we will earn our way back. i was going to be patient. of course, your humility and patience are supported by your faith. in your journey through life, fate will be your constant partner, if you let it. i have been back and the leadership of my party for more than five years. i knew what i was getting into, but it demanded some real soul- searching the morning of the

leadership elections in 2006 i had an opportunity to be elected majority leader. i went to 7 a.m. mass, and the question kept tugging at me. am i sure i really want to do this? am i ready to do this? i was struggling with this asking the blessed mother former guidance finding no answers -- for her guidance, finding no answers. then my cell phone rang. i was standing outside pete's diner. i picked it up. it was old coach faust. calling to wish me luck and telling me "you can do it." i have never gotten a call from the blessed mother before, and i do not think i ever will. but i have to tell you, it was

pretty darn close. you know, a journalist once asked mother teresa how she persevered in the face of all the despair she had seen. she replied "god has not called me to be successful. he has called me to be faithful ." over the years and i have carried in my heart a similar code my parents taught me. if you do the right things for the right reasons good things will happen. there you have it. humility patience, and faith. and always a few tears from me. [laughter] [applause] these virtues will take you as far as you want to go graduates these are just some of life's

lessons. he will learn some on your own. when you do, don't want to share them. the days go slow but the years go by quickly. just ask your parents about that. looking back on live, the great irish writer frank mccord said "if he could go back and look at himself in his 20s, he would take himself out for a pint, a potato, and as they. i would give myself a good talking to. throwback the shoulders and stop mumbling." i would only add, relax and be on time. i began here by reflecting on my blessings for all the things for which i'm thankful. but he may have noticed something about my list. the good things in life aren't things. they are people. the our values.

they are our birthright. so when it is all said and done, we are but mere mortals doing god's work here on earth. put a better way, maybe the best way -- remember you are dust and to dust you shall return. all right. off you go. good luck. god love all of you. god bless you. congratulations to each and every one of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> first lady michelle obama is also serving as commencement

speaker this year. her address was given to the graduating class of the university of northern iowa. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you. thank you some much. i am thrilled and honored to celebrate the uni class of 2011. we are so proud of you. before we started, i wanted to let you know if my remarks run long, i promise we will take a break, crank up the music for the interlude dance. [cheering] i have been practicing the ninja robot moves to get it just right.

in all seriousness i want to thank president allen for that kind introduction, as well as the executive vice provost the board of regents david miles all the members of the board of regents, katie berg for her beautiful speech. let's give them all a big hand. [applause] there are a few other people i want to thank. congressmembers, former governor chet culver, cedar falls' mayor and the waterloo mayor. they are all here today to say thank you so much. [applause] finally, i want to say a special thank you to everyone here in the unidome especially those of

you changed your plans to celebrate here today. thank you all. [applause] as many of you know, this is not my first time here in iowa. in fact, it feels like i spent more time in the state then anywhere besides my home state of illinois and of course washington, d.c. my family was here a lot back in 2007. long enough for my husband to have a sculpture of his head made out of butter, yes. [laughter] but while a campaign is what initially brought me to iowa, what brings me back today is something some much bigger. much deeper. so much more personal to me. believe it or not, the state and the people i have met here and

the things i have learned here have all become a very important part of my own personal journey. i have to admit that back when i first started coming here, i was pretty nervous. most folks barely knew who my husband was, let alone who i was. i was still a bit uneasy about the whole "president" thing as our daughter malia used to call it. i did not know what are run and would do to our family or aspect our girls. i had never been to iowa before. i had no idea how folks would react to a perfect stranger waltzing into their kitchens and living rooms. i did not know what to expect. but soon you all showed me exactly what makes i was such a special place. and i will always remember this

one gathering back in the early days. we were all at this beautiful home, a gorgeous day sitting in the backyard, sitting on lawn chairs in the grass. and even though not one single person had ever met me before, i was warmly welcomed like an old friend. so, we just started to talk to one another about our lives and our experiences and the more we talked, the more my fears and apprehensions started to fade and i realized these folks were not strangers at all. it reminded me of my parents. my aunts and uncles. the neighborhood kids from down the block. i just felt at home. so at home in fact, i kicked off

my high heels and i started walking around barefoot in the grass. it felt pretty good. that is how i wound up feeling just about everywhere i went throughout the state. for the record, i kept my shoes on most of the time. and it was not just help folks here treated me. it was how they treated my whole family. an entire neighborhood sang "happy birthday" to malia on july 4th. at the state fair, you poke fun at barack when he lost a carnival game. it was pretty funny. i will never forget how you encourage my girls to play in the park, a jump on a trampoline with kids. they were welcomed into homes in cedar rapids, into coffeeshops, and into the

historical society right here in cedar falls. these communities may not have been exactly like the one i grew up in, and folks may not have come from exactly the same background as we, but the more that i shared my story with all of you and you share your stories with me, the more i realized what truly connects us is our shared values. in the end, there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and that is really what i want to talk with all of you about today. i want to talk about values. the values we have learned here at uni the values you have learned here in iowa, and how those values will serve you every step of the way on the journey ahead. and the first bout you i want to

discuss is in many ways the most important but often taken for granted, and that is the power of family. this is something that all you folks here and i will understand in your bones to your corner just listening to katie. -- to your core, just listening to katie. i saw families to look after each other in good times and bad, and i can tell you from my experience that nothing else in your life -- nothing not your job, your hobbies the money in your bank account -- nothing will sustain you like family. when i was growing up we might not have had much, but my family was and still is my rock. i was raised in modest means probably like many of you. we lived on the top floor of a

two-family home on the south side of chicago. my dad worked in a boiler room. my mom stayed at home until my brother reached by school, and then she took a job as a secretary. in our household we had rules did our shores, yes ate our peas and we had our share of struggles and heartaches. we sure did laugh a lot. we love each other more than i can ever put in words. even though my father has passed and my brother lives 3,000 miles away, the bonds we formed in that tiny apartments still connect us. they are and will always be my core and my compass in life. so graduates after the ceremony is over, i want you to hug the person who stands a

little bit harder and make sure you call them the week after that and we get to that and it week after that -- right, moms and dads and grandparents? [applause] because these are the folks who made you who you are. these are the folks who will stand by you no matter what life throws you're white. these are the folks who prepared you and who will prepare you an interview -- and contribute. that comes to the next subject i want to discuss, another thread woven throughout this community and the state. the value of service to others. the truth is many of you could be giving at this part of my speech yourself because you have been living this every day of your lives. during the floods of 2008, so

many of you were out there. you rip -- you provided relief services to the victims of the tornadoes. many of you serve that agencies like the salvation army, the iowa food prank -- food bank. and students have stepped up to serve our country and where it's uniform at a time when we are asking so much of our troops -- wear its uniform at a time when we are asking so much of our troops, and that includes four members who were commissioned it just this morning. [applause] and i am so proud of them and so proud that so many of you have stepped up to support them. we've already launched a veteran student organization. they are putting together a website to connect military students to uni resources.

they are working with the va. and i encourage all of you, no matter where you go in life, keep doing that, keep honoring our troops and their families. because we have all seen just in the last week, to these folks deserve our support and just imagine a small group of brave men dropped by helicopter, half a world away in the dead of night into an unknown danger inside the layer of the most wanted man in the world -- lair of the most wanted man in the world. they did not hesitate. they risked it for us. for our freedom and our security. [applause] and they did it not just as navy

seals. they did as husbands and fathers and sons. their families were back here with no idea of the mission whether their loved ones would ever come home. that is the very essence of the word "service." and the least we can do is give something back to these troops and their families who have given up so much. and i have seen -- [applause] i have seen again and again that giving back, that serving others helps keep everything in perspective. service is what can access to one another, to our neighborhoods and our communities and our country. it reminds us we are not simply

individuals living isolated lives, but we are all living together. so graduates i hope that you all keep finding new ways you can make that kind of impact. in my life, i have found having a military family -- it has driven me to start a nationwide effort called join forces to honor these military families. this-and keeps me going every day, knowing that i am -- this passion gives me go in every day, knowing that i am part of something bigger than my everyday individual wants and needs. i hope that you all find that passion within yourself and follow wherever it takes you. with all the glasses and the extracurricular activities and the experiences you have had over the last four years you

have been given so many chances to discover that passion. but understand the process of discovery does not stop when you leave this campus. i know that from my own experience. back when i graduated from college a very long time ago, i was certain that i wanted to be a lawyer. so, i did everything i was supposed to do. i got my law degree. i went home and got a job at a big fancy firm in chicago. by all appearances, i was living the dream. the truth is, all the while i was climbing, i knew something was missing. sure, i was working up in a tall building downtown, but when i looked out across the skyline of the city, even though i did see the community i had come from way off in the distance, i was so far up. so far away that i could not feel that community. i felt like i was beginning to

lose that connection to where i have come from, and i realized, i do not want to climb anymore. i wanted to be grounded. working with the folks that i knew, folks like the ones i grew up with. i wanted to be mentoring young people. i wanted to be helping families put food on the table and a roof over their head. i wanted to give folks the same chances i had had. i did something that shocked my friends and my family and added about a decade on to my student loan debts. i quit that job. crazy me. i left that high-paying firm to go work for the city government , to lead a nonprofit organization called public allies. i was not making nearly as much money in my office was not nearly as big or nice, but i was working with terrific young people and colleagues to

inspired me. i found i would wake up every day with excitement, a sense of purpose and possibility because i was finally doing something that made me feel fully alive. and graduates, that is what i wish for all of you today for you to find that career, that calling that makes you feel fully alive. i know that your passion may not be the same as mine. fine. you may feel most alive in front of a classroom even in a high- rise office building. no matter what it is, keep that fire burning. it won't always be easy. the pact won't always be laid out neatly for you. sometimes you will not be able to find that perfect job. sometimes he might have to take the job just to stay afloat. those of the realities of life.

