forgive me? what does that mean? >> i mean those organizations whose is this is writing and publishing -- nbc, cbs, you. [laughter] >> i like that. >> one idea we did not take from england was the office of the censor, who censored books, and that was part of putting in this protection of the press, and we have never had it in the united states government and office of the censor. people in england and the continent think of verdi -- >> oh, you have to bring opera into it. >> was it understood that there were limitations?

>> yes, on speech and on oral speech and written speech come -- both. i told you, libel laws were one thing. >> what about the press at the time? what were they thinking about at that time? >> i do not know that there were any special rules applicable to the press. the press did not have to get permission of a censor to do publish, but neither did anybody else. >> and the press inordinate -- and the press anointed some very important figures, like thomas jefferson. >> yes, indeed, and it was interesting that jefferson spoke very highly of the press before he became president. but while he was president he spoke about it as a polluted area, and you cannot believe about anything in any newspaper. >> how it survived -- one thing that epitomizes to me the importance of freedom of speech

is in the ballot for america, the right to speak my mind out. that is america to me. >> i think if you had to pick -- and you probably should not have to -- but if you had to pick one freedom that is the most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech. because democracy means persuading one another and then ultimately voting and the majority rules. you cannot run such a system if there is muzzling of one point of view. so it is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. much more necessary in a democracy than in any other system of government. i guess you can run an effective monarchy without freedom of speech. i do not think you can run an effective democracy without it. >> on this matter of press freedom, john adams wrote that

mankind cannot now be governed without it, nor at present with it. and it seems that the idea of a free press has always been a problem for a succession of american presidents, but in a broader sense, do you feel we could have endured as a democracy from then till now without the free press? what do you think about justice -- what do you think, justice ginsburg? >> i do not think so. i think the press played a tremendously important role as watchdog over what the government is doing can and that keeps the government from getting too far out of line, because they will be in the limelight. so, yes, there are all kinds of excesses in the press, too, but we have to put up with that, i think, given the alternative. >> justice scalia, you want to comment on that? >> i agree with that.

>> it is hard to keep the freedom of the press because there are many people who do not like what the press is publishing. there was a cartoon around -- just after the revolutionary war, and it shows a tory being carted off by the police, and the caption is, "liberty of speech to those who speak the speech of liberty." so the right to speak against government, against what is the prevailing view of society, is tremendously important. >> including the right to speak against democracy. do not forget that. some of the biggest fights are whether freedom of speech includes freedom to speak

against freedom of speech or against democracy. it is possible. we have rejected that view. communists were entitled to say this democratic system does not work, let's get rid of it. >> that took a good while for that idea to take hold. >>: it did, indeed. >> because there were laws against anarchy and sedition. >> it takes us perhaps i think to the 1964 ruling of the supreme court on "the new york times" v. sullivan. certainly called a landmark decision. you spoke about libel. in this particular ruling, very specific regulation -- that is the wrong word -- but concepts are written into this ruling. i would like to read what

justice brennan has said, because i think it deserves to be quoted as often as possible. "public discussion is a political duty, and it must be uninhibited, robust, and wide open and may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." you were mentioning this in a sense a moment ago. i am wondering, justice scalia, if this kind of an issue were brought before the court today, at that time, in 1964, i believe the court's ruling was a 9-0 unanimous vote and what would happen today? >> i do not recall whether it was unanimous. i'm not sure it was. >> it was, it was 9-0. [laughter] >> i stand corrected. even so, it was wrong. [laughter]

the issue is not whether it is a good idea to let the institutional -- i'm sorry, to let anybody -- what the case holds is if you are in public figure and it is a matter of some doubt what it takes to become a public figure -- but certainly any politician is a public figure -- if you are a public figure, you cannot sue somebody for libel unless you can prove that effectively that the person knew it was a lie. so long as he heard from somebody, it makes it very difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit. i think george washington, i think thomas jefferson, i think the framers would have been appalled at the notion that they could be libeled with impunity. when the supreme court came out with that decision, it was revising the constitution. it might be a good idea to set

up a system that way, and new york state could have revised its libel laws by popular vote to say them if you libel a public figure, it is ok, unless it is malicious. but new york state did not do that. it was nine lawyers who decided that that is what the constitution ought to mean even though it had never meant that. that is the difference between ruth and me between a living constitution. she thinks that is all right and i do not. >> the situation did not exist in 1787 or 1791, that the court confronted in "times" vs. sullivan. the history of "times" against sullivan, it was a sheriff who said he was libeled in an advertisement in "the new york times."

it was in the midst of the civil rights era, where libel laws could be used as a way of -- the -- of squelching people who were asserting their freedom. i think that "times" against sullivan is an issue of major significance. i will say that the lawyer who argued that case for "the new york times," a great constitutional law scholar, when the story is told, we won, we won unanimously, the response was a little hesitant. he said that it is great for "the new york times," but what about all those -- i do not know -- papers that do not have high standards?

but i think that "times" against sullivan is now well accepted, and i quite disagree with my colleague. i suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in america in the 1960's they would have agreed with that. >> so you would have voted for it? >> god, yes, she would have voted for it. [laughter] >> i will not say anything more about it, because this is a case we are going to hear next week, i think. a state has passed a law that says thou shalt not make false statements in a political campaign against any candidate, any ballot initiative, no false

statements in the elections. the questions that the court will face is, is that statute prohibiting false statements in political campaigns -- is that constitutional. >> what are we going to expect on that? [laughter] >> a decision by the end of june. >> there was another decision. and i do not remember where justice scalia was, but it was the alvarez case, the man who live -- the man who lied about having the medal of honor-- >> oh, yes. >> something valor. >> stolen valor act. >> before we get into that, i would like to take a moment now to remind our radio, television,

and internet viewers and listener that this is "the kalb report," and i'm discussing freedom of the press with justices antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. i want to point out that there is a new report out by an organization called reporters without borders, very highly regarded. the u.s. has experienced a profound erosion of press freedom in 2013, dropping 14 point to number 46 in global rankings. reporters are a little nervous these days, and they like to feel that they have friends. i want to know in your judgment whether reporters are right in considering the supreme court today as a friend of the concept of freedom of the press. justice scalia? >> you want me to say no to that? [laughter]

of course, everybody on the court believes in freedom of the press. there is some difference as to what that means, ok? as to whether it means, for example, that a member of the press, no matter what the national emergency may be, need not disclose his or her source. that is a question that has not come up before us, and i think it is very -- a very interesting and not necessarily -- not a question with a clear answer. so you can believe in freedom of the press and still have fun disagreeing. >> i would like to know how it was determined that that was -- that 46 was -- i was just thinking of the tradition in england, which holds to this that the press can't

report about ongoing trials. >> and they can libel public figures. >> england. since 1964 and the sullivan-"new york times" case, it's very difficult for anyone to libel a reporter on this issue. what i would like to get here is something that is current and very important to a lot of people in this country. i suspect the court is going to face a number of major decisions in the area of government surveillance, the national security agency, the nsa, it's newly disclosed activity, and all of the problems of whistleblowing journalism. it is worth noting the "washington post" this week won won aow surprise --

pulitzer prize for his reporting on edward snowden and the nsa leaks. i would like to start by asking you do you think they deserve the prize? justice ginsburg? >> that's a question the journalists in the audience are much better equipped to answer that i am. >> i don't read "the post" so i have no idea what they got the prize for. [laughter] >> i do, including the announcement at the bottom of the first page where it says what's coming up this week. it was announced as an event. >> they are very proud of that. i did not get terribly far on that. do you believe snowden is a whistleblower or traitor? >> i don't -- that's not part of what i worry about, really. that is a policy question, not a legal question.

i stay out of that stuff. >> it's also possible, is it not, that the question you raise could come before the court. >> that is possible. >> and we are not at liberty to preview. >> i appreciate that. let me ask the question from another angle. [laughter] >> it the same question, you are to get the same answer. [laughter] >> that may be. but i'm going to try it anyway. [laughter] if somebody were to say to you that what i'm doing, you may disagree with, i don't mean you personally, you may all disagree with, but i am doing this because i feel a moral obligation to do this. i feel deep in my heart my country is doing something wrong and i have an opportunity to change that.

