in a propaganda that sense, america is not doing right. i wonder if you could address that more. eisenhower -- industrial complex of defense is bad for our nation, but we ignore this. you know that obama at the beginning wanted to end the war but continues to fight and continues to detain prisoners without judge. and education -- ph.d. should be in higher positions, but many -- [unintelligible] i wonder if you could address all these inconsistencies so we could move forward. there should be war against injustice here domestically rather than overseas. >> well, i am not sure this is much inconsistency as you are suggesting, but first of all, i thought, among the many things i did not like about eisenhower, that speech is one of them. i don't know what he was talking about.

i don't think our country is controlled by the military- industrial complex, by any stretch of imagination. i think that the united states is constantly forced to measure itself as it passes judgment on the rest of the world. there was a time when the united states was, you know, expressing its moral disapproval of other nations. certain minorities in this country had no rights. one of the products of the cold war was greater pressure on the united states domestically to live up to some of its pronouncements and globally. there are few countries in the

world that work harder to try to perfect their imperfections and then the united states. very few nations are more self critical that americans are and work harder to try to address inequities in the system. by the way, they frequently fail. hypocrisy is a human attribute, an inescapable human attribute. my view of the united states is that we need to compare americans to humans, not to angels, and to compare humans, americans do pretty well. >> tom? >> apropos of the military industrial complex and civil liberties, i cannot explain it constantly, but there is a coalition through the cold war between american power -- coalition through the cold war between american power and expansion of domestic the bodies -- domestic liberties. beginning with brown v. board of education through women's rights, gay rights, rights and rights and rights. historically, an

internationally, too, there is a correlation between american power and human liberty. to say that it is causal requires elaboration, but compared to other world powers of ages past, going back to bob's our original plan, this is not only remarkably peaceful and prosperous era, but are remarkably free era, especially for americans. i become worried that if we are shrinking and in decline, whether we will be so expensive -- expansive granting rights encouraging civil liberties here at home. it is a question that never gets asked.

>> just a quick point. because the united states as a human rights agenda, it will always be accused of inconsistency, and consistency with our values apply it, and inconsistency without -- with how it is applied abroad. if we can do something right with the human rights agenda even if we cannot do it in other places, i would rather be accused of inconsistency rather than be accused of doing nothing. >> this is intended to set up a presidential election. this might be a good point to bring up a minor issue that has arisen in this campaign, and that is president obama's apology to afghanistan for the burning of the korans.

that was immediately criticized by several of the republican candidates. i'm wondering what any of you think american leadership, american exceptionalism, an america's claimed to stand for human rights and liberty -- what does that imply? what does that imply about the united states when you have a situation like this when u.s. troops do something that is so offensive to people you are trying to serve? was that the apology appropriate or not in this context? >> i think it was very pragmatic. at the end of the day, the commander in chief has a responsibility to his soldiers in afghanistan. that was a way to reduce the tension. that was his primary intent not all the other observation is that as the world's only superpower, we can apologize without it being a problem. how does that damage our side? particularly when an apology is needed? on november 26, which killed 24 pakistani soldiers. there is an investigation on both sides of the border about what happened.

as is often the case in war, there was miscommunication on both sides. at the end of the day, pakistan is supposed to be one of our allies. to me, that is thepp evinadrtent, it is ok to apologize, in my view. >> no, i'm not really concerned about the apology in and of itself. i just worry about the measure of sporadic attention on the part of the president. to peter's pakistan point, worse than having to deal with people like hamid karzai -- the pakistan army's neglected doing so. what i would like to see is more active engagement. we are not managing the people who really are our allies, for better or worse, as well as we might do. >> in that case you are

referring to pakistan? >> well, both. we -- defer to peter -- actually have a balance, a coalition in afghanistan that could be sustainable but, again, requires a certain amount of energy to put together. >> let's go back to the audience now. >> thanks, hi. new america foundation. similarly, i am wondering if we can talk it a little bit about the extent to which the subject of america's rule in the world is being talked about on the campaign trail, and i wonder if any of you see the gop candidates of doing a particularly good job of thinking about for addressing this issue aside from putting out reactive comments about afghanistan and syria.

>> the most comprehensive position is ron paul's. i think the republican candidates have a very consistent problem, which goes to what we have discussed already -- you can critique around the edges on afghanistan, but at the end of the day, there were 30,000 troops in afghanistan in 2008 and went up to 100,000 going down this year. what would you say? we are going to put 400,000 troops in, stay for decades? there's not much you can say to critique it. same with pakistan. obama tripled the number of drone -- obama quintupled the number of drone strikes. would the republican candidate in office quintuple the quintuple? no one has proposed what the syrian military intervention would look like, a lease on the republican candidate side -- at least on the republican candidates i'd.

>> as an adviser to governor romney, i think he has done an excellent job. [laughter] now, in fact, he has laid out a comprehensive, by far the most comprehensive approach to foreign policy. perrylawn white paper, given a big speech on the subject -- very long white paper, given a big speech on the subject. as is the nature of most primary campaigns, it has not been the topic du jour. you do not get a chance to lay out your vision of foreign policy when you are debating contraception and all the other important topics they are debating. the better time to ask this question will be in the general election, because then i think there will be a discussion about american foreign policy. i think there has been room for criticism of the obama administration. i know that one of the major

approaches of governor romney, for instance, is that for quite some time in various parts of the world, president obama has not been great with a number of our allies. he is now, by the way, scrambling to repair that image. is meeting with david cameron is intended to undo the slyke was allegedly committed when he returned -- the slight that was allegedly committed when he returned a bust of winston churchill. he has had to work very hard to prove he is a friend of israel. there is the case to be made that in much of the administration's early out reached adversaries and potential competitors, the reset with russia, the outreach to iran, inevitably some of that has come at the expense of traditional allies who may have been themselves competitors and adversaries of those players. that is a legitimate criticism. >> let richard go first.

>> if i could add one thing in terms of the foreign policy debate, having worked for the presidential candidate in 2008 that didn't win, i have some insight into how these debates take shape. this time around, "everybody knows" that this will be an economy election and foreign policy and national-security issues don't matter. we around the table have a vested interest in that not being the case, but it has the added virtue of not being true. both candidates will have to convince voters that they are the commander in chief who at the end of the day can be trusted with preserving the national security of this country. that is why you are going to see all kinds of speeches and activities to bolster their case for that. even now you see the press pay most attention to the economy, behind the scenes, at a minimum, you will see a real debate on national security matters, and it will matter at the end of the day.

>> not to criticize the press, but at every one of these debates, the number of foreign policy questions asked by the media as opposed to the infidelity questions asked by the media -- the ratio is low. >> one attempt to add something of value -- one way to look at this divide is not so much partisan war hawks versus doves. to me it is a generational split the differences tend to be -- senator mccain and senator lieberman being the uber- examples of this, guys with the traditional and conventional view of america's foreign policy and it will, versus a host of younger politicians, post-cold war politicians, much more diverse and coherent set of policy views --

[unintelligible] no -- ok -- right and left. the point is that they have not congealed around the consistencies and traditional habits, and it has been some time now. in many ways, it has been a continuity of the things we saw during the clinton years, for a whole host of reasons. >> center for a new american security. this is very much a follow-on question. all the panelists address this in part, by not explicitly. what are the issues that will define how the national security will be determined? how will that come down in terms of one, two, or three

issues? >> quickly down the line here. >> any president has to deal with the cards that have been dealt, and the cards that have been dealt this president and the next president are what is happening in the arab world. the most substantial event of our current period is the arab awakening, the arab spring, what ever you want to call it, because however it shakes out is going to reshape that part of the world, which remains a very important part of the world. i would think that managing as best we can, understanding the limitations of our ability to manage it, ought to be at least in the top two. i do think that how the united states -- you are saying beyond levels global leadership, but the defense budget, given the sequestration issue, really needs to be way up there.

>> i would put iran first, because i think that the candidates will draw a distinction on their approach to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. even if the debate is on the margins, that will be an element in the debate, because we're seeing so much in the news on this. third, i agree that the middle east and the way the middle east is added. -- headed. >> some people have predicted that china is going to be a big issue, certainly in the context of trade difficulties. >> it would be an issue -- maybe if i had four rather than three, i would put china as four. the content of the debate i would put behind those three. >> the 4 big issues we are addressing are serious. anyone who deviates from that is out of the triumvirate. yeah, write that down.

look, we're living in a world that we made. nobody can unmake it or change it better than we can, for better or worse. in historical terms, all the challenges of there are relatively manageable -- out there are relatively manageable, compared to, say, napoleonic france, the rise of germany, or something like that. there are many better reasons to think of a good outcome with regard to china. there are many problems in the middle east, and the iranian nuclear one could be a transformative one that would shift to this collection of issues that we've been able to manage into something sort of -- that gets out of hand. but there doesn't seem to be anything that is beyond our ability, particularly because we are starting from such a

position of inherent strength, a century's worth of success establishing this world -- i guess i wanted to start with this framing issue. >> five years ago on this panel it would have been al qaeda and jihadi terrorism. we're not even been discussing that today. al qaeda is basically out of business. a sovietologist in 1989 -- i need to find something else. something we tend to forget in these discussions is that pakistan is going to be the fifth largest country and it will, it will have more nuclear weapons. managing our relationship in pakistan is a very difficult and important. and one of the challenges for president obama, president romney, who ever it is, is

mumbai 2. the idea that tourists can buy or acquire nuclear weapons is the area of fantasy. what is not fantasies triggering a weapon in a place like pakistan. pakistan has tactical nuclear weapons. you can sketch out the scenario. that is a major foreign policy challenge that any president will have to be thinking of a carefully in the future. >> i am interning at the cato institute. my question is about the nature of diplomacy. as you saw through 2000, the rise of the status of violence,

al qaeda and what not, and also, obama's massive escalation of drone warfare. we were always hyper-diplomatic. but in a time when you are not necessarily talking to nation states, and violence can be a lot more anonymous, and anybody can be attacked by anybody, it seems, a big leveling of the playing field, how does that change our diplomatic priorities, first of all? we saw obama attack in pakistan without contacting the state first. it seems like diplomacy might be taking the back end to simply american policy. is this something you noticed? do you share these anxieties? >> very interesting question. whither diplomacy?