no matter what you do from 9:00 until 5:00, find a way to pursue what you love. maybe it is a hobby that becomes your own business. maybe it is volunteer work that helps to develop skills and passions. and you will have false starts and setbacks along the way. that is for sure. but i promise you, if you keep listening to yourself and keep yourself open to new possibilities and new people and new ways of thinking, you will find a place in this world that feels right for you. and that openness, that willingness to be exposed to the people and the experiences that is the final value i want to discuss today. this is something that i think truly defines the state of iowa and its people. you all do not rush to judgment. he will give just about anyone a

respectful hearing. that was certainly my experience. people do not know a thing about me yet. they listened. there were curious. they had questions. they gave me the benefit of the doubt and a chance to show who i was, and that is because people here in iowa understand that everybody has something to offer. just think about your classmates here at uni. while you may look similar today in your black robes -- very distinguished -- i know there are passions and experiences with which you have enriched each other these past four years. we just met gary watson. he is the first person in his family to go to college. he has inspired his sister to get her degree. we have people who've worked

tirelessly across the state to help people with muscular dystrophy. with graduates like renee, a singer from marion, iowa, who has won awards and was even invited by a singer from the 3 tenors she came to cedar falls four years ago when she couldn't read, write or speak english.

at the end of the day don't ever lose sight of what makes you unique. don't stop believing in what you have to offer. don't ever count yourself out and if you ever do begin to doubt yourself, if you ever start to wonder whether you can fulfill all those dreams, i want you to think of two words that showed this country that young people here at u.n.i. have got what it takes. those two words ali farooq namesh, and then i want you to think about all those other men and women who have come before you, the distinguished list of alumni who have sat where you're sitting today. people like molly boyle iowa's

teacher of the year. chuck grassley, six-time u.s. senator. first african-american principal in iowa, walter kungingham, nancy powell, director of the united states foreign services. and nancy ossi. nancy grew up in cedar rapids dreaming of far-away countries and people. she got her b.a. and her mba at u.n.i. in the early 1980's and took a job selling phones. she went out to california where she heard about a small start-up non-profit called international medical corps, an organization that worked in some of those far-away lands responding to emergencies, helping local residents become self-reliant. she asked if they needed a volunteer and as it turned out they needed a c.e.o. so nancy listened to her heart she took over and iamseed took

off. all told, they directed more than $1 billion in assistance and training worldwide. they've touched millions of lives from somalia to the balkans to haiti and japan and that c.e.o., nancy, has earned awards that put her in the company of presidents and generals nobel prize recipients and oscar winners. now, you might hear nancy's story and think wow that's pretty cool. i could never do something like that. but if there's one thing i want you to leave with, it's this -- this university and this state have given you everything you need to do something exactly like that. the values you've learned here, commitment to family, openness to diversity willingness to serve community and country the courage to follow your passion

these are the keys to success in any field i guarantee you. they are the bell blocks of a fulfilling life. they are the foundation of healthy families and vibrant communities and yes, a strong country. and that's what i saw when i first started coming to iowa, and graduates, that's why i wanted to come back. i wanted to remind you what makes you special and so very unique. i want you to realize the power and value of your experience here in this state. i want you to feel the strength of this place that so many of you call home, and i want you and need you to carry the values that you've learned here with you wherever you go. we need you to share those values with everyone you mote and pass them down on to your

children and your grandchildren. spread them throughout our country and throughout the world. and whether your next step is new york or new hartford. whether you're looking for a job in des moines or new delhi i want you to believe that you can kick off your shoes and walk around in the grass anywhere in the world because you can. so congratulations again graduates. so proud of you. and god speed and god bless you all on the road ahead. take care. [applause]

[captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a discussion on how americannism fits in today's culture. tomorrow on "washington journal," a political roundtable on the 2012 presidential election with karen finneyaind cheri jacobus. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, a discussion on the subject of american identity. speakers include conservative

syndicated columnist charles krauthammer, juan williams, and lamar alexander of tennessee. panelists analyze an 1894 speech by theodore roosevelt on the subject of americanism and how it relates to the country's culture today. the hudson institute hosted this event. it's two hours. >> i'm here to welcome you to the 2011 bradley sympos jump devoted to the question of true americanism, what it is and why it matters. national affairs is precedes to co-host the symposium together with the hudson institute's bradley center for philanthropy and civic renewal. a few quick words of thanks. to cheryl miller and above all to the lynde and harry bradley foundation which supports so many important projects aimed at advancing american ideals and understanding american life. we're honored this morning to

have with us so many of the foundation's board members and families as well as foundation staff members. we're grateful to dan schmidt for his guidance in setting up this event. one product of american identity was e pluribus unem. beyond that general interest, the occasion for taking up the question the way we will today is the publication of an important and wonderful new collection of readings entitled, "what so proudly we hail," edited by amy kass, leon kass and diana schaub. i see a lot of you have copies of the book. the book is a collection of short stories and speeches and reflections that all, in one way

or another get at the question of american identity who we are and what we are about as a nation. it's about america's character and creed, the place of the law of courage and sacrifice of civility and republican virtues in our civic life and enormously difficult challenges of assimilation and integration in american life, building and sustaining our impossibly complex society. and it's a collection that as the subtitle suggests, speaks not just to the mind, but to the heart and soul. one of the things it captures especially well is the way in which american patriotism has always addressed itself to the hearts and minds of american citizens, how our creed has always been part philosophy and part poetry. that has always made american civic education especially complicated and challenging and the aim of the sim -- symposium today to take up a form of that challenge. the best way to do that is through a conversation grounded in a particularly rich and

engaging text and ideally helped along by wise teachers. we are fortunate to have with us a panel of people perfectly suited for such a conversation. the people on the stage here hardly need much introduction so all i need to do is tell you who they are. with us, as you see lamar alexander, senator from tennessee and chairman of the senate republican conference. robert george, mccormick professor of jurisprudence at princeton university. frank hanna, c.e.o. of hanna capital, daniel henninger deputy editorial page editor of the "wall street journal," charles krauthammer, harvey mansfield, professor of government at harvard university and one of the winners of the 2011 bradley prizes. wilfred mcclay, professor of history at the university of tennessee at chattanooga and senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center, paul singer founder of elliott associates, juan williams, journalist and fox news political analyst, diana schaub, professor of political science

at loyola college in maryland and co-editor of the new volume. our conversation will be guided by diana's two other editors and two great teachers for decades at the university of chicago and now with us in washington, amy kass at the hudson institute and leon kass the american surprise institute. without further ado, amy kass. [applause] >> thank you. can everybody hear me? at one point in his essay theodore roosevelt asserts that americans who choose to live in europe never really become europeans, only cease becoming americans and become nothing. over a century later in a class at the university of chicago, i saw roosevelt's assertion turned upside down. just a few weeks after 9/11, on

the first day of my course on human being and citizen i began by asking the 28 eager freshman to identify themselves by name and say a few words about who they were. the following ensued. student one "i'm a and i'm korean-american." student two, "i'm b and i'm hispanic-american." student three "i'm c and i'm catholic-american" and so it went until one student said, "i'm q and well, well, i'm just american, which i guess means i'm nothing." his classmates silencely but sympathettically concurred. familiar with the posturing of other graduates i would usually have dismissed the student's speech as well as class reaction but this was just after 9/11 when 3,000 of their fellow

citizens had been killed merely for being just americans. in what country, i wondered, did these people, united states citizens all think they were living? 10 years later what it means to be an american remains troublingly unsettled. we increasingly celebrate diversity and multiculturalism at home and globalization and internationalism abroad. many of our most privileged young people regard themselves mainly as citizens of the world. among intellectuals, the very idea of national identity is under challenge. spontaneous displays of patriotism often provoke moral critiques from opinion leaders. regarding immigration, we no longer hear of the melting pot. it has been years since serious public figures spoke about the

american way of life. what then, do we americans have in common and what unites us as americans? how do we americans identify ourselves as individuals and as a people? what do we look up to and revere? to what larger community and ideals are we attached and devoted? for what are we willing to fight and to sacrifice? making its public debut today our new anthology entitled "what so proudly we hail" speaks directly to these questions. informed by the conviction that making citizens is as much a matter of the heart as it is of the mind, it seeks to exploit the soul-shaping possibilities of american short stories political speeches and songs to promote self reflection and

thoughtful patriotism. the selections are grouped in six chapters, each addressing a crucial issue -- national identity and why it matters, the american creed liberty equality, individual enterprise, religious freedom and toleration the american character displaying the strength and weaknesses of individuals who are informed by the american creed the virtues of a robust citizenry among them, self command law-abidingness, courage civility compassion, public spiritedness and reverence. the sometimes competing goals of civic life, lifting the floor elevating the ceiling, and preserving and perpetuating what we hold dear, and finally how to make a national one out of a multicultural many.

