opponent to this, that i would ask him among the other things i am asking him today to rethink the lochner case. the case in lochner is whether a majority role, a state legislature, can take away your due process. your due process to contract. >> what should people know about chner today in the body politic?

>> rand paul is taking about -- talking about a certain view of the idea of being completely free at arms length doesn't hold in a lot of people's minds. the era ofhold in progressive philosophy. >> you get the last word. in the last speech, he also cites my book and the argument bee is that this should presumed to be valid and if the government has a good reason, they have to present evidence of that reason in court. they were unable to do that according to five justices, that

is what judging should require of legislatures. >> this is the fourth in a series of 12. want tohave done if you learn more about these cases and if you are learning like we are if you are not a lawyer, we have e-book available for you that we are selling at cost. mauro, anden by tony you can follow along with the next several cases of our series. ofant to thank our guests understanding this case and gentlemen, thank you very much. >> thanks, it was a pleasure.

>> c-span's landmark cases series continues on monday evening. we will look back at schenck versus the united states. the general secretary of the philadelphia socialist party was arrested for handing out leaflets against the draft and appealing it straight to the

supreme court. this is live on monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can learn more about the with thecases hearing court's most significant decisions. to hearto c-span.org more about landmark cases. and you can read the landmark features theat cases and the background of the it is available for $8.95 plus shipping. >> recently, we spoke with iowa chuck grassley about some of the cases being featured in our landmark cases series and

his relationship between the committee and the supreme court. this is half an hour. judiciary chairman chuck grassley of iowa, thank you so much for giving an interview about our supreme court cases. ask about what your responsibility is. sen. grassley: we would have everything to do with the approval of judges that go on court. it is an important process we go through. the supreme court is a powerful ranking government. it is, according to madison, the least to worry about. the least powerful. but they have turned out to be more powerful than madison indicated. in the final analysis, i think that the role of ours is to make sure the people on the court are qualified and that they have judicial temperament to leave

their own personal views out of the cases they decide. that they decide them according to the law or the constitution and according to the facts of the case and basically, just to make sure that they do the job of being a fair referee of the constitution both between the government and the people and within the branches of government. >> do you have a specific set of responsibilities as the chair? sen. grassley: that we have a fair hearing. what is your relationship between the chief justice is on yourself? grassley: very seldom do we interact with the justices. a couple times a year i am invited to talk to what is called a judicial council.

recently i had a five minute presentation to them, just like the chairman of the house judiciary committee or the attorney general. it is kind of just giving them an update of what we're up to in the congress of the united states. it gives me an opportunity to speak about cameras in the art room, which i know some supreme court justices do not like. i have been an advocate or. -- for it. i brought that up again said they know i am pursuing something they disagree with, but we are going to be the final determinant of that. tracks that is an interesting thing to describe to people. how can the congress be the final determinant of cameras in

the court? sen. grassley: because if we say the supreme court has to have cameras, they have to have cameras. i don't see how they can declare that unconstitutional. i do it in the spirit of the bill of rights, where the courtroom has to be open to the public. of course, it is open to the public for those who can squeeze into the courtroom. the extent to which certain cases in the courtroom is open to the public on television, everybody has an opportunity to participate in that case. just like everybody has an opportunity to participate in the congress of the united states through the television of the house and senate. it gives people an opportunity to understand the judicial branch of government. they have the opportunity to

understand the president, the judicial branch's, the legislature, but i don't think they have an opportunity to understand as much what the supreme court does. i think it gives them an opportunity to understand. in lower courts, it stands to make sure that judges have more decorum and do not tend it to be dictators quite so much. >> there is some concern that supreme court hearings have become politicized. that this is a history series. so i want to ask you if it is more politicized than it has been in the past or it is a new phenomenon. or have court appointments about level always had politics? sen. grassley: i think you would say it became politicized -- and then in the 1990's with breyer and ginsberg to go back to being less political. that is why you have seen ginsburg and breyer confirmed by overwhelming majorities as opposed to bork being rejected. after bush was elected, there was a dramatic turn of events, mostly led by then people who were in the minority, and lead,

i think, by senator schumer giving speeches about the fact that ideology got to play a more to play a moreht important role in the selection of judges. it has become more politicized and that time. particularly for the supreme court and circuit court judges. not so much for district court judges. >> is this a good or bad thing for the country? grassley: bad. >> why? grassley: this is bad for the country. because i think that if you go 200 years without the selection of judges and approval by the supreme court, i mean approval by the congress being so political, we got along pretty good for those 200 years. tags and other question about

the selection of supreme court justices, throughout history it has not always been necessary for supreme court justices to be lawyers. you yourself are not a lawyer. unusual but not exclusive. these days, is it absolutely necessary for a supreme court justice to be a lawyer? sen. grassley: i think so. i know the law does not require it, i think only once in our history a justice from lee county, iowa, was appointed by lincoln or someone succeeding lincoln, i don't know what year that person served, but i guess they eventually ended up being considered lawyers by how lawyers were created in those days, reading the law and getting approval. i think he was a medical doctor at one time. other than that, every justice out of the 120 or so that have served up and lawyers. i think in understanding of law is very, very good.