>> so did the germans who killed jews. is that the criteria? whether you honestly believe what you're doing is good? you have an obligation to form your conscience according to what is right. that's the issue. the issue is whether it's right, not whether you believe it. i'm sure hitler was very sincere. >> but the idea of it being right, you mean right according to the law as established? >> in the context you have what it, in the context, right according to -- >> some moral judgment. >> to the 10 commandments. [laughter] >> we brought up the point before about hateful speech. there was a case some many years ago involving the town of skokie, illinois, where many holocaust survivors live and do

-- the american not say -- and decidedican nazi party they were going to take that town for the demonstration. the case never came to the u.s. supreme court, but other federal courts said the demonstration is going to be peaceful, there will be police detection, we don't anticipate any violence. this group wants to march, we hate what they say, but we believe in their freedom to say it. >> but that doesn't mean it was good for them to say it or write for them to say it. it sometimes annoys me that when someone has made outrageous statements that are hateful, somebody says, sometimes the press will say he's just exercising his first amendment rights. like they are muscles, the more you use them, they are the better, and it doesn't matter what purpose you are using them for. you can be using your first

amendment rights and it can be abominable you are using your first amendment rights. i will defend your right to use it, but i will not defend the appropriateness or manner in which you are using it now. that could be very wrong. >> justice scalia, praised by some and criticized by others for his decision the flagburning case. i imagine you thought the act itself was reprehensible. >> i would have sent that guy to jail if i was king. [laughter] >> but by your ruling, he had the right to burn the flag? >> that's what the first amendment means. you have your right to express her contempt for the government. it does not mean it was a good thing for him to do that.

by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many people that it was right, but he had the right to do it. >> justice scalia, at a recent event in brooklyn, your recorded as saying the supreme court should not be deciding matters of national security and you are quoted as saying "the supreme know diddly about the nature of the threat -- >> did i say diddly? [laughter] >> it's truly stupid the court will be the last word on it." did you say that? >> i probably did. i certainly believe it. [laughter] >> justice ginsburg, please? >> i don't think we have a choice. the court does not we are going to side we are -- the court does not get to decide we are going to pick this area and straighten it out today. there are petitions for review and if there is a law the government says was violated and the other side says no, the government can't engage in that kind of surveillance, if that comes to us, we can't run away

and say we don't know much about that, so we won't decide it. >> this related to the fourth amendment, not the fifth amendment. the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. the first time my court had a case involving wiretapping, it held the way the fourth amendment reads is the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. against unreasonable searches and seizures. and the court said, quite properly, conversations are not persons, houses, papers and effects. wiretapping may be a bad thing, states have laws against it, but does not violate the federal constitution, all right? about 20 years later, during the

warren court, we did a 180 degree turn and said there are penumbras and emanations and conversations are covered by this vague right of privacy contained in the constitution. that is the living constitution, changing what the text said and what it meant. the consequence i was pointing out in that, the consequence of that is that now the institution of the government that is going to decide this highly significant nsa question about what information can you get by wiretapping? the institution that will decide that is the institution least qualified to decide. it will be my court. it is a question of balancing the emergency against the intrusion, when the emergency is high enough, you can have a

higher intrusion. that's why we all get searched board an airplane. that's a terrible intrusion. >> well -- >> let me finish. we know nothing about the degree of the risk will stop nothing at all. the executive knows, the congress knows, we don't know anything and we are going to be the one to decide that question. >> so what do we do in the case comes to us? before you answer that, i would like to remind everybody in the wiretapping case, the argument that wiretapping was not an unreasonable search or seizure, there was a very strong opinion the other way by justice brandeis. if i were on that court, i would have voted the way he did. i would like to know how justice scalia distinguishes that kind of intrusion by the government.

from the decision you made in the heat and missions -- the heat emissions case. the helicopter that was flying over roofs to test the level of heat because if it was of a certain heat, maybe marijuana plants were growing. the helicopter never touched the roof, and yet you said that was a violation of the fourth amendment. that was an unreasonable -- >> because the people were not being secure in their houses from unreasonable search. that is protected by the fourth amendment. >> you can wiretap someone in their house? >> if you have to break it to their house to wiretap, yes, but if you listen to conversations in the phone booth, intruding

upon the right of privacy -- >> we don't have to worry about that anymore. there are no more phone booths. [laughter] >> you are right about that. >> we've gotten away from the fifth amendment, haven't we? >> let's stick with the fourth amendment. i don't know much about it and i acknowledge that up front, but my question is could data that is considered important by the media or by the government stored in a computer or stored in a cloud somewhere be considered effects? >> that's very perceptive and i thought about that. >> if you thought about that, doesn't it follow that the u.s. government would not be able to justify its nsa surveillance

program and therefore conceivably could be in violation of the constitution? >> no, because it's not absolute . as ruth said, there are very few freedoms that are absolute. your person is protected by the fourth amendment on the but as i pointed out, when you board a plane, someone can pass his hands all over your body. that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger it is guarding against, it's not an unreasonable intrusion. it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. that's why i say it's foolish to have us make the decision because i don't know how serious the danger is in this nsa stuff. >> does the supreme court have the ability to pick up the phone and call somebody at the white house and say i have a question? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. [laughter]

we are at the mercy of whatever people happen to bring to us. if they do not bring it to us, we don't know it. >> and we cannot make a decision based on something outside the record of the case. the parties and their lawyers have to know everything, have access to everything we will factor into our decisions. i don't know how many times i would love to call so and so -- >> call your husband in a tax case? marty was one of the best tax lawyers and the country. >> but we can't do that because the parties aren't there. those have access to the same information, so we are hemmed in by the record of the case and the court cannot resort to information the parties do not have. >> justice ginsburg, i want to

ask you the same question i asked justice scalia about the data, the storage in computers and linking that to the word effects, and if that justifiably is linked to the word effects, doesn't that follow justifiably that they government is in violation of the constitution by this government surveillance program? >> an argument could be made, certainly. but it is not an argument that either of us could answer. i think justice scalia said we can't answer it at all, but we will answer it if we have to. but we can get questions in the form that you pose them. we get a concrete case and not an abstract question. what can the government do? >> i would answer that one. that is persons, houses, papers and effects, not conversations. >> you could not answer it in

the abstract. >> certainly not. >> can we expect the supreme court to rule on the nsa issue? >> it depends. if there is a case, it will begin not in the supreme court but in a federal district court in and go to the court of appeals. we do have the luxury of not having to decide things until they have been decided by other good minds. by judges in the federal trial courts and courts of appeals. >> and it's not our responsibility to shape up the executive and make sure they are doing what they're supposed to or shaping the congress. that's not our job. our job is to prevent people from being harmed. if nobody is being harmed, we don't get into the matter. even if someone is harmed, and

unless he comes to us, we don't have any self starting powers. we are at the mercy of whoever wants to bring a case or whoever doesn't want to bring a case . ruth and i visited india one time a long time ago. the indian supreme court -- india has a bill of rights which says the apex court, their supreme court, will assure the preservation of the liberty set forth in the bill of rights. that court interpreted that to mean that if they are sitting around on a sunday reading the bombay times and they see the police commissioner -- >> mumbai. [applause] "paris" andsay saye" and i will not mumbai. it is bombay. we have an english word for it.