>> the new complexion of the international system is something we have been talking about for well over a decade. without minimizing the issues you have raised, i am actually under whelmed by how revolutionary it has all been. i find state to state relations it remarkably relevant in the current era. i'm not overwhelmed by the presence of non-state actors in the international system. we have obviously dealt with al qaeda and others and will continue to deal with them. but as i look around dealing with most of the crises that people are dealing with, they are very much about state-to- state cooperation, and that includes dealing with weapons of mass destruction, which is about cooperation among the states on the high seas, protection, shared intelligence resources. that is very much about diplomacy.

i continue to believe that diplomacy is still of the greatest value. i don't really think it has changed. >> just today we have seen that the swift organization has agreed to sanction iranian banks. the front page of "the financial times" had a story about iran at's oil output being at a decade ago. as far as the conflict with iran is concerned, diplomacy is front and center. >> even on this question of drone strikes, diplomacy is critically important. you want to have drone strikes? drones after takeoff from somewhere. most of the time we are securing the rights from foreign governments to do certain things. it is the rare case that we are doing something unilaterally completely on our own.

overflight rights, landing in bases, intelligence cooperation, diplomatic and coordination, all those sorts of things get at the heart of what we're doing diplomatically with countries. even in the case of drone strikes, diplomacy's critically important. >> tom, peter, final thoughts? >> actually, everything has been said, it just hasn't been set by me -- said by me. [laughter] we have covered the landscape extraordinarily well. >> all right, thank you all for coming. bob's book is "the world america made." i cannot believe you are not selling it here. >> it is not all about money. [laughter] >> it is about promoting your message. a very readable, very well

written, very well thought out. i like to thank my panelists -- paul kagan, -- bob kagan, peter bergen, richard fontaine -- rival think tanks. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> sees ben's wrote to the white house coverage continues -- si spans -- c-span's road to the white house coverage continues. on march 24, it is the louisiana primary. in early april, the district of

columbia, maryland, and wisconsin. the associated press reports that the delegate count stands at 4954 mitt romney, -- 1144 delegates are needed for the nomination for president, this includes national committee delegates who told the ap which candidates they support. >> our system is undemocratic in a number of ways. one of the ways is primaries. 40% of all the voters cannot participate in the primaries. they have no say in who gets nominated. as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on those ends of the spectrum. >> saturday night, we talked

about independent voters. they have decided the election since world war ii. also, turns the network into an extension of the republican party. and sunday night at 10:00, mark levin, and his thoughts on the current state of politics. booker t. become a every weekend on c-span to. -- book tv, every weekend on c- span 2. >> then, a look at mental health in the u.s. military. later, more of our coverage of the economy summit. >> several live event to tell you about tomorrow. the center for american process hall -- progress hold a forum on the end of the iraq war.

that is here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. president obama has a campaign fund-raiser in chicago. one of several campaign event he has scheduled. tomorrow morning, a discussion of democracy in the middle east. that is on c-span 3. >> the strong support we have come up with this movement originated, gives us an excellent base and we will go forth in the beginning with the 107 let toro votes that comprises florida. then you have the 270 a la torre votes necessary to win the

presidency. >> -- electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. >> go to our web site, c- span.org/thecontenders. >> there has been contention, spirited disagreements, and argument. but do not let anybody me misled -- be misled by that. you have given a moving and dramatic look at how americans who defer can move forward for the nation's well-being, shoulder to shoulder. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> in his first major campaign speech, joe biden told autoworker is that president obama was right to a the auto industry.

his remarks begin with an introduction by representative marcy captor. >> please welcome congresswoman marcy captor. [applause] >> good morning. what a pleasure it is to

welcome back president, excuse me, almost, vice-president joseph biden to toledo, ohio. i know that president barack obama knows exactly where joe biden is today. we are so thrilled to be able to at the start of spring and before st. patrick's day which i now has a fondness in the spice president's heart to thank him for his incredible leadership. his dad had an automotive dealership when he was growing up. for believing in us and believing that the american automobile industry could be reborn and could reignite the american dream again, for all of us and for meerkat.

-- america. president barack obama took a chance because all of us can remember back three years ago when literally, general motors, chrysler, jeep, and ford hung on a string. we did not know, we had a huge fight to try to support president obama and vice president biden in their efforts to refinance and save this loadstar american industrial platform. in the congress, i was thinking back and i think that we only got 237 votes out of 435 in the house to refinance this industry. you think about who are those other folks that simply could

not understand why this was america's most important industry. without it, we don't have a defense of the nation either. we don't have a defense of the nation. a million jobs hung in the balance, over 120,000 right here in the state of ohio. this industry is reborn. there are plans open again, you are working. [applause] the truth is, one out of 8 jobs in our state are tied to this industry.

if you think about companies like the textile company's of our country, half of what they sell goes into the automotive industry. the semiconductor industry, half of all of those products go into the industry. this is a big american industry. who would have that three years ago that general motors would have been at the top of the pack again in terms of global economic companies? president obama and vice president biden said on american ingenuity and hard work. i have someone who spent 29 years in the automotive industry many as you know, you

know that her work at jeep has gone on for almost three decades. she will tell our story. she has told it to president barack obama and vice-president joe biden. [applause] >> good morning, it is and honor to be with you. i have done two things in my career, i have served my country and i have built jeeps. i was a communications specialist in the air force and for the next 29 years, i work right here in toledo. i still remember my first day at

jeep, i walked in there knowing that i was going to be there for the rest of my working life, i was going to be with a jeep until i walked out with a pension. that is how my father did it, that is how my grandfather did it, and that is how workers all over america have always done it. i can i even tell you how many jobs i have done, i have worked in the paint shop, the body shop, i have put mud flaps on cars and i have talked of antifreeze and radiators. i have put on doors and driven cars off of the line. for six years, i was the only woman working in the entire room -- the tire room. i will never forget when it almost ended forever. we all know how close it to having our whole world come

crashing around us we came. i remember waiting and waiting for some good news while fearing the worst. more than a million across the state, across the midwest, and across the country would be out of a job. those of us who helped to take care of our parents and siblings like i do, since it would not be able to. people with mortgage payments and medical bills and tuition to pay, they would not have anywhere to turn. our community, the shops and restaurants and local companies to support would not have had our business. we would not have had those pensions that the current with hard work decade after decade. america would not have an automobile industry. we have not done anything wrong, we just came to work every day and made great cars.

i cannot describe what it felt like to hear some people say that the american auto industry should be left for dead, this is the most shocking and infuriated thing you can hear but i don't have to describe it because all you out there know exactly what it was like. there is someone else who knew what we were going through. president obama knew what we were feeling and fearing. president obama made the greatest called it was not popular. everyone said it would be the wrong political move. it was the right thing to do. it was the right thing to do. [applause]

and because he did step up, we're still here. i am still working at jeep, and i am so proud that i am. jeep is a family and thanks to president obama, toledo and jeep are doing well. we cannot keep the wranglers on the lot. [applause] i am grateful for the president every day and always will be. that is right. i am so honored to be able to introduce someone who has been by his side and by our side the whole time. someone who always sticks up for hard-working people, the blue-collar people, the union people. please join me in welcoming the vice-president of the united states, joe biden. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> hi, folks, how are you? good to see you all. apologize. thank you. thank you. i want to start off by congratulating mercy capture for two more years. -- marcy kaptur for two years.

i drove those jeeps you built, my daughter still drives a jeep. if i -- i wish my dad had owned a dealership. he managed it. if he did, i would be able to own those new cars in took my girlfriend to the prom in. i had to borrow them. it is good to have a dad in the automobile business. i am back, your back, and the industry is back. the president and i made a symbol that. we bet on you. we bet on american ingenuity and we want. -- we won. [applause] chrysler, fastest-growing car company in america. general motors has seen the largest profits in its history. 200,000 jobs lost before we took office.

200,000 new jobs since the rescue plan was in place. that is 200,000 people who have their dignity returned to them, reinstated, and a paycheck that can raise their -- they can raise their family on. my dad knew something and taught us something. a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it is about your dignity. it's about respect. it is about your place in the community. it is about turning to your kids and say, it is going to be ok. that is what a job is about. i do not know of these other guys understand that. and folks, that is how broad -- barack and i measure success. whether the middle class is during -- growing or not, that is the measure of success. a growing, vibrant middle class where moms and dads can look at their kids and say it is going to be ok.

that is what i want to talk to you about today. this is the first of four speeches i will be making on behalf of the president. laying out what we believe are clear, stark differences between us and our opponents and what that is for the middle-class. it is the middle class at stake. mitt romney, rick santorum, and newt gingrich, these guys have a fundamentally different economic philosophy than we do. our philosophy, ours is one that values the workers and the success of a business. it values the middle class and the success of our economy. simply stated, we are about promoting the private sector. they are about protecting the privileged sector. [applause] we are for a fair shot and a fair shake. they are about no rules, no

risk, and no accountability. there is no clear example of these two different views of the economy than how we reacted to the chrysler and the of will build industry. -- the crisis in the automobile industry. it is a cautionary tale about how they would run the government again and the economy if given a chance. remember, and you do remember, and you captured at all. remember what the headlines were saying when you woke up a couple of years ago. "it is bankruptcy time for gm." "crunch time looms for chrysler." government must act quickly to prevent loss of suppliers. for every one of you on the line, there is four people on the line supplying those parts. folks, 1 million good jobs are

at stake. on the assembly line, at a parts factory, at the automobile dealerships. down to the diners outside each of those facilities. our friends on the other side, our republican friends, had started a mantra. they started one that said we would make auto companies "wards of the state." governor romney was more direct. let dietrich go bankrupt. -- detroit go bankrupt. he said that what we proposed "is even worse than bankruptcy." it would make gm "the living dead." newt gingrich said "a mistake." the president did not flinch. this is a man with steel in his spine.