i don't think that means you could not do it, but i am much or i would recommend that now. i would be open to people convincing me otherwise, but right now i want to leave it the way it is. >> i want to delve into some of the cases we selected. starting with marbury versus madison, a case in every high school civics text book. it is still being debated by some on your side of the aisle who believe the court should not have judicial review power. what is your belief? sen. grassley: my belief is you need a referee. that is what marbury versus madison said. the supreme court was going to assume the role of being a referee between the two branches of government and be the final authority on what is constitutional or not and what is legal or not. as long as that is not the final

answer, and four or five times the constitution is been amendment to overturn supreme court decisions so in a sense the people or the people's representative have the final say if they want it. so it would be wrong to say the court is absolutely the final say will stop in most instances, even though in most cases, that is right. but any time it is an and congress many times has overturned supreme court's cases by overturning the law when they felt it and interpreted the law wrong three or four times beginning with atkins versus georgia in 1790. >> earlier you referenced james madison. sen. grassley: i think it is what he wanted, the least dangerous. they cannot initiate action like

the president of the united states under the constitution or laws of our land can and initiate some action. in the case of the legislative branch, we can initiate almost anything we want to. >> next, a judge said he thought it was one of the worst decisions ever made. when you think of dred scott and what it did to the history of the country, what do you think? sen. grassley: it led to the civil war, and it was an affront to common sense that african americans could not be citizens of this country, it was an insult, it was such an insult that the civil war was bought

over that and started because of that. also, because it was going to spread slavery into anyplace in the country priority of the 1820 and 1850 compromises. so it led to what turned out to be good. the constitutional amendment is one example of congress moving ahead and the people of this country moving had and overturning a supreme court decision. then, in turn it has done a great deal of good over time on a case law which the court interpreted the bill of rights to be affable to states and most censuses, except for one or two, in most instances applicable to the states. so, what restrictions there are on government or what protections there are for the american people against the federal government, also protections for the people that are applicable to the state.

>> when we spoke to senator leahy, he describes the amendments to the constitution that came out of dred scott, 13, 14, 15, as the second founding of the country. you see it like that? sen. grassley: first of all, it did the right thing by giving african-americans the right to vote, which they did not get in reality until 100 years later. at least it was in the constitution, the right to vote and be citizens of the country and that you could not have involuntary servitude in the future. so, that is very important. but, i think it is important from the standpoint that it's gave to the citizens of every state a lot of protection against government that the bill of rights gave to the people of the country only against national law as opposed to state. against national government as opposed to state government.

>> as it turns out, we had help from the national constitution center and law professor selecting these cases. it was difficult to find 12. it turns four of them are 14th amendment cases. is that a coincidence that the 14th amendment is reviewed so often by the court? sen. grassley: yes, because it is so sweeping. every person being guaranteed the protection of the laws and due process and things like that. that is very basic to the freedom that the revolutionary

war was fought for. and why the constitution was written in the first place. not to have the government give rights to the people, but the rights belong to the people and certain of those are given up to the mutual benefit for the government to offer instead. it is the principle of limited government that is so important. i do not think the 14th amendment does anything more thing in fortify that original position of the constitution writers. >> in recent years, as this issue has been so prominent, you suggested legislative clarification of the 14th amendment vis-a-vis immigration. i do not want to get into the politics of immigration, but the need to clarify an amendment through legislation, can you talk about that? sen. grassley: i have said this, if you could do it by legislation, to say what subject

to the jurisdiction thereof, which then determines whether somebody born in the united states is a legal citizen -- if you can do it by legislation, i would try to clarify that. i have also said, if you have to do it by constitutional amendment, you might as well forget about it. >> i am going to jump ahead in history. youngstown sheet and tube company versus sawyer. you have referenced that with regards to president obama and executive action. we found this on your website. you are talking about the guantanamo detainees and you wrote, it is difficult to square with the limited as. in youngstown sheet and two company versus sawyer, otherwise known as the steel seizure case, the court set a clear precedent. it helped president truman's executive orders besieging steel mills during the korean war was unconstitutional. it established the executive was not above the law. sen. grassley: do most important

thing is that a president is strongest in exercising his powers when he has congress with him and in this particular instance, the supreme court made a decision that the executive power exercised by truman in seizing the steel mills under the war powers act -- i mean under the commander-in-chief authority that he has, was a step way beyond it. it has been used to justify several cases since then. going to guantanamo and one instance, and to nixon's papers in another instance and the nixon problems at the time of watergate as another example. it is frequently cited, because it is a landmark case from the

standpoint of the support being a to referee between the branches of government and making sure the president of the united states, or in some cases the congress, are living within the constitution. in that particular case, the most important thing is not the opinions of eight justices, but the most important thing is a concurring opinion of justice jackson that is so often quoted now in several supreme court decisions since then. i do not know if it is dozens or hundreds, but he is frequently quoted. particularly when there are disputes between the two branches of government or a president exceeding his authority. >> there is an interesting sidebar told by tony mauro in the book landmark cases. president truman might have actually gone to the chief justice before and gotten assurances from the chief justice the case would be found

in the president's favor. can you imagine that happening today? sen. grassley: no. but we talked about dred scott, i think that is what buchanan, president of that time, was insinuated. i don't think it has been proven, but it was insinuated there was a great deal of discussion between buchanan and the chief justice at that time. i do not think harry truman would do that. if he did, i do not know if there was any records, but he obviously did not get the right message he wanted. >> let's go back in time. schenck. 1919 decision, first world war. it gave rise to the phrase, "you

cannot scream fire in a crowded theater." what i would like to share is the discussion about the first amendment and our rights to communicate in the digital age and the post-9/11 age. sen. grassley: i think "you can't yell fire in the theater," what that shows is there are very strong rights that citizens have under the constitution, but they are not absolute rights. there can be legitimate limitations. in the case of can't yell fire in the theater, because you are concerned about what that does in that exercise of free speech to the lives of people that might get trampled as you are running out of the theater. there are some restrictions, but you have to assume the spirit of the constitution. it is very extraordinary to have any restrictions on first amendment rights. >> as a legislator, where do you draw that line when people in the judicial system raise concerns about their need to be able to follow what people are

saying on the internet, monitor phone calls, that sort of thing? sen. grassley: what you do is, a lot of times you have got to find a balance. there is nothing unrestricted freedoms, hardly ever, that we talk about. in the case that to you mentioned, you are trying to find a balance between national security on one hand and fourth amendment privacy and rights that you have as a citizen not to be tormented by your government. that is what you are trying to find a balance. it is difficult to find that sort of a balance, but i think we eventually do it.