they say the police officer is holding people without charge. that court will on its own summon the police commissioner to give an account of himself. our court cannot do that. it's only when people bring problems to us. but you can't do it because that's the way it's always been done or there is a rule? >> we cannot because the constitution limits us to actual cases in controversy. there are courts around the world that do answer abstract general questions. constitutional courts have been set up, the constitutional council in france, that will preview a law if a certain number of deputies questioned the consistency of the bill with the constitution. the council will look at the bill, just look at the words of the bill, decide whether it's compatible with the constitution, and if the council

holds it isn't compatible with the constitution, then the bill never gets enacted. that kind of judicial preview is foreign to us. >> let's talk for a minute or so about televising hearings of the supreme court. [laughter] other courts do permit television. why not the supreme court? justice scalia? [laughter] >> when i first came on the court, i was in favor of it. i have long since changed my view on that. those who want to do it say they want to educate the american people. if i really thought it would educate the american people, i would be in favor of it. indeed, if the american people watched our proceedings from gavel-to-gavel, they would be educated. they would come to realize that although now and then we do

these sexy cases, should there be a right to abortion of a should there be a right to suicide, should there be a right to this or that, most of the time, we are not contemplating our naval, engaging in this broad, philosophical, ethical search. most of the time, we are doing real law. we are doing the internal revenue code, the bankruptcy code, really dull stuff. and nobody would ever again come up to me and say justice scalia, why do you have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court ? they think what we're doing is looking up at the sky and saying should this right or that right exists. they could guess that as well as i can. now, the problem is for every person who watches us from gavel-to-gavel, there will be 10,000 who will watch a 15 or 30 seconds takeout on the nightly news and i therein to you, that will not be characteristic of what we do. it will be man bites dog.

so why should i participate in the miseducation of the american people? >> what about your feelings? >> there's another factor. if you are televising, everything is unfolding before the camera, if you are dealing with an appellate argument, if you would come to our chambers at the moment because we start sitting on monday, you would see cards with reefs and briefs and briefs. the oral argument in court is fleeting. it's only 30 minutes a side. i don't know how many hours we have spent preparing, reading what had gone on in the case before they got to the supreme court, reading the briefs that

the parties filed and then many friends of the court who want to be heard on questions of importance to them. so the notion that an appellate argument is a contest between lawyers and the better one will win is a false picture of what the appellate process is. >> so you would be, as justice scalia, opposed to televising? >> i think it's probably inevitable because there's going to be so much pressure for it and because other courts do it. but i would be very much concerned with mis-portraying what an appeal is. the written part is much more important than the hour total in court. >> in the couple of minutes we have left, i want to ask a question -- you have both been

great buddies for a long time. when did you meet and what were the circumstances? >> he doesn't know. [laughter] >> go ahead, ruth. >> when did you meet? >> we were buddies on the d c circuit. >> that is when you met? >> i met him for the first time when he was giving a speech to some unit of the aba. must have been administrative law section. it was on a case that had recently been decided by the d c circuit. it was about -- >> we were both academics. >> it was the vermont yankee case. he was against it and i was listening to him and disagreeing with good part of what he said. but the way he said it in an absolutely captivating way.

>> we should leave it at that. as you know, composer eric wang who is with us tonight has produced an opera called "scalia ginsburg." to beautiful music, you are both locked in a room and you're unable to get out unless you agree on a constitution consistent -- agree on something consistent with the constitution. scalia says, oh, ruth, -- can you read? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this, to which ginsburg replies, how many times must i tell you, dear mr. justice scalia, you are searching in vain for a bright line solution but the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. we have only a minute or so left. are you two ever going to agree on big issues and still maintain a friendship? >> we agree on a whole lot of

stuff. ruth is really bad only on the knee-jerk stuff. [laughter] she is a really good textualists. where the text is there, she's terrific. she's obviously very smart and most cases, i think, we are together. i think we are together in a lot of criminal defense cases, of upholding the rights of the criminal defendant. ruth and i are quite frequently in dissent from the court's decision. we agree on a lot. you have it wrong. >> these 5-4 decisions where she is on one side -- >> that's because the press focuses on the 25% of the heady cases, the constitutional cases. most of what we are doing is

trying to interpret dense statutes congress passed, very difficult to parse. on those cases, there isn't the usual lineup the press expects to see in the most-watched cases. so we agree on many procedure cases. not always. you got one wrong last year. [laughter] and also, i have to say something else. we both care about the way opinions are crafted. it's not easy to write an opinion. i think you care very much about how it is said and said why. -- and so do i. the way we say it is quite different. >> one reason we became such

good friends on the d c circuit was we were both former academics. harry edwards was another academic on the court. but in academia, when you wrote a law review article, you would circulate it to your colleagues and i would make comments, helpful comments, not just this is wrong. but there's an additional point you could make. ruth and i did that with one another's opinions. we would not do it to anybody else's. she would suggest different stuff i could put an end i would her as well. >> our time is up. i'm sorry about that. i want to thank our wonderful, attentive audience. i want to thank the many who listened all over the world, but most important, i want to thank our remarkable guests, sitting justices of the supreme court of the united states, antonin

scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. thank you both so much. [applause] and as we now close, i want to say thank you to all of the people who have made this kind of civilized conversation possible and they know they are. that's all we can do for now. i am marvin kalb and as edward murrow used to say, good night and good luck. [applause] thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] these are not going out? this is still being seen on c-span.

the first question in front of me is to justice scalia. why are you the way that you are? [laughter] you could hit a home run on that. >> the devil makes me do it. [laughter] >> justice ginsburg, the next question from josh gibson, a student at the kennedy school. the first amendment is a bit of a grab bag of free expression rights. did the founders consider and then decide against including others? are there others they or you wish had been included? >> that was the concern about having a bill of rights. you wrote down what the rights were and may be there were some you left out. we do have this statement in the

ninth amendment that says the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others. one thing we didn't bring up before, the first amendment is the first amendment. the first thing that was on the minds of the framers was not freedom of the press, it was about not having an established church. the first thing is no law respecting the establishment of religion. then the freedom side of it or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the first thing they did not want to have was the church of england. >> but that is kind of a negative. something that you cannot do. >> yes. >> what is the positive side of that -- freedom of religion? >> it is all negative.

it is all saying what the government cannot do. it is all limitations on the government. that is what the bill of rights is. the government to not do this or that. they are all negative. >> except for the government, everybody can do what they want. >> absolutely. >> to take an example, we have an antidiscrimination law. title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. until then, discrimination was ok in the private sector. because the constitution restricts what government can do. a private employer could say, i don't want any women. that would be ok until 1964. >> did you have something to do with that? [laughter] >> i would say president johnson in the congress did when they

passed the civil rights act of 1964. >> i have a question from catherine of the newseum. to whom does the first amendment apply? do undocumented immigrants have the five freedoms? >> i think so. anyone who is present in the united states has protections under the united states constitution. americans abroad have this protection. other people abroad do not. >> when we get to the 14th amendment, it doesn't speak of citizens. some constitutions grant right to citizens. ours says persons.

the person is every person who is here. documented or undocumented. >> thank you. i have a question from david. whom you know. a prominent lawyer who is here with us. you look to decide whether freedom of the press is or is not identical with freedom of speech? i have a feeling that is a loaded question. [laughter] >> i have never thought it was anything except identical. i can't imagine you can limit some things that can be spoken but cannot limit things that can be printed. i think it is the same criteria as to whether the limitation is unconstitutional. >> i think he must have a case in mind. [laughter] >> a question here from vicki of

u.s. news & world report. was there any case that rattled your friendship, justice ginsburg? >> i think we were most at loggerheads over the vmi case. remember that? you had a stirring dissent. >> it was a great dissent. [laughter] >> you were the only dissenter. >> that is only because clarence was recused because he had his son there. >> that's true. remember that the chief of voted for my judgment, not your dissenting opinion. [laughter] we went, i don't know how many rounds. >> we did, back-and-forth. >> one-time i had a footnote that referred to the university of virginia at charlottesville.