theodore roosevelt's speech on true americanism which appears in the final chapter in the section on immigration and assimilation makes it clear that creating an american unem out of our veryigated pluribs is hardly a new difficulty. written at a time when there were concerns about national unittity and national identity, roosevelt insists on the necessity of undivided civic loyalty and national attachment to the american republic. our panel this morning will use theodore roosevelt's essay as the point of departure for considering the meaning and significance of americanism today. they have all read the essay. many of you probably have not. to make it possible for everyone here and those watching on c-span to follow the conversation and to help prime

the panel's pump, we will give theodore roosevelt the first words, as leon will read some excerpts from his essay. >> i won't try to impersonate theodore roosevelt but i'll try to read it with some gusto. these are excerpts, longish excerpts. "we americans have many great problems to solve many threatening evils to fight and many deeds to do if as we hope and believe we have the wisdom, the strength, the courage and the virtue to do them. yet there is one quality which we must bring to the solution of every problem, that is an intense and for fertiv americanism. we shall never be successful over the dangers that confront us or achieve true greatness or reach the lofty ideal which the founders of our mighty federal

republic have set before us unless we're americans in heart and soul in spirit and purpose keenly rely on the spirit implied in being american. there are two or three sides to the question of americanism and two or three senses in which the word americanism can be used to express the antthesis of what is unwholesome and undesirable. in the first place we wish to be broadly american and national as opposed to being local or sectional of the we do not wish in politics or literature or art to develop that unwholesome parochial spirit, that over-exultation of the little community at the expense of the great nation which produces what is described as the patriotism of the village, the patriotism of the belfry. second, the patriotism of the village or the belfry is bad but the lack of all patriotism is

even worse. it may be that at ages so remote that we cannot understand any of the feelings of those who will dwell in them, patriotism will no longer be regarded as a virtue exactly as it may be in those remote ages people may look down upon and disregard monog mick marriage but as things are for 2,000 years past and are likely to be for 2,000 years to come, the words home and country mean a great deal. at present treason like adultery ranks as one of the worst of all possible crimes. one may fall very far short of treason and yet be an undesirable citizen in the community. a man who becomes europeanized and loses his life for his native land is not a traitor but is a silly and undesirable citizen. nothing will more quickly or more surely disqualify a man from doing good work in the

world than the aquirement of that flaccid habit of mind which its possessors style cosmopolitanism. it is not only necessary to americanize the immigrants of foreign birth who settle among us, but it is even more necessary for those among us who are by birth and descent already americans not to throw away our birth right and with incredible and contemptible folly wander back to bow down before the alien gods whom our forefathers foresook. the first sense in which the word americanism may be employed is with reference to the americanizing of the newcomers to our shores. we must americanize them in every way, in speech, political ideals and principles and in their way of looking at the relations between church and state. we welcome the german or the irishman who becomes an american. we have no use for the german or irishman who remains such. we do not wish german americans

or irish americans who figure as such in our political social and political life, we want only americans and provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of irish or of german ancestry. we have no room in any healthy community for a german-american vote or an irish-american vote and it is contemptible demagogy to put plank into any party platform with the purpose of catching such a vote. we have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as americans and as nothing else. mover, we have as little use for people who carry religious prejudices into our politics as for those who carry prejudices of caste or nationality. we stand unalterably in favor of the public school system in its entirety. we believe that english and no other language is that in which all the school exercises should be conducted. we are against any division of

the school fund and against any appropriation of public money for sectarian purposes but we are equally opposed to any discrimination against or for a man because of his creed. we demand that all citizens, protestants, catholic, jew and gentile, shall have fair treatment in any way and all alike shall have their rights guaranteed them. more than a third of the people of the northern states are of foreign birth and parentage. an immense number of them have become completely americanized and these stand on exactly the same plane as the descendants of any puritan or knickerbocker among us but where impgrants or the sons of immigrants cling to the speech, the customs the ways of life and habits of thought of the old world which they have left, they thereby harm both themselves and us. it is an immense benefit to the european immigrant to change him

into an american citizen to bear the name of american is to bear the most honorable titles and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear at name at all and if he comes from europe, the sooner he goes back, the better. we freely extend the hand of welcome and of good fellowship to every man no matter what his creed or birthplace, who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good united states citizen like the rest of us, but we have a right and it is our duty to demand that he shall indeed become so. americanism is a question of spirit conviction and purpose not of creed or birthplace. a scandinavian, a german or an irish man who has really become an american has the right to stand on exactly the same footing as any native born citizen in the land and is just as much entitled to the friendship and support, social and political, of his neighbors. we americans can only do our

allotted task well if we face it steadily and bravely seeing but not fearing the dangers. above all we must stand shoulder to shoulder, not asking as to the ancestry or creed of our comrades, but only demanding that they number very truth americans and that we all work together heart hand and head, for the honor and greatness of our common country. [applause] >> the panel has been asked to discuss three topics which we will consider in turn. first, roosevelt's view of the nature of true americanism. second and more important, our own views of the meaning of americanism today and third why it matters. we're going to proceed not by prepared speeches but it is to be hoped by a genuine conversation which leon and i

will try to keep on track and keep moving forward. so we begin with roosevelt. as you have heard theodore roosevelt approaches true americanism negatively in terms of three anantithe sees. it is supposed to narrow local and parochial attachments. it is opposed to overbroad attachments, cosmopolitanism, it is opposed both for immigrants and electoral politics to ethnically or religiously hyphenated identities. in a word, we should all regard ourselves and one another simply and unqualifyingly as americans but what is the positive content of american identity and attachment? what exactly according to roosevelt, does true americanism

consist of? what are to use his terms its common spirit, convictions and purposes? so who would like to begin? if you're shy i'll just call on you. robbie? >> amy if americanism is a question of spirit, conviction and purpose as roosevelt said, then i certainly agree with that. then the question is, what's the conviction? from the conviction, we should get a sense of the spirit and the purpose. and the conviction, i think we draw from the declaration of independence. it captures it so perfectly. interestingly, it doesn't appear in at least of the parts of the speech that we were given. and i'm referring of course to the great second sentence of the declaration, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that

they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. what lincoln referred to as the american proposition which we referred to time and time again in defending the nation in the context of the civil war. i'll venture a thought leon, if we can use that old principle of aristotle's method of social science in identifying the focal case of a thing and then identifying less focal cases by reference to the central or focal case, it would steam me that the focal case of an american is a person who identifies himself as an american where his sense of identity is rooted in precisely that conviction, that the belief that it's just true, it's basic that all men are created equal and that they're endowed by

their creator by certain unalienable rights, that these are rights that did not come from the government, that they did not come from kings or presidents or parliaments or legislatures, from no human power, and therefore cannot be taken away by any mere human power. rather, it's the duty of all human political authority to protect those rights and to honor them themselves. >> diana? >> why do you think there is no mention in this speech of the american principles? what i get from the speech is that americanism is mostly a matter of energy and courage and struggle and material prosperity. i guess it strikes me as if roosevelt's presentation as pretty inadequate or truncated version of americanism. what he admires are the empire builders whether in the realm of politics or commerce. everything he mentioned is the put in the context of conquest.