the most recent action by congress of restricting the federal government from accumulating phone numbers under what we call metadata is an example of finding that balance. we thought we had the balance previously. then, if you ever wonder, does grassroots make a difference? yes. there was very much concerned there was too much invasion of privacy. so, you still do things to protect national security, but maybe do greater things than you had thought you needed to do in the past to protect privacy. >> coming back from terrorism, you have had some interest in constitutional amendments to preserve the flag over time. people who believe burning the flag, for example, is an expression of first amendment rights. what is your response? sen. grassley: my response can only be the first amendment was meant to protect verbal speech. that is an example of where the supreme court has said the first amendment protects nonverbal speech as well. i have to accept that. if you do not like that, we have to overturn it right

constitutional amendment, and i doubt it will be overturned. >> let's move to another case. rights in the post terrorism age. the miranda decision, 1966. we all, and society, are familiar with miranda rights. the cop shows always talk about it. you have had some concern about how the miranda rights have been used by the administration. particularly in guantanamo. can we talk about how that affects the way we treat -- sen. grassley: it is simple. when people take up arms against our country, they are enemy combatants and they are not protected by the constitution of the united states. that has been modified by recent supreme court decisions which say they at least have a right

of habeas corpus for a trial before the courts. i think the protection came from the geneva conventions. that has been modified by statutes we passed and modified by court decisions. at that is where i come from originally. things have changed. we have to abide by the increased protections that people have under recent congressional enactment and what the court said. >> baker v. carr, now i understand a personal decision for you you were serving in the iowa convention. sen. grassley: we thought we had an answer that was copied directly from the united states congress. one house based on area, one house based on population. we passed a constitutional amendment in the legislature, you have to do that with two different legislatures and it has to be voted on by the

people. we passed in one house based on geography and the other house based on population. it happens that before baker versus carr was decided, that was turned down by the voters of the state of iowa. if it had not been turned on by the voters of the state of iowa in the referendum, it would've been overturned by baker versus carr, which said that it has to be based purely on one person, one vote. so that is the way the 50 state legislatures are now determined. >> the chief justice at the time, earl warren, describe the baker decision is the most in the vegan during his tenure. which is quite a statement to make, considering the cases during his tenure. why did he make that statement? sen. grassley: and has been a long time since i read baker versus carr. this is the way i look at it. there is an obscure part of the constitution that says the

federal government has to guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. that is probably the only immediate control the federal government has over the states. and it is thereby the constitution. republican form of government does not mean the republican party, it means representative government. and, i do not know if he meant this, but he would be justified in saying that if you have mala apportioned -- malapportioned legislature, the people are not properly represented and a representative form of government is not exist. for instance, in our state we would have a county with let's say 250,000 people, two representatives.

so quite frankly, the people of polk county were not guaranteed a republican form of government under these eight legislature. that is why baker versus carr was so essential. the only disagreement i would have at that time, not sure if i would have it today, but i thought, based upon what the federal government had done, based on geography and the other based on inflation, that if each of the 50 states had decided to do it that way, it should have met the constitutional requirements. but, obviously, the court thought otherwise and nobody argues with baker versus carr today. >> apparently, justice thomas thinks there should be further clarification about voters being at the termination -- being the determination. do you see any validity to that argument? sen. grassley: no. i think total population. i have never heard clarence thomas give that argument but i think i would disagree with

that. i think it is based upon people, whether they vote or not vote. >> let me get to our final case, roe versus wade. this congress is still tied up over planned parenthood. the supreme court has agreed to hear another abortion-related case. why are we still debating this? >> because social change ought to be made by the representatives of the people. it is something that started with dred scott. the courts are getting involved in social maneuvering and they were wrong by declaring that african-americans can never be citizens of the united states. they should have left it to the elected representatives of the people. that is a lesson for a lot of social cases. look at the successful social change in america that has been done by legislative bodies in a bipartisan way, social security, medicare, civil rights. probably a lot more.

the one that hasn't been decided in a bipartisan way -- these are very bipartisan decisions. they were genetically changing roe versus wade. the division now is greater than when it was passed. another one would be obamacare.

you ought to do things through the elected representatives of the people and do it in a way that is bipartisan. >> would brown versus the board be an argument on the other side? >> that has been accepted by the american people, not immediately. you have to realize that brown has been modified by supreme court cases in the last 20 years that has not -- originally, it was busing children from one part of town to another. you had court decisions that said you don't need to go that far. even the court has made modifications of brown versus -- the brown case. >> we are out of time. what do you want people watching the series to know about the supreme court? >> get the supreme court televised so the entire people can see what is going on and have more respect for law. >> we hope to learn more about the history of the courts. thank you, senator.

all persons having business between the honorable supreme court will now give them attention. c-span'seek on "landmark cases," we will examine the landmark case schne ck versus new york. neck, who was the general secretary of the democratic party, passed out leaflets protesting the draft. >> the point was to encourage men not to register for the draft.

the language in this flyer is and it callsfiery on every citizen in the united states to resist conscription laws. >> he was arrested and tried and found guilty under the recently created espionage act and the case went directly to the supreme court after he appealed. our guests include attorney thomas goldstein and beverly gage, professor at his -- professor of history at el yalersity -- at university. order your copy of the "landmark cases" book. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping and available at c-span.org. discussion on the

impact of social media on politics, then, president obama soccers the u.s. women's team to the white house, and then abby wambach's remarks. now, we will hear from mitt romney's 2008 campaign new media and the harvard institute of politics polling director discuss social media and politics. editorglobe political moderates with questions from university ofe harvard in cambridge, massachusetts. this is just over an hour. >> here, tonight, is our panel on social media.