you had a footnote who said you have to forgive this innocent person. there is no university of virginia at charlottesville. there is only a university of virginia. >> she even talked about the campus. my goodness. >> he gave me a copy of his dissent. the penultimate copy. it was not ready to circulate yet. he gave it to me and said i want to give you as much time as i can to answer this. i went up to my conference. i read the thing on the plane and it ruined my whole weekend. [laughter] he gave me the extra days to respond. i appreciated that. >> i have never gotten angry at ruth or any of my colleagues.

because of the way they voted in an opinion. if you cannot disagree with your colleagues on the law without taking it personally, you have to get a another day job. it is not the kind of job that will allow you to behave that way. we disagree on the law all the time. it is never had anything to do with our friendship. >> we do have a different style. i say people might regard my opinions as dull or boring. yours are really jazzy sometimes. [laughter] >> here is a question. from the office of denny hacked. justice stevens recently suggested a constitutional amendment to modify the second amendment. if you could amend the constitution in one way, what would it be and why?

justice scalia? >> i certainly would not want a constitutional convention. whoa. who knows what would come out of that. if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, i think the only provision i would amend is the amendment provision. i figured out what percentage of the populace could prevent an amendment to the constitution. if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, i think something less than two percent of the people can prevent a constitutional amendment. it ought to be hard, but it shouldn't be that hard. >> justice ginsburg? >> if i could choose in

amendment to add to this constitution, it would be the equal rights amendment. [applause] >> what you mean by that, please? >> it means women are people equal in stature before the law. that is fundamental constitutional principle. i think we have achieved that through legislation, but legislation can be repealed. it can be altered. i mention this title vii of the civil rights act. the first one was the equal pay act. that principle belongs in our constitution. it is in constitution written since the second world war. i would like my granddaughters

when they pick up the constitution to see that that notion that women and men are people of equal stature, i would like them to see that is a basic principle of our society. >> would you doubt in your mind that would pass the judgment of the american people? >> it did not. it came pretty close. that is an illustration of how hard it is -- >> to get an amendment. >> yes. >> a question here but no idea who wrote it. to what extent do social media platforms such as twitter, where speech can be broadcast to millions instantly, challenge traditional concepts of free speech? interesting question.

what is your thought, justice scalia? >> i don't know that it challenges traditional concepts of free speech. it certainly challenges traditional manners of finding out who said what were certain people say things that are unlawful or punishable by law. i don't think it changes what the first amendment means. >> there is a great danger for people who use those devices -- you can't take it back. and once you let it out, it is there for everybody to see. >> you don't feel it changes the concept of freedom of speech?

>> you would have to give me an example. >> senator newman asked this question. as it becomes easier to share opinions and events, should social media, i.e. twitter, facebook, etc., be required to limit what is shared? is that a legal question? >> no. it is a policy question. i don't do policy. [laughter] >> i would agree with my colleague. >> joshua of the washington center. do feel the separation of church and state has been misunderstood with congress and the supreme court taking a proactive stand on the establishment portion but not on the prohibition part? >> i don't understand what he means by the last part. >> i was hoping you would

understand. [laughter] i'm sorry, i'm not there. our last question. when you are a youngster, what did you want to be when you grew up? oh lord. >> maybe i am unusual. i don't ever recall wanting to be anything. a baseball player or a hockey player or a lawyer. certainly never a judge. i never set my cap on being a judge. i didn't even want to be a lawyer when i was in college. when i graduated, i didn't know what i was going to do. i had an uncle who was a lawyer. uncle vince. he had an office in trenton. i used to go and hang out. it seemed like a good law. i cannot say i ever wanted anything but to do well what i was assigned to do.

if i have any quality that accounts for my making it this far, it is my ability to interest myself in whatever was shoved under my nose, no matter how dull it was. i took pleasure in doing it to the extent i could perfectly. but i never set my cap on being even a federal judge, much less a supreme court justice. >> justice ginsburg? >> my growing up, there was so many limits on what a girl could aspire to be. she could not be a police officer. she could not be a firefighter, a coal miner. she could not work at night. all these restrictions. very few women lawyers from a maybe three percent of the bar. even fewer judges. i never aspired to be a lawyer. certainly not a judge.

if i had to make a living, i was going to be a teacher. that was a secure job for women. the exhilarating thing for me, what i think my daughter and granddaughters, is opportunities opened to them that did not exist. my favorite example is my granddaughter who is now 23. when she was eight, she was with me. she said, i want to be part of the show, too. the reporter said, what would you like to be? her response was, i would like to be president of the united states of the world. [laughter]

that to me is the change in what girls can aspire to do and achieve. it has been exhilarating. >> unfortunately, we have come to the end of the line. i want to share with you the essence of a conversation that was repeated over and over again with me and the producers of the program. especially mike friedman, the executive producer. that is the thought that we live in a time in washington when the idea that two people who have strongly different opinions on very important issues can actually be good friends and can actually respect one another. that kind of mutual respect is so terribly important today. i hope, i truly hope, that this program, televised as it has been, can be a model for people all over the country who might have different opinions but do

recognize that in this country there's plenty of room for different opinions. we ought to have more room for mutual friendship. thank you so much for being here. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we ask that you remain in your seats while the justices are escorted from the ballroom. once again, we would ask that you please remain in your seats. while the justices are escorted from the ballroom. >> this week, we are showing

five of the supreme court's notable all -- oral arguments the session. stock options for employees will begin at 6:55 p.m. eastern on c-span. taking a look at some of our primetime programming -- join us tonight at 8:00 eastern for a world of ours council look at 2014-2016 political prove -- predictions. >> jeb bush -- you all want to know about -- he is a longtime friend of mine and he is my tenant. i saw him yesterday in fact at lunch. >> does he? live in new hampshire by any chance [laughter] >> no, he lives in coral gables, florida. part of whatt is shapes his immigration views. it's the fact that it's an immigrant community. a lot of times, the immigration debate can be about faceless

government statistics and how many people cross the border and how many deportees, how many children of undocumented born here -- it can be all about faceless numbers. when you live in an immigrant community and when you speak spanish fluently and when you watch spanish tv, you know these stories and you know that there whoeople, mothers, women get raped by human sparklers. when they are crossing the border. -- human smugglers when they are crossing the border and risk their lives swimming across the border or taking a raft to the united states and many times leave children behind they may not see for a decade. in the hope that they can come here and find work and help support those families and loved ones they have left behind. have they broken the law? yes, absolutely. is it an act of love?

it's hard to tell you that it is not an act of love for those families. where he is, where he lives, the stories he knows shapes some of that perception. i don't think you have to read many tea leaves when it comes butb and it's surprising he's pretty much told us what he is thinking and where his head is. he is a very disciplined guy. i think he will stick to his timeline even when it comes to his own internal decision-making process. he has said with his criteria is. it needs to be ok with his family and by that i don't think it means mama bush as much as a h, the woman heus has been married to for 40 years and his children and what effect it will have on them. running for president today means doing it as a family. it's not just one person. it affects the entire family's

life and the entire family's privacy. he has said he wants to be able to do it joyfully. he wants to be able to offer a positive vision. he wants to be able to offer a solution. he has said he will sit down and think about it over the summer and think about it later this year and make a decision. i know the guy. he means what he says and he says what he means. i don't think he is doing this. we have gotten accustomed to politics -- the arch of the political piece. people who are trying to promote the sale of a book or maybe trying to get a gig on cable news which is not a bad gig. [laughter] they get themselves on "dancing with the stars," who knows? trying to find relevant say. rackley, i don't think jeb bush needs that or it's about that for him. is a very serious guy who's doing very well business was,