so on the basis of what roosevelt presents i don't see how the greatness of the american republic would differ from the greatness of the roman republic except for the fact that we speak english and insist on speakerring english i would agree with you about my definition of americanism but i don't get that from the roosevelt speech. >> senator? >> i think perhaps he assumed in 1894 that everybody know what it meant to be an american, that you have common culture that came from people used to say in tennessee, farmers said, i read the bible and the farmer's almanac and that's about all i need. people knew the same things. he didn't define it. said what he was against but seems to me if we were looking for definition, simply that we pledge allegiance to a creative allegiance that unites this

country. that's our greatest accomplishment. you can't become chinese. you have to become american if you want to be a citizen. i suspect he just figured we knew that there were a few common principles, not just equal opportunity, but liberty rule of law, a few others and then there's some you might put under character like anything is possible that we all knew that and then what we should do is be that and instead of what we used to be. and then throw in the common language. during his presidency, you know, it became necessary for people to -- every new citizen to learn english. that was in 1906, and also, going on in 1894, robert putnam has written a lot about all the americanizing efforts that were going on. the koehler company in wisconsin would bring in a lot of germans and spend them time teaching them what it meant to be american and the kiwanis clubs and boy scouts and civic clubs

would do that and i suspect they just all thought they knew what it meant. >> so why the heavy duty emphasis on hardyhood and courage and the things diana referred to. >> that was just roosevelt. >> no, i would say that that was his manliness. i'm an expert on manliness. [laughter] and he likes to set himself off against others. he likes to make himself dramatic. he likes to think that he finds himself in a horrible situation and there's no solution from that except to assert yourself and so he likes to make great distinction and divisions among us and i guess he reminds us, i would say, if it's true, that patriotism is a matter of heart as well as mind, as evans said, the heart is also the seat of

not just love but also anger and maybe anger is closer to politics than love is. >> frank -- sorry. >> i think the way to look at it, to make it sort of sharp would be to say that roosevelt's idea of americanism has to do with energy or manliness and i would say that our idea has to do with liberty. after all manliness and energy are not anything unique to the united states. as diane was saying, all of the republican virtues -- courage, rule of law et cetera we have in common with rome. what makes us different from all the other republics from, say all the other nations in the west, we're the only one and this is unique in human history

founded on a proposition founded on a document. our day of independence is the day in which it was signed, the french is the storming of the bastille linking victory either in revolution or battle. and this dedication to an idea, to a principle is from which it is that from which everything else president roosevelt was talking about. because we're dedicated to liberty, because we're dedicated to the rule of law within a specific, almost sacred document our presidents swear to defend the constitution, not the people, not the state not the government, not the land, the constitution. that's a very unusual idea, and that's what unites us and it revolves around liberty to an extend that i think almost no other country does.

i mean, if you walk around washington you will see which i think is unique in capital cities in the world, there are statues in the city all over dedicated to libberators of other countries. on constitution avenue you have statues to all the latin americans. there's a huge ukrainian monument within a mile of here. on massachusetts avenue, you've got gandhi and thomas mazarek100 yards apart looking at each other. in no other city would we celebrate the idea of liberty as expressed in other countries in the capital. because it's about dedication to a proposition that's what brings us to the idea that we do not want to see this kind of ethnic separatism that was in that speech and that we see

proliferating today because it negates the entire idea of people being american as a result of this allegiance to a constitution and to a principle rather than allegiance to clan or tribe or race or ethnicity. >> frank? >> i was concerned that maybe the line that troubled me most was when he said patriotism of the village is bad. and i thought to myself, well, the core of the village is a family and so i felt he was bifuvericating my allegiances. i have, as a human being we, i all of us have competing claims on us. my agreement to the proposition as charles was talking about and i actually prefer to look at the preamble to the constitution as opposed necessarily to the

declaration of the independence because i think it's sort of constitution that we as americans sign on to in a american of covenant with one another. and so certainly my covenant with all of the americans in this room is something to which i should have a lot of allegiance and loyalty. but it is not preeminent. it is not preeminent to the covenant i made with my wife, to the cov vant -- covenant i have with my children, to the faith i have. so i got the feeling roosevelt was trying to shove us into saying that our covenant as americans is superior to all else and i don't know that that's healthy for us or is natural for us as human beings. >> would you want to say that your covenant with your family makes you american? >> no, not per se. i think there are wonderful families in every country and

families have loyalty to one another. i think the liberty that americans strive to provide for one another to provide domestic tranquility and share the common defense, all the things in the preamble, and notably the blessings of liberty i think it helps my family and can make my family healthier but the covenant with my wife is not an american thing or with my family. >> i just want to elaborate on that a little bit. i was uncomfortable from the beginning with the notion of americanism which sounds like an ideology, and seems to me to lead us in the wrong direction. i mean, americanism is not like marxism or positivism or something like that. i agree that i'm troubled by -- certainly consistent with everything else we know about roosevelt, his overly nationalistic view of national identity and his belief that

local affiliations are dangerous. now, part of that is the context of the post-civil war era in which those kinds of local affinities are very much on his mind. that's why he mentions mark twain and joel handlers harris as the two authors -- certainly harris is a regional author, if anybody was one the uncle reamus author, but includes the south. he doesn't in two years before plessy versus ferguson, include african-americans, and i think that's a notable addition that has to be counted. but on the question of other family and local affiliations, in some way detracting from the nation, i think he misunderstands the nature of american national feeling that, in fact, it has been through our federal system and various other means, it has been the genius of american national sentiment to

allow local affiliations to lead into larger ones. tokyo observed this very thing if you let a man have a control over his property and his locality and a voice in local governance, then it will stir his sentiments of patriotism for the nation as a whole so i think setting these two in opposition is quite wrong-headed although very consistent with roosevelt if you look at his new nationalism speech in 1910, it's very much privileging the nation over all other things. it sees states and localities as administrative units. >> i agree to some degree with wilfred and frank on this topic. i think roosevelt calibrated, took the zoom lens, and twisted it just about right when he rejected both the multiculturalism and world view that we're citizens of the world.

he didn't use that phrase, i think. and also rejected the primacy of the tribe the sectarian group and what i think he did when he made that calibration was create something very robust because tribalism is not just a dysfunctional tribalism harming the creation and maintenance of critical mass to provide economic security, military security and keep the whole growing, peaceful and prosperous. he got it just about right. to this day tribalism and sectarianism and allegiances to groups smaller than america are going the wrong direction going the opposite direction. i think he created a very robust calibration of primary

allegiance without taking away, of course, allegiance to the family and to the spouse and the close-knit group. >> i don't entirely disagree with you about that but let me give you an example that may help flesh out what i mean a little better. consider thanksgiving, which is a holiday that many in other countries simply do not understand. for americans, it's probably our most uncontroversial holiday and thanksgiving is a remarkable thing when you about it because it brings together families -- families generally come together for thanksgiving. but there is a sense that this is a national right that we all -- something we all perform together even if we don't believe in something to give thanks to, we overlook that for the moment and have an attitude of generic gratefulness for the

things we have but my point is the entranceway is through the life of the family but it radiates out ramifies out into loyalties and affinities and love that are much larger in scope. >> it's interesting to mention thanksgiving. i'd like to throw out a different observation about a different holiday and how it reflects some of the distinctions that roosevelt made. he didn't just have a cold, analytical view of europe in opposition to america and americanism. it was revulsion, revulsion leaps off the page, the man who becomes europeanized is a silly and undesirable man over civilized, over refined 104 years before the formation of the euro, he had prescience about that. let's talk about the fourth of

july which in america it's independence day and it's, again, a family, a local holiday, locally expressed, but we have a military history a marshal history with expansionist and imperialistic phases in our history so there it is all over america hamburgers and balloons and firetrucks and parades. go to france and paris on bastille day and see what they do with their, i think analogous holiday. there's a never-ending military parade down the champs elysees and that's what they do and how they see themselves, falsely, of course and the kids, of course, play with mini guillotines. >> can i make one point i didn't read the first objection

in the speech as one against the family. i saw it as being anti-regional. regionalism was obviously a problem in the post-civil war era and of the three objections in the speech, it's the least relevant today. if anything, we are lamenting the loss of regionalism in a mass media where accents cuisine, local customs are almost wiped out. if you go to any city and visit a strip mall, it could be any city. so if anything, we've solved the regionalism issue, if anything, we've overdone it, creating a mass culture which suppresses the charm and attractiveness of regionalism, but he's very acute and prescient in the other objections about internationalism and he's right that it's city. it's not pernicious, it's naive and idiotic rather than being in any way evil or malicious.

