but suddenly, his campaign has taken on quite a dark turn. , he was on television this morning, saying the republican party tried to deny him his party nomination, even if he is within reach of sufficient delegates. he said, we would have riots. this is him, predicting riots. it feels like a very different kind of racism here. does it change the way you feel about drawing him, if the prospect of violence as already happened at some of his rallies? it is not funny, what you do with that? joel: first of all, i think cartoonists made the same , andke, prognosticators the rest of the media, to think he was a buffoon, thinking he would be next -- gone and next week or next fall.

[laughter] it is tempting in a situation like this to draw on the everyday because it is so easy and he is so out there, and the rest of the media concentrates on him so much. and it is fun, and people like it. but, and this is my experience with little -- political campaigns over the years. day, it seems timely and great and perfect for today, but you get to the end of the year and you realize the 240 pieces you have drawn, about a third were on a horse race that had a shelf life of three days. everyone in the field does that on that day, your work is just not that great and you get to the end of the year and realize aboutd not draw anything world population, not educating

oceans, oruting the whatever your favorite topics are. it can be a distraction. >> how many people here like cartoons about donald trump? people react to them. said, i have a very local audience. it is broader than just philadelphia. i am supposed to be doing local cartoons, because one thing about cartoonists is, if they all do donald trump, they don't do the local politicians. whereas donald trump gets 80 cartoons on a single day, my mayor in philadelphia doesn't get any unless i do one.

significance of the cartoonist is best felt in their home country. they really feel it there. jules is -- do what joel is saying is a temp tatian. i was drawing yesterday, the day of the election, i did not know how it would turn out, so i did a cartoon. the publisher walked by and said you are doing donald trump, aren't you? and i said, no. there is always a push and pull on that.

i do think we have a responsibility to draw them as we see them. a hands up-type a dictator, waving, it is very visual and reminds people where we have been in the past. i hands-down winner is what she meant. it is going to be beautiful. [laughter] we have drawn all these cartoons, and he is still running. maybe i should turn in be nice to him. let's take some questions from the audience. as repulsive as donald trump he has mentioned time and time again, is political correctness. his interpretation may be different than ours, but i would events ask you about two

that were politically correct. and i think it is dangerous for the country. hebdo, and iharlie ofthey showed a number photographs of mohammed cartoonist. nbc said that out of respect for our muslim brothers, we will not show any of these. i thought that was really pandering and discussing of nbc, and i sent off a couple e-mails. did anybody draw cartoons about that? and my other question is, going back a few years when larry summers was harvard university's president, he suggested a research project and symposium on why women across the country, score below males in the science field.

it is a fact, he wanted to know why. you remember the faculty at harvard went insane. demonstrations, threats, they went crazy. is really what harvard has come to, and you can't discuss real issues, maybe it is time that harvard closed its doors and ceased to exist on the face of the earth. because what good is it, if you can't question things? what cartoon has done that? it is true what you said, that after the charlie hebdo shooting there were attacks on the various networks. literally censoring , they went wild on re-postings online. i pulled up an interview and the cover and the camera person said

you cannot show that. was, on the one hand, these images are everywhere. it became part of the system. the argument behind that has just going toare continue to make pictures because pictures don't count. i have a fair amount of sympathy for that. i also have sympathy for the that the cartoonist should not be racist and , which is to be prevalent in european and american papers.

maybe we are not seeing it because we have not become sensitized. it is something to talk about. that is very different from what happened in those circumstances where you literally saw censoring what is actually a newsworthy image. in fact, great harm was done to muslims by this reaction. helped the image that they would implode upon contact with those images. networksroadcasting did a disfavor to muslims on that occasion. now, when it comes to things like larry summers and his statement, i was pretty upset. i have a daughter who was a scientist, a phd student at harvard at the time. i felt that it was a very negative remark. certainly not helping her in the field. does larryn is,

summers have free speech to say anything that comes into his mind when he is the president? he has free speech as a private person, but not as a president or it nor do i actually have free speech to say anything that comes into my mind. speak on thed to basis of science and evidence. if i want to have private views that may be repulsive, i have the freedom to say that. but i cannot make set up with my authority. up with my authority. there was a lot more to it than that one remark. >> if i heard the question right, he implied there were a fax at his disposal, but he is looking at statistics and wondering what it is about.

the statistics are very complicated in the sense that it is not self-evidently true that women scored lower in science. betweenve been remarks women's brains and males brains. i think wed you, should all get a free pass on undiplomatic remarks every once in a while. >> did nbc answer your e-mails? the man in the back. >> i want to reinforce something that the person who had trouble with getting your book published. , my wifearlie hebdo

and i were visiting a friend in paris who was a lawyer. he wanted to see a documentary movie that it does come out. , "the titles called of the offensive killer." translated as, it is really hard when you are loved by shitheads. it was not trying to denigrate muslims, but the jihadists who were misusing the religion. i commend to you, the documentary movie was made about a slander suit that was brought by the grand mosque of paris against charlie hebdo over the claim that mohammed was being slandered. it was a fun movie, i happen to it has subtitles so

you don't have to know french. at a key point in the trial, it was filmed in real-time, really neat. it is a documentary movie, you should see it if you have not. .hey had to prove damages the only evidence they put on of damage was a catholic cleric who said he was deeply offended by that cover, because he knew that the book was coming to paris two weeks later, and he was terrified at what charlie hebdo was going to do to criticize some of the decisions about religion. it is a great documentary, and i think it reinforces the comments you have been making up there. moderator: yes, sir. >> i frequently write things not to be published, but interested in what i see about things, and how i feel about things.

but i write things occasionally that are controversial but i have no intention of publishing, or have anybody but my wife see them. do you ever write cartoons about things that you just put aside and don't intend to publish, or is everything that you write intended to be seen by the public in a newspaper? >> of that is a good question. that is a question i have never received before. i've written a lot about poetry. [laughter] bad poetry. [laughter] the other thing that poetry has in common with the cartoonist, is that you can paraphrase what it really is. you have a kinship. i have donen: cartoons that are still sitting on my desk for many years ago,

that i think someday i may use. but sometimes, the time is not right. sometimes the venue is not quite right, sometimes i feel like i , and it istoo small a big family circulation newspaper. >> but because it is too controversial? that you overstepped a boundary you set for yourself? mr. pett: i didn't recently, in fact. i thought it was hilarious but utterly tasteless. naked male anatomy, but it was really funny, so i walked it around the newsroom, showing it to my friends. [laughter] and then tweeted it. [laughter] mr. pett: -- ms. wilkinson: the funny thing about naked male anatomy, family

newspapers still to this day, we are surprised at the idea, this very 1950's idea of what is appropriate and what is not very the rest of the world is it so far beyond. we cannot do naked people. the european cartoonists do them all the time. >> i have a corollary to that question, since there are limits on free speech, there should not be many, but there are some, how do you decide where the lioness line is-- where the between good taste?