who's got a fulfilled life and i think it is about that location to service and is it the right thing for the family and for the country? >> whether it's an award for good journalism is puzzled session -- as a politician and not want to make a judgment, an award for public service, for possibly the greatest betrayal of our national secrets of all time strikes me as quite bizarre. i think there is a real danger of a very cozy media world patting itself on the back without fully understanding the consequences for the dangers that we face in a very dangerous world. i think there is a dangerous disconnect there. as for the guardian newspaper itself, my view was that if i as

an individual gave the names of operatives outside the u.k. jurisdiction, that would be in breach of the 2000 terrorist act. why would that not apply to a newspaper? >> this weekend, the former british defense secretary on edward snowden, government surveillance programs, and privacy issues. that is saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on book tv, from texas, the san antonio book festival including authors and panels on the stories that shape san antonio d thea big brother and democracy saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. tour thean history tv, nsa cryptologic museum and learn about the making and breaking of secret codes and their role in u.s. history. , sunday at six and 10 p.m. on c-span three. c-spanover 35 years,

brings public affairs of them from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago brought to you as a public service by your local cable satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> here's a recent panel discussion >> now, a discussion on the future of conservatism and the republican party that includes authors, columnists and journalists. there is a question and answer session with the audience from the manhattan institute in new york city, this is an hour and a half. >> what is the future of good evening everyone.

thank you for joining us. >> what is the future of conservatism? what policies should embrace western mark there are a great number of people qualified to discuss these questions. we have assembled a number of younger leading-edge journalists, scholars and authors who come from a variety of backgrounds to discuss what the way forward could be. they will not always agree, but perhaps through a thoughtful discussion we will illuminate the finer points of the debate. in a way, it reminds me of the early days of city journal, when people like kevin mcdonald and george kelling, hardly people who would be characterized as classic conservatives, manage to get together and form a conservative policy that was

both coherent and successful. i feel like in many ways we are at the same kind of point in history. in any event, we are glad to bring together this group. their resumes are very long. despite their youth. they're very accomplished for their age. i won't go through all of their resumes, but i am happy to welcome our panelist. josh barrow with the new york times. megan mcardle from a bloomberg view. oh, good. better late than never. at the treating editor of national review and finally, we are very grateful to our moderator this evening, david brooks, columnist for the new york times whose very successful career has always been directed toward what is new and interesting in the world of ideas. again, thank you all for being

here this evening and thanks to those of you watching over the internet. we look forward to the conversation and please join me in welcoming the moderator of this evening's discussion, david brooks. [applause] >> thank you, larry. i was thrilled when larry called to ask if i would take part in the panel. then it became clear that i was actually too old to be a panelist. [laughter] i used to be one of these people. now i am no longer on the leading-edge. i am just a dying ember. i am so pleased to be joined by my first research assistant. judging from the days when he and i work together, he is just waking up. it's good that he rolled out of bed in time for this. i am going to start. here are a couple of quick questions. hopefully not too many and we can cut each other off.

let's begin with what is the problem and conservatism. -- with conservatism. i am going to mangle conservatism and the republican party together. >> i was going to say we don't know how to make an entrance until he proved me wrong. the problem is that conservatism and the republican party are not connecting to the issues of the day. a lot of people are finishing sentences that other people started in the early 1980's, and they forgot other sentences started and why. while i think a lot of the problems we face are actually very amenable to conservative ways of thinking and conservative solutions, the republican party is not doing the work of connecting their ideas to today's problems, and voters know it. voters consider it to be out of touch. >> nagin, do you agree, and if so, what are today's problems? >> there is a big problem with the coalition a came up in the

1960's and 1970's and flowered in the 1980's. sadly, there are problems that existed in 1979, and we solved them. republicans forgot to declare victory and go home. for a long time, tax, tax, tax, tax cuts was the only thing we could agree on, even though we had cut taxes and deregulated a lot. that is not speaking to where the american public, especially after the financial crisis, one to hear her solutions for the current generation and the problems they have like long-term unemployment, feeling like mobility and opportunity are contracting. -- feeling they are not going to move up or do as well. they want the republican party to speak to that and talk about how there is no longer advancement. >> are those the issues? >> there is an antecedent

problem. the antecedent problem is a lack of diversity in the people who vote republican and represent the base of the republican movement, not just in terms of ethnicity and race, but also in terms of regionalism. it is a southern party, not a northern party. i think the democratic party today has a much more legitimate claim of being a national party than the republican party does, and that is one of the reasons the democratic party does a better job speaking to those issues today. >> there is a sentiment that it is a white party looking for an america that is never coming back. >> there is that sense among some people. you hear "this is not the america i grew up in" as a proxy rhetorical statement. conservatives have long prided themselves in thinking well, we

treat everyone as an individual. it's the other party that treats people as coalitions of race and aetna city. nice and ethnicity. i don't think that's true anymore. i think it has become a little bit more we have to step outside of that and realize that some of these people, we don't treat them as individuals. we say those are democratic voters and we don't need to reach out to them. >> there's a topic problem, the mobility, and a demographic problem. ?s it both >> i think the identity problem is the real thing, but i think if you have the right policies, that becomes easier to fix. democrats managed to consolidate the black vote because they made the correct appeals on policy.

the problem is not just the republicans are going after problems that were fixed. a new set of problems has arisen the conservatism does not have ideas to address. there are two main ones. one of the key propositions of economic conservatism has been worry first about growth and we shouldn't worry too much about distribution, but when you have returns occurring disproportionately, that no longer appeals to the middle and lower classes. and then we just went through this severe recession. conservatives have been making the same economic policy prescriptions in 2010 and 2012 that they were making in 2007. what that says is that there is nothing the government can or may be nothing the government should do about recessions.

one is wrong and the other does not appeal to people who are in pain. one of the propositions that conservatism puts out is if you don't want to give into the temptation to do too many transfer programs because while they create a safety net and reduce risk they also slow economic growth, that trade-off of more security for less growth can actually look pretty appealing, especially if the growth we do get is accruing disproportionately at the top. what can conservatives say about this economy echo it is a difficult question but one that needs to be addressed. >> is capitalism broken? growth producing risk and decoupling from wages. >> i think our mental model of capitalism right now is wrong and because it is wrong we

gravitate to the wrong solution. when we think about globalization, for example, we tend to think of a model in which we see dobbs flocked from -- we see jobs sucked from the united states to china. we seek companies -- jobs flock from the united states to china. the division of labor is global in scale, but you still have hierarchies. you have the more privileged parts were value is captured, and you have less privileged parts. the change that happened after the late 1980's is that many countries became integrated and specialized in the division of labor. the most privileged and best places to be in that division of labor are still the united states in places like it, but the people at the top of those hierarchies are not all americans. it's not the entire country. u.s. corporations manufacture 40% of what is made in the world, but the value is not flowing to the population.

capitalism is working extraordinarily well. globalization has been miraculous in terms of raising living standards around the world. the question is where are you situated in those hierarchies. the problem in america right now is that a chunk of the population exactly where you want to be in terms of the way the new capitalism works and the other chunk is not in a very good place. they are in and in between place where other people can do some of this work better than they can. that is a core challenge. i think conservatives have the right instinct about it but there has not been enough rigorous thinking about how to address that problem. >> does anybody disagree with this basic notion that capitalism is somehow not functioning in the way the 1980's model assumed it would?