simply an idea of the lion and lamb happening in our lifetime which is obviously adolescent and childish but the last is the most interesting, the one where he objects to this ethnic separatism. not regional or local geographic separatism. that isn't an issue but it was separatism which occurs in different parts of the country but among common ethnicities which he saw as a threat and i think it was extremely prescient and acute if anything, the differences in his day the federal government and the national ethos wanted to suppress that separatism. the reason that such an epidemic today is because the mass -- the political class and the media celebrate this separatism, the universities, everywhere. so that if you want to oppose it, you are going against sort of conventional wisdom, and that

makes it all the more difficult to overcome in our day. that's why it's our problem. >> just to clarify, i do understand he did not condemn the family. but he did unequivocally say patriotism of the village and the belfry, those two things, are bad. and i don't think we can gloss over that. when you say unequivocally something is bad and you look at the core of what the village or the belfry is -- >> we don't pledge allegiance to the great city of atlanta. >> so the question is, why did he do this? why did he say these things? i think what leon's excerpts and this conversation has made clear is that roosevelt's speech is brutally exclusionary, and roosevelt was an intelligent person and i think he probably was well aware of the harshness of some of the things he was saying so why was he doing it? and it seems to me that

roosevelt was wrestleling with tensions and a problem that is always present when trying to come to grips with the united states. it was the same tensions that existed in 1789. the country had fought revolutionary war come together, freed ourselves from the british weraphy -- arrive in philadelphia and we know what the obvious tensions were there. this is a country that, of its nature, is diverse and it's a country that's centrifugal and the question was, how do you hold it together, what idea do you look for to hold all of these different kind of people together and i'd like to align roosevelt with someone else who was addressing this subject back then, and that was frederick jackson turner, the historian. interestingly enough, roosevelt's speech was given in 1894. turner in 1893, gave a very

famous speech to the american historical association and it was on the idea of the american frontier. i'm going to read a quick excerpt from it because to me it's kind of astonishing how much it tracks what roosevelt was saying. turner said, he admired "that practical and preventive turn of mind quick to find expedience, the masterful grasp of material things lacking in artistic but powerful to affect great ends, restless nervous energy, working for good and evil, that, turner said, are the traits of the frontier. and that describes teddy roosevelt and i think it was roosevelt as it was with turner trying to find an idea of america that was different and i think it resides in the idea of the frontier that pulls a diverse people together for a common purpose and in roosevelt's time in 1894, heavens knows the industrial

revolution, the creafs infirment with all of the new immigrants coming so the intense brutality of roosevelt's speech was intended to try to push to the side these threats to the basic american ideas that all is under these centrifugal tensions. >> something to be said, too for energy. it's true, i think that our americanism derives from our proposition, the proposition that all men are created equal at the beginning of the declaration of independence, but at the end you have the signers of the declaration pledging their lives their forts and sacred honor to which someone said the meaning of the declaration said all men are

created equal especialliet the undersigned, which creates a difference between the beneficiaries of the principles of equality and those who actually promote it and use energy to sustain it such that you might say that there are levels of true americanism that at the weakest level it would be any human being because any human being is potentially an american, if the principle says all human beings are created equal. but then stronger than that there would be the believers in the principle that all men are created equal, and stronger still than that would be the practitioners of it and i think this is where energy comes in and especially the energy of self government. our country is not only devoted to liberties of principle but we practice it and we practice it successfully and our constitution has enabled to do

it successfully. it's the first republic that works. i think our framers of the constitution understood that this constitution had to overcome all the defects difficulties and ills of republics that existed before, including the roman which after all turned into an empire. how could you resolve that problem? you had to have a special kind of, a new kind of constitution in which people practiced their liberty. what is great about america is that it practices what it preaches. >> but wouldn't that, then, wouldn't you make an argument on behalf of the locality as the place that energy of self government is really most felt. he seems to want to direct everything to the few of those who are going to expand it, who are going to turn it into an empire, as opposed to those who are more conservative and remain in their villages but really do

undertake the task of governing themselves. >> i don't see energy as uniquely american. you want to talk about energy, i think kissinger once said that russia expanded by the equivalent of a belgium every year for 200 years. that's energy. it was hardly american. it seems to me that the idea about equality, you know, all men are created equal the fundamental axiom but the operative political phrase in the declaration is a government government -- life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the constitution's intent is to create a structure that will protect that. i grew up in canada where the founding constitution of the d.n.a. act the b.n.a. act of 18 67 defines the purpose of that constitution as peace order and

good government. think of how different that is from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is a trinity expressing aspects of the same idea. it's all about liberty. and that's what makes us different from other country. >> juan, do you want to get in on this? i would like to then move the conversation as it's already moving on its own leaving teddy roosevelt behind, to begin to talk about what we ourselves think americanism is today no longer the day of the frontier. please. >> i think it's important to say that i think the context in which roosevelt wrote this was a surge in terms of immigration and that he was not speaking specifically to the family, he was speaking to the idea that people would become locked into localities or regional tastes and attitudes especially in the aftermath of the civil war but the key, i suspect was the surge in terms of immigration

and in picking up on something that amy said earlier, this is really why this document matters so much to us today. today you have a situation in which the dommographers especially after the 2010 census no longer speak of the great american melting pot but talk about the great american mosaic, in which people of all sorts and variety and colors making up america, but even more so, and i think more troublingly the great american salad bowl in which you have very distinct pieces and parts like the tomatoes the lettuce, the carrots, retain their distinct identities, even if they're working together to make the american experience one, the nutritious salad, if you will. i guess you could think of me as a fuzzy headed carrot. but to me, it is essential that you say very clearly, and i

think this is one of roosevelt's points, very clearly, that the idea is that you would become american, and the reason i think this is so highly relevant in the context is important in terms of immigration, is that we are experiencing another surge in terms of immigration today and the example that amy gave of her class at the start of those young people who identified themselves as so-called hyphenated americans, it is because it's chic these days to insist that, you know, i retain my native identity, i was born somewhere else, and i retain that identity, i retain that language, i retain that attitude, rather than giving myself up, giving myself over in terms of marriage almost, to becoming an american, to assimilation. assimilation has become a dirty word in so many quarters in this country today and the idea is

that why would you give up who you are that who you are authically is not to be dedicated to the american ideal and i happen to agree with roosevelt in terms of conviction and purpose. i think it's very clear that if you adopt an american mindset it is about conviction and purpose and determination and this idea of equality. now, i say this as a black person and i think this is critical because he is writing as if black people don't exist in his document. he's really writing to the irish, to the german, he may be writing to the italian but i'm not sure whether the italian is included in his document. and if you look at the recent census numbers, what they indicated, that the heart and soul of growth in this country today is largely hispanic. i think it's the case, i think you look at where areas of growth have taken place it's like 80% of the population surge has been hispanic or black.

it's minority growth, even throughout the south. i'm not just talking california and new york. i'm talking about places like senator alexander's hamlin county in tennessee. you go to minneapolis known for homogeneity of white people and all of a sudden you have somalis and you say oh, my gosh, how did these communities become not only so large but cloisters that you can go into those communities and here's something i find terribly concerning to me is that in the mexican household, the dominican republic households, you are getting point where 90% of them don't speak english at home, they speak spanish. and it's also true then if you go into some asian communicates in san francisco they don't speak english at home. when they are at home and relaxed, they're not identifying

with america. they've got calling cards to call back home, they've got the internet. i think the heart and soul of the essay is about the need to say, i am an american and identify with america and identify with the precepts and with the declaration and especially to identify with the idea that we hold some exceptional role and i am willing to fight and defend it and speak and advocate for it. >> if you're moving on to what we mean on -- i don't think we should get too distracted by

roosevelt's emphasis on the national government as opposed to the community. that's just, you know, i don't agree. i think we work community by community. he was a very big strong -- he might like the strong central government we have today. i think the essence of what he talked about what was he was against, which is what politicians often do, it's easier to talk about what you're against than what you're for and if you're moving on to what it means to be an american, building on what juan said, the essence of our national identity is that you have to -- you must become an american if you want to be a citizen. you can't become french. you can't become chinese. so how do you become american? you become american one way by pledging athreedges a creed of -- allegiance to a creed of beliefs that most of us hold in common. most of our politics, samuel huntington said, was about

conflicts in those beliefs and dealing with the aspirations that all men are created equal but we agree on the principles, equal opportunity liberty rule of law and we define in our law and have ever since the revolution what it means to be an american. if amy would read to our class and say that every new citizen every year takes an oath saying that they renounce any allegiance to any locality that i have heretofore been a citizen, that's what we have required in the law since 1906 that you must speak english. there that you must speak english. they're mostly about the declaration the constitution.

there is a pretty good and understanding. what makes us exceptional is a single thing that we are united by a set of ideas. and that is what it takes to cut become american, and after that what we do best is apparently what your book seems to do, which is instead of enforcing americanism -- the worst example of that being mccarthyism -- instead we inspire patriotism. that is shown in reading the letters of soldiers, happenings at the courthouse. it is discovering what it means to be american. we are united by a creed. fifth we do not have that cannot -- if we do not have that, we doare the united nations

instead of the united states. >> i was going to talk about public schools. roosevelt categorically and strongly supports public schools. i suspect you could probably divide this room down the middle as to whether people would concur in that view, even if they concurred otherwise in everything they wanted so well. the problem being we do not have a consensus anymore, that mean what it is to the american and we have no confidence that the public schools would convey that consensus if it existed. to meet my it epitomizes the fact that the county of los angeles, california, which is one of the worst school systems in the country has instruction in over 100 languages.

the requirement of the use of english is out and with it is, i think, in the tichenor understanding what it means to be an american -- is the understanding of what it means to be an american. the liberty that is part of our fundamental make up as a nation involves the rights to educate your children any way you please including doctors private schools, and a mix of various things. oard is a movement back toward this much more robust -- or is a move back toward is much more robust form of education. >> it is very clear that the question of what it means to be an american visitor contested or ignored. who -- is either contested or ignored. while it is true that all new immigrants who undergo the naturalization ceremony do take this allegiance, but the

children of the native born do not do so, and because the constitution on the subject of citizenship assembly defines us as those who are born in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction of the united states or a particular state and subject to the jurisdiction of the laws, and there is no criteria or duty to citizenship to the nation. i think it is on this panel where there are thoughtful and caring people to see if we can pull together some of the thoughts that are in our own name, leaving teddy roosevelt aside, and see what we can make of this. ravi began with the declaration of independence, as ravi so often does. charles prefers the constitution, which is the constitutional horsedocument, not to say that those documents are in contention with each other. but how that those things we are in cabinet to agree with.