she is an iop institute politics editor from 2014 and we are delighted to have you back. in 2014, she led a study group on gender, journalism and the midterm elections and she will be able to revisit the topic in the general elections soon. she is the political editor of the "boston globe," where she coordinates the newspaper coverage of the new hampshire primary and the 2016 presidential race. she also works on the weekly section of politics, capital, which publishes friday in print and throughout the week online. previously, she served as the politics editor for "roll call" and you can find a different new stations on the weekends and otherwise.

she uses social media to enhance and promote work across all the platforms, so i guess she has a bias, but we'll find out about that in a moment, after she introduces the rest of the panel and moderates. thank you very much. [applause] moderator: a little, thank you so much for happiness here today. i think this will be a great panel and public has been fantastic so far. i am leading the discussion today. instead of me introducing all of you guys, why don't we go through and give about two minutes of our background. nick: i am nick carr, i write about technology and culture. i have written a few books, most recently the one called the "glass cage" about automation and how it is taking over our jobs and our souls sometimes. before that, a book called "the shallows," which looked at how being consummate connected to the internet is influencing the way we think -- being constantly connected to the internet is influencing the way we think. and i was an editor at the harvard business review. mindy: i am mindy finn. i got my start in politics 12

years ago and kind of made, by accident fell into new media, which most people do not know what that was, but i was young and coming out of college and had a little experience in photoshop and people said, do this job in addition to your regular work on capitol hill, and that led me to run the media program or presidential campaign, the republican national committee, to open a consulting firm where i worked with different candidates and groups in the area. ultimately, it led to a job at twitter as one of the first staffers for politics and advocacy. social media has been a big part of my life in politics even before it was considered social media, when it was blogs and other platforms. i think many of you, back when many were in middle school, today, i've a consultant and i do political consulting and run a group called empowered women to inspire, educate, and give way to a new generation of american women, to bring them together and strengthen their impact on civic culture.

john: my name is john and i am the director of polling of it to ofhere at the institute politics. for the past 15 years, 27 or 28 different sources, i let the city group of undergraduate with the largest millennium generation. you cannot study the millennial generation without engaging in things related to social media, so that is a major focus of what we are about to conduct two surveys a year and over the course of the last couple of years, dozens and dozens of focus groups for you people across the country. in addition, i often talk about how i am indebted to millennial's on campus and at home and have a company and the objective is to use social media to identify, empower, and asked more from our clients and passionate constituents using social media. thank you for having me. moderator: give a warm welcome

to our panel. [applause] i will kick it off with i think the most burning question on all of our minds in terms of social media -- donald trump, good, bad, or as he might say "huge" with social media? which one? nick: i think he is a good case study in what works in social media and politics. in the tv age, politicians wanted to have a coherent image out there, so they tend to repeat the same thing over and over again. the image may have been artificial or partially artificial, but that was your goal. that does not seem to be the goal with social media because what you want to do is grab

people's attention when they are facing this swirl of information to social media, and it turns out donald trump is good at that, at blasting messages, love him or hate them, but they make you stop and say, i cannot believe you said that. that seems to work and keep the focus on him through social media. that kind of escalates through the rest of the media, so he has often been setting the agenda for the messages he is shooting out on twitter and the rest of the media covers it. it is a different dynamic than we have seen before. moderator: would he be the front-runner today if it were not for twitter? mindy: i think it demands authenticity. that is one of trump's greatest strength. he is laying into it perfectly. when i go back -- he is playing it perfectly. when i first started at twitter, and my job was helping to train

candidates across the board, one of the best actresses? how can you -- what are the best practices? how can you authenticity? it was behind the scenes, make them feel that they are the most important stakeholders, your twitter audience, and instant response. what we see, even today, when kevin mccarthy dropped out of the race for speaker, trump was that with a response within minutes. you can tell it is not -- i would be -- it might be carefully scripted, but if it is, he did it mighty quickly. whether he be the front runner without twitter, quite possibly because he was already a tv celebrity and they know he gets great ratings, etc. have been quick to want to feature him. in fact, i think country to his decline in the polls are a few

things but one as he was hyper covered for so many weeks and there is only so much that it could be sustainable and they had pulled back. moderator: john, what do you think donald trump's lasting effect will be? john: i think it is all of the above based on where you sit. i think it is good because he is innovative. in a moment, i have an example of the first time i have ever seen a candidate create short, 15 second many ads on instagram, so good as i think he has shown the power of what somebody can do and engage people. whether he is engaging people in terms of moving the country forward making america great again is to be determined. i think he could be far more positive in terms of his tone and capturing the moment to engage voters in several discussions, so i think that is bad, but it is huge because i am not sure he would be or we would be discussing today if it were not for his use of twitter and instagram.