he knew that resurrecting the industry was not going to be popular. it was clear in every bit of polling data. he knew he was taking a chance, but he believed. he was not going to give up on 1 million jobs and on the iconic industry america indented. he was not going to give it up without a real fight. that is the kind of president, in my view, we all want. a president with the courage of his convictions, a president willing to take risks on behalf of american workers and the american people. and folks, that is exactly what we have. a president with the courage of his convictions. he made the tough call and the verdict is in. president obama was right and they were dead wrong. [cheers and applause]

and i say to governor romney, this production, his prediction of the living dead. we have now living proof, 1 million jobs saved. 200,000 new jobs created. the toledo powertrain plant adding 250 good paying jobs. gm investing $200 million to build an efficient transmission. the toledo chrysler assembly complex preparing to bring on a new shift, 1100 new jobs, building the best cars in the world. jeeps, not only to sell in the u.s. but to export abroad.

all told, right here in ohio, since reorganization. 15,000 good paying, i yeah, autoworker jobs, jobs you can raise a family on. live in a decent neighborhood on. [applause] american made cars that are once again cars we want to drive and the world wants to buy. and one more thing. the president's historic fuel economy efficiency standards that nearly double the efficiency of cars, seven of the american family is $1.70 trillion at the pump, helping free us from foreign oil dependence. they are against that, too. but you know, even though the verdict is in, our republican opponents will not give up. they cannot deny the automobile industry is back.

they cannot deny we're creating good jobs, good paying jobs again. so now they are trotting out a new argument. it is kind of old and new. they say not only should we not have done it, but have not done it, the private sector would have done it. they say the private markets would have stepped in to save the industry. governor romney says the market, wall street "will help lift them out." wrong. any honest expert will tell you in 2009, no one was lining up to land general motors or chrysler any money or for that matter, to lend money to anybody. that includes benning capital, there were not letting up to lend anyone money either. -- they were not lining up to lend money either.

they have gone to a new argument. our plan to save the industry was just a giveaway to union bosses and the unions. senator santorum said it was "a payoff to special interests." it is kind of amazing. gingrich and armey and santorum, they do not let the facts get in their way. -- romney and santorum, they do not let the facts get in their way. no one knows better than you and your families the real price you paid to allow this reorganization to take place. plant closures, wage freezes, lower wages, they know, everybody knows. these companies would not be in

existence today without all the sacrifices that you and uaw made. [applause] then they trot out another argument. if gm and chrysler had gone under, it is ok. because ford and other auto companies would have stepped in to fill a void. absolutely 0 evidence for that. in fact, when gm and chrysler went down,"it would have taken the industry down and turned to the recession into a depression." for would have taken up the slack, set -- ford would have taken up the slack, ford says no. the whole thing would have collapsed.

what is real bankruptcy. the economic theories of gingrich, santorum, and romney. they are bankrupt. [applause] if you give any one of these guys the keys to the white house, they will bankrupt the middle class again. [applause] look, the president and i have a fundamental commitment to dealing in the middle class back into the american economy that they have been dealt out of for so long. ultimately, that is what this election is all about. it is a choice, a clear choice, choice between a system that is read -- rigged and a system that is fair. a system that says, everyone will be held accountable for their actions, not just the middle class. a system that trusts the workers on the line instead of listening to the folks in the suites. that is the choice.

it is a stark choice. to my mind, it is not even a close call. look, a lot of you and your friends and family understand what i understand. as a kid, i saw my dad trapped in the city where all the good jobs were gone after world war ii in the middle 1950's. i remember walking from my bedroom in my grandfather's house and say, dad will have to move away for year. he will move to wilmington. ogle franc is down there. -- uncle frank is down there. when i get settled, i will bring you down. it is going to be good. a lot of you and a lot of your friends made that long walk to your kids' bedroom. things are changing. hundreds are replacing the

longest walk with the difference -- with a different journey. it is a journey that allows people to say, i have a job. these are amazing cars that people all over the world will want to buy. it is not just the industry is coming back. manufacturing is coming back. the middle class is coming back. america is coming back. this country is coming back. because of you. god bless you all, and may god protect our troops. go build those cars.

[applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> they would wear garments made of home spun it would be much finer than what they could import from craig didn't. -- from great britain. women were displaying their political sentiments. >> sunday at 9:00, a george mason university professor on the role of women during the of revolutionary war. -- during the revolutionary war. >> in a few moments, a discussion of moralism and american politics. then, a look at mental health in the u.s. military. then more of our coverage from the atlantic economy summit, including an overview of the

economy and remarks from paul volcker. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," the latest on afghanistan, the uprising in syria. it then, the american petroleum institute president discusses the cost of gas, alternative energy efforts, and the keystone oil pipeline. then, a look at how forming and and culture have changed over the few -- over the last few decades. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> next, a discussion of mormonism in american politics. this boston college forum included a mormon historian, a

religious scholar, and a political scientist. this is a little more than an hour. >> we are ready when you are. >> a good evening. my name is mark massa and i am the dean of fidelity -- theology at boston college. i would like you to -- to welcome you to this form. boston college, as you undoubtedly know, is an old catholic and just with university in america. my school, down this year in 2008, is the newest component of that venerable institution. with the creation of the school, boston college 6 to deliver on its commitment of being one of the premier places in the u.s. where catholics and religious people do their series in cannot, including -- serious thinking, including their thinking about how theology engages the world. an important part of that is fostering informed discussions,

like the one we will have this evening, about how theology and religion do and should focus discussions about the serious political and social issues facing our country. this evening, our colloquialism is entitled, are mormons the new catholics and jews, mitt romney and the state of their union. -- the state of the political union. tonight, i am delighted that this inaugural program has three individuals to set the bar high for this annual event. the moderator for this evening's colloquium is alan wolff, prof. of political science here at boston college, and the founding director of the center for religion and public life. joining him are khristine hagel and, the editor of dialogue, and contributor to the mormon

blog entitled "by common consent." we are equally honored to have with us withprothero, a friend from a graduate school and a contributor to cnn's belief blog, and the author of the much acclaimed book entitled "god is not one." of the aid rival religions of the world and why their differences matter. we are also very grateful to c- span for their broadcasting this event this evening. please join me in welcoming our colloquium participants this evening. [applause] >> thank you very much, father. it is my pleasure to host this event. we will begin right away. the format is going to be -- and i'm going to ask these two

distinguished panelists a few questions, start the discussion, they will then respond. we will keep going as a conversation and an expert corporate -- at an upper bridgepoint we will turn to you for questions. as you have been told, if you have a question, please go up to a microphone and asked it. if this is tuesday, there must be republican primary somewhere. and it seems there is a republican primary, as it happens, the states of alabama and mississippi. when this event is over and you have had time to reflect on all the wisdom you here, you will also pretty much have a sense of what the results are. i can tell you two things about the republican voters in the primary in advance. one is, the large majority of them are southern baptist. and the second is, none of them are really going to get a

chance to vote for a southern baptist. ron paul is technically someone from the southern baptist convention, but he is actually a follower of a jewish atheist from st. petersburg, rand, which is his true religion. the's the question, given legacy of a certain kind of anti-mormon sentiment that has been characteristic of various protestant denominations throughout our history, will southern baptist boat for mitt romney -- a vote for mitt romney in significant numbers? >> i grew up in nashville, tennessee. my house was about a mile from the southern baptist convention offices, and my inclination is that a very few republican southern baptist voters will vote for mitt romney. and they might not even be able to say exactly why. they just think that mormons are vaguely weird and other.

>> do you think so too, stephen? >> i think one of the surprises so far is how willing and evangelicals have been to consider mitt romney. that has been a surprise to me. he won the evangelical vote in new hampshire and in nevada. he was very close in a couple of states and in the southern state in general, he has been pretty far behind. the other trick is that, as you intimated, allen, his competition is two catholics. that is tricky if you are evangelicals that things that kaplan -- that catholics are not quite christians and mormons are not quite christians. you do not have a lot of places to go in this election. one interesting reason that is the case, you know, i do not wonder at the extent to which the anti- -- i do wonder the extent to which the anti-mormon of sentiment has been so powerful. there has been sentiment about whether you would vote for a moment -- a mormon if the nomination went to one.

those numbers have been pretty high since 1967. only about 20% of americans will admit that they will not vote for a mormon. but even there, there is a difference between voting for a mormon in the abstract and then voting for a particular mohrmann. a lot of voters, including some born-again christians are saying, well, i don't want to vote for a mormon, but i will vote for mitt romney. >> you seem to disagree to an extent with what stephen just said, but you also agree with what he said about southern baptists. the typical white american evangelical voter will not vote for a mormon, but they cannot really articulate the reasons. i recall a conversation with amy sullivan, a blotter and writer for "time" magazine abrupt -- who grew up in an evangelical church.

she said that very few republicans know very little about theology. but when it comes to mormons, and a good baptist can give you 12 the logical reasons about why a mormon is not a christian. >> well, maybe one. >> at the week after the counter cold unit in sunday school at the baptist and methodist church in my town, it was never find in school. it did provide for a lot of the logically grounded conversations. it was a great chance for me to articulate my mormon faith in a way that mormons do not really do either, right? everyone knows that mormons are supremely pragmatic and not

ideologically oriented. -- not theologically oriented. i think the way that mitt romney is perceived, even if people do not object to his specific theology, especially since he has not spoken about his beliefs and has made a point not to speak about them, but just the sense that he is awkward, just a little bit not comfortable in his skin -- i think that all has to do with both his sense of otherness as a mormon, and other people's the sense that mormons do not quite fit. it does not have to be an articulate opposition to something to do with more monism. >> can you speak about that sense of otherness as a mormon? >> yes, i think that from the time that mormons are little kids, they grow up in the church and they hear the refrain "every member a missionary." there is a song and all kids love it when they are growing up. you learn very early on that mormon as a messiah and to be

constantly performed. you have this sense, -- that more monism is to be constantly performed. you have this sense, especially if you grow up outside of utah, that you're on stage. you are showing how good momism is by your actions. without meaning to, and without any ill intent, mormons develop this double consciousness that you are always aware of your audience and always trying to gauge of what might be the best aspect of more monism to show or to hide. there is this -- moprmoninm is the best to show or hide. >> there was a highly publicized speech and i remember being called to one of the television studios to watch it live and comment immediately i thought it was an opportunity for him to say something about

who mormons are and what they believe. he pretty much decided not to do that and almost presented himself almost like an evangelicals. i wonder if you could address this. however pragmatic or necessary for romney politically, it was a great opportunity lost for a prominent mormon to say something about his faith in public to his national audience. >> stephen, i know you are familiar with that speech. >> i do not know what he would have had to gain from doing that. >> politically. >> yeah. i thought it was a great speech. it was over a week ago, right? so, some time ago. there was a sense that he made a strong argument for religious liberty.