there must be times when you say, i would really like to draw this but i don't think i should. the same.we all do it is the same reason when you're walking down the street you don't tell someone they look like an idiot. you just know. the famous line about pornography, the supreme court justice. it is just not that complicated. we do it the same way you would do it. not that much magic to it, we read things and make a list. i don't collect self-censorship, but everyone conducts themselves in civilized society in some -- well, some people don't. [laughter] workers -- ask asperger's school of cartooning. r'spologize to the asperge

society -- [laughter] at dinner parties you don't blurt out things that are over the top. that is the best answer i can give. moderator: the man at the end. >> i have an inside baseball question. to what extent is it important or unimportant to the state of the recordsion that do not have an editorial cartoonist, and is there any hope with a new editorial page editor but that will change at "the new york times." writelkinson: why do you them and find out and call us immediately? >> they never respond. infuriating,is newspapers,biggest with the biggest reporting staff, have cartoons or even

publish other cartoons. the times used to run a weekly cartoons, but they stopped at around five years ago. and that was the number one complaint they got from their readers. -it e on the budget -- matters. if your cartoon was reprinted in the sunday "new york times," and had a next her audience of a that is out people, of a circulation of 3 million, that is a good thing. and i am not making this up. i got a tweet today from somebody that said, i love this cartoon from joel pett. it was a clipping, i could tell they had cut it out of "the new

york times," 20 years ago. it was 20 years old and they had had it on their refrigerator or something forever. and they took that away from us. it is infuriating. times," up until 1959, they ran their political cartoons on page one. and now they won't do it at all. cartoons are on the verge of extinction, and it is not of dwindlinguse circulation of papers or even editors, it has been done to was rather deliberately by the biggest actors in the field. so thank you for your question. ms. wilkinson: the new york times just occasionally on their online addition, have their heart to nist for the international addition, but it

is online. i don't even know how often it is on. i must not see it every time. i am just going to ditto everything joel said. tv,ou look at newspapers, the internet, even radio, they can disseminate the news in the newspapers. tv can do the pictures, and make them move. but the comics and editorial cartoons are the only thing in the papers that can't be gotten on other mediums. unfortunately, as people stop picking up the actual paper, the cartoon itself, it is disappearing. it is a physical thing as well. we all put our cartoons up elpett.com, and i hope

you come and subscribe to them online, but it is a very different area. you can't cut them out of put them on your refrigerator. at any rate, we feel the loss, and hope that with change, will come a return to the editorial cartoons. mr. pett: they do run that , just to bece accurate. i don't know why i care about accuracy. if everybody in this room wrote "the new york times," tonight, maybe we would have a chance. >> has the shrinkage of the newspaper industry been wholly negative four cartoonist, or the has a of the internet,

given you, between websites and twitter and everything else, audiences for your cartoons, or does it not work that way? ms. wilkinson: lots of outlets, just no inlets. [laughter] it is really easy to get a great audience, and every now and then you have something that goes crazy viral, but it is hard to get paid. , before the young cartoonists, it is just really, really hard to make a living. they work superhard and produce great stuff, and spend all day putting on every different social platform that they can, and some of them are making a nice income, but for the most part, it is really difficult. when i was hired by this corporation 32 years ago, there

year at learning curve where i was not very good, but i had the luxury of keep doing it every day and getting better. and that is gone. >> it is very easy for me to see how these court reporters working at a deadline come up with a story, how do you folks come up with your cartoons on four times aree or week? how do you get your ideas, what generates your juices going? ms. wilkinson: i go to ideas. com, [laughter] and when that does not work, i read the newspaper. i personally find a writing, whether it is poetry, or good political reporting, a good lead

sentence in a story about a debate, or the elections, can trigger images. good writing should trigger images. we just draw the images instead of writing them. so i am indebted to all the who do thend writers heavy lifting in the papers. ideass where a lot of my come from. early in theow morning. and when you're out on the river, your mind can go off. >> i think that question is germane to your observation about the internet. mr. pett: it is easier than ever to get information. you can have it spoon fed to you by subject matter, all day, every day. it, and an avalanche of

it makes it easier than ever. although, with fewer and fewer you have toters, have confidence in the information, which is more and more difficult. it is also easier to do the research. aboutago, i was writing brown versus board of education. and i needed to know what 81954 schoolbus looked like. would takeo, that you half a day in the library, if you could find it. now, just search "1954 schoolbus." bonk, a different angle, perfect. >> regarding information on the internet, it is not fact-checked things, rigor of other so you get a degraded type of journalism at this point. the great thing about cartoons ,nd characters -- caricatures

is that they can be unfair in that you are only presenting one side of the issue. they are by definition, exaggeration, and yet they may be getting at a deeper truth and giving you a great context that you need to think about the other things. [applause] i think we have room for one more question. >> how do you define the distance between exercising editorial judgment and censorship? victor: as an editor, not just makeut your job is to

political and other judgments. we tried to not have those but why iinfluence would regard as illegitimate criteria. and what i regard as illegitimate, or racist, criteria,correctness i can give you a long list, and you will purge yourself of those impulses. else, asrk for someone the editor, i was working for myself, but if you're working for someone else, the worry is that you will allow their opinion or what they represent over your future and career and other things, influence how you're making those decisions. start with a strong presumption against censorship of any sort. ms. klausen: i would

respectfully disagree with this. i think censorship is a very hard fact. of ank it is a luxury american context to think that you can talk about censorship in ways of something that you do your self. censorship is something that is done for years. you can get beaten up, put in prison because of outside influences your there is a fair of unseen and indirect censorship that is actually part of corporate decision-making, and in the age of the internet, we tend to think of it as a promoter of freedom of speech, but when you look at these instances that we were talking about before, the risk aversion on the part of corporate publishers, newspapers, and the

media in general, has increased dramatically because of the internet. has a tremendously difficult time figuring out what is permissible speech, and how to regulate speech, because it is a global news media corporation. me isat is interesting to to listen to local context. cartoonists, and the problem that we have now, with what is permissible depiction and what is not, is that we don't actually know what the local context is, and that is a huge feedback loop in publishing and in the corporate world. as well as, exaggerated fear. think ifa tendency to they can happen to charlie hebdo, it can also happen in kentucky. no, it can't.

there are not terrorists walking around kentucky ready to take out the editorial staff. but, we need to keep a very clear distinction between taking legitimate concerns about what you are talking about, about how you actually "draw something", that you have not attuned to yourself to what you are doing. there is the deliberation you have. push again for normative ideas about what you can or what you cannot do. that is political correctness. shocked by i was gary trudeau's remark. the author of the cartoon, or the writer, but i don't think we should confuse those sorts of deliberations with what is actually real censorship.

>> just one more thing, i like your point about context. ms. wilkinson: those danish cartoons were pulled away out of context. america, almost no newspapers reprinted it. a couple days before he became a big issue, nothing happened, because no one knew they were supposed to be upfront about it. subject came to r,iladelphia, there was a furo and the philadelphia inquirer ran one of the controversial cartoons. she put it inside the paper, in a box, with a nation on the side of it, just to say, we think that you are adult enough to understand what

this is about, and we want you to see what is part of a national story. it ran, there were protests outside the paper, she went out and talked to the people on the sidewalks who were protesting, op-edsto all caps -- back-and-forth for many weeks. it also led to an interface movement developing in the city of philadelphia, which is now quite robust. city,ssues arise in the like somebody through a pig's head at a mosque after the paris attacks, there was a whole group ameliorate the situation. what has been a controversial like the one i showed

with the star of david, leads to controversy, and then back-and-forth on the issue. muchhe issue becomes clearer, and we can see many more sides of it. and often, it becomes a way that people finally can talk to each other, who were afraid to talk to each other before hand. that is another reason i think we have to go toward trusting the audience, and trusting people to be able to way, ashings in a civil you said here, in the council on humanities. moderator: thank you so much. we are out of time. [applause]

>> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, policy fellow at the wilson center will be with us. we will discuss the latest issues in the syrian migration. will health care reporter discuss the latest information on the rollouts of the affordable care act, plus the ongoing challenges. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, beginning live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. >> next a look at the recent terror attacks in belgium, and how europe is dealing with attacks and refugees. we will hear from the constitutional lawyer, constanze stelzenmuller, who went to dallas, fort worth on thursday. this is one hour. afternoon, i am the

president of the council at dallas, fort worth. thank you so much for joining us on our international perspectives series. i am very thankful to the pegasus bank. bank is our major sponsor for this. [applause] both of our organizations have focused on education with high school students. and today, we have students from if i couldchools, ask all the students to stand and be recognized. [applause] our program today could not be more timely or relevant. tragico days after the terrorist attacks in brussels, and at a time when thousands of refugees are fleeing syria and the wider middle east, we

recently had elections in germany where chancellor merkel's democratic party -- and the leaving -- leading newspaper described it as black sunday for conservatives. the right-wing parties also increasing turnout, voters a citing the refugee crisis is a major reason for their votes. you nowh uncertainty, know why we are so fortunate to have with us dr. constanze stelzenmuller. she is the inaugural robert bosch senior fellow from the center on united states and europe at the brookings institute, and she is a renowned expert on european and transatlantic foreign policy and security strategies. she earned her master's in public administration at harvard kennedy school of government. her doctorate, from the bohn.sity at