are reminds us that lots of people -- in covenant to agree with. harvey reminds us that lots of people could agree with those principles. some people might even endorse them but is more of the cognitive matter to choose to live by them, that it requires a commitment energy, matters of the heart and spirit. dan henin your point out -- dan point out that there is a tension in the united states going back to the beginning about making one out of manning partly because the country is so big, partly -- one of many, because the country is so big partly because there are so many different religions. and in a way the very liberty to pursue your individualistic notions of how venus has also a central tendency -- notions of happiness has also a centrifugal tendencies.

it does not matter as long as we are minding our own business and doing the american thing, but we do not think of ourselves in any rich or robust way as americans as opposed to some outsiders of the should becity of chicago who wrote for the white sox. i wonder if we could address some of these different strands and see whether we could do a little more in our own name. >> not yet why it matters, but what is. >> i would like to explore the issue in a little bit of detail in the impact of economic freedom and this magnificent fabulous now great -- migration of the founding principles, all men are created equal.

in perfect but and immigration to perhaps not the -- imperfect, but and immigration to perhaps not the characteristics. a couple of examples. at the internet. in the 1960's, 1970's, france came up with something national when it was going to take over the world and it was just that expression french grandiosity actually. it kind of did not work. it was pretty useless and did not develop. now if you have one, sure it is going to be a terrific museum piece. it is not just that the internet was and is an american invention product development but i believe it could only have been an american product the

product of imperfect meritocracy, but the end of the world. but i know the internet has transformed the world and continues to do so. i know more about the hedge fund industry but it illustrates many of the same principles. i am a lawyer by formal training. and when i formed a hedge fund in 1977 there was a history of hedge funds but what the hedge fund industry is is a pool of basically a unconstrained but subject to rules and regulations about accounting standards, fraud, subject to the control of lenders. unconstrained, meaning you are not part of a herd, part of a

group that measures success of 20% when the world makes 30% or, a failure of 20% when the world makes 30%. you have your own investors. most of the people who now run hedge funds are the product of middle-class backgrounds. many of them, including myself, went to public schools. we send our kids to public schools. and from this growth of unconstrained free-form investing style has come a group of people that very rapidly have a new rank. people who were involved in policy politics philanthropy, an entrepreneur philanthropy, and i think the hedge fund industry as well as the internet or illustrates something that is very closely related because of

the need for america to bounce back from its problems and the self-imposed, self-made problems of the last 30 and 40 years some of them cultural, many of them ravi has been writing about for a long time. to generate the prosperity in a world in which our folks in general are paid a lot more than people in emerging economies, it is the openness the rule of law the autocracy the fairness of the american system. it is not a corrupt system. the police force in most places is not correct. the mayor'ss and we all know what happens around the world but america continues to be. things need to be fixed but i think all of this that i am discussing is a promise of something deeper than people

happening to be in this location. it is part of an idea, and america was founded on an idea. one of the ideas was freedom. and another was property and individual responsibility. i think is worth giving some thought on this panel or not into what is the connection between that ability of americans to do these remarkable things and to keep this prosperity going. and what it means to be an american, and americanism. >> i would just like to, in terms of what it is, align myself. i think in that her -- the fellow who has put his finger on it is harvey mansfield. he said that when america practices at freedom is liberty. there is applied mathematics and the abstract mathematics and

liberty can be described in abstract said, to be sure. but i think harvey is right. it is a characteristic of everyday practice in the body and it doesn't within the context of the declaration of independence and the concert -- it does fit within the context of the declaration of independence and constitution. we were given this extraordinary template by the founders. almost every day one can think how really lucky we were that those guys were who they worked back in those times. -- who they were back in those times. america just lucked out with that incredible group of men called the fall -- the founding fathers who gave us this incredible template. it affects things down to the level of school boards, local elections and national elections. we constantly crosses our liberty, but within a structured they give us. -- we constantly practice our

liberty, but within a structure they gave us. our nature is to pull forward in this habit which is wholly constructive. >> senator, i appreciate you reading the words from liotathe oath that you citizens take. i went to a naturalization ceremony recently and it is a beautiful reminder of what we are to be. you pointed out that those born here do not take that oath. >> right. >> given what we are talking about in terms of desire in -- what you spoke about about a common agreement as americans. is it worth considering that when you register to vote you agree to take that oath? do we, as americans want to give the right to vote to anyone? we are not willing to give

citizenship talked to someone who came from a foreign land without the oath. should we require that for someone to vote? >> if i could just take 60 seconds. i was in a meeting once again the answer to that is that is what the public school is supposed to do. >> but we do not take an oath. >> i was in a meeting of public educators one time and the head of another game asked what the rationale was for -- the head of notre dame asked what the rationale was for the public school. and an answer was given that the public school was created to teach children reading, writing and arithmetic and what it means to be american with the hope that they would go home and teach their parents. the only rationale for the common school or the public school was to help the children learn what it meant to be an american. otherwise, they could all be fine. >> robert, did you want to get in?

>> we are in the midst of a big debate in this country not so much about true americanism, but rather, the question -- not unrelated -- what is the true america? we are in a debate about whether american should be modeled on the social democracies of europe, whether america should aspire to be libertarian utopia where we each go about pursuing our own names and the laws should be just restricted to keep us from bumping into each other or violating each other's rights. this is a very big debate and this might be the context in which to address it. >> i would not rule it out of court, but it seems to me that there are always going to be large political differences between let's say, liberals and

conservatives about which way the government or which way america in particular should go on policy questions, or even on large revisions. and yet, there is a sense -- a larger this sincevisions. and yet, there is a sense that within the context of shared beliefs, shared attachments -- i think it would be better, at least for present purposes to try to think about what those things in kominar. recognizing that -- what those things in common are, recognizing that in the end we are working shoulder to shoulder to solve these problems. not expecting that there would be unanimous opinion about how to do those things. rather than get into the current policy debates, i would prefer if you would not mind, her to stay with -- >> not so much addressing the

policy debates as the ideals the ideals that we should be committed to. but it, let me try this. i think the basic american proposition, as expressed initially in the declaration of independence, and then is fleshed out in the constitution which is the establishment of institutions that we hope to effectuate the ideals put forth in the declaration. the basic principles of government that would respond to those ideas are principles of limited government, of liberty of personal responsibility. they also, though, require a kind of public spiritedness, because it is a republican regime. self-government does mean that we need citizens who are concerned with not only pursuing their individual aims but also with pursuing something substantive by way of the common good. we can have all sorts of debate

about what that requires as far as policy is concerned how the pension system should be set up, how social security should be reformed and so forth and so on. but i think one problem is that if you have major threats to these ideals, like limited government, like personal responsibility from the rejection by large segments especially of the most influential people in the culture, especially the intellectual culture. you have reductions of the legitimacy of some of those ideals. this, i think is why multi -- multiculturalism in its strong sense, the multiculturalism that rejects this illegitimate and unjust program of assimilation is a real threat. i think it is why cosmopolitanism which holds patriotism in contempt, is such a real threat. you find that strong will to culturist sentiment, the

cosmopolitan as -- multi- culturalist sentiment and cosmopolitanist sentiment in the public schools. one of my children went to a very good private school and i struggled valiantly to get him excused from a mandatory class in american studies because the sole text in a mandatory class in this very good private school in american studies was howard asim's history of the american people. -- "history of the american people." i would not ofhave objected to this being used if something had been said on the other side, but it was the sole text. and it seemed like indoctrination into anti- americanism. but that would be a problem that we would have to address in a very good suburban mariscal and

all over the place in potus schools. it should give us great concern. >> -- very good suburban private schools and all over the place in public schools. it should give us great concern [inaudible] -- >> [inaudible] i spent five years on the education committee in my son's school trying to introduce american history before the ninth grade. he had two courses on the inca. [laughter] i thought he would end up speaking inca. [laughter] it took me five years to introduce a course on american history. and i'm sure after i left they probably used zinn as a text. american is and is a rather quaint term. it was one that you -- americanism is a rather quaint

term. it was one that you would use 100 years ago. it unfortunately was used by nasty people to destroy lives. we lose a perfectly reasonable word because of the badness of the history, the house un- american committee, etc. to me, that is the equivalent of american exceptional some. it is our way of saying americanism as an "ism" what makes us different from europe? from rome? from greece? other democracies and industrial societies. i think what we are having is a discussion about american exceptional and somelism.