moderator: this is an example that john pulled from instagram. can we let it roll? >> having trouble sleeping at night? too much energy? i think the norm ought to be -- [indiscernible] jeb for all your sleeping needs. [laughter] john: it is good because i never would have thought of a 15 second ad, bad because i would use that time to say, give me your ideas and what we need to move the country forward rather than having negativity. mindy: and how you run the campaign, typically, when i have been on campaigns, the discussion is, went to go negative and when is the right moment? there is not been that calibration. they recognize that you cannot wait and criticism of mitt romney back in 2012 and quite often when they lose, they

waited too long and he is not waiting at all. moderator: anything to add? nick: if you look at jeb bush and hillary clinton, the two are playing by the old rules and nervous about saying anything that will blow up into a tv controversy, be accused of having made a gap. trump lives on that. things that would have been defined in any election previously, for him, seems to put more fuel and has tanked. tank. his moderator: as reporters and covering campaigns, we monitor the role of television quite a bit. how much money they are spending on tv and it usually shows, 20

they are bringing in. for years, decades, we have thought of television as the dominant force of media. is that still the case and for how long? and when will digital media overtake that? nick: i think the 2016 campaign is the first when we are seeing social media as a mature levels begin to shape the campaign. 2008 i think was called the face the facebook campaign because obama organized people on facebook, younger people mainly, and he got a lot of [indiscernible] but it cannot shape the discourse of the campaign. i think this is the first year that we have seen how campaigns change when social media does drive for discussion. that does not mean that tv or radio is going away, but it does mean that often, all the other medias are falling for this going on on social media. even if a person is following the campaign through twitter, but they are seen through tv and other media may be very heavily influenced by what is going on on social media.

mindy: there is a mistake often made by campaigns and also by many who cover the campaigns that were the most money goes means that is the most important aspect. most of the money goes to tv because it is the most expensive. digital advertising is not only increasing in the share of the budget but in cost as demand rises. tv is still incredibly expensive. there are reports about the money that super pac's are spending on television because there is so much competition. because of that, i think it will still tend to dominate the narrative. i think maybe by next year when we are a few months out, there will be more coverage of online advertising in the same way as television, but tv is a more regulated market. there is more disclosure of where people are buying. the internet landscape is

gelling and there are more demand side buying, and i am getting into the wonky terms of where people are buying through one platform, but it is still the wild, wild west in terms of tracking and who is buying where, and because of that, it is easier for reporters to write to beat stories in the social media story. moderator: true. john: the one thing to add to that is that video and television is still a primary way to tell a compelling joy. i think it has been 10 years since we saw the dramatic change of television to other kinds of advertising. in 2006, one decade ago, they placed without a single tv ad and they held onto the lead without the ad. he said, i do not have enough money to put this on tv, can you send this to friends and family?

he went from third place the first place against two people who were far better known and had more money in their account, so it is for the campaigns of candidates that empower them to engage on their own terms. moderator: nick, you mention that 2008 was the facebook election and from my perspective, 2012 was the twitter election. 2016, what will that be? john: a lot of folks take it could be this snapchat election. in terms of not having to wait for the 24-hour news cycle for the consummate the perspective of their friends. we see that 1/3 or so from our surveys for voters are actively engaging with snapchat. when we look at the demographics of snapchat versus instagram, they are quite different. each of these campaigns identifies where they want to focus their interest.

moderator: so 2012 was the twitter election. mindy: i am sure snapchat is sitting back and say, we would love that to be the story for 2016. it very well could be, but i don't think so. i think it sounds sexier but the more accurate is it is finally the mobile collection. people engaging with the campaigns via mobile. nick: i think that is right. i think it is all of social media now. i do think that calling it the snapchat collection make sense

metaphorically because what we have seen with trump and others is that the good strategy is to model the personality on the way snapchat works at the burst of the people' is consciousness at regular intervals but not take anything so deep complicated that it requires people to pay attention. if you model of yourself on snapchat, that could be a good media strategy. moderator: good news for rand paul, i guess. moderator: good news for rand paul, i guess. a show of hands, how many people in the audience have their own facebook account? snapchat account? twitter account? do not be shy. nick, you specialize in how the internet changes our behavior. on facebook, i think we all have runs to pick and choose what they post based on their political beliefs, we all have that uncle, but by only reading what we choose and having that option, is it possible people are hardwiring their brains to

read certain things and what a long-term effects? nick: unfortunately, and this is not something you would the internet for social media, but i think what we are seeing is a continuation of the story of the polarization of politics in the country where people -- the hope for the internet was you put all this information out there to make it easily available and people will go out and sample different opinions and look for thoughts that contradict their own. what really happens is people go out and gather information that confirms their existing biases, political beliefs. what we know from the psychological studies is that the more information you can gather that supports your pre-existing belief, the more extreme the beliefs tend to get. it did not start with the internet social media, but i think it is probably going to end up being more of a polarizing force that we

we originally believed or hoped, which is that it would encourage people to expose themselves to a wide range of viewpoints. moderator: this strikes me as probably not the most productive thing for constructive political discourse, right? would you agree or disagree, mindy? mindy: i generally agree, but i think the answer to whether forcing polarization in a way we have not seen before is that there -- it is complex and it depends because it is quite true that people can much more easily put themselves off and go after information that reinforce their own bias, but on the other hand, in the past, you are limited and the people who influence the you in your geographic region and the people who influence you now are across

time and space and more likely to be exposed -- and people are also moving so they are more mobile and not staying where they grew up, so you're more likely to be exposed to a diversity of views and opinions. i think that is driving him predict ability. -- unpredictibility and social media has disrupted that. also, on certain platforms, especially twitter, it allows people to post anonymously and it does really help foster this kind of knee-jerk reaction in consuming things and instant -- in instant bites and not looking at the context.

in that instant reaction and people being quick to respond emotionally without being thoughtful, i do not think that is constructed for discourse. john: i think there is every psychology as to why an individual gets on twitter versus other channels. the think i am most focused on in terms of the millennial generation, i'm not sure that their opinions are so polarized that they become voting age for the first time. in other words, those on two of you are trying to understand in which the world operates. they are choosing to show things about themselves that they care about and often times it is related to their life, their dreams or what they share. in other words, they are laying seeds every single day, millions of them, saying the things they care about. not the right wing or the left-wing, but things they care about which is an opportunity for members of government are both sides to engage with them and dig deeper. to say, tell me about your perspective on this issue, and i think the challenge is not necessarily the citizen's point

of view. the challenge is from those who hold the power to not engage. we have a handful of examples, cory booker from new jersey, he does it as well as any industry around the world. unfortunately, there examples are few and far between. moderator: john, as part of your research, you worked with students a lot and you pull among millennials frequently. can you show us some positive and negative examples of social media engagement with this demographic and others? john: let me just give you a little background, but the reason this poll started back in 2000 is a couple of young folks, trevor and erin, were concerned about the disconnect between service and voting. they got all their friends on campuses and high schools around the country seemed interested in giving back service but they do not to the connection to voting.