her essays and articles have been published in both german and english, and appeared in a wide range of publications, including foreign affairs, and the financial times. she has also been a journalist for "die zeit." and a governor of a foundation, and a fellow for the swedish society of science. ladies and gentlemen, would you please give a warm welcome to dr. constanze stelzenmuller. [applause] thank you forler: the fabulously warm welcome, and the beautiful state of texas. it is my second or third visit to texas in my lifetime. say, by way of

warning, one of my life's dreams has been to spend a summer on a dude ranch. [applause] now that i've actually gone to america, i am slightly closer to that. if anyone has recommendations, i will take you up. hosts, ladies and gentlemen, and students, as to students, i don't know what you have done to merit as punishment, i hope the food is making up for it. as you will have expected, the talk i'm about to give you is not the one i was planning to give you a week or even four days ago. the title i had given the host was "storm over europe." good enough to get your attention and general enough to cover a lot of issues, to the question of whether greece or britain might be leaving the

eurozone in the course of the year, and whether all of this means at the end of europe, or at least, the european union as we know it. but just two days ago, tuesday morning, terrorist detonated bombs during the morning rush hour at the airport of the belgian capital of brussels, as well as in a central subway station of maelbeek. they issued a blanket warning for americans traveling in all of europe, and a certain candidate is suggesting that none of this would've happened if the right people had been waterboarded at the right time. i rewrote my talk, and i'm going to take this terrible incident as my starting point. i will discuss before i take questions, and i'm sure there will be many, because i will leave many things unaddressed. this is truly one of the most complicated public policy issues in europe. are, whatestions

happened on tuesday in brussels? why did it happen there? what can it needs to be done about terrorism? and what does this mean for america and relations between united states and europe? yes, i have 25 minutes. [laughter] makeill find that i will certain stark assertions, which you can please feel free to question in a questions and answers. up front i have no easy answers, and i guarantee involve aof them waterboarding, and you will not get them if you waterboarded me. [laughter] issues,e really complex the most of our time. i believe that anybody who suggest otherwise is probably a populist rat catcher, trying to bring up our worst fears to get votes, money, whatever.

somehope i can set out propositions for further discussion at the end. let me start with my first question. what happened this tuesday? three days ago, a bomb was detonated within -- two bombs detonated within an hour at the airport in the belgian capital of brussels, as well as in the central subway station. the one at the airport was particularly large. of interest to terrorist experts. in the wreckage, police found additional, unexploded bombs, and something that looks like the will of one of the perpetrators that was killed there. today, 31 people have died as a result, including two of the bombers, and a fourth appears to be wounded. were left140 people injured, and the perpetrators, as far as we know, were men, belgian citizens, of second generation south african dissent.

the islamic state, has taken responsibility for the attacks. that fours are saying men carried out the attacks, three of whom are dead, one is ill being stott. and there appears to be a connection between the paris bombing attacks of november 2015. the locusan city was of such an attack. because of the size and the scale and organization of the attacks, it now seems increasingly likely there is a much larger jihadi cell and network behind the four men, very likely to transcend national borders. while isis is taking responsibility, it may be quite a while before we know the motivation of these four individuals. it seems likely, though, that this particular act was already being planned and brought forth because of the arrest and of one ofvestigation the terrorists in brussels.

these attacks were brought forward either in retaliation, or to preempt detection. brussels, of course, with more than 3 million inhabitants has a muslim minority, most originating from northern african countries, also in libya, turkey, and further east during. there is also a sub-saharan minority, with colonies in congo, and other areas. host the organs of the , as well as that counsel, and nato headquarters. it is the seat of many embassies, and tanks, several thousands of europeans from other member states, and thousands of americans. the state department has a very large mission, to the european

union, with people who have deep expertise in the work of the european union. belgians, often joke that they feel like a minority in their own capital. it is probably true. as a city, brussels is an acquired taste. i have been there many times. not just because of its chaotic urban planning which defies all logic, its casual public services, and i am being polite here, and it is truly remarkable, you have to think new york in the 1970's if you have never been there. but it has quirky charm, which envelops you slowly. a vibrant culture, friendly inhabitants, attractive housing, excellent who, the latter being something that belgians take extremely seriously. much like the big apple, its citizens defend it fiercely. le is wide a hell ho

of the mark. but some call it europe's beating heart. i've been to brussels many, many times. for work, and to see friends, and those have been increasingly overlapping. i flew out of the international airport less than 48 hours before the attack. most of my acquaintances and friends are safe, as far as i know. but to close friends were in a e at the airport when the bomb went off. this is not just an abstraction for me, it is about our loved ones, friends, neighborhoods, cities area it is also about europe as a policy, and a project. the attack on tuesday morning, like the other attacks, aren attack on all of europe, and all europeans. that brings me to my second question, why did this happen? and why in brussels?

said, it is going to be a wild before we learn about the individual motivations of the four guys who carried the suitcases and made them detonate. why doger question, is so many european muslims and belgian muslims appear to be so vulnerable to recruitment to suicide missions by the islamic state, which is reviled, after misanthropic, and in many ways, anti-islamic death cult? they follow a pattern of bomb attacks by al qaeda and other affiliated groups, intended to strike at the heart of european life. paris4, london, 2005, and , 2015. some of the announcements published in recent days, most -- europeanunion's muslims are in ghettos.

50 million or so are decent, hard-working people, are often second or third generation, and feel very little affinity to the country their parents immigrated from, usually to seek a better life for their own children or save their own lives from murder is a russian trade and they despise organizations like isis and al qaeda. such equally true that communities -- they should never be generalized. resentment, citizenship without education, inclusion, or opportunity, or solidified into multigenerational homes without

citizenship. simply, a life of illegality, living in daily fear of being picked up and taken to an even worse like. the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings are willing to endure this, speaks to the abject misery of the conditions they left behind. but it is also a european failure. activist, more than a million refugees from syria and afghanistan, from chaos, poverty, and depression, and you have a truly potent mix for trouble. my guess is, the great majority are intent onees sanctuary, not harm. but there easily abused. no doubt, some are vulnerable as potential tools. this is something i think we have to be aware of.

this situation is heightened by the there is own abilities and lack of sorption capabilities from the countries these people migrate to from declining andstries, joblessness, complete lack of experience with immigration or ethnic diversity under 40 years of soviet, communist rule. all of this, of course, was exacerbated in the last half decade by divisions created by the global financial crisis of 2008. some countries in europe are seeing a slow recovery, but some are still grappling with the hardships he created. belgium, unfortunately, is something of a special case. daniel benjamin, former colleague of mine at brookings and the german marshall center, porter nader for the state department a few years back, now

teaches at dartmouth, had a recent political piece, where he said that foreign to 70,000 muslims had gone to fight in syria or iraq at a population of 660,000, making at the top supplier of militants in western europe. he also notes another important point, that belgians deep dysfunctionality, the political conflict between the flemings and the french, the political crisis that ran from 2007 two 2011. not only did belgium not have the kind of an -- government that could set the services or funded them, for 541 days, it did not even have a government. that was longer than it took to form a government in iraq. , in matters of intelligence and have saidelligence,

about the state of belgian intelligence and police work. i cannot presume to judge their analysis. but i do suspect there are no quick fixes, and no fixes at all that will work, unless they also keep theirgians government issues. this is not to suggest that this could only happen in belgium. most of us in europe, including my own country, germany, are looking at all of this and wondering whether we haven't dodged the bullet this time, when will be the day when we don't? so, that leaves me organically to my third question, what needs to be done to fix the problem of islamic terrorism? obviously, if i the perfect answer i would not be here, i would be working hard in a windowless cellar in some european capital. couple ideas a

based on the conversations i have had, and the kind of work that i do. let me start with an oblique critique. this discussion has to start, of italy's has an element of the hypothetical, the counterfactual, when you listen s nowople writing op-ed about what needs to be done. if only the belgium intelligence services had better surveillance capabilities of what was clearly a brewing jihadi threat, if only had not opened borders to refugees, if only obama had bombed syria's dictator, if only europeans had taken more responsibility for peoples stability in the middle east, if only all muslims could be sent out of the country into we figure out what the hell is going on -- [laughter] helpful as policy prescriptions.