>> there is nothing american about it. it is like the idea cosmopolitanism it is silly. >> for the same reason that esparanto is silly. [laughter] >> ok, so you cannot have high- level conversations with a permit of language that simplifies everything. >> i think esparanza was an idea that you could transcend nationality surely with language. i find it amusing that this kind of nationalism that we have today, this idea that the u.n.'s diggs kerry is or a third of -- edicts carry an

authority or the human rights commission to decide what to do abroad or not is also silly. i think that is less of a problem than the divisions within our country where we are being torn apart by this ethnic centricism. it is getting worse. >> there is unavoidably a contemporary political issue that is raised by this discussion, and it is the one that diana talked about at the outset, which was that roosevelt in the way that he is speaking is clearly talking about a country somewhat like imperial rome. in 1894, if i can try to read -- give a fair reading of roosevelts mind, i think the year before he had stated that

the united states was on the verge of becoming a very great and powerful nation, which, in fact, it did. and it became what we now call a super power. i think roosevelt understood that a country heading in that direction was going to need -- it was going to take a lot of effort to sustain what ever would be necessary to maintain that status. we have had debates for a long time about whether that status is appropriate or not. but it is real. that is the way it is. after world war ii there was no denying that it was real. i think what roosevelt was talking about was the point that charles raised, which was how you and sustain the economic and spiritual and physical energy to keep america a great nation? and the reason this is a political issue -- and we are going to get partisan now -- is that we just had this much talked about article in the "new yorker" about the obama policy

and the key in which is the final paragraph in which the writer is talking to the obama people and two ideas emerge. one is that the idea that america is declining while china arises. the spokesman said, this is also at odds with the john wayne expectation of what america is in the world but it is necessary for shepherding us, through this phase. this is the antithesis of what teddy roosevelt was talking about, right? can it is implied in all of -- and it is implied in all of these other things that we are talking about that go into making america strong. at this point, you have a school of thought that is aligned with the cosmopolitanism that roosevelt so of hoarderabhord.

he knew it would weaken us in the world. >> he refers to us as a federal republic more than once. to go back to harvey's statement cannot one of the things about america -- stake in connaught one of the things about america is that we want to be -- not to go back to harvey's statement one of the things about america is that we want to be self- governing. i do not know how self-governing is possible on cosmopolitan terms. in the cosmopolitan world, it seems to me we are back to rulers and subjects. the rulers might not be keen spirit we have different names for them but they will be in places like belgium and the hague, and the rest of us will be subjects and we are expected to be happy if they make life for a soft and comfortable. roosevelt is not interested in soft and comfortable. he is interested in and a self- governing people and that means

a federal -- federal republic. >> america does mean self- government. but america also means principle and it comes from the principle of equality men, one might say. but america also means something in particular, a detachment. >> it has a history of culture and traditions. >> and that works against the universality of our principles. sometimes the principles have to combine. we have to work against the recommendation of it because we do not think it is just good for us critics are principals tell us -- just before us. our principles tell us that we have the right and give to practice self governments but we've recommended to others. they can imitate us. it reveals the difficulty of a

kind of imperialism because of the universal principle. we think that others should practice it, too. we do not just live our principles. we tell them to the rest of the world. something like imperialism that america was on the edge of and teddy roosevelt had a hand in and it is a constant temptation. we have to show how it is that a self government can also be limited government, limited in its envisions as well as in its republicanism. >> it relies on the consent of those others. we can provide an example of self-government, but we cannot impose it because it is up to their consent to secure it for themselves. if you probably understand the original principles, there is no limitation on that kind of imposition on the world.

>> and yet ironically, we imposed it on the japanese and germans and it took. >> we have had trouble with the arabs. to my mind, you have to at some point in defining what it is say that -- people are on the world continue to flock to these shores. they want to get into this country any and every way that they can. maybe a more simple way to address this question of what it is is to say why are you coming here? why are you dying to get in? why are you doing anything to send your children here? the answer becomes rather clear that people still greatly value the idea of freedom from oppression, and the idea of law and order and will law -- will of law. i think people love the idea of social stability without reference to tribalism.

we talk about these hyphenated kids, but in terms of court and our politics, you get outside of some of the big cities and that is not the will of the day. that is not the way people order themselves in our society. and of course, aboard mobility. those public schools, in addition to being vehicles for assimilating young people, really it gives you the opportunity in an ideal sense to exhibit merit ended the united states you can come here as a poor child. and if you exhibit merit through hard work and persistence, you can achieve. people mock the idea that anybody can become president but it is true. if you look at not only former president, but barack obama. you can say, it is amazing that person became president of any country. it is inspiring. i think the part of this conversation, i regret that when

political because it seems to me to take the teddy roosevelt documents out. we live in a different world than the world this document was written for. the expanse of the american military or the way they have intervened not only in iraq but afghanistan, and the idea of terrorism coming year and we would have something to say about events in libya and syria this is way outside of what was being imagined in these ridings here. and the idea that we would have now donenafta and other organizations in a global economic structure, to me you guys seem to be harking back to days of yore. we can relish them, but i do not think he was talking about multinational coalition and agreement in some negative way.

i do not think is relevant. >> can i just -- charles mentioned something that i think was especially interesting. we imposed what we are talking about on the japanese and germans but that did not make them americans. we did impose a great deal. it seems to me that what is exceptional about america still is that we are united by a set of principles instead of by race creed color, whatever. that is unique. that is our greatest accomplishment. and the next thing is which principles -- liberty, equality, rule of law to name a few of them -- derive from these documents. and that is about it. the rest we discovered for ourselves. but the single thing that is unique and exceptional is that we are united by a handful of principles instead of something

else. >> putting these two comments together and formulating a question -- i do not think anybody on the panel was a nostalgic for teddy roosevelt's time. i do not think i heard any comments. but there is an attempt to see whether some of the questions he raised are still questions for us notwithstanding the large differences in the *times. i was very struck by this phrase -- spirit convictions, and purposes. intellectuals and professors are very good on convictions and principles. harvey mansfield is good on that and other things besides. he talks about spiritedness and other things. but it is a wonder in the present age with american power what it is could we speak about

american national presence? does it matter whether we have one? harvey mansfield suggest we not only practice liberty but with diane's important qualification, we advertise it and recommended to others because we believe it is good. i was going to ask the others if they thought that this was not imperials and, but a way of life and we encourage others to follow it. it makes sense for a mighty nation. what are you about? it also seems to make sense to ask of the citizens, what is the guiding spirit as well as what abstract positions do you hold? haut jassim steeley -- it seems to me to be worth a few minutes on that. >> and we have to go back to when that nation was at its greatest risk, during the civil war. the question was whether the

people who had lived to see the nation born would still be alive when it died. lincoln told us what our national purpose was. he said that what the war was about was whether government of the people, for the people, by the people -- in other words republican government -- would perish from the orascomearth. it was to show that despite the failures of republican government, and the temptation to believe that republican government was simply a nice idea that could never work and that it would be internally the fate of human beings to be ruled by accident enforce that it was america's national purpose to show that it could. >> that is fine. when you spoke about what americanism is, you referred to some of the same things, some of the principles that we hold dear and have held dear since the declaration of independence.

but the question that i think is it implicitly raised by what dan was saying, as well as several other people including yourself is, there have been waves and waves of immigration arguably more in the past four decades than ever before from every corner of the globe. and unlike before hyphenated americans do exist and they do seem to want to retain two different loyalties. even though they have to pledge that they will give of loyalty to one, they seem to recognize themselves as two. the question that i think leon was asking and i think we should ask more sharply -- to do we really live in different times? do we need a different answer to the question of what is the spirit conviction, the purpose

of america? >> i do not see how that changes anything. our fundamental problem today is that not immigrants from the ukraine will retain their loyalty to the ukraine. i do not see that as our problem. the question is when we educate when we form immigrants, who are children of native-born citizens, what are we teaching them? are we teaching them what it is to be american? or be teaching them a different vision? that is the whole ball game. i think the whole class has largely taken one side on that, the howard zinn side. i do not personally think that is the right side to take. what i perceive as part of my own mission is to make the argument for the other side. >> i think that is not the case, robert that you can a new -- ignored inequities in american

life and try to say that we are engaged in propagandizing in order to indoctrinate our young people to be more american. on the contrary -- and roosevelt spoke about this. he talked about people who would use our inequities to try to belittle the united states, and even worse, to try to belittle the idea of america. that is not a goal. but you cannot speak to me and say that america is without flaws, america knows nothing of slavery, knows nothing of segregation. you cannot speak to a jewish person and say that america knows nothing about glass ceilings and acting as if you are less than fully human. this is not true. to become a part of the quarry of america -- to me, part of the glory of america is that we work through these things and

continue to aspire to these things that you spoke about in the declaration of independence, all men equal. and we really pursue it and we really hold each other to account in a very public way. you can campaign, but you have to of knowledge that there are people living in poverty in a palatial, that there are black people who aren't -- in appalachia that there about people who are not necessarily part of a constituency. this is still america. the people who do not acknowledges who continue to lie about who they are or persuade people that there aren't a problems are lying. >> america's failures or an equities they should not be glossed over or hidden.

we want people to know them wholly. whether they are native-born or immigrant children. and it does include dark moments that we should be ashamed of. but you're also right that our confronting them cannot our always relate -- realizing them as part of the public schools. we have to tell the story of anti catholicism. there is a system of catholic schools because there were people who wanted to use the schools to strip catholic immigrants of their religion. that story has to be told, too. we have to relate to our young people the vision that our founders had and that they embodied in the declaration.