he also made the point, which is something you do not hear from republicans very often, that the u.s. is a country that has oppressed religious minorities. he told the story of the oppression of mormons. i think it was maybe half a sentence, or a full sentence. mormons were pushed out to the west by persecutions. i thought that was a pretty interesting speech. it has been compared to the kennedy speech in 1960, houston. kennedy did not give any kind of claim about the causes and then. it would not have been smart for him. he did not talk about transubstantiation. it was not -- it would not be smart for him. if you wanted to be the schoolmaster for the nation, that would have been a nice opportunity for him. but i do not think we should

expect him to go anywhere near there in the future. >> i also think it has to do with the fact that mormons are not monolithic. people have different personalities. i do not think that romney is especially think-y about his religion. not that he does not understand it, but he is not intrigued by the theology of it the way i am. he is not a nerdy about it. i think he likes martin is -- mormonism in part because it works for him. it helped him build his family. it encourages clean living. he likes those practical aspects of the church. in college, i had the opportunity to hear him give a lot of sermons. i cannot remember a single one of them. and it is not because i was not paying attention. remember other people's concerns. >> i can remember any of his

speeches. [laughter] he does not -- >> he does not grapple with mormon as some -- mormonism in ways that make sense to me or to other people. maybe would make sense if he were trying to do this call master of the country, but it is just not who he is. >> there are some americans who will not vote for a mormon, or by the title of our symposium today is, "is anti- mormonism the new anti-catholicism"and there is a certain amount of bigotry against the mormon faith. it is obligatory of mormons to combat the ignorance by saying something more positive? >> maybe, but -- you know, this

week and last week, the discussion has been about mormon proxy baptisms. that is an interesting place where there could be an opportunity. there is a lovely theological underpinning to that doctrine. if you believe a certain rituals are necessary for salvation and you have the authority to perform them, it is a lovely universalist gesture to extend those rituals to other people. but if you do not believe that certain rituals are necessary to salvation, and you cannot in any way enter that religious frame of mind, there is no way to discuss the theological nuance, or to explain the doctrinal rationale that makes it seem like a perfectly harmless, and even benevolent and kind of practice to get a mormon. it is a gross offense to

everyone else. >> is there anything comparable with other minority religions? >> i think, part of what your questions have raised for meat is the question of -- for me, is the question of how other religions mainstream. to the extent of tonight about mormon as in, but also catholicism, how does catholicism get from the point of, no, we cannot elect al smith because he is a catholic to that we can elect j.f.k. even though he is a catholic to the fact that we even hardly notice that santorum and others are catholic. how does that happen? >> the machine. >> he is a good example. when he is on tv in the 1950's and talking about catholicism -- i think it goes more with donny osmond is winning "dancing with the stars appear go oh, he is a mormon -- "dancing with the stars" and it is like, oh,

he is a mormon, and he is dancing like us. you started by talking about people saying, when they are voting, they won people to be like them. that is one of the problems with obama. instead of saying that we do not like a black president, we say, i do not feel comfortable with this guy. he is not like me. the way you have a sense of whether he is an ok guy, or he is not too stiff, or he is one of us is not with theology at all. and it is, in part, because our theologies differ. and we do not necessarily want that to go into the public space. but the idea that -- and this is something you have emphasized in your own writings, too --

the idea that we are tolerant and can get along despite our differences, that is what will carry this along. that is where we see these people on "dancing with the stars" or wherever it may be. >> do you think a mormon would benefit -- do you think mormonism would benefit by being mainstream? >> for me, personally, i think it would be a great loss. and i'm not sure it could come out here as a group. it is still too small. if you look at the example of the community of christ, which is the largest splinter group from the mormon church, they have essentially become another protestant church with loose ties to the book of mormon and to joseph smith's history. they are losing membership and generally in decline in the way that some mainstream protestant

churches are. it is not clear to me that without the weirdness and tension with surrounding society that momism -- mormonism could survive. >> the me give you two scenarios. one is that rodney loses. the other is that brahney wins. -- that mitt romney loses. the other is that mitt romney wins. >> is there another possibility? [laughter] >> all of the above? heightenedw, the scrutiny with his candidacy has been very good for mormons in some ways. there is a chance to sort of clarify what we believe. there is attention to practices that need revision. there is another topic in the news this week, a byu professor

was talking about some old mormon doctrines about race that should have long since been repudiated, and have not been. and that is a salutary for the church to look in the corners of its history and to think seriously about the way it treats women and the other questions that come out. i think that is useful. i'm not sure we could stand it for another four years. i could not. >> do you have a perspective on this? >> i'm also thinking that the assumption before was that the way more monism -- mormonism could teach -- the way a mormon politician could teach, i think there is a way that mitt romney could teach in terms of what we do as a community and the family values the side of mormonism, which is the stuff that you are saying was attractive to mitt romney in the

first place. but i think this is a provocative and interesting question. i think it would be good for mormonism if " mitt romney were elected. i think it would be a sign, as kennedy was, that this is a tradition that has made it, in a way. and it does not have to be seen as a dangerous cult to others. i cannot believe about to say this, because i'm not a big mitt romney fan, but i think there is a way in which it could be good for america. we have this election that seems, in a way, already so nasty. i am already imagining that is going to be like the election of 1800 and be the top two of ugly and venomous elections in american history. but if in the end of that you would see, oh, we can have a non-protestant president and this is a place where a religious diversity and

religious pluralism have gone far enough we could elect someone like that, i think that might be good for the country. >> this may sound like an odd question, but i mean it quite seriously. when i look at the situation that mitt romney is basing trying to get the nomination of this party and i look at -- is facing trying to get the nomination of this party, and i look at some of the people he is running against a, here is a man who has been married to only one woman for a very long time. he has a beautiful family. he is the embodiment of american success. and i look at some of the other candidates, it is almost like they're looking for someone less perfect, someone who is broken, someone who has sinned and because he has sinned has found

redemption in another way. and there is a particular candidate who has been married and as many times as he has had wives, which is not exactly the picture of the straight and narrow. or in the last election where he seemed to lose support against mike huckabee, who had gone on a diet and was trying to cure his big weight problem. there is this sense that mitt romney is to perfect for republican voters, who are raised in a tradition that emphasizes the inherent sinfulness. is that part of the problem? >> it could be, and that goes straight to the problem of whether or mormons believe in greece or not. -- believe in grace or not. >> do you want to speak to that? >> shourd, mormonism emphasizes predictability and the mormon god is comprehensible to human beings. there is the collapsible of

distance, which is the belief that humans and dogs are not ontological if -- different from -- humans and god are not on the logic -- ontologically different, but just different by degrees of glory. >> so, mormons are not christian, then, is that where you are saying? >> i'm saying that mormons are still developing a robust theology of grace, which has not always been present. >> i was confused about that. this is precisely why mitt romney does not want to start talking about theology. the interesting idea, the kind

of broken person who has been redeemed, as the american model. i do think americans love that. it is in our films. it is in our mythology about our country. i think that is deeply christian, but it has also been americanized. it is not just evangelicals who want the imperfect person. that is one way that they are like us, not that they are sinners in the theological sense, but that they have troubles. for all the discussion in the last couple of days about mitt romney having friends that are nascar owners, and friends with nfl owners, too, part of the problem has to do with money, but part of the problem also has to do with maybe he is just too close to the gods. he is not like one of us. corexit mitt romney makes his

mistakes. -- >> mitt romney makes his mistakes. i can only think of that famous christian saying, all your fault. steven, you used the word republican when talking about mormons, and mormons are not overwhelmingly republicans. you are democrat. and there are many in your family. >> there are 15 of us. >> can you say anything about the attraction of the republican party and how robust is? and will that continue? if mitt romney does lose the nomination -- i doubt that he will. there are many who believe he pretty much has locked it up. but if he does lose, he will have lost it twice. will mormons' say, and my inclination is to vote republican, but this party does not want me.

>> the democrats do not really want us, either. mormons became mostly republican more recently than you would think. probably right around the time of the era, maybe a little bit earlier. it is a reaction to the '60s, pretty much. it is social conservatism in the sense that those were the most important values. and gender and family became boundary issues within the church, too. it always has been. at first, it was polygamous families. then it became these very american, a perfect families.

family values were a natural place for people to go in the 1960's. >> is that part of proving your americanness, the family values? the idea in the late 19th century is that you were not family values, right? >> yes, the tour -- the 1920's through the 1950's. >> if avenue m is going to be the equal rights amendment, the republican party -- you may know the dates on this. but through 1946, the republican platform was for the era. betty ford was one of the biggest proponents of the era. that coincided with the reagan revolution and that sort of thing. >> there was a moment for a year or two where mormons were also in favor of the era. then the general release society president came in with her very large hair on fire and saying we could should come against the era. -- we should come against the

era. >> one thing that should be noted, we had two more men candidates. the other one has dropped out. jon huntsman has been known as the most moderate of the republicans. the eternal question -- i mean, there are all kinds of questions about religion that can never be definitively answered, but there is one about politics that will probably never be definitively answered. that is, was mitt romney the governor of massachusetts, the real mitt romney, and the guy that is running out -- is he a fake? romney has changed his position more than a few times. he is generally identified as not the most conservative of the republicans. although, sometimes he has taken positions a little bit to the right of others. i think is fair to say, other things being equal, or if this were a different republican

party, he would be in the moderate rain -- moderate wing. his father was, and that is his family background. why are these two moderate republicans not among the most conservative? with many people who do not know much about mormonism and just have big prejudices, and you cannot get more conservative -- well, in fact you can get a lot more conservative. present form is a lot more conservative. anybody? >> -- rick santorum is a lot more conservative. anybody? >> do you know any angry mormons? i do not know any angry mormons.