i am being polite. truth, but kernel of the roots of the problem are far more complex. and i think we do them and ourselves and injustice if we pretend that there are simple solutions. a star, ifis already we understand that any approach to containing, managing, and minimizing the problem, and they may be as good as it gets, have to simultaneously occur three levels. the nationstate, europe, and europe's relations with its neighborhood and the rest of the world. that is a tall order. level, it isstate easy for me to stand here in texas and say that belgium needs to address it security problems and do better to incorporate muslim minorities. but as we know from our experience with the nationbuilding elsewhere, or at

home, democracy building at home, and we had to do quite a lot of after 1945, it is essentially a governance problem , will not only not solve the problem, but will often make it worse. sound, ing as this may think what we now in the west have to understand and race, -- face, is that we have mistakenly assume that western-style democracies are stable. institutions,ive economy, and a social contract of things we can take for granted. if they take offense from time to time, they are self repairing or adjusting. i believe that if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that this is simply untrue. globalization, the 2008 financial crisis, and technological change have brought huge fragmenting pressures and challenges.

i have to say, one of the most compelling and moving analysis that i wrote of this problem so a book which chronicles the lives of a dozen or so americans over a half decade, and describes how their lives are affected, things by subprime mortgage crises, and a host of other factors. the common theme of all their lives, the legitimization of institutions, and the politics. the widening between the rich and the poor, individuals losing control of their livelihood in their lives, despite their best efforts. take a dige not to at america, but because i believe this book could be written about any country in europe, including my own. and i hope that it will be. because the problems he describes problems we will have to deal with. and for the first time in my

life, a security policy analysts, certainly in my life thinking about external security and foreign policy, i have come to understand our essential preconditions and limitations on the ability of government to make an effective and the gym it national security policy. that is where we're at, and it is deeply serious. as the first time people think about the internal affairs of the country. fact, i would give you another avenue at this. belgium isf uncomfortably like the case of greece. the reason they are so worried about the dire state of the greek economy, and this financial crisis, which they describe as contagion. know, becausewill of the denigration of the

american and european economy, but it was much worse in europe. the financial crisis was a huge external shock to the system, because of the deep vulnerability of one state, meant the vulnerability of all. are accused of -- i did not like the intransigent style of germany's minister, to be sure, but he did have a valid point, and that is what i'm trying to get at. throwing money at an economy as profoundly dysfunctional and corrupt as greece's was unlikely to lead to reform. is, that almost all nations in europe, including my own, are struggling on one level or another to preserve the functionality of the state, and its constitutional order, for the smaller, or weaker european

states, it is not clear whether this is a contest they can win. to give you an idea from your rico,ckyard, think puerto headed for defaults. this is possible, and it is possible in other places as well. it is a result of things falling apart in ways that maybe we have not paid enough attention to. to the european level, which is often invoked when people want to do things they can't solve the national level. , is that while terrorists are mobley connected, internal security is jealously guarded. treaty, the fundamental document, the article of union for europe, external security, or domestic security, has been firmly kicked

out of the purview of the european union. that being said, i don't want to give you the impression that europeans are- not connected. and a lot of european states, they have really upgraded their intelligence and police capabilities, as well as their cooperation and intelligence sharing. i with the united states, by the way. organizationsthe for border security, and we are very far away from where we were 50 years ago. are serious afterthoughts, to really cross the board. for him. national sovereignty concerns covenant different security concerns and preferences, balances between security and freedom, regional threat above all,, and different technical human and institutional capabilities.

if this seems weird to you, think of the difference between texas and vermont. samet least have the language, although i wonder sometimes. [laughter] it is -- in fact, sometimes i have, given the fact we such a different historical experiences, different languages, it's astounding how much we have been able to accomplish together. one of the reasons for that is the shared memory of war and deprivation and poverty. and the shared memory that some of our cultures and not just the eastern european post-soviet countries but spain, greece, ,ortugal, which were right-wing nearly fascist dictatorships, in thecome democracies course of being members of the european union. these are remarkable nara think what gives life to the project still.

stand here and say all right, we need more european integration. we need a european intelligence service, a european union. very good thing and i'm personally a pragmatic integrationist. preserve if we want to the european project under the conditions of globalization and the internal -- external shocks we are seeing, we are going to have to have deeper integration, a calm nose nation of poverty policy,s on fiscal energy, managing refugees, defense, and the mystic security and we will need this in order to do the project. anyone who champions this cause has to to also be aware that such ideas have a fierce opponents.

for example, in poland or hungary, which didn't escape communism to become part of another supranational enterprise, which some people think of not much difference. of course, one has to understand that if we do go ahead with this, this could add impetus to the forces that want to break out of the eu, most notably the brits. or who indeed wanted the eu itself to break up. there are in fact serious discussions underway and some of the original western european as the belgium, the netherlands, luxembourg, some people in germany, in the north.

whether theyring should not just form a smaller, tighter union where cultures and attitudes are sufficiently cloaked. i worry deeply about this. i worry this will leave more vulnerable countries behind and it will make it difficult for them to catch up. i'm personally not a big fan of this but this kind of thinking shows you how complicated these questions are. any politician that wants to promote this kind of thing is going to have to proceed with extreme caution and make that case persuasively. a couple words on europe and its neighborhood. self-evident that europe can help to resolve the issue of islamic terrorism without playing a larger role in the security and stability of northern africa and the middle east. to some degree, this has been

happening already. several countries are participating in the efforts. this year -- the germans have been training the kurds in iraq. that is a truly startling development for anyone who knows the history of my country. but this is not the time to engage in a comprehensive critique of what is going on in the middle east and who is doing what right or wrong but i will make two sobering observations. one is our efforts to hit hard and come to a peaceful have put the syria u.s. and europe into bed with extremely problematic partners. we are making compromises with some very unpleasant people and that undermines our legitimacy

as actors, make no mistake. arguably, when the reasons we are dealing with an increased return of fighters returning to europe is precisely the fact that the coalition has been somewhat successful and did not -- and denied isis a territorial state. what does this all means for relations between the u.s. and europe? i wrote down a lot of points will spare you because i'm aware of the passage of time. i'm going to betray -- try to be short. for any of you who read the dan benjamin's politico, you will be aware the u.s. has a far more limited and manageable domestic islamist problem if at all then europe. for the simple reason that

american muslims tend to be far better integrated. there has been more work done, a greater attempt of building trust between muslim communities and therecommunities is of course also very little truly uncontrolled immigration. our problem is not quite your problem. we don't share the same issues in quite the same way. think tolso entitled i ask that we take care of our own problems more than we have done in the past to shoulder a greater burden not only for our own security for which we should and you have a right to expect us to help you bear the burden of protecting the international level of order all of our prosperity and peace

depends on around the world. you also have legitimate security interests elsewhere in the world and an interest in saying you europeans take care of your own neighborhoods, we have other things to do elsewhere. we can't expect you to help us. forve complete sympathy ordinary americans who are tired of war. i suspect that is not an offensive proposition to anyone in this room unless you actually take the line america should pull out of europe entirely and leave us to ourselves. are our reasons for america to stay engaged with the europe because many of our concerns are your concerns also. stability in the middle east, stability of northern africa, .ilitary supplies

all of these are strategic concerns for america. to deal with that, to share the burden, to take on a greater responsibility for that is not just a strategic interest for us. it's where we have significant overlap and i would add the security of israel is a concerned interest we have and one where we would want to work together. i don't have to remind you that the american and european economies are deeply integrated through investments, jobs, factories, you name it. what happens in europe has an impact on the american economy and vice versa. , we sharerse finally

important values. there is no one else that shares your values in quite the same way we do and vice versa. in many ways, we are truly bound at the hip and in a day and age where power doesn't go as far as it used to in the world, having good allies who share the same values and who can handle and resolve problems effectively is a good thing to have even for a thinkower like america there is a great deal we have to talk about and to cooperate about and to be worried about together. i think there is a great deal we can add -- ask you for advice about, usually help with. to me, one thing is certain.