>> we are moving into politics here. we can agree that we are united by principals instead of race. we could make the list and three or four minutes probably. we can agree that there are few characteristics. anything is possible. after that, it is up to the philosophers and professors and the debates to apply those principles and, with competing versions. -- and come up with competing versions. lincoln stated the principles build on those principles. our politics is mostly about

conflicts among people based upon the same principles are dealing with the disappointments and not realizing the aspirations that all men are created equal that we all agree with. >> we are going to move very soon to open it up for some questions. >> the historical context was interesting because in 1894 he was removed from the support experience and what he was looking back at was this long period of hegemony andbut you cannot say that he saw in any precise way that he saw two incredible episode of mass murder not only descend

upon europe -- self-imposed, of course, but to completely reshuffle the deck in favor of america. i have not read much else of roosevelt views on these matters, but there are hints of him feeling strongly and saying, let's not be like europe. let's not be like europeans in a lot of different ways. and one can only guess that he felt part of it was not just our geographic isolation and the oceans which protected america and till the landscape -- tilted the landscape, but there was something about american principles and something about european principles. i answered that with robertson view -- robert's view that what

we have today is not that different, and actually, today we have a powerful set of choices to continue to drift toward internationalism, in deference to foreign law, being more like europe. it is more than whether this socialized this or that. is part of the principle of what has divided america the self- reliance verses the collective role by elites, and the decisions made by the common man versus the opposite. >> two more comments. >> i will make nine brief. to the question of why it matters part of the preamble as to form a more perfect union. i think it is worth our realizing that one of the most fundamental human needs is

communion with one another. when we have, and union -- one we have common union with a friend, a spouse -- i have common union with the people in here because it is 98% americans. that's more perfect union that the constitution speaks of makes my life better. the fact that politics enters into it, politics is how we order ourselves. i do not think it is a dirty thing to avoid. it is how we order ourselves. the issue of why it matters is because it goes to the fundamental need of human beings, and that is, this union with one another. when we have it, it is something that is almost transcendent. it is not material, but something we share in our

hearts. it can be a very profound thing. i think what we all sense is that maybe some of that has been lost and we all miss it. >> i hesitate to open my mouth. i think our national purpose should be to be proud salesman of the democracy of our republic. we are getting salesman we americans. but to be a salesman is not by itself a proud occupation. you are trying to suck up to your customer a little bit. that we should not do during but we should be proud of what we have done. -- that we should not do. but we should be proud of what we have done. we have been the first to make a republic that works. >> let's open it up to the audience. there are microphones down here. >> and please state your name and let's request that we have

questions comments if they are very brief. no long speeches, please, because there are also other people that want to get to the floor. >> roger. i am the last surviving patriotic englishmen. [laughter] i wanted to say something to frank's original statement about patriotism to the village because i think this is something that has been slightly overlooked that may be the kind of patriotism that roosevelt is talking about is actually compatible with the patriotism of the village. i have been for the last six years living in rural virginia as a visiting anthropologist kind of -- [laughter] and my main observation was that this was a society that was

totally constituted by volunteers. here we had a little village of 400 people, six churches, 40 little societies, volunteer rescue squad. everything was done by people oppose the initiative on the local level. -- peoples's in issue to on the local level. it this is the thing that seemed to me, at least to renew those ideals. it is what we have lost in europe. but we do not actually have that society of volunteers anymore. maybe the panel would want to talk to this, the extent to which american patriotism can exist without renewing things at the local level and getting to know your neighbors and doing things without interference from government. >> that is why i would say this definition of americanism is

also political azimkar. it is an argument between the left and right. it is only when you have a government that limit itself, a government with enumerated powers to my government that is not over pronounced itself in action, a government that does not impose a requirement on getting an individual in contract with the company and paying a fine. it is only when you allow the space for the voluntary associations that you're talking about, and which tocque ville talked about and it is the question of do we want to be like what we see in europe or more of the democracy that we

have traditionally been? it is getting to the essence of americanism. we are different in that way because of our history because we are a number younger country and because we have this marvelous emergence of a generation of geniuses who gave us a gift. that, i think more reaches almost a sacred level for the documents it in history. the general principles would mean that we would be giving up something exceptional and unique, exactly as demonstrated in your example of a society that operates under voluntary association. it is not something that emerges out of virginia. it survives because the

government knows and is required to step back. >> a question in the back. >> one of the founding creed that we have not talked about is the freedom of religion. i think that people recognize that is an element of americanism, if you're a core element, and yet we have very strong disagreements -- a very core element, and yet we have very strong disagreement about how that is applied. >> anyone on this subject? but i'm glad you brought that up. i think that is -- >> i'm glad you brought that up. i think it americanism was very current in 1890's and that was

heresy to lead the 13th. -- allawi 13th -- louis xiii. there was a lot of nervousness about this at the vatican. it would not surprise me at all if roosevelt was addressing that. although, he also says there is no place for no-nothing in ism in his speech. he was very clear about the rigorous separation of church and state, which in those days off and had an anti-catholic under current -- often had an anti-catholic under current. there is tension there in

itself. i would see religious freedom as tied to the declaration itself. >> would you say however -- never mind roosevelt. would you say americanism or its equivalent today is or should be neutral with the distinction between religion and atheism? >> does it matter? >> i think it's -- i do not think it can be entirely because the nature of these views are ground and something transcendent of god or nature of god, whatever that means. human beings cannot get at them and -- the idea that human beings cannot get at them and metal with them is fundamental. -- meddle with them is

fundamental high. >> i want to suggest that there is some overlap between what americanism is and what characteristics americans must have for our country to work. fortunately for you all in a column on line have listed what i thought those 10 characteristics were. i was hoping you could comment on them. just briefly, do not discourage anyone else's race or ethnicity. respect women. learn to speak english. be polite or civil. do not break the law. do not have children out of wedlock. it cannot demand anything because of your race or ethnicity. i do not view working or studying hard as [unintelligible] do not hold grudges. and be proud to be an american.

>> the 10 commandments? [laughter] >> probably ever won in the room could ping back to their own immigrant -- everyone in the room could be think back to their own immigrant parents or grandparents or great- grandparents'. of course, the african american case is different because of slavery, but think back to those immigrant grandparents. when i think of my own the thing that strikes me so vividly -- and they are all gone now -- is their gratitude to this country. that was the key to their americanism, in a sense. opportunity and liberty. one said had come from southern italy for economic opportunity not political reasons. the other set from the ottoman empire in for political

reasons. they never learned to speak english very well. but they wanted their kids to be american. and in part because of their gratitude to this country. and i will tell you what they did not have. something that would be poisonous to gratitude, and that is an attitude of entitlement. i think if we communicate to immigrants or anyone that the proper posture to take toward the country is n.m. -- is a posture of entitlements, that i am to be taking care of, that undermines the gratitude that is key to americans -- especially immigrant americans becoming true americans. that does not mean that we do not need a safety net. that does not mean we should not have a proper debate about where this hatred said in and where private initiative or voluntary -- where the state should step

in and where private initiative or voluntary initiative should. i am not proposing the libertarian you to be in by any means. but i do think, that does not mean that we should drop into mdot -- drop into an attitude of and how, because i think that just kills gratitude. -- an attitude of entitlement because i think that just kills gratitude. >> the source of gratitude that i saw in my grandparents, who were second-generation american you put that together and they constitute what we call the american dream. there's no other country, i think, onerous for which the word dream follows the name of the country. i have never heard of a french dream. well -- [laughter] i do not think i should have gone there. a russian dream, i suppose, yet

another belgian this year. [laughter] americans understand opportunity and political liberty. why does everybody come here? it is precisely for that reason and again it is unique to us. democracy is unique in america. but that is what i think the essence is of what you call americanism and what we call american and factionalism. -- american exceptionalism. >> even if people did not come because they think that we have great institutions or political ideals the experience that they have any opportunity they get to give to their children inspires them and enables people even immigrants, to be proud when their children fight for the united states military, as so many immigrant children do. their parents are proud.

they understand their children are abroad in harm's way fighting for their country, and it really is their country. even though they are immigrants, it is their country. >> my question goes to the comment about civic institutions. it has been argued that capitalism and democracy are empty vessels into which we pour our values as a nation and that these values are best preserved in civic institutions. the question that i -- not in the content of our economy or the strength of our economy or the strength of our military but the content of our civic institutions. why do we hear why do we hear so little about the civic institutions that preserve our values?