they are -- it seems to be in the rick santorum wing of the republican party you have to be kissed off. there is this cultural communication -- you have to be pissed off. there is this cultural communication that you are walking around feeling pretty good about yourself. >> they take it out on mormon immigrants. >> maybe. the star about that. the other thing is, -- sorry about that. >> the other thing is, he is being a pragmatist. to understand him as the nba guy who goes into companies and figures out how to make them work, that is not done ideologically. that is pure pragmatism. in some cases you might want to fire a bunch of workers. in other cases you might want to change your product line or the ceo of your company. you do not go marching in with some ideological concept that will work. i think that is who he is and he has been very consistent

about that. it sort of changes his view depending on the situation. in massachusetts, the health- care plan seemed to make sense. it seemed to be at the time a pretty conservative republican idea that he was sneaking past the the liberals in massachusetts. now the times have changed and it is seen as a left-wing idea, so he has changed with it. i guess that is saying he is a principled flip-flopper, right? or he is a pragmatic person who ends up on different sides of the issue because of his consistent pragmatism. is there something about the mormon tradition that is not that deeply theologically driven, and that would be parallel to a politician who is not very ideologically driven? >> yes, there is this moment when he was running for governor of massachusetts and it was in one of the debates and he

was asked about casino gambling in massachusetts. you can practically hear the violence well. there are a million great concern -- the voilins swell. there are a million great conservative reasons to be against gambling and a million great liberal reasons and to be against gambling and he says, well, i need to see the numbers. he just really is kind of like that. it has more to do with his temperament and his mormonism, but there is this element that from the very beginning, there were only in one place for a couple of years at a time before they got driven out by mobs. mormonism was all about finding shelter and not getting burned out of it and finding things to eat and growing stuff in the desert. there was not a luxury of

caring about someone's theological opinion. >> what about this ongoing relation where you have the tradition of the possibility of change? you alluded to this racist moment in american mormon history. our remember as a kid -- i remember as a kid watching donny osmond on some variety show and they asked him, why can't black men become priests in the mormon tradition, and he said -- because at that time they could not. that changed in 1978 or 75 or something. and he said, well, that is up to the elders of our church and that has been our teaching. i remember thinking, that is bad. that cannot be. and he was defending it. but you know, there was a change. and the church flip-flop on the question, right? >> turned on a dime.

>> there you have an example inside the tradition that is not a closed canon. you have this theology that is handed down generation upon generation that is never going to change, but there is an understanding that the church can change, too. >> there is always from the very beginning this tension between authoritative revelation, this sort of right of the president of the church to receive guidance from the whole church, and this strong tradition of personal revelation and the idea that all people have the right to have access to have inspiration from god. those two things compete at various times. what is scary about mormon moments in american history is when people from the outside are looking at one or the other of those two strains come out one becomes more dominant. it kind of messes with the unstable equilibrium that we have worked out in the church. there is this moment in the church right now where from the 1960's on, there has been

emphasis on the authoritative aspect and following leaders, and not questioning, not asking too many questions, not wanting things to change. that probably came to a head in the late 1980's and early 1990's when a bunch of mormon intellectuals were excommunicated. but since then, there was a gradual opening. the historical department published a real honest history of the mountains maddow massacre. it is a horrible discussion. they lead to, helen whitney have access to the information for documentary and they openly cooperated with that. we are trying to be ok with people talking academically about mormons. i worry that if there is this sense -- you know if the court in new york -- if the "new york

times" editorial page is nearing have us, or if the republicans do not vote for mitt romney, that it could crush that moment of revelation and openness that is on the ascendancy. those are always tricky. >> i want to push to vote on this pragmatism question. you have emphasized mitt romney's pragmatism. steven, you have talked about how the mormon chain -- the mormon church has changed on a dime, so to speak. there is something admirable about that because it suggests that being dog -- locked into dogmatic positions or sectarian positions, we would not admire a church that held fast to principles of racial segregation and we can appreciate the flexibility of trade -- of change. but pragmatism can go to such an extreme that you wonder if you can trust someone who is so pragmatic that he essentially stands for nothing. it seems to me that is part of mitt romney's political problems

these days. i confess to having liked him when he was governor of this commonwealth, and always having a certain sympathy from -- for him. i wrote publicly that i thought he was the victim of anti- mormon prejudice in 2008 and it was a stain on the american political character that he was. i have to say, watching him this time around, the pragmatism is so wildly out of control that i just do not know what is going to come out of his mouth. i do not associate this with mormonism, but as a character issue with brahney. -- mitt romney. in one of these debates, for some reason, wolf blitzer ended the debate by saying "hi, my name is wolf blitzer, and that is my real name." and then he said, hi, my name is mitt romney, and that is my real name. and i started tearing my hair out. his real name is willard. why can he tell the truth about his name?

there is a serious question here about whether one can be too pragmatic. as we often say -- i do not, but a lot of americans seem to say they admire the candidates religiosity because it implies there are certain standards to which the candidate here's -- adheres. when your that pragmatic, there is no standard to which you hear too. any comment? >> pragmatism, at least in the business school model that i am thinking of, is a technique. it is not a goal. it is a way to get to x. how will we get this company to improve? how will we get this company to make its certain amount of money every year? we will do what we need to do to do that. there's a pragmatism with mitt romney that he wants to get the nomination, and he is scarily

willing to do and say almost anything. and i agree with you, as someone who lived in massachusetts while he was governor, i have heard him say things that i have been surprised about. there is a difference there, i think, between a kind of native pragmatism among mormons, or someone who, say, as a republican, wants to get certain things done because those are his republican principles. then he is going to be a pragmatist about how that happens. i think obama is a pragmatist in that regard. i do not think he is that different from mitt romney in his strategy. that is why a lot of people on the left are annoyed with obama, that he seems to not stand for something. i think he stands for something, but he is willing to go about it in fairly pragmatic ways. i'm not really sure anymore what mitt romney stands for. i do think he is a guy who wants to be like his father and he wants to be elected. i think that is driving him more than he wants america to look this way and the best way to make america look this way

is for me to be president for eight years. >> i think i do not really know, either, and more what -- anymore what his bedrock is, and that suggests to me it is not a mormon thing. >> here is a question. either of you can answer. can you envision some day prominent candidates running for high office in the u.s. who is a mormon and a woman? >> yes. >> you do not have to declare now. [laughter] >> no, i do think that is possible. i would suggest -- suspect that she would not have had a comfortable life passage through mormonism if that were to happen. it is not always comfortable to be an ambitious woman if you are a mormon. >> is that changing? >> it is changing slowly.

and there is a backlash, i think. two steps forward and one and halfback. it goes slowly. -- and one and a half steps back. it goes slowly. it was said in our general conference that women should not pass judgment on each other for their tauruses about career and family. you would not think that would be radical -- for their choices about career and family. you would not think that would be radical in 2011, but it is. i think the pragmatism there will be a benefit. it is true that hardly any women have the luxury of staying home and having six or seven or 10 kidd and taking care of them at home. the church will adjust to that reality. >> i have not seen anything written about this at all, but right now, everyone is talking about how when in, and especially independent women, are swinging toward the democrats, in part, because the democrats seem to have framed the contraception issue as more about a woman's access to contraception than a churches

and religious liberty. mitt romney rene genser obama and given the importance of a female vote, i've -- running against obama and given the importance of a female vote, i wonder if he would be -- if there would be trends within the mormon church that have not been sensitive to that, whether or romney would be vulnerable. >> i kind of hope so. >> how much americans know about mormonism, i don't think we know much. you intimated that, too. i do not even think that would necessarily work. >> i actually thought there was a significant amount of learning. there were a lot of serious question and i think he answered them very well.

kennedy never talked about his faith and mitt romney never talked about his fate. lieberman did. maybe he had a higher hurdle to overcome. >> if mitt romney is nominated, he is going to be asked about these things. he will not be able to avoid it. >> and one of the reasons he is probably glad that the issue has been framed in terms of religious liberty is that the mormon position on birth control and abortion is quite pragmatic and tolerant. there is no position. >> and creationism? >> gazprom on not culturally, but dr. naille, quite friendly to science -- yes, not culturally, but doctrinal lee, quite friendly to science. >> given what republicans have to do to win their primary, i doubt whether the issue would come forward now. drugs and mormon sexism is the soft kind -- >> and mormon

sexism is the soft kind. it is chivalrous. go up on your pedestal and talked quietly. >> he may start moving to the microphone now, if you wish. as you are doing that, when i got to college a very long time ago, i had to take a course. it was required on public speaking. it was taught by a debate coach at temple university. he gave us all a question and we had to come in and debate. this was 1960. i was given the question, should george romney be elected president of the united states? he was not interested in running. if you just want to identify yourself quickly and then ask your question. >> michael probiotic, and then

a question. i think mitt romney's major problem is that he is in the wrong party. as a mormon or as a moderate, he has a very tough time representing the views of the republican party. i think his advisers are telling him to stay to the right as long as you can and then when you get the nomination, you can swing to the left. huntsmans had given away millions of dollars to the university and the hospital in salt lake city. they are a leading family in -- mormon family in the country. i think huntsman made it very clear that he was going to switch parties. i think for romney, he should have. >> i did not know that huntsman was talking seriously about switching parties. we heard a lot about this group called americans elected that would like to run a centrist

kind of party with people like senator snow. and jon huntsman would be a perfect match for that. theet's not forget that person who is going to get the republican nomination is mitt romney, who is a mormon. we can talk about the anti- mormonism in american culture, but we are in a situation where we are going to have a mormon who is a standard bearer, not just for one of the two parties, but for the republican party. that is an extraordinary moment in american religious history. >> earlier, we were talking about -- or you guys were talking about how whether or or not pragmatism and having a moderate position was typical of mormonism. i would like to bring up that before this year, perhaps the most infamous more men in american culture is glenn becher, who is a thing -- mormon in american culture is glenn

beck, who is anything but moderate. i wonder if they will cut recall glen beck and his views. >> i think the most prominent mormon is danny is. -- ainge. >> i think ibeck -- glenn beck disappeared. the new cycle being what it is, he is kind of off the stage. >> is rush limbaugh a mormon? >> snow. it -- no. maybe after he dies. >> i think that is germane. he was not raised as a mormon, so culturally, he is not a mormon. he converted when he was married, right?