they thought, would it be easier and faster if they served and voted? we have learned that they are trying to engage. we have a good and bad example of that. one of which, from senator booker in new jersey, engaging with a citizen with their point of view on gun control legislation. it is behind me. a constituent of new jersey says and democrats discuss it, good gun control is. so senator cory booker went through tweets going to and talking about his perspective of what good gun controll is. you can see thousands of people engaged on the positive policy remark that would not have happened otherwise.

it is just a moment, but now there is a connection. the connection between then and there is more information we can find as well. that is one example and there was another of doing it the opposite way, which is at the trump campaign tends to do. they engage with both, but -- folks, but rather than engage in positive remarks, they engage in negative things. you can see, to your point, they are treating somebody who has 42 followers or so, but tweeting something negative regarding the interview style. trump is engaging with citizen but not in a dialogue, more in [indiscernible] he is engaging with citizens, but not in a positive way. moderator: i think it was the all caps, that is what did it. i wonder, do you mind sharing

what you have seen in the presidential campaign that has affected to reach voters and also an ineffective way. mindy: i think one of the less ineffective and i do not mean to pick on him, but there was a moment a few months back and i do not remember the exact issue, but jeb bush and hillary clinton got into a spat and i do not think -- it seems that the reasoning behind that would have been to say, we are embracing the new media, political discourse happens, and this is where political engagement happens and by jeb rising up in debating hillary, she was already the nominee and he was in that old presumptive nominee, this was several months back, and i think they both ended up looking childish, so that was one of the poor examples i have

seen. >> the common he made in new hampshire that people needed to work harder and then she jumped on it or something like that. nick: bernie sanders has been pretty effective in reaching his audience and expanding his audience through his posts on facebook, where he feels them around contextual statements . they allow him to rise above the fray. the problem we are talking about what is affected or not, we could go with john's definition which is what helps political discourse, but that may not be

what it is politically acacias. i think trump tends to post offensive tweets, but they have been effective for him. you could argue they don't raise political discourse, but that is to be what works on social media. we have to remember that the political stream of information is just one string among all sorts of streams, social streams and stuff, that people are looking at. you have to really do something to stand out and grab people's attention and make them say, i better stop and look at this. in some ways, it might be the worst strategy to try to elevate discourse if you're getting rewarded for just kind of grabbing people's attention by saying striking or outrageous things. moderator: maybe this is too far and assumption, assuming everyone on the stage believes in getting people were engaged in politics and political discourse, even myself, we talked about how these social media and mediums can be effective for candidates, but what is the most effective

medium for productive political discourse now? mindy: no, i do not think -- i mean i don't think you can take a single media. i think campaigns are playing on some the different fields, so we are talking about social media here. but you have many candidates who to media to state their case, a publishing platform. a longer form platform. i think the jury is out on which is most effective. understanding that there is a fractured media landscape. if you want to get as many people engaged as possible and persuade and get your message

out to all the constituencies that you need to win, you will not depend upon a single platform. moderator: have you seen one medium more than the other that millennial's have a more productive political conversation? mr. volpe: we recently held a town hall meeting that we as -- ask these kinds of questions. and the answer was where the candidate chooses to engage, i will find it. what they are telling us is just find something you are comfortable with and use it. they wanted the candidates to use it.

with trump, that is trump. something,s tweet that is sanders. they want the candidates to use the language that they do and not just another version of a stale press release. moderator: do different genders use social media differently? mindy: the data shows both on twitter and facebook there is a slight tilt to women using those. there are certainly different demographic groups. they heavily skew our -- or over index on twitter. pinterest, which is not seen as a powerful political tool, and it is heavily female.

that is quite interesting. linkedin, which some campaigns will use it, is not so much a gender difference, but there is an age gap. it is the only one that over indexes for those who are above 29 years old. moderator: john? mr. volpe: we do this every time. there are some differences based on what platform. everybody can be found if they want to be found. i still believe that people are raising their hands wanting to be engaged. i will say, you can see that some people tend to like comments more. other people tend to post more. facebook has opened up their

feeds so that we can learn more about what people are doing. moderator: do we have any data on the gender divide? mr. volpe: it depends upon subject. we are looking at sports and other events, but we should stay tuned for that. moderator: nicholas, you have done work on how technology changes our perception. i always remember the lesson class theade school , richard nixon and john f. kennedy debates. it was the symbol of the movement of politics to a more superficial way. are we going through one of those transitions right now? is this just a part of a

historical progression or are we going to more superficial politics? >> i think it is part of a historical progression. i think it is a transition. i would argue that what we're seeing this year is that a third big media shift in elections and campaigning. radio which hit the point of , maturity in the 1924 race were -- where calvin coolidge won the

election. radio is very interesting because suddenly candidates did not have bodies and they just spoke with their voice and they were not speaking at the fairgrounds. the came into people's houses through these radios. and suddenly you had to have to have this intimate conversation with voters. a lot of candidates cannot make this transition. franklin roosevelt with his fireside chats was ideally suited to it. and in 1960 -- 1916, you have the introduction of tv as a main media force. it was perfectly encapsulated in the debate between kennedy and nixon where he was totally oblivious to the fact that he was sweaty and looked horrible on tv. tv, in one sense it gave -- -- everybody but turned them into two-dimensional images. it's really tidy and presented yourself -- it changed title presented yourself. social media is the new thing in the mix. and i think in some ways it no longer emphasizes the image of a candidate.