>> i think in some ways that mrs. gripes the model. -- mis-ascribes the model. the idea of what america is is shaped by a postwar america that could not exist again and is never going to exist again anywhere else in the world. the country that won a war and strengthened its economy while all of its competitors burned each other to the ground and so for a decade could contain within itself the growth of capitalism. although all did rise in a way, to some extent, that model defines our expectations in a way that is going to be very difficult to change. i had the experience last year of reading charles murray's new book right after reading paul krugman's. they start in the same way, pure

nostalgia for the 1960's, and almost in the same terms. and they are right. those are years we should miss. those are -- there is a lot about them to miss. but our policy has been geared around how to bring them back as opposed to how do we deal with today. both parties are intellectually exhausted at the same time in a way that is very bad for the country. >> the government was big. there is 1950's nostalgia left for the unions. >> big labor was big and there was a lot of economic dynamism at the same time. that's true, but it doesn't mean we could do it today. >> so what is the future? the 60's were pretty good to me. i know you guys don't remember it. [laughter] you are busy on the internet or in >> we weren't born then.

>> that's why i enjoyed them. [laughter] >> one way to think about that is that an important difference between the two parties now is that democrats tend to think about the future in terms of large institutions. republicans, when they think about it at all, which is not enough, tend to think about it in more decentralized terms. in that sense, i think republicans might better be situated to have a vision of the future than the democrats. but there are a huge rewrite of options in a decentralized space. they have to speak to a culture that has an incredible amount of choices and variety of options in a decentralized space. that is what the future looks like. >> i would amplify that even further by saying that the information economy is a fundamentally different type of economy than the industrial economy.

i think the political class in general, having been raised not just on 1950's nostalgia but on the industrial idea, is not as quick to think about how the country is fundamentally different, and that leads to a different set of policy problems, for example, what you do with unskilled male workers who are left behind. it goes beyond that. it is about a pace of innovation and a type of innovation and the labor force that is very different from what the political class -- political people and people who are intellectual tend to be old-school in the way they live their lives. they write. they read. that is not necessarily with the average person is doing today. i think people in that economy are much more attuned to that than the people who comment on it. >> i would like to push back on that a little bit because i think the 1950's and 1960's were phenomenally innovative. there was phenomenal all construction and deconstruction going on.

we are much less innovative now than we were in many ways during the postwar. i think we are going to be even less innovative in the future because of the aging of the world. older people -- as i look at becoming 1 -- tend to be more conservative temperamentally. but there is also this thing that if you're 57 and i come to you and say i want you to give me half your savings. i have a great opportunity. in 30 years you can be a billionaire. what, you're going to have the best nursing home in america? the calculus of risk taking radically changes in middle-age. we are doing well compared to the rest of the developed world. that is a huge challenge that no party is speaking to at this point. >> you all made the point that a

core distinction between left and right in the future is centralization versus decentralization. i want to get back to that point in a minute. let's go to megan's point, which reminds me of a book called the great stagnation from a couple of years ago which argues that we are winding down productivity or at least we are in a time of slow technological innovation and rose. that ties into the idea that america is on a downward slope. do you buy into that? >> i am not sure there is much policy can do about that. i tend to think that the likely long-run pace of gdp growth is acceptable to the extent that it is distributed in a way that people feel they are getting standard of living growth. part of the reason i wonder about how much policy can do is because i think we have been in an environment for the last decade where we have had a de facto weakening of a lot of intellectual property

protections such as copyright and patents. >> there has been a weakening. wakes de facto -- >> effective. there is rampant piracy and music. as far as i can tell music has not gotten any worse. the revenue model of television and movies has been disrupted but the quality seems to be improving. this is bad for producers but good for consumers. what it makes me wonder is for the quantity of innovation we get is the ip policy matter that much. i am skeptical of the ability of policymakers to influence it, so it's not where i would direct my energies. >> i have great respect for tyler but i completely disagree with his thesis about the idea that the low hanging fruit of innovation has declined.

if you look at molecular biology and genetics, we are barely in the first inning if even in the first pitch of what will be an incredible revolution of our knowledge of how the cells were, how the brain works, how the body works. i think the thing we're missing when we are too optimistic about that side is the risk of the potential for a catastrophic fiscal and financial crisis, which is what got me into this world out of the business world i was in before. we have more of a conception of what that could look like and we did in 2007, but we are so far removed from the depression that we really don't understand what a true catastrophic financial crisis could look like. >> didn't we just go through one? >> i was not as bad as the depression. >> think something conservatives have not fully processed is how traumatic this has been for much of the country. >> i think it is nothing compared to what will come if we

don't get our house in order fiscally. the past is not a predictor of the future. >> sure it is. >> ok, well. let's get to the core question of the future left-right divide of the country. you all have put something on the table. centralization, decentralization. does that strike everybody as true? >> i don't know. i think the core fight is the one we have been having politically about economic distribution and the role of the government as a redistribute or and protector of poor and middle-class interests. it is not a fight we are done having, but to put it bluntly, it bluntly, it's sort of the where's my growth, where's my piece of the economy. that's going to be the key question. >> you think wage amelioration is going to be decentralized. >> i think the two are closely connected.

there is a real logic to the left and the rights ways of thinking about the role of government in our economy and there is a real difference in where the left thinks in terms of managing large institutions. it sees society as a set of systems that are disordered and require better organization. it is a coherent argument. i i don't agree with that but it's not a crazy argument. the right seems to feel that the role of government is not to manage the sides, but to create the space in which the sides can flourish. and that looks like chaos, and it is in many ways. that is how innovation happens. it's also how problem-solving happens. it happens in a local way, and one-on-one, through local markets and institutions that bubble up, trial and error and pilot programs, not a centralized here's the technical answer. i think we are hitting back to a place where things are coherent and there is something like political economy on the table

rather than just technical economics, where economics is subsumed by argument about priorities which in turn is subsumed in an argument about what american life is really all about. that is why i think conservatives could be better positioned than they now seem to be to address the public stories in a way that makes sense to voters. people have a sense that we are living in a society that is decentralized that offers them a huge range of options. younger people, in particular, like that and expect that and want that. you see that in the health-care debate. the sheer consolidation of large systems that is involved in the left way of thinking is not appealing to a lot of people. the right, i think, has not offered a coherent alternative. and you don't see people going around and saying we have a view of the government creating a space and allowing people to function in that space. allowing competition to happen. rhetorically, conservatism isn't that. it is solutions to problems that

were prominent in the late 1980's. you >> i have two stories in terms of how i think about the future of the left-right divide. one is that the left is a party of democracy and the other is a party of diversity. in the first story, the idea is that when you are contacting a corporation and a republic, they are similar entities. their legal, institutional entities that own themselves and have their own cultures". -- own cultures and codes. you have one that succeeds and other corporations mimic that corporation until a newer more

successful model emerges. the appeal of democracy to the left is we have true egalitarian function making and organization that leads to a different type of decision making. that's an attractive story to tell. the story you could tell going forward is how we make different decisions. it's actually a good thing to have the trial and error process. you cannot just say what works, determine what works through a randomized controlled trial and then distribute that to all of society. the question is what works where. the other story that i have become more and more concerned about is the idea that the left is very concerned about the

distribution of resources. but there are growing populations that are marginalized from the pieces of our culture that are actually working very well. when you think about civil society, we tend to think about formal institutions. also think formal networks. when you think about friendships, for example. when you think about how upper middle-class people think about friendships as vehicles of mobility whereas working-class people tend not to be connected to the networks that give you access to upward mobility or opportunity. i actually think that when you think about inclusion and the goal of inclusion, it leads you to different policies. for example, minimum wage. if you care about inclusion, it's a big deal.

it is locking out a swath of the population from mainstream institutions that allow people to accumulate resources, build social connections and break out of the isolation that is toxic. that suddenly becomes a very big deal. that's not to say that inequality is not a problem at all. it's to say that maybe we ought to think more about inclusion and then we have to look differently at a whole host of questions including immigration, integration, housing markets, zoning laws, but i really think that is the debate that i would want to see. >> let's try to get a concrete view. i will introduce two characters. john is 42 years old. he used to work at the mill. he now works at a warehouse for nine dollars an hour. pretty much stagnant wages when he is employed. not going anywhere. sort of falling through the cracks.