when he to do the heavy lifting ourselves as i said that we can use your advice and your help in we need to coordinate with you because so many of our interest overlap. one final point i think is valid for all of us. what the terrorists want more than anything else from us is for us to overreact severely. deny our ownords values, deny the values that inform our constitutional orders, the values that make us legitimate at home and abroad so they can use that as an excuse for the next attack. if we betray those values while finding them, leave already lost the game. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> have a tradition to give a

student the first question. she is opened up the opportunity for you to give another talk. she says in the u.s., there has been much conversation about the .alue of nato is it still important in europe a more as a not seen decisive role in solving the problems associated with terrorism? goodat's a really question. we all know where that particular quote came from. though the candidate was the first question the value of nato or alliances to america. there is a whole school of thinking and american political thought that goes back to the beginning of the cold war the questions that. i think it's a legitimate question for you to ask. unfortunately, the first sentence of my answer is it's complicated.

nato was invented as the military arm of the transatlantic alliance to deal with one threat and one threat only and that was emanating from russia during the cold war to determine it. -- deter it. that was pretty much a bridge of game theory. in other words, you were counting division warheads and tanks and tried to calculate how much you are going to have to need to deter the other one from acting first and taking out a key part of your own forces. with the resurgence of aggression from russia in the , let there be no mistake, the fermenting of unrest and instability in europe

through what the intelligence experts call hybrid warfare namely through trolling on social media, the funding of fascist parties, the undermining of the legitimacy of politicians and the media. that has acquired both new -- the and a slightly emphasis has shifted slightly. we do still need old-fashioned territorial defense. we do still need to be able to tour the russians from ever thinking they could possibly cross the line into nato territory. there can be absolutely no question that it is whyegotiable, which is people are planning feverishly haveke sure nato members people that are absolutely serious. nato still has a purpose there

and is really important. if nato weren't there, i wouldn't like to think but things would look like and what the political geography of europe would look like. that said, i think within that context, europeans need to cover more weight. the germans are saying they are increasing their defense budget by a staggering amount. we are participating extensively in reassurance efforts. there is a great deal of oomf behind that effort. the question of using nato against terrorists is a little more difficult because as i've try to explain, the terrorist problem is a domestic problem in europe. is addressed at border threats and terrorist are essentially a threat to deal with intelligence and police. there's not much you can do with tanks. is there havelem

been internal discussions about aboutetween member states whether he will make sense to use nato as a framework for the attacks on isis, to prevent the islamic state from gaining a to territorial -- gaining a territorial state. coalition that is currently running that operation is an expression of an unspoken decision to not go down that route because nato's membership is so large. it is far easier to marshal support elliptically for something as obvious as a territorial threat on your nato borders. strikes by fighter

planes and special forces and intelligence in the middle east. that is politically so sensitive and for other middle eastern governments that ice expect you will not find a great deal in tel aviv for a nato operation is. went after there is aline is really good reason for nato to wouldexist the -- but it not be reasonable for it to solve all security problems. >> let's take questions from the audience. what is going to happen to all of these refugees that are scattered in some of the areas over europe?

>> i sometimes wonder whether i isw what the current policy on that. it's a difficult to understand what is happening at that level. a number ofue european approaches have simply failed, such as an attempt to spearhead the germans to get every eu country to agree to wheren refugees particularly eastern european countries have said we are not going to do this and the polish government, which previously wemised to take in 600 said aren't doing that. any given moment, this is a bit of a kaleidoscope. it's a mixture of integrating people we can

integrate. and doing demographics. with this new agreement with we willwe are saying ask turkey to take back refugees that came illegally for every refugee that returns. take one who has escaped to turkey. that is an attempt to dry up the trafficking network. there are many obstacles. i'm hoping it will work. it's of the many plans i've seen, this is an intelligent way of trying to get at this. we are reality is that

only going to be able to integrate a small minority. backber will be sent either immediately or after hopefully conditions in their country's abortion become less violent. just by way of example, this is what happened after the war. hundreds of thousands of refugees. one of the focused traders of the genocide was sentenced to 40 years in prison today and i can say deservedly because i covered those hearings and he truly is one of the worst war criminals europe has seen in a century. those refugees came from europe and the hundreds of thousands in the 1990's. germany took in 300,000.

a small number of voters remained. the largest went back after the in 19 95,eements which enabled people to go back. some of them were pushed to go back. i accompanied some of them as a reporter. the reality is they have led to something good. duration is one of the parties of war, one of the states that developed in the course of the breakup now a member of the european union. and serbia, which also was a major war party, is on its way to membership. seem ately as it may the time that one speaks of these things, it is possible for conflict to end and peace to return. that's more hard to

imagine that many other places. is what -- which is why i suspect we may have to work harder at integrating syrian refugees than any others because the neighboring states are in fact buckling under the strain and we need to take some of that all. -- off. our borders are not defensible. >> we have time for three more questions. right over here. clicks i -- >> i've spent a lot and thein europe military and as an international executive. you said something a while ago i think is strategically important and that was the matter of shared values. that shared values should be looked at carefully in europe

and in the united states. going specifically to the problem we are facing today, i'm reminded of a famous meeting that took place shortly after world war ii. at the end of that conference, two of them walked to the cathedral hand-in-hand, knelt at the altar, and asked god for forgiveness for all the conflicts between france and germany. that was significant and the beginning of a further conference, which called for germans graduating from top schools in germany to spend their last year in france and for frenchman spending their college years in france to spend their life in germany so they could get to know each other for the first time. france andrmany and met people in both areas who let never gone outside their own villages.

anyhow, the question i have is this. should not france and germany be the leaders in getting this effort together in europe and moving forward? i can only attest that what you describe is still alive and well at least in the civil society level today. i'm a beneficiary of that. i grew up speaking german and english because i may foreign service of threat. my parents bought by the time i for elementary school, i would be speaking english. anden going back and forth the relationship between germany and france on that level is incredibly close.

my father was once a junior speech writer for the first of my credit chancellor and he was a hero in our household because he begged for forgiveness. the nazis left paris untouched. the stuff we did in many ways is unforgivable. warsaw --ever been to that is also a hugely important relationship for us. for many people in europe, the of cross-border movement, cross-border friendships, going to university in different places, working in different places is in reality

they take for granted. they don't know how much suffering want into that. the reality is the franco german motor, which ran europe for for too long time, particularly after the war, is no longer enough to run europe. it's just not accepted anymore. there are reasons why it doesn't work that are internal but polls,, the spanish, the the sweden's -- swedish wouldn't accept that and for good reason. they can expect her to be a more democratic way of decision-making in europe. the problem the german government has is the u.k. and the french are going through inward looking moment and we are for the first time in our postwar history presented with a situation where we would have to become the de facto moto of europe.

want us to lead and resent us for it. they desire us to do this and fear it. this is a very difficult thing to square. i could give you a long list of points where i think we've failed and a shorter list of points i think we succeeded. >> in the unlikely event britain decides t withdraw from the european union, what will be the damage to the members? >> the question was in the unlikely event that you don't because likely the british will secede from europe. for theld be the damage european project? perhaps even to britain.