it puts much more emphasis on personality. you want a personality that does grab attention on social media and you want to be somebody who says something new all the time rather than repeating the same things over and over again. that works on tv, where you have a voters attention captured. you do not have that on social media. saying the same thing over and over again, i think we see some of the traditional candidates like hillary clinton do that on social media, and it comes off a little dull. what we're going to see is that candidates either have to adapt, or politicians have to adapt to this new media, or a new generation will come in that is adept at it. same kind of of people we saw with radio and tv. we are getting hints of how that will play out, but it will be very interesting next year and in future elections as well. moderator: it changed who would run for office, television,

radio, and now social media. what kind of generation of politicians do you think we will have is a product of social media dominated environment? mr. carr: i think we will have people who are a bit more freewheeling. moderator: it will be fun for us. mr. carr: it will be fun, and there can be a good side to it and a bad side to it. whether you look at politics or elsewhere, social media rewards with its attention of a very visceral and emotional message. that is what cuts through the chatter and the noise. the danger there -- that will bring people into the political process and can relate to it, that it caner is breathe a kind of cold of personality around the candidates.

cult of personality around the candidates. there is a risk here that it will just get more superficial and emotional with a level of political discourse which was not great to begin with. ms. finn: there is a new paradigm because of social media. i look at it differently than fostering a cult of personality. i think it does do that, and we see that with donald trump as that he would run. but i'm going to do something dangerous which is make a prediction. i do not think that donald trump will ultimately be the next president. so he has taken off, but is he ultimately successful? he has a lot of energy, but will he ultimately become president?

or is there someone else who can thread the needle between being presidential, and have a certain stature, but also show personality. enough personality that people do not think they are wooden. i think it will be the latter. the new paradigm of social media, what it has really done in terms of an impact is that it is more participatory. it is more democratic. everybody is part of the process in a way they have not been in a long time. they feel dominion over the process and it has empowered people with information. it has given them a power to create support and get their , message out quite quickly and raise money quite quickly. so -- this is where i know the title of that session, we will -- when we see things as chaotic and messy as they are, but i think the answer is in some ways

it has strengthened it but we , are still at the beginning of the shift of the paradigm and it has not filled out. look at the republican debate stage or even the democratic field right now with bernie sanders. it is big, and diverse, and messy because it is hard to know who is up and who is down on what day and who believes what. some people might say it would be better if we could wrap it in but democracy is the ability to -- no matter where you are or were you come from to run for president. the social media are as fizzling -- are facilitating that.

mr. volpe: i just believe a couple of things. think it has to be that way. i know for a fact if some candidate said i'm going to use twitter tonight to say i will host a community meeting to talk about what is working in the city, you would have 100 if not 1000 new people show up to have a conversation about that. that is the use of social media in the best way. i can care you t -- i can guarantee you that in that room you have an 18-year-old, an 80-year-old and a lot of people in between who want to participate in solving problems. now that is the first step in , building trust within the system. they're connected with somebody who actually cares. they were all of that person, and that is the way for social media to save politics. but for whatever reason it is difficult for us to figure out how to best use it. obama did that beautifully eight years ago.

moderator: it is interesting, when we talk about social discourse, that discourse is still in person. it is still at the town hall meeting, not on social media. >> that's ok. but you are using social media as one tool to bring people together. like the example used in new jersey, you can have an engagement with somebody. the common problem, whether it is millennials or other generation is a lack of faith in the system. we finally have a tool that is participatory and democratizing, and we are not using it in that way all the time. i believe that if you build trust and create a relationship that will lead to success on the ballot box. i think there are enough examples to get there. the problem is too many of us who are consultants and thetegist are more used to

30-second spot and it is a very different mentality on social media. you have to be prepared to engage and listen and respond and it shows your true self. it is a way in which e-mails are a true personality before you know they will be made public. there are some charming things about e-mails. it gives you a window into a personality more than a tweet or a facebook post. >> i am going to ask you one more question, but then we will go to your questions. if you have one, please lineup that any one of the four mics. i would like you to answer the title of this panel. which is, is social media ruining politics? >> that would imply that politics was in some pure state before. i don't think it is elevating politics. i think the good news is it can

draw people who are feeling disenfranchised and disengaged, it can draw them into the political process. if you're not watching news on tv or listening to it on radio, or reading newspapers then you , what political discourse to go to social media, to where people can have the opportunity to get involved. but i worry that ultimately it is making that discourse more superficial rather than richer. it is giving a lot of people, i fear, and illusion of participation. they think if i retweet something i am participating. if i like something i am participating. but what it is not doing is drawing people into a thoughtful engagement with policy issues and candidates. instead it is repackaging political conversation as streams of superficial tweets or facebook messages.