jane is a waitress making $27,000, two kids. what are republicans offering these people? >> that's the question. the problem is this nebulous idea of the decentralized system of networks that we are not telling you what to do, we are trying to build the environment. we have had this big increase in perceived and actual economic risk over the last few years. what the left has is a suite of centralized programs to offer that are designed to mitigate those risks, and the pitch we are proposing to offer from the right is basically we will have pilot programs and state governments will take approaches of their own and figured things out. we will have civil society and such. that creates a lot of risk which is compounded by the fact that when you look at actual republican politicians, they have not expressed a lot of interest in doing policy innovations. on these core economic issues,

although i think they have been innovative on issues that are not escorted the debate today. one problem is a credibility issue. also, it is not responsive to this broad new problem of risk. i think the way conservatives can adjust to that to some extent is to move away from fiscal policy emphasis. there are areas. there is still deregulatory opportunities at the local level, occupational licensing, planning and zoning. there are opportunities at the federal level in intellectual property were you could unleash market forces, create faster growth, beat down rents so that you return -- improve returns to labor ella 10 of two returns to capital. but i don't -- relative to returns to capital. >> i think there is a way to talk about this that democrats

also aren't, which is reciprocity. one way to view the world is to think about what happens economically either as a forger does where you have higher risk -- you know, you go out hunting, and maybe there is nothing there. maybe you are a bad hunter or maybe there is no animal there. or you can look at it as a farmer. you put it in the ground, you do the work, you should get the crop, right? how we judge economic policy often very much boils down to is this outcome fundamentally about risk or fundamentally about effort. here is the thing though. forager societies still have very tightly linked networks. that is a position democrats are often in the place of advocating now, which is that the rich are taking too much. we need to take it from them. what obligation do these people

have? none. we have been cheated. i think what republicans can do is look at a policy emphasis and say, if you do the right things, it should be possible for you to get ahead. it should be possible for you to stay connected to the labor market. looking at policy through that lens, things like wage subsidies, trying to get long-term unemployed back to work through tax rebates or what have you, those are things that say you are doing the right stuff and therefore you have -- we have an obligation to you. if you're not doing the right stuff, we don't. if you're not trying to work, we don't have an obligation to support you. i don't think either party has captured that space yet and that would be a good space for republicans to go. >> tell me how wage subsidies would work. >> there is a problem right now which is that americans are not

competitive with chinese workers or whatever. or they are not competitive at the level their parents worked at. so they are downwardly mobile because the work they do doesn't pay what it paid their dad. and a lot of them are saying no, why should i do this. this is demeaning but i have to go work for a pittance for the rest of my life and it's all downhill from here. so they go on disability, which is a terrible program in many ways, not for people who are truly disabled, but it is becoming like a backdoor trap unemployment insurance. and it was not meant to have that role. what you can say is we are going to make up that difference. we are going to make it easier for you to support a family at the basic level your dad did it, at least, on the same kind of work. and maybe you are 55 years old and you're not going to go back to college and become an

electrical engineer. that ship has sailed. but we are going to make it possible to maintain a minimum provided you are doing 40 hours a week, 50 hours a week. >> we being the federal government. >> its tax rebates and subsidies. there are ways to structure this so that it works. right now, you can work for a very small percentage of the year and get quite large subsidies for that. >> i want to raise a couple of points related to your original question. an increasingly wealthy society can have more expensive societies. a starbucks paris stood does better than her counterpart did 50 years ago. the millworker though, that job is gone and not coming back. i don't think either party has a particularly good solution.

there is one thing we have ignored. we have talked a lot about income inequality, but we don't talk about the importance of cost of living well it if -- living relative to income inequality. if you live in a low-cost part of the country and your wages are low, you're not that bad off. it's trying to live on that wage in new york city that stuff. has to do with the fact that both at the local level in the federal level we have done a lot to drive up housing, food, basic goods and services that a low income person will have. so a message that is very free-market oriented that will help that person is to say we are going to drive the cost of your health insurance down. we are going to drive the cost of your housing, your mortgage, your rent down. those things make it easier to live your life. >> does everyone here agree it is a decent idea or?

>> i think it's a decent idea with the caveat that there are still a large number of people looking for work relative to the number of people hiring. a wage subsidy is only going to further imbalance that by drawing more people into the labor market. it doesn't mean it's a bad idea, it just means it's ever more important to have policies to promote full employment so that the wage subsidy translates into higher incomes rather than just allowing firms to play -- to pay lower wages. >> i actually fundamentally disagree with that. this labor market looks great. leave it alone. it's fine. it's recovering. it's back where you want it. it's of this labor market. one thing you could try doing is making that labour market cheaper. why don't we rebate the payroll tax one month for every month someone has been out of work. it is obviously not going to take every long-term unemployed

person and fix the problem, but there are ways we can redirect this and say look, we know you want to work. we know you have been trying. we are going to try to make it more attractive for employers to hire you rather than another guy. i think it's basically -- >> go ahead. >> we have this long-run trend that has actually been getting worse in the last few years of low wage rose relative to gdp growth and productivity growth. part of that is due to health care cost and not all of it. it is related to a cultural problem that conservatives talk about that there is a declining work ethic are less pride the people taken work. i think part of that has to do

with the fact that you have this anemic growth in wages. >> i think you are agreeing on that. >> i agree totally on the particular point. it points to the larger economic debate that has been emerging in the last two years, especially in the last few months. i think there is a lot of room for conservatives to highlight the ways in which there ways of thinking about helping the poor and middle class are centered around work. it has to be centered around work. some people have been doing this. senator rubio has an idea out there now that would distinguish in a sharp way between benefits they go to people who have a job and benefits that go to people who don't have a job. he is not ending benefits for people who are not working, but benefits for them would be in kind, housing, food, medical coverage, whereas all benefits to people who are employed would be cash benefits.

work would always be more attractive than nonwork. >> using the same amount of money, even using the same amount of money, cash benefit is more appealing than a kind benefit the tells you what to do with it. to make work more appealing and to make work the center of what we think it takes to rise in america. i think that is extremely important. the debates we are seeing now are political economy debates. they are about priorities more than they are about technical questions about how to get the economy growing at this rate or that rate. and that is healthy. about priorities more than they are about technical questions about how to get the economy growing at this rate or that rate. and that is healthy. that is what our politics should be about and what our economic debate should be about. neither side has worked

out there argument very well, be at is shaping up to genuine difference. it shows itself in the health care debate, the labor debate, the debate on welfare, and it is a big part of our politics going forward. >> you have worked as a hill staffer and a white house staffer. you spent a lot of time with members of congress. how big a gap is it between this conversation and the kind of conversation elected officials are having? >> how big have you got? i think there are a few members of congress who are in this kind of conversation, and i think it is probably unreasonable to expect there will ever be more than a few of them. the question is how influential they can be, and at this point, i don't think they are influential enough. i think paul ryan thinks about some of these questions. i think dave camp thinks about some of these questions, and their committee chairman. mike lee is taunting in ways

that are very interesting and constructive about these kind of issues. he is not in the leadership. he is at the back of the list of the minority party at the senate. there is a lot of room to go. the debate that is happening about that, about what the , in my mind, be there is still a debate about whether there should be an agenda, not whether -- not what the agenda should be. they are fighting in a vacuum and the vacuum is important because of the inertia and because of a lot of arguments that don't make sense to me but to people sense during political seasons. logic of they the romney campaign and i don't think it worked very well. and i never think it could've

very well. >> a lot of this is about to be shaped by primary season for -- primary season. what are the debates that seem obvious that we are about to have? >> just to build on that question and also what you have all just said, this is why i think the demography of the antecedent policy -- this is the reason the policy makers and the republican party can't get anywhere and don't have any influence is because the people who vote republican aren't especially interested in that aspect of the republican policy agenda. the key thing i think about when i think about who would be a favorite in 2016 is who can expand who votes republican the most, because that is what