i sometimes worry that your could have a civil war like the americans did in the mid-19th century. i hope we don't. i hope that's not the price for union. certainly no one will go to war against the brits. i don't want this on c-span that i suggested this. [laughter] brits in we want the the eu. sense of global mission, their understanding of global trade, their understanding of global cultures, there forward leaving on policy come all of that has been a key part in -- europe. their attitudes to free-trade. all of that are valued elements in european culture. that aas a lawyer feel

lot of the grexit advocates don't really understand it's how deeply britain has been shaped by and integrated into the european union. ripwhat it would mean to this organ out of a living organism. that would be substantial. i think most brits think this is un-signing the treaty. that is not the way it works. it's more like a state of the out on itstriking own. i suspect none of you think that would be a great idea. unless of course it's texas. [laughter] youuring your comments, referred to that the united states has made some compromises and i think you mentioned

turkey, russia, saudi arabia. just wondering -- you didn't mention iran and i was wondering when you include iran? --obviously aware a meeting iran will be a sensitive topic. so i will look at the watch. [laughter] that thinksside , while it has is a lot of issues, is the least worst deal we could have gotten alternativethat the that was being quite seriously mooted in some quartered which was a preemptive strike on iranian nuclear installations would have been disastrous. i can assure you that was a very serious matter of debate in

foreign-policy circles and i been going to the conference in israel for a number of years. something that a lot of israelis didn't feel very be about, including the chiefs. it is a matter and debate even in the israeli community. i think it has not escaped anyone's notice that a number of governments have fallen over each other in order to make deals with the iranians. that is not terribly pretty. has al think that iran society and economy, despite their incandescent anti-semitism and anti-zionism, has a theory -- a long historical tradition of tolerating and welcoming but, not of israelites --

iranian jews are another matter. i have a greater hope for iranian society then i do for on a veryety, based superficial, nonexpert sense of what appears to be going on there, and what my expert friends tell me. argument for slim those of you who find the whole idea of the agreement offensive, and those of you planning to whose line onruz, this i know. look, this is like with russia. i think we need to stand up to russia, and the leaders and around. but unlike you, we are not on another continent. we have to find a way of protecting israel, and of living with iran. we have to find a way of

protecting ukraine and living with russia. we know where our sympathies lie, but we can't just up anchor and leave, sadly. that is the conundrum of making policy in europe. it sometimes leads to uncomfortable moral compromises, but rest assured that there is a great deal of conversation about these issues with america. my sense is that we are pretty much in line on many of the practicalities. >> [applause] thank you very much. constanze: thank you. >> thank you for such a challenging topic, and doing it with such depth.i know we will be following your writings and remarks for a long time. on behalf of all the members here at the world fairs council and american jewish committee, i would like you to present -- to present you with the official world fairs scarf.

constanze: i will say, that my only -- the only thing i know about the jewish community in texas is from the literary productions of one kinky friedman. [laughter] constanze: which i read when i was at university at harvard. i found it mind blowing and funny. but i suspect it is not representative are up-to-date, so i am willing to be informed. thank you. [applause] let me remind everyone, if you have not yet registered next tuesday for the program with , please do so. thank you so much. have a great afternoon. >> on newsmakers, oklahoma ofgressman tom cole, member the appropriations committee. he talks about the house republican to over a budget and appropriations process. he also talks about this

summer's republican national convention. a.m.akers, sunday at 10:00 and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a congress -- conversation with former counsel for the republican national committee, benjamin ginsberg, he explains what a contested convention is and discusses rules for the gathering in cleveland this summer. this is 25 minutes. announcer: ben ginsberg. former general counsel to the republican national committee. with the party chair, looking at the very real possibility of an open or contested convention. explain what this means. what is a contested convention?? ben: it is one of the candidates -- none of the candidates arrived at the start of the convention with the majority of delegates. by definition, they have to contest to reach a majority. if there a candidate with

the majority of delegates, but not majority overall, what does that mean? mr. ginsberg: there's a magic number, which is 1237 delegates. you have to get more than that. you have to have a plurality. the way the rules are written, there will be balloting when the delegates get there and to see if and then balloting your candidate can win enough delegates to get over the majority. host: a lot of attention on the rules committee. here is the question. how much authority does the committee have over the convention structure? ben: there will be two rules committee. one is the national committee which will meet the week before the convention, come up with what amounts to a working draft. that draft will be approved by the full committee, historically on the wednesday before the convention.

low -- and that document will then go to what is called a temporary convention rules committee, which is made up of as opposed to the republican national committee members. those delegates will work through the draft. and do whatever they choose is their authority to make the rules for the convention. so that draft rule will then be sent to the full convention on monday. the first day of the convention, unless there's a hurricane. that committee will meet again as the permanent committee, goesve the rules, then it to the full convention for passage. the answer is, the republican national committee rules committee is essentially doing a working draft. for what the convention will consider. host: we keep hearing about rule 40 that was put in place in 2012, and many college the ron

paul route -- rule. explain what that was about, and why it can be changed this year. ben: rules 26-42 are rules that apply to each convention and must be passed by each convention for itself. the rules that were passed in 2012 are not in effect for 2016 unless and until the convention rules committee passes. in the two previous conventions in 2008 in 2004, the number had been majority in five states needed to approve. ron paul claimed that they had five states. that would have caused a lot of messing with the schedule. the rules committee at the suggestion of the romney campaign increased the number of states to eight to put in a name in nomination but that rule is

, not in effect for 2016. there is no rule on the numbers 2016,ber of states for told the convention rules committee, and ultimately, the full convention vote on the rules for some session. host: but there is a rule requiring delegates to vote on the first ballot. what are the rnc rules this year and how obligated are those delegates to the candidates they supported in the primaries? ben: that is rule 16, part of the permanent rules, not subject to those in this convention. that rule requires that the delegates vote according to any statewide vote in their state. that was put into effect because in 2012, there were a number of instances where the candidates who came away with the most convention delegates have had not actually won the state.

so the rule was put in place to be certain that the votes of the primary voters who participated in republican primaries and conventions, around the country actually had their votes , reflected in what the convention did. host: is it safe to say that the last time this was an issue was 1976? ben: yes. that is fair to say. host: we will go back and see ronald reagan and president ford in a moment, one of those moments in kansas city. before we do, what happened that year? ben: basically, gerald ford did not have a majority of delegates. ronald reagan was a credible challenger. after the last of the primaries, the campaigns wooed delegates as best they could. president ford legally using the , prerogatives of power that the white house brings, managed to convince enough unbound

delegates to vote with him, so he had a majority of delegates on the first ballot. host: in the film, we will see senator schweiker before he got , the nomination, which was something unprecedented. he chosen as a running mate. unprecedented, may be capable of repetition this year. we will see. host: let's go back to kansas city, 1976. ford -- geraldal ford, as he called ronald reagan to the podium. [begin video clip] [applause] >> he asked ronald reagan to come down and enjoy -- and join him. he is gesturing to him. reagan is still signing autographs. he may not even be able to see the president. he is shouting into the microphone. >> would you come down, he says. and bring nancy. >> come on down.

they had just delivered the alabama standard to reagan. and thezona standard -- arizona standard to schweiker. >> everybody in this great auditorium tonight, we're all tremendously pleased and honored to have ron reagan and nancy reagan come down. [applause] >> we are all a part of this great republican family that will give the leadership to the american people to win on november 2. i would be honored on your behalf to have my good friend governor reagan to say a few words at this time. [applause]

[end video clip] in kansas city, as you look at ronald reagan, who went on to get the nomination four years later. what turned the tide for president ford, and are there lessons? ben: there are certainly lessons. there will be fewer unbound delegates in 2016 then there -- than there were in 1976 because of that rule we just talked about. but that rule depends on how close the front runner is to getting a majority of delegates, on how big that pool is, through -- but this produced a great moment of unity in an otherwise divided convention. that would be a lesson for whoever is in what position in 2016. host: this historical note mississippi turned the tide for , general ford. correct? ben: yes. they were the delegates who stayed as a group and were able to put president ford over the top.