you would hope that people would go beyond that and use that as the entrée into some deeper engagement. and some people will but i do , not think most will. moderator: we will now go to your questions. editor reminder, as an this is near and dear to my heart your questions should have , a question mark at the end of it. it should be an actual question. so let's adhere to that. we will go from left to right. >> thank you very much for taking the time to come and speak with us. my question is mainly directed at john, although i would be interested in hearing both of your perspectives as well. in terms of using social media to save politics, the example that you gave seem to be more possible at a state or local level as opposed to a national one. i wondered you can talk about, do you see the same affects you spoke about occurring at the

state and local level? is there any sort of difference? might it be possible for social media to save politics at the state and local level as opposed to the federal level? mr. volpe: the best ideas come from local cities and towns across america, which if they work, then they get scooped up by candidates for president. but i think it works everywhere. for a candidate to start a conversation about poverty on elseer and end somewhere would be helpful at any level. and we have engaged in similar conversations with school teachers across america on issues of education and poverty and other things. the question of which candidate wants to do the hard work to get there, because it takes effort to read people's responses and to engage with people who have a good idea to take those ideas and develop them into policy

issues that might work. it is different, it is hard, but i think it is worth it because you get better ideas and more engaged citizenry. if you get that, it also helps in the ballot booth in my opinion. >> thank you. moderator: either of you? next. >> hi. my name is caroline. i am a sophomore in college here. thank you for being here. my question is getting at something that nikki mentioned. what encourages people to get involved in care about issues? you have that one uncle who posts all their statuses on facebook. do you want people who want to care about the issues, or just do not care? mr. carr: i think it is a good medium for galvanizing attention and getting people involved in

thinking about an issue. forher it is a good medium encouraging sustained debate on an issue, i am more dubious about that. what we often see is that things become very important for a day, or two days, and then they disappear. and then we wait and something else becomes very important. certainly for some people i think following something on social media will be this or -- the spur that gets them deep -- deeply involved. but that is counterbalanced by this and our attention as the new thing comes up and pushes aside something else. and i think for most hateful it will create bursts of

participation and incentive news, but probably will not create the sustained engagement and actually leads to changes that they might want. >> none of the popular social media platforms are well positioned for discourse. there is not a lot of good discourse happening on any of them. they allow people to get instant access to politicians, sometimes the cory booker example is an exception. it does engage quite a bit with constituents. but even twitter is lacking. there are new platforms every couple of years that rise up and say that they are the going to address the problem. what concerns me and even going to john's idea is that you will hear from members on capitol hill that they have stopped doing town halls because they would rather do it on social media because it is more control. they will do q&a's on facebook and they can decide which questions they want to take. people might yell at them, but there are ways to shut it down that is different from if you

were at a town hall meeting and there was a disturbance. i do not think we're quite there in terms of social media being great for discourse. >> when you do ask your question, don't forget to state your name and your affiliation with the college or harvard if you have one. >> name is jack and i'm a freshman in the college. how can candidates appear more authentic even when all their messages are crafted well ahead of time? ms. finn: very good question. mindy, you have worked directly with candidates. mindy: when they are not crafted well ahead of time, i would guard against doing that. i do not think that is a good use of the platform and the culture of the platform,

particularly in twitter word is instant response. what you see campaigns due to try to appeal the candidates, and keep them from making a mistake is have many staff tweeting during the debates. that is a departure. going back 10 years ago there , would've been only a few people within a campaign who were empowered to actually speak on behalf of the campaign. now they have the whole army doing so on twitter. i would really guard against -- there are stories out of the 2012 election of mitt romney's campaign going through 22 approvals. they dispute that. there are different sides of the story, but if that is the case, that does not allow a candidate to really realize the power of social media. moderator: do either of you have an example or thought on who is a really, truly authentic person , a politician, when it comes to social media?

mr. volpe: i do not know off the top of my head, but i will say that the advice i would give the candidates in terms of being more authentic would be the same advice i give my kids to be more popular in school. don't try so hard. just be yourself. don't try so hard. if you're not comfortable talking about yourself on twitter, they don't talk about yourself on twitter. right? go to instagram and take photos of what your life is like on the campaign trail. the mayor of los angeles has a beautiful instagram of his life as a citizen of los angeles and what it shows. and to me that shows who he is, how hard he is working, where he is, etc. he does not seem to be trying so hard.

if it is natural, it is natural. if it is not, it is not. do not force it. ms. finn: there are several candidates who are doing a good job. donald trump may be a case study in that he gets a lot of attention, but i would not advise the other candidates to copy trump. they have tried to show a more brash style, and it looks silly , hurting them. you have hillary's campaign quite active. you have bernie's campaign quite active. i think they're using medium quite well. whether does fully themselves it does not come across as in , soght it -- in authentic that is a win. mr. carr: one of the challenges is that there are so many social media platforms, how do you -- each one is different, and it becomes very hard and time-consuming for candidates to be authentic on each of these platforms that they are sending

their messages out through. i guess i am picking on hillary clinton, but if you look at her facebook page at her twitter feed, they are basically mirror images of themselves. if you do that through all the platform, you start to look very manufactured. but on the other hand i sympathize with how hard it would be authentic on all of these platforms all the time. you would die of authenticity eventually. moderator: a lot of putting yourself out there for normal person and a politician who is used to putting themselves out there. >> hello, i'm chris and become -- and i am a sophomore at the college. it seems like there's a lot more political information out there. at the same time you of the ability to self select what is ratio get based on pages you like it here you follow on

twitter. my question is do you think that social media increases peoples exposures do different things at stake points or further entrenches them in their own viewpoint? moderator: you have done some work on this. mr. carr: and i talked little bit about this before. in general, it leads to more entrenchment in their existing points of view because they seek information that is confirming rather than opposing. that is not true of everybody, and some people use the opportunity to expose themselves to different views. what we know about people pretty well is that if you give them a huge amount of information, they will select the stuff that already resonates with what they are thinking. moderator: back down here. yes. >> i am victoria. the public policy program here

at the kennedy school. we've seen that the rise of social media on the enhancement of campaigns for nontraditional candidates. one of the things that also happens to women candidates, is that female candidates and women who participate in the social media space, even though over represented are likely to have , aggressive shutdowns by other people participating in those venues. regularly,ho blog they can get visceral attacks, and there are a lot of trolls who spent time doing this attack. do you have advice for how candidates can most effectively handle that type of engagement? two, what do you see as the future for campaigns beyond how these platforms are regulated so we have less visceral engagement anywhere that is deeply negative and diminishes discourse?