presidents do. josh mentioned civil rights and the democrats. a lot of democrats were opposed to it. what happened? the iron will and incredible rammed of lbj who through civil rights despite the opposition of democrats, and in time, that got democrats the allegiance of black voters. perhaps republicans need to do something similar with the conservative message that appeals to a broader slice. >> are you saying they won't hear policy proposals like the ones we have just been hearing? >> i don't know if i would put immigration reform at the cost of the list. i would put universal coverage at the top of the list. until conservatives can articulate their side they don't deserve to have a broader base of support. the pointe are now at

where it should be more a matter of us being outraged that candidates don't have a serious health reform agenda, labor market agenda. those are two particularly crucial pieces. but if you don't have something to say about wage stagnation and what is an actual, viable alternative to obamacare, then i think you shouldn't be taken seriously. the last time around, that was not the case. you're the couple of candidates who had exotic tax reform proposals that were exotic, by which i mean laughable. this time around, i think we have enough of an emperor structure. we have enough of a body of ideas where i think it is at a bare minimum the candidates should have some kind of serious agenda around health form, labor market and taxes. i have foundthat

certain developments in the republican presidential field moderately dispiriting. maybe there were some people i was excited about in the recent less the caseis la now, but that is actually intellectually useful. >> don't be coy. aboutshould not be character or personality. we should have a situation where everyone who wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate understands that they need to have a serious agenda. they need to actually engage in these arguments. something weird happens. there are easy ways to become a conservative celebrity, by saying outrageous things, etc.. but some people are realizing that saying new things about real problems that exist is not necessarily the number one way to get attention but it actually is becoming a way to get attention, and i think that's really new and very exciting.

be in the early part of every presidential season, candidates would give a series of worthy speeches. george bush came here in 1999 and gave a speech attacking grover norquist, which i loved. he gave that kind of speech. cycles, theyle of have not been giving those speeches. my impression is the only person doing that is marco rubio right now. >> of the imaginable candidates, that is probably true. of it is there are more ideas out there. in a sense, the policy vacuum on the right itself has been the fault for a long time of people like us. i think that is less true now because some of the work has been done. some of the thinking has been done, and the working out of what it looks like as a political agenda has been done. the idea that if those things , ast, they are on the ground

politician should think at this point of speech i should say something about what i am going to do. we cannot think of ourselves as being on the cutting-edge of anything. i mean, look at us. but that is a way we can be useful. well, some of us. look at me. i think the ways in which people who think about policy can be helpful is by preparing the ground, making sure those ideas are out there and that these conversations are happening. there are not separate from the political process. when it is time for a politician to think how do i speak to the party in the country about the issues people face, there are actual ideas out there rather than thinking the only way i can do it is to get this amount of face time on fox and that means i have to say this, that than the other, 9-9-9.

>> it seemed for a little while that there was a rising libertarian wave. rand paul certainly exemplifies that. is that still true? >> i think there is on some issues. iy marriage is an issue that think the republicans have lost on and i think that is going to be the future of the party. that is going to collapse on both sides. you see a lot less enthusiasm for invading middle eastern countries and so forth then we had in 2003. in that sense, i think it is true. it's just kind of hard to say, in 2012, and the election was interesting because both candidates seemed interested in saying as little as possible about what they would do. can anyone name a policy agenda either obama or romney had other

-- other than appealing obamacare? >> i wish mitt romney had noticed. general, there was a reason for that. we are out of money. when you poll people, they want to cut the huge foreign aid budget and raise taxes but only on people who make $2 billion a year. they want all the social spending we are doing and everything else and they also want a balanced budget. you can point out things that are mathematically impossible. butnt to balance the budget only raise taxes on four people and don't cut any foreign aid. be 2016ear is that will as well. what i hope is that that will be the way to win. obama won by not adding anything. romney could've won by not saying anything. to talkpe we are going

about these problems because they are huge and they need to be addressed. it's no longer possible to sit on the sidelines. to have atried not tax plan, and then and i think february of 2012 he felt like he was backed into a corner by rick santorum, and then like everybody else he felt like he needed a tax plan, and it came back to bite him in the fall because the numbers added up to you either had to raise taxes on the middle class or it had to be a net revenue loss. i think the lesson people take away from that is that mitt romney got too specific on policy and would have done well to be even vaguer. they thought through whether they should have a policy agenda and concluded that they should not have one. it left us with a headache. they thought it through. it was not that they had no idea

how it would work. they thought the politics of that would be a bad idea. that has to change. the politics of that has to change. >> one thing we have not really talk about this evening is that fragile conservatism is intellectually and also in terms of what appeals to a broad section of america. there are a lot of reasons for that. we always talk about economic policy. we like to want out. wonk out. but young people today grew up well after the 1960's. they put last night's date on instagram or snap chat. ist is a large part of what going on in america that we as conservatives have still not moved past the battles of the 1960's. are we comfortable with the fact that the vast majority of americans engage in premarital

sex? i don't say that to be ironic. i think that is something conservatives really have wrestled with and don't have a good solution to. i think we will end up a pro-life party that will accept liberal hegemony on other social issues. a marriage is an issue where republicans will lose, but if you look at marriage as a whole, it is in -- disastrousape shape, and that will hurt the economy. marriageonal level, makes people happier and healthier. it's actually good for people. if you have serial parenting where people have multiple children by different parents, the father tends to invest in the mother with whom he gets along the best, that is not a stable model for the 21st century. i actually think there is a way in which the gay marriage issue

could be used to make a more robust plan. ok, we have marriage equality, now everyone get married. >> you can make that policy. i think actually having people voice cultural policy also matters, right? i mean, look how influential .ollywood was on gay marriage the positions tv shows took on a, how much that changed public opinion. >> that we should take over hollywood. >> let me try to answer that question if i can jump out of my moderator role. like most of us here, i looked at pro-marriage policies and my conclusion was that none of them worked. my second solution is that parenting skill coaching actually does work. so don't focus on marriage, ,ocus on parenting skills

particularly for single moms. some of that includes nurse family partnership's that government could fund and other things. wouldatter of curiosity, people on this panel support those sorts of allah sees government-funded, maybe if not government delivered, like nurse-family partnerships or early childhood education? >> i think when you're looking at parenting skills -- basically, what you see is that everyone is delaying marriage swath ofty, and one the society is delaying children until after marriage and another swath is not. with regard to that kind of investment, i think -- i call myself conservative despite the fact that i am influenced by a lot of libertarian thinking. ofs goes back to the issue

inclusion more broadly. when you are looking at how parenting has evolved, when you look at upper middle income people, college-educated people, they are parenting not in the way that people parented in the 1950's and 1960's. they are parenting in a new way, a high investment style that happens to be very well suited to a society with rapid change. is high investment parenting something only this narrow group of people can do or isn't something a large swath of the population can do? if you need public policy, as i suspect you do, i think that is something we need to think hard about and feel that it is appropriate for conservatives to embrace, but i think that is going to enter deuce and introduced -- introduce an ew tension. nud there is a lot of exhaustion and faith in failed public institutions, but i think you're saying a whole series of issues,

for example, marijuana regulation, where you're seeing the conflict between chaos and order. even subsidies. some libertarians say the labor market is not inclusive enough. minimum wage might not be the way to do it but wage subsidies might make it more inclusive. i think conservatives need to feel more comfortable acknowledging that they are not libertarians and i think investing in parenting is one part of that puzzle. >> i want to hit on the theme of paternalism. paternalistic.is schools are paternalistic. nurse-family partnerships are paternalistic. as conservatives, are we comfortable with a certain level of public paternalism? >> heart of what has happened in the last few years is a change in our own understanding