that aredelegates selected in june at caucuses in you have unpledged delegates in pennsylvania, the primary in late april, how does that play into the delegate totals per candidate, and those who may not be obligated to vote a certain way? enough, onstingly june 8, the day after the last of the primaries, when california and new jersey are done voting, you will go to a highly accurate -- know to highly accurate degree what each candidate's totals are. that is six weeks until the convention on july 18. that's in cleveland. you also know who the unbound delegates are. they will become very popular people. host: let's go back to the delegates. can you determine in a dance how -- in advance delegates will vote after they are unbound? the nomination on the first ballot, what happens? ben: it is the front runner's dilemma because the rule. while well over 90% of the

delegates are bound on the first ballot, by the time he gets to the second ballot if there is no winner on the first, state rules takeover. under this state rules, three quarters of the delegates will be unbound for a second ballot. is there a way to tell how they will vote? interestingly, i think the campaigns will have to invent terrific new databases to be able to track, contact, know who the delegates can must be -- most be persuaded by. it will be a different phenomenon and a whip operation like we have never seen before. host: are the republican candidates right now, governor kasich, senator cruz, donald trump, are they preparing for this? did they have people guiding them through this process? ben: i believe they do. each campaign has named a squad

of people who will pay attention to the state conventions and the state caucuses, and committees who will choose the actual , delegates. each knows the importance of that and are working toward picking delegates and then keeping track of the delegates to be able to have been responsive on the floor in cleveland. host: let's go back even further, 1948. the last time at a republican convention there have been multiple ballots, ultimately getting the nomination, thomas dewey. robert taft of ohio. mr. conservative, so-called republican establishment. lessons? fromi think the lessons that year are you need to keep track of your delegates, and sometimes the candidate in second place can end up in first place, if it goes to multiple ballots. host: let's talk about the state. if there is a contested

convention, which states are you keeping an eye on? which have the most power? ben: interestingly enough one of the great differences from 1948 and 1976 is the way the party structure has evolved. the party structures in individual states will not have over theirsway delegates that they did before. in fact, there are no brokers left in the republican party for a variety of reasons having to do with society as a whole, also campaign finance laws. but, there are a few states where individual political figures will still have control over delegates. john kasich in ohio, for example, will have control over ohio's 66 delegates in the sense that they were a slate he was able to name. california is one of the few

states, and new hampshire, where the candidates themselves can take their -- pick their delegates. in those states, whoever wins them will have a lot of sway. it is a slateate, chosen entirely by the states central committee, so it is not exactly clear who those delegates will be primarily loyal to. state,s, another big delegates are actually chosen at the state convention, either in congressional district caucuses or the statewide delegates by the convention as a whole. those will probably be free spirits, but of course, it is homestay. so he can have sway with them. host: the first of all, what is the republican establishment? when you hear that, or what is it? host: ben: i think that's tough

to say in a presidential context these days. certainly, the fundraisers have not had a terribly successful cycle. super pac's have not had the power they seemed to have. i am not sure it is the fundraisers. elected public officials in some instances will when i hear their term republican establishment, i think of republican officeholders in congress and in statehouses around the country. but the way we do our delegate selection process now is not at all clear that the establishment will have control over the delegates or how their states vote in the primary. or -- have senator marco rubio with 169 delegates, he contested his campaign but successfully raise money to pay off debt, does he still control the delegates? ben: that depends state-by-state. what happens when a candidate

suspends a campaign is that different state laws have different requirements and whether or not the delegates are still bound to that candidate. in a few states, and they will be down to senator rubio said -- bound to senator rubio, so they will have to fill in senator rubio's name on the first ballot. many states, the delegates become unbound, they may listen to him as a matter of loyalty , but they have no requirement state'seir states -- law to vote the way you would like them to vote. host: so they don't really have authority. ben: correct. host: let's hear wt the chairman of the party said about party rules on cnn, and what to expect in cleveland this july. >> what the rule says is that you -- to be nominated, you have to have the majority of delegates in eight states. by the way, that was put it in 2012 at the 2012 convention. the rules committee for the 2016 convention will decide what that

rule is. there is nothing mysterious about that. i tend to be a person who likes to keep things the way they are , but it is not my decision. i am not the person that gets to that -- decide. the delegates are the ones who make the rules for each state. i'm not saying anything. if -- i am saying anything nefarious. this is just the way it is. [end video clip] host: let me ask you about the platform process. is that also included in the rules? ben: yes, it is. in the sense that each delegation to the convention will elect to people to serve on the platform committee to come up with that. there are four committees altogether, the rules committee, the platform committee, the credentials committee that will hear any challenges to the

proper seating of delegates, and a committee called the committee on permanent organization that reinforces the rules. host: as you hear about the chairman of the party is saying, the rnc, and you understand this better than anyone, is preparing this a possibility? ben: the chairman said that. you have to prepare for all possibilities. so, that is the proper thing to do. it is now a possibility, as we have read. host: based on history, in early june, no one candidate has the 1237 delegates. what is the process going to look like? ben: it will be an interesting time. they will need to concentrate on the unbound delegates.

there are 116 unbound delegates from states that do not hold statewide votes. there are the pennsylvania delegates you mentioned. that is 166 delegates who will be unbound. there are an additional 12 from candidates who dropped out before senator rubio did. governor bush got some, ben carson got some. and then, the marco rubio delegates, about 159, slightly fewer than that because of the state rules that will have them vote for senator rubio. thate campaigns, and period, if there is no majority delegate holder, will go unbound to the delegates to try and convince them to vote with them on the first ballot. those delegates will be extraordinarily popular people. i suspect they will have many visitors to their homes. host: who determines who sits on the rules committee?

ben: that is determined by each state's delegation. once the delegation is chosen in state conventions, the members of the actual delegation to the national committee will vote. two on each. host: one donald trump says if he is denied the nomination, riots will break out in him, or anybody who goes in with the majority of delegates, but not overall, what happens to the delegates? the rules are the rules. as the chairman said in the tape , the rules say that you have to have a majority of delegates to the convention. it is not a plurality. historically, conventions have majority winners, not plurality winners, because you want the

strongest possible candidate. you have to get a majority have your base agreeing that should be the candidate. that is the historical reason you have the majority in the rules. in republican national convention rules, it's the majority of delegates to the entire convention. host: what what questions do you think these campaigns need to ask themselves going through this process, in terms of what the rules state, what the delegates will be up to and how they prepare for all of this? , howthe first question is do i win delegates in individual states? this is still about winning elections for now. the second question is, how do i go to enough states, either through their convention process or when the executive committees name the delegates to win delegates who are sympathetic to my cause. then you need to ask the question of what things will look like on the floor.

so on june 8, you will tally up what the votes are, whether someone has a majority, how far they are from the majority, how many unbound delegates there are. certainly in the rules there will be a number of questions that will be asked. it is now, as the chairman said, the majority of delegates in eight states have to sign a petition. you need to be sure that you can get enough delegates to set your -- to get your name and nomination. it may be that at the rules committee, you'll ask the question, do i want to change that number eight? it changed in 2012 for purely pragmatic reasons having to do with that convention. when the 2016 rules committee sets the number, is it advantageous to a candidate to have that number at one, at three, at five, at eight, at 18, at 28? and each campaign will need to make the calculation for that.

so once they know how many states it is and whether they have enough signatures on those ballots, there are a number of other procedural rules, motions to table, motions to reconsider, motions for a roll call, all of which require signatures from the majority of delegates in a particular number of states to achieve those, to make those motions brought before the convention. they will think about that, and may gave some thought to who their vice-presidential candidate is, again, a 1976 policy, perhaps, where you think that out a little bit before the convention to get some of the unbound delegates. you may give some thought to who the officers of the convention are and especially who the chair will be. you will have to ask the question of yourself, how do i get the chair's attention on the floor, with 2,400 screaming delegates to get a motion i think needs to be heard, heard

by the chair? this which leads to follow-up, because it would be a fascinating convention to watch. anything likeseen it before. typically, a republican convention has been a coronation. in 2012, mitt romney taking control of the schedule and the agenda. if this were to happen in 2016, the party would control the agenda, and you'd have, conceivably, maybe one, two, or three candidates looking for the nomination but not really controlling the messaging. they just want to get to the nomination. ben: it is a very interesting point. if there is not a majority of delegates achieved by anyone candidate, you have to ask, which first lady speaks on the first night of the convention? what do you do about the keynote address? wendy you start the business of -- when do you start the business of voting?