>> yes. it's interesting factor, he followed me in sunday school and we moved away and he became a sunday school teacher. >> he was inspired by a scout, who is way out there. >> even for mormons. my publications finest hour may have been the takedown of the book by lou mulally. a fiery, wonderful, scathing review. and the back-and-forth letters. >> i wonder if i may be putting on the spot a little bit. i was at a conference with a lot of mormon intellectuals. proposition 8 in california came up. it was fascinating to hear them talk about it generally. they said three things, and i was curious to what extent they were true. they said, first, people need to know there are a lot of

mormons in california. one thing they said was that mormons did not really read, say, the l.a. times. they got most of their information from internal mormon publications, which led them perhaps not to realize how isolated they were becoming in their political position. secondly, they were told that the threat of prop. 8, temples would have to seal the same-sex marriages. which seems strange to me, because the method is religion, they did not seem to double down against it. the methodists convention does not oppose same-sex marriage the way the mormons and did. and thirdly, the flds people said, you know, if the previous president had been around, he would not have made the strategic error of pushing all of the ships against prop. 8. i wonder if you could comment on that.

>> i was not in california, thankfully, during that time, so i cannot comment authoritatively on what people were reading. but it seems likely to me that they were reading not church- generated memos, but most -- memos from, i cannot remember the names of the different coalitions. the coalition for marriage, or whatever their name was -- they were mostly mormons, but have participation from other people. i did see claims that mormons would have to marry gays in the temple. which i do not understand that fear. at first, i thought it was artificial. but in talking to people more, i think people were severely afraid. they did not understand it and were truly afraid that somehow this could happen. mormon anxiety around marriage

has historical roots. we did sort of have trouble doing the kinds of marriages that we wanted to about a century ago. i think that is always in the back of people's mind. what was the third thing? >> it might have been a different policy. >> i think that might be true. it came up in the public affairs department of the church, and had a great sense of the optics of things. i think he might have seen what happened, and i do not think the president had the same sensibility. i think they were generally shocked at the backlash. nothing like proposition 8 will ever happen again, because of that backlash. i do not think. >> is that something you do not see in the christian protestant denominations? there is this focus on the afterlife, the family, and the

image of that is always a man and a woman. the evangelicals have to go running to the bible to support their revulsion or opposition or whatever it might be to homosexuality. they have not grown up with southern baptists over the last hundreds of years. you have to go back and find a reason for the way you want it to be. in the mormon tradition, it is sort of there. >> there is this notion that the unit of exultation is a man and woman together, or a man and a few women, depending on which century are talking about. but there is definitely this theological heteronormativity that does not exist in other denominations as strongly.

>> the phrase religious liberty was introduced to the conversation. we all know that in these conversations the last few months, the catholic bishops have staked a strong position. they have had a clear voice at the table, even in legislative hearings. as have some evangelical denominations as well. i am just curious if we could sort of reflect on if there was less silence for the mormon tradition how would this conversation, this national sort of conversation, be different. if you could reflect on that. >> i am not sure. i think that at the moment there are at least a couple of apostles of the governing body of the church that have taken up this religious liberty flag with great enthusiasm.

and, you know, there is obvious history for mormons to be concerned about religious liberty. i think it is probably sort of instinctive to frame things that way, and it makes sense. i am concerned that when mormons talk about religious liberty, they are talking about something different. they are not talking about birth control. they are talking about gay marriage. by not disambiguating those issues, they hope to gain political allies, but it muddies the theological waters and makes it hard to articulate a distinctly mormon position. >> we have a few minutes. i am going to ask you to ask your questions serially, and then we will try to wrap up.

>> thank you for a great conversation. i am laura everett. i am wondering. one of the commitments for those of us to engage in interfaith dialogue is you let your dialogue partner define themselves. what happens here, with this conversation about who is christian, when you have the great majority of christian traditions -- roman catholic, the broad protestant sense -- saying they are christian, and you have the church of latter- day saints say that as well. is there an impact? is there a way through this? what does this conversation look like? >> jesper joseph. my question is somewhat related. you were talking earlier about whether mitt romney would have benefited from a speech or something like that talking about more monism. i immediately thought of now-

president obama and his speech on race. that was a significant moment. i am wondering if he would be able to give such a speech in a crisis moment, if it would be relevant. or does he had his bats? as we found recently, republicans in alabama and mississippi have not been happy he told them. i do not know the impact of that kind of speech for them. >> i want to clarify that president obama is not a muslim. [laughter] ok. just for those of you who are listening. i have a question about mormons and christianity, but i think it is an interesting question. i did a review years ago of a book by the bushmans, who are well-known historians of more monism. it was a series of books written for use in high schools about american religious history. on the very first page of that book, there was a theological

assertion that mormons were christians. i have always talked with my students about that question. i have always used it as a focal teaching point. it is an extremely interesting question to ask whether any group fits any category. it is an interesting problem. you can do it with all sorts of things. if you are in religious studies, it is particularly nice to do it with a religious group where there is a dispute about whether it fits a certain box. first of all, you have to know something about more monism. you also have to know something about christianity. and you have to have a theory about what christianity is. so there are all sorts of interesting things to happen in order to have that conversation. i was disappointed in that book that it forestalled that question, because it instructed high school students that that was not an appropriate and interesting question, whereas i thought it was.

to me, it is clear that if you have a kind of classical nicene creed doctrine of christianity, you understand mormons are not christian. there really are not. if you have, for example, how much do they talk about jesus -- you talk about jesus in almost any religious group i know, for example, how much do they talk about jesus -- you talk about jesus in almost any religious group i know, including protestants and evangelicals. maybe they are more christian. most of our -- many of the denomination's and christians we have in america are not christians if we have a doctrinal view of christianity either. if we are going to start kicking mormons out of the christian better for that reason, all of a sudden other people start getting kicked out. is rick santorum a catholic? that is an interesting question. rick santorum disagrees with the catholic church on the majority

of social, political, and economic questions. yet he is presenting himself as more catholic than now -- than thou. i am not answering that question. i am just saying i think it is a really important and interesting one. it is quick to go radiological. -- ideological. it is also easy to say that i am a good liberal, so i am going to say mormons are christians, or i am a good evangelical, so i am going to say they are not. i think romney will have to give a mormon is a speech if he is nominated, but i think it will end up being not about ideology but about the cultural side of the church and will relief from him as a republican and a family-values republican. i think he will do that. but he is not going to talk about celeste you kingdoms and things like that. >> in an ideal world, that

conversation starts with the question, with, "what do you mean when you say christian? what is your understanding of that?" neither mormons' nor evangelicals are good at asking those questions. mormon is and has no theological understanding of christianity either. they do not understand what people say they are not christian. they do not understand the theological history behind the assertion that we are not. there needs to be more teaching on both sides. >> the last word goes to you. >> i am delighted this has been marked by such intelligent and lively conversation. thank you for your conversation tonight. [applause] i would like to thank the center

here at boston college, and for all of you, who have been an excellent audience with your questions. i also think c-span for being present with us tonight. thank you for being here and enjoy the evening. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

we have pushed a small government agenda. those are the issues. we have to repacked that box. we put corporations and financial boxes in. -- financial markets in. we are creatures of legislation and law. we need the federal reserve to

take this seriously it is easy now. what happens with the tough questions remain? we need a labor market agenda and a social-democratic agenda for investment. that solves the problem. >> i have to end it. a really good show from all of you. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the atlantic summit also heard from former federal reserve chairman paul volcker for a little more than an hour. [applause] >> good afternoon.

my privilege is to introduce paul volcker, but i can hear you calling out to me -- do not rush. how are you doing? [laughter] thank you very much. i am it fine. i want to tell you about the occasion when my wife and i moved from my bachelor's apartment to our starter at home. it was 1986 and we left the closing of the selling of my apartment. i was introduced by the real- estate agent to the buyer of the apartment and was told her name was jane dickson. i asked if it was the astrologist of the future. she was. who knew that jeane dixon was a real-estate agent? when we finished, we were saying goodbye to miss dixon.

she took my 22-year-old wife's hand, put it in hers, turned her palm upward, and clasped both her hands and said, "my darling, you are going to have the bloodiest life full of friendship and prosperity." she came to me and turned my aunt's face up. she said, "i do so hope you enjoy your new house." [laughter] the connection between paul volcker and my starter house in the 1980's -- i do not know if i would have been buying a house in the 1980's. i do not know how much of a housing market there would have been in the 1980's without paul volcker. 1979, jimmy carter appointed him chairman of the fed. what i would like to do is read to you a bluebird profile of

that moment. october 1979, two after -- months after his appointment was confirmed, volcker convened a secret meeting. he called the office there were going fishing. he convinced them to switch the agency's focus to a tightening of money supply. the interest rates surged throwing the economy into a recession. volcker knew the medicine would be painful to work. there were demonstrations every day in washington by groups ranging from home builders to car dealers. volcker received car dealers -- car keys in the mail the gross domestic product fell 8% in one quarter, yet the remedy work. october 1979, inflation was 12.1%.

in september 1986, it was 1.5%. a canadian theologian thinks that the finest character quality is being "a long devotion in one direction." we are in our sixth decade of paul's teaching in public service. 1962, gary powers was released by the soviet union. johnny carson took over the tonight show. the pope excommunicates fidel castro. 1962, paul volcker starts his national service at the treasury department. deputy undersecretary of treasury in the nixon administration. 1975, president -- chair of the new york fed. chairman of the u.s. fed until 1987. five presidents in a row.

reagan, kennedy, lbj, nixon. a return to the national spotlight in 2008 when he endorsed barack obama. there is a vulgar rule, -- vulgar role, but there is also a bradley rule. it is a good thing when you get to introduce paul volcker at the podium. here is paul volcker and steven clemons, my colleague at atlantic media. [applause] >> thank you, david. that was wonderful. >> ladies and gentleman, that was some introduction. part of the of introduction made it quite evident i am not the youngest guy around. i will say one thing about the

introduction, david. i have heard a lot of introduction's over those long years. one introduction stands out as the most recent perio. [laughter] we have a challenge here today. my account, when i looked at the program, there are 20 strong minded economists on the podium and they come from across the spectrum. they come from at various occupations. when you sample all of the professional talent in this room right now, we have collected many many years of academic learning to draw upon. you would think that ought to

account for something. it keeps coming to my mind that all of this collection of wisdom available, how did we ever get into this economic mess? even more is how do we get out of it? i am told that at the end of this program, larry summers will be here. he has the responsibility to clarify all of the analysis -- what we should do and what we should not do -- and then go out and do it. my assignment is a little different. i am here to be a little provocative. i do want to emphasize a longer- term perspective. i have some idea about how we can approach that longer-term perspective.