it takes longer historically, because there are conflicts on the enjoyed -- individual committees. host: we provide gavel-to-gavel coverage. is it conceivable that the convention could start earlier in the day and go late into the evening? that it would be unlike anything we have seen before? share, anything is possible at this stage, you don't know. pragmatically, you want to have as much messaging as you can in the convention itself so that probably argues for starting things earlier on the first day, trying to get through as much of the convention business as you can, so that you can get to the messaging part of the convention as quickly as possible. host: a question that the chairman was asked over the weekend, will all of this be transparent? ben: well, certainly everything that happens on the floor will be pretty transparent. if no candidate has a majority of delegates, there will be more private conversations with the unbound delegates. so it will be transparent in the

sense that there will be things -- there will be votes, but there will be a lot of deal cutting and erstwhile deal cutting that will not be visible until the votes are cast. host: as a longtime republican strategist and activist and formal -- former counsel to the rnc, what does this mean for you? ben: it's a crucial time in history of the country. it's important to have a unified or unifying convention. if there's a nominee, someone who gets above the majority of votes, people need to rally around that person. if it's a contested convention , so that nobody is going into the convention with the majority of delegates, the moment you show gerald ford calling ronald reagan's down to the stage as a signal of the unity of the party, that's crucial. it can be a positive for the party to have democracy flourishing in public.

but you do have to unify things at the end. host: a veteran of the romney and george w. bush campaign, ben ginsberg, thank you for explaining all of this. ben: thank you. during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house, as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. next, editorial cartoonist talk about their influences on the presidential election. then, a discussion about europe's effort to combat terrorism and deal with refugees. after that, a look at what a contested convention is, and how republican party rules may affect this summer's meeting in cleveland.

host: good evening. i'm the executive director of new hampshire humanities and i'm so pleased to have you all here for what promises to be a lively conversation about a complex subject. that is actually a perfect description of what we do here i -- at new hampshire humanities, we foster spirited and civil conversations on complex issues. [laughter] i made a point of that. informed by the knowledge of experts and the wisdom provided by all of you. i hope we will all experience some a-ha moments tonight, the

wonderful occasions where you suddenly see something from a different perspective or gain a new insight. i encourage you not only to contribute our thoughts to this conversation, there will be when that's plenty of opportunity for that, but to listen carefully and respectfully to others, even if, especially if, you disagree with them. tonight's discussion is the second of three events for our panelists. two of them appeared on the exchange this morning on new hampshire public radio and you'll probably catch the rebroadcast of that show on your drive home tonight. tomorrow, we have 1100 high school students and their teachers, who will gather at unh to consider the same issues that we will wrestle with this evening. 1100. [laughter] host: we think this is a very marvelous way to develop the skills of citizenship that are young adults. tonight's program would not be possible without the generosity of the new hampshire institute of politics and political library at the college. we are so grateful for your work to host us here. you'll notice on the back of

your programs that this event is part of a nationwide celebration of the centennial of the pulitzer prizes. we are one of 46 humanities councils around the country mounting programs this year and their other organizations that humanities councils, that are highlighting the astonishing contributions to journalism, historical analysis, and artistic creation, recognized by the pulitzer foundation of the past 100 years. you'll find a link to the full list of pulitzer programs taking place this year at our website. and now it is my pleasure to turn the program over to our moderator. it is wonderful to have you back in state after you abandoned as -- two years ago for greener pastures of the boston globe. [laughter] [applause] i not sure that sounded like a compliment, exactly. this is a bigger crowd than i imagined. i'm so happy to be here.

i am playing hooky from work today and tomorrow to be part of this. i was at the concord monitor are -- for many years, almost when 25 years, including a stretch as editor of the paper -- [laughter] >> yeah, pretty good. one of my favorite parts of being editor was working with our political cartoonist at the monitor. it is a very small paper. we were very lucky, they still are very lucky to have a talented cartoonist. many papers in this country have either never had one or decided that political cartooning is not something that they wanted to support anymore. that is a really wrongheaded decision, and we can talk about more tonight. i thought what i would do is ony briefly tell you who is the panel, give a little introduction, and let each of them tell you in their own words about their work, and then we will open it up to questions. i will start with a question or two and it will take some from the audience.

our broad theme is freedom of speech and whether there are limits and whether there should be limits. but really, the night is yours, so anything you would like to ask about their work or cartooning. donald trump has gone but we can talk about him, too. so, we'll start right here. on my left is joel pett, cartoons have appeared in hundreds of papers and magazines across the country. including the washington post, new york times, l.a. times, boston globe. he cartoons for the lexington herald leader, contributes weekly to usa today, and writes a regular feature in cartoons for the l.a. times. he was a finalist for the pulitzer prize for editorial cartooning in 1989 and 1998, before winning in 2000. [applause] moderator: next to him is a professor of international cooperation at brandeis. her most recent book is "the

cartoons that shook the world." he is the founder of the western jihadism project, a data collection and archives focused on islamic extremist groups in the west and she leads the team at brandeis funded by the national institute of justice at the u.s. department of justice. that is studying islamic terrorist networks. [applause] moderator: on the other side is easel is signe wilkinson who is best-known for her work at the philadelphia daily news. she is the first female cartoonist to win a pulitzer prize for editorial cartooning. that was in 1992. she served as president of the association of american editorial cartoonists. from 1994-1995. in 2005, she published a collection of her work titled , "one nation under surveillance." [laughter] [applause]

moderator: on the very end, is victor, the publisher emeritus of the nation magazine, and was the magazine editor from 1978-1995, and a publisher and editorial director from 1995-2005. before that, he was editor of in -- the new york times magazine, and wrote a monthly column about the publishing business. he is the author of "kennedy justice." and several others. this is a terrific panel. [applause] moderator: i think will start by letting each of them speak briefly about their own works and show some slides and perhaps even draw a bit and then we will turn it over to questions. let's start with you. joel: thank you so much, i've -- to correct the record, i've actually been fired from both usa today and the l.a. times

since that bio. [laughter] [applause] joel: i went to the reception before hand, and i really want a copy, and they didn't have any but i've been reading about new , hampshire sunday thing somebody here has heroin. [laughter] joel: we only have five minutes each so i will blow through these pretty quickly. the already saw this one. i drew that in september, you can see the dates. i think it is still as relevant or irrelevant -- irrelevant as it was then. moderator: can you all see it? joel: there's a separate screen there. pushing buttons. start pushing them all. there we go. sure. >> [indiscernible]

joel: this was last summer, w actually took a $100,000 speaking fee to speak to disabled iraq veterans, which i thought was kind of rich. [laughter] joel: he's almost in hillary clinton's category. that was way more than we are getting tonight. from the humanities council. [laughter] [applause] this is here because it was not run -- it was run, i'm sorry that was different one. last fall, our new tea party governor of kentucky matt evans -- matt bevans joined in a chorus of other voices from around the country in saying that we do not want anymore syrian refugees in here. as background, the only thing i like about this guy, is that he has three adopted kids from somalia. [laughter] joel: i mean, really, everything else about him is just wretched. who is against adopting kids?

not even me. [laughter] joel: i drew this cartoon of his aides, and his cowering under the desk there. you don't have to fear these kids, those are your kids. he went crazy and called a press conference denouncing me as racist and announcing the letson -- lexington herald leader. my boss is african-american, my publisher is african-american, we have been the leading progressive voice in kentucky for 30 years. he denounced us all as racist. it got out in the right wing hate radio sphere, and we were just inundated for 24 hours, everybody in the paper, and salesman's, serious phone calls, screening out us -- at us from being racist. from all over the country. not from her own readers, of course. [laughter] joel: that is kind of like a great reaction. the publisher hated it, but i thought it was really cool. [laughter] joel: it's about guns. no matter how much shooting goes on, it's always good for the gun

industry, right? one of my favorite things working in the bible belt is comparing the christian bible belt-types to religious fanatics around the world because they really hate it. remember last summer when our county clerk refused to -- after they legalized gay marriage, the kentucky county clerk said we are not signing those things. you can see what it is. [applause] [laughter] joel: around the world, there are some pretty serious repercussions as you probably are aware for doing this kind of work. in this country, they just fire

you. the corporation comes for you , so right after the charlie hebdo thing, my obligatory two or three drawings about that, i drew this thing of the corporate-types coming for me, essentially. they were not wild about that in sacramento. [laughter] joel: they can dish it out, but they can't take it. to illustrate my previous point, in