what we all know is that the world of political economists has lost the sense of self- confidence that it once had. i entered the united states -- mist of the mets' the tryout of keynesian thinking. i can give you quotes from some of the leaders then. we had conquered the business cycle. we had a long period of stagflation. more recently in the 1990's, we had nine years of the washington consensus of rational expectations, market efficiency.

we even for a year or two managed to balance the budget. without much anticipation, it all went bad. in an inherently uncertain world, we should be worried about simple and all embracing approaches towards economic policy. the failure or success seems to eat all the confidence and excesses'. the excesses produced the next crisis. someone rationalized that observation of competitive cycles into a theory of a seemingly inevitably competitive financial crises in the 1980's that nobody was listening.

the economy has perked up in the last few months, but in my mind, we are far from a satisfactory level of activity. we -- there is still a long slog ahead of us before we can claim anything like success. rising consumption partly based on lowered savings and a pickup in inventory do not a strong and lasting recovery make. pauses in construction because it -- construction looks like it will remain flat. business investment is on the low level, but larger than at previous peaks. heavy weather in europe in particular. i do not have any silver

bullets are a short-term growth plan. i do know that the immediate future, we have to do what we can to sustain the economy. inevitably, that means maintaining an amount of fiscal stimulus, but that is not a recipe for sustaining a healthy economy over time. indeed, we should know that pressing stimulus to long will be counterproductive. i suspect it is hard to deal with the generalities, but what is harder is to make the basic and necessary reforms that will sustain growth and in the economy. we live in an environment of well-financed resistant to change and a deep-seated political polarization. in that respect, i could speak at length about the financial

system. but i have had a lot of opportunity to do that recently, so let me simply say that financial reform is important. some important areas have not been touched. what about accounting and auditing process is? what about credit rating agencies? they have so far received very little attention. even in those areas where international consensus seems to exist, it is difficult to actually and implement new capital and liquidity standards. important parts of the dodd- frank legislation need to be nailed down. important parts dealing with the evidence, the more important parts dealing with too big to fail, and, yes, the volcker rule

as well. i want to emphasize something different today. not the problems of the financial system, but the imbalances in the real economy and what to do about them. the simple fact is the united states is a high-consumption economy. that has been true for years and it has been true recently even when income has lagged. for a decade or more, consumption has run through a willingness to say consumers took on a heavy load of debt in the process, mainly in home mortgages. from stet -- the process was propelled by the options of real income growth for most households extending over a decade or more. that is something that simply is not supposed to happen.

-- supposed to happen in a healthy economy. gains are supposed to be widely shared. instead, we add concentration of income growth at the very top of the population -- the 1%. income distribution has not been so top-heavy since 1929. it is an interesting comparison. something similar went on with the federal budget. we reduced tax rates and increased military and mandated spending. financial manifestation of private and public deficit is rising indebtedness for the nation as a whole, -- [unintelligible]

borrowing as high as 6% of our gdp. it is easy to are china and japan to sell goods to us and accept payment in dollars. interest rates were low and for the time being, given the problems in europe and japan and the lack of options, our ability to borrow cheaply abroad fortunately remains. i also think it is true that borrowing is symptomatic of an underlying equilibrium that simply cannot be sustained indefinitely. who could have imagined china

would accumulate $3 trillion of reserves and other foreign countries are financing a large chunk of our budget deficit as well as our -- budget deficit. it is not too soon to think hard about the medium and longer term. even as we continue with the stimulus right now. i know there is no political consensus today. the electoral process and does not produce some common ground art constructive policy decisions, i fear that sooner rather than later pressures will come to bear upon monetary policy and some combination of a

weak dollar and rising interest rates. financial institutions and markets are going to be in jeopardy. none of the that is news to most of you, iced suspect. the budget deficit is brought to our attention day-by-day. i think the result has been more political posturing than thoughtful reform. i wonder in my liability that in this election year, we cannot clarify the issues and at least lay the groundwork.

you have had the domenici commission. you have had simpson-bowles. you read the budget agreement last summer. all of that suggests some ground. some common ground. my point is none of those approaches went far enough in terms of the economic program we really need. to set the stage, let's start by setting up some points that seemed to command support in general terms of not in detail. right across -- in detail right across the political spectrum. do we want a strong military and national security system? if so, we have to assume for the

time being cut will have to be reasonably limited. we need to pay more attention to our infrastructure? if so, and i think that is correct, that means more spending rather than less. states are very heavily challenged at the moment. we do need to sustain our systems of higher education in particular, but education at all levels. higher education is being cut -- heard at the state level. we do need to bring about a financial balance in the social security system in the decades ahead. we do it -- we need to do it

without adding to the already high payroll taxes. of course, there is the biggest challenge of all in the health care expenditure pattern. i have nothing to add to that particular subject -- the health care side. i do want to point out that i see no new proposals. expenditures will continue to rise faster with gdp deflated. it is just a question of how much. today, the federal government spends close to 25% of gdp. that is well above any previous peacetime level. some of that is stimulus spending. but even placing literally the most extreme proposals of the simpson-bowles commission, the

spending level would only go down to 21% of gdp. that is well above past levels. it would take years to reach that goal. even then, we look at that spending level and let the present tax system, you cannot come close to balancing the budget. in fact, the revenue system is full of exemptions and credits. it is leaking badly. the system is so complicated, it is hardly comprehensible. the tax rate is likely to maintain its historic average of 18.5% of gdp. nor does political reality,

administrative feasibility, or economic analysis suggest marginal tax rates can be appreciably increased across the board and still generate enough revenue. the implications -- a very large changes are necessary, we need to be structural, we need it debating. we need to pursue the process. debating even beyond the simpson-bowles approach. that commission and other important discussions tend to take a page from the reagan-era reforms of 1986. ronald reagan improved taxes three times after the initial reductions in tax rates. the 1986 exemptions and credits were in many instances reduced.

in some places, they were ended. the resulting revenue increases produced pillow or marginal income-tax rates, making a contribution towards reducing the budget deficit. simplification and revenue enhancement may be concepts possible in one fell swoop. a complementary -- the complementary approach the simpson-bowles is taking leads us to the corporate income tax. all of that it seems to me as part of the constructive debate. i do not want to stop there. my plea is far greater reform. we do need tax reform. we need to think hard about how

we rely more on consumption based taxes and think about possible integration of corporate and personal taxes. we need to consider the impact of federal spending policies on state finances with consequences for infrastructure russia -- infrastructure support and medicare responsibilities. we need not -- we need clarity and consistency. clarity and consistency. you need to consider how all spending decisions bear upon the desires of for energy and

dependents. it is a tall order. it cannot go on much is it impossible to do? all i can say is i hope not. better to set up a large framework than settle for inadequacies before the debate even starts. consider whether or not there are areas of common concern and possible consensus upon which to build. most important, we need to understand that much is at stake. the united states is not and cannot be an isolated island. we live in a world of swirling concerns -- economic, political

security. large opportunities, but also grave of threats. the united states can no longer claim almost unchallenged leadership of the world economy. for decades after wolrld war ii, it was american vision and american strength that saved the world's economies. market-driven, open to international trade and investment, with unprecedented standards of living and whole nation and its rising from poverty. we have lost economic superiority, but we are still

the largest, most integrated economy able to develop the best talent. we can still bring our influence to bear. for that, we have to do better. there is no way the united states can thrive in isolation. we want to help shape those forces loose in the world. we want to take to them in the direction of democracy and prosperity. we cannot do that with military force or political influence alone. only a strong and open economy can support and assure our national security, and maintain a sense of global leadership, and provide a bulwark against opposing systems.

a strong economy is worth the effort that it will take to rebuild some sense of common interest and to undertake economic reforms we need. it is a big challenge. it may seem at odds with political realities, but when we sit back and the lesson is over then we had better be prepared. it was said not so long ago by those in the new administration, "let's not let the lessons of economic crises go to waste. that can be the slogan for the next administration as well. thank you very much. [applause]

>> paul, thank you very much. steven clemons is editor at large part "the atlantic." it is sort of like flying on united airlines. you usually do not let people leave their seats and go into the hall. as we are discussing, we will let the hotel clear your plate. we are not taking a break after this. paul, first question -- today, the atlantic issued what i like to call our money issue. ben bernanke is on the front. i was talking to peter shift and other people who were basically on ones who see bernanke as a villain as opposed to a hero. they see bernanke as a villain for keeping interest rates so low that either inflation or other baubles are being created.

if you were fed chairman today, would you have the fed rate where bernanke does? >> i am not there, so i do not have to make that judgment. [laughter] >> we just want to see if you have given up -- >> bernanke is a hero. bernanke is a villain. even today, people come up to me and say, "you are that sob that prevented my mother and father from buying a house in the 1980's when interest rates were up 15% 5." then i go to block or two as someone says, "you are paul volcker. government securities put me through college when they were 15%. thank you very much."

[laughter] >> let me provoke you for a moment and ask you about your view about what happened during the financial crisis and the creation of financial instruments, derivatives, which you said created a lot of confusion, opaque miss, and distance between regulators and those playing in the market. some might say, mr. volcker, you do not understand the new math and that just like steel getting hotter and stronger, you have a generation of people that, despite what happened in the frantic -- in the financial crisis, there is straight again the kind of a letter urging that is out there and there has been an overreaction to financial innovation. >> i have heard all those songs about the benefits of all of this complex financial -- how it

was confusing risks. the rest kind of disappeared. you have a situation. you have -- before the crisis, credit default swaps did not exist. they were invented in 1997 or something like that. they just did not exist. by 2007-2008, then in years later, there were credit defaults swaps outstanding. credit defaults swaps are supposed to provide a kind of insurance policy. you get one of these swaps to protect yourself when you hold a security against default.

greece is the case in point right now. you have a $60 trillion of credit defaults swaps outstanding to ensure $6 billion. it suggests that something is going wrong here that did not have a very close connection with the world economy. elements of a casino, a very complex casino with all sorts of entered dependencies -- interdependencies. the system came under pressure and collapsed. i suppose most bankers would not say collapsed, but i think a lot is a pretty good perception when it took hundreds of millions of dollars of government support in the united states, in the u.k.,

in europe, in japan to support the system. a private enterprise cannot rely on that kind of government support when it comes under pressure. that is not to say the financial sector was responsible for everything that happened, but we do know it fell apart when it came under pressure. bytoday, a remarkable op-ed a gentleman who just quit goldman sacks today or last night and orchestrated his resignation letter that was essentially an indictment of this person at goldman sachs for playing in that casino economy in ways that undermined the interest of the company. do you have any thoughts? >> if it was a strong piece, but

it is a reflection of a change in market mentality. goldman sachs has long been the most respected of the investment banks, very sensitive to avoiding conflicts of interest. two things -- i do not want to pick on them, but they went public. it used to be their partners were at risk. in the mid-1990s, they went public. like other investment banks, they became a trading operation rather than a large fleet customer-oriented, underwriting operation. that changed the mentality and i am unafraid it is a business

that leads to a lot of conflicts of interest. it leads to enormous compensation when you are doing well. that is obviously a very attractive to very young people. all of these firms could attract the best of american graduates. the loss of the majors to financial engineers. a lot of that talent was siphoned off into wall street. how much of that activity was really constructive in terms of improving productivity and the gdp? these were brilliant years for wall street -- four wall street. were the great years for the economy? there is no evidence of that. the rate of economic growth has not picked up. the rate of productivity as not picked up.

virtually no increase in income. an unbalanced economy. since you have given me the opening, the so-called vall court ruled -- vulgar role was aimed at speculative trading -- volcker role was named a speculative trading by the banks. should the government be subsidizing, protecting institutions at the expense of customer relationships? does it lead to a culture -- does it lead to conflicts of interest we would just as soon do without? i hope there will be a little rebalancing of incentives in the

financial system, a return to old-fashioned concerns about reading too small and medium- sized businesses, critically important functions of the banking system is making payments all over the world. that is a job for commercial banks. it is not a job for speculative institutions. people can speculate individually or whatever you want to do, but they should not be protected by the government. the difference is those firms are going to be speculating and doing proprietary trading should not be rescued by the government when they get in trouble. that is their own responsibility.

[applause] most of the hedge funds in the past were financed by equity, as it should be. banks are basically financed by borrowing. >> let me ask you a question about the vulolcker rule. were you looking for a more robust version of the world? >> we were fighting the response from banks and so forth in a role that was too robust. quite you want to make it a little v and not a big v. >> it is really a reaction --

this gets into the current philosophical question about financial regulation. could you put out some broad principles, try to make sure that the banks understand the principles, and check up on them later. that sounds sensible, but it goes against the grain of the regulatory philosophies in the united states, in particular the philosophy of those regulating. they have lawyers coming down and say -- saying exactly what you mean by this, exactly what you mean by that. you do not want to get into that detail. that is what that argument is all about. >> we are going to have larry

summers and bob rubin up here. but a line of people who live in key economic advisers to presidents. one of the people coming up as the key job now, the national economic adviser for president obama. looking at the jobs and infrastructure proposals they have put forward -- it looks like a lot of those pieces are things you and austin goals be had worked on, and thought about sometime earlier -- austin had worked on and on about some time earlier. >> our president of the united states -- we have not got that kind of a problem. what we have is the backwash.

it is like a tsunami hit us in the financial system. it cost a lot of damage. we have to recover from that tsunami. the tsunami is a debt. that in this economy relative to the size of the economy doubled -- increased by 2.5 times, i think. at the end of the day, and strangle us. for a while, -- has as soon as the policy of going to happen, you cannot handle the debt. people have not saved because it was so nice to borrow -- borrow money. you borrowed your mortgage. you have a record home mortgage loans. your credit cards. it was of great until the music stopped.

we have been living in a situation -- and some people said this morning, they simply want to restore prosperity. we are doing that with fiscal policy, extreme monetary policy, but there are not many buttons to push. you have to concentrate. it takes years to develop infrastructure projects and do it efficiently and effectively. we have a bridge in new york that needs to be replaced. the federal government suddenly said, ok? a. here is $10 million to replace the bridge. it is. to take six months to make the

design for the bridge. that ought to be a big component of the program looking ahead, but it is not going to rescue things before the election. >> you wrote an op-ed recently warning about the dangers of inflation. i think you began to see the chinese are worried about it. the united states has so much debt that one way out of this trap is to inflate one's way out and a strength that the chinese end up with a lot less. you said that is dangerous thinking. i want to note what you are scared about. >> the natural frustration of economies moving up rapidly -- there are one or two places in the federal reserve that said maybe we ought to think about having a little inflation? then people will spend money

more freely. it is hard to think of them spending money more freely than they were spending. anyway, lets out a little inflation. i think that is a doomsday scenario because of these days if people really thought that the policy, then interest rates are not going to remain at 2.5%. what will they land at 2.5% for if the federal reserve is aiming for 4% inflation? you are not going to get any stimulus and you are going to make it a lot harder to restore a sense of flexibility, which i think it's crucial. the federal reserve and a good job of saying we do not forget about the importance. they ought to stick to that. >> i am going to open at to the

floor and take questions. i want to ask our servers to keep it as quiet as you can. it's out like crickets appear, but we want a little quieter crickets. george soros said at a summit -- described the financial crisis not just as a bubble, but a super-model. he often said that responding to a super-ball requires a very different kind of organization -- at the tools you use it to respond to a recession do not work. he said that if larry summers was right, he will succeed. but if larry summers is wrong and i am it right, the tools will automatically not solve things. where do you come out? was it a super-bubble that

burst? is larry summers using more conventional tools in responding? >> forget about the personalities. the question is -- i am anonymous. the question is was this a super-bubble? yes. did it have characteristics that did not amount to a quick fix? the garden variety of business cycles, you have some excesses' in business investment, housing. there -- it was not on an enormous scale.

when the economy went down and interest rates went down, it did not take very long for adjustments to be made brigid particularly what happened because of home building -- the interest rates went down. you did not start out with an enormous excess in housing. 2 million homes are in foreclosure or are going to be up in foreclosure. you get no rebound in housing. forget about the typical mini- recessions. they were v-shaped. 1929.s not v-shaped in

we have had a couple of years of expansion. it looked a little better now. the unemployment rate is coming down brigid we cannot ask form -- can we cannot ask for the economy to do more than a what is available in the short run. >> let me take this first question. >> i am it with the center for economic justice. one of the major points that was made this morning is that there needs to be a challenge to the existing economic paradigm. you confirmed that, that there is a need for change, but there is also a need for the big picture. now, there is one big hole in the economic paradigm -- >> i am. to ask you to flame at in a

question. we do not have time for statements. >> the statement is why in the existing economic paradigm of all schools of economic thought do they only focus on labor and not on order ship as a potential -- warship as a potential additional way of achieving shared prosperity -- changing the tax system, changing the federal reserve policies, adding that back glass test the goal so there is -- glass-steagall so there is a separation of powers within the financial industry so that capital credit is different than consumer credit. all of these things and in a way in which you can expand capital ownership as we have done under the laws are employees -- why

can we not do this universally for every man, woman, and child in america. >> thank you. >> i do not have an answer to that question. a lot of the things you are suggesting may be desirable. they are worried about how you support investment as opposed to consumption. that is a key issue. there is a push back against the paradigm of efficient losses and rational expectation is pretty much gone. regulatory thinking and a market thinking in the past decade or so -- we are trying to sort out the kind of thing you are talking about where we need to debate.

the fed has come down of -- it comes down to questions of fiscal policy and tax policy. i hope there is more agreement that can be developed -- develop more consensus in the body politic than is apparent right now. it is not apparent at all in the midst of this election public. i argue that we can find evidence of agreement. >> i will again ask our servers to keep the cricket-noise down. >> you mentioned that the country needs is something even more substantial than simpson- bowles and that will include some policies that are a popular -- and a popular with republicans and democrats. what do you think is the most important economic policy that obama need to convince the

democrats to support and what do you think is the most unpopular economic policy the republican candidate will need to convince the republicans to support? >> that is a good question. >> when the republicans to settle on a candidate -- the basic vision of the ec for fiscal policy and taxes and seek on which ones they converge and which ones they do not converge upon. is there any possibility -- possibility of reconciling? i guess seen the election campaign. the answer is no. will there be enough sense of convergence that whoever wins the election has some basis for a strong and comprehensive program going, for instance,

beyond simpson-bowles of? -- on both the taxation and the spending side? i think they have gone a big distance towards setting out one set of responsibilities. >> i am at a private investor. my question is about crony capitalism do you think the concept of too big to fail may be more light "to well-connected to fail?" why can we not have a concept like we had after the s&l crisis? >> the question is to how much the rest used involving too big to fail were compelled by crass

political instinct? i think by not much. we had a genuine emergency. i think the extraordinary action that were taken or not to reward some political supporter, person, industry, or whatever. they were taken in the national interest. what turned out in an unplanned, chaotic way was an approach that in some respects -- the u.s. treasury put capital -- the u.s. taxpayer put capital into these financial institutions, which is what happened with the rsc. it was done in an unplanned way. there was a fear of doing this

in what may appear to be a more orderly way. a kind of fear that was overblown that somehow hot putting capital into a a a bank was socialism. it implied a degree of government control that was on warranted. a lot of countries have had the experience of putting capital into banks in an emergency and have not ended up and running the banks. when the crisis is over, they withdraw the capital. i wrote a piece or two before the crisis was at the banking. brigid something like the res might be a good idea.

do you think there is any possibility of getting congress to approve of that? the answer no. you have enough trouble getting the congress to approve after the crisis. the evidence is so apparent. >> peter schiff. that microphone is not on. >> at this is much better. [laughter] >> i do not know. >> you were the last, that person to chair the federal reserve. you mentioned, in your speech that you saw one of the biggest problems we have as a nation is that we borrowed too much and spend too much. then you went on to praise congress and the fed for the stimulus with the specific goal of the stimulus is to get us to

borrow and spend anymore. if the problem is too much borrowing and spending, how is the solution that we borrow and spend even more? thank you,. >> sometimes you have to take a little madison -- medicine to make the medicine better. >> the problem is worth it with go deeper into debt -- >> i have to let him answer the question. >> we it would've been harder without an order to recover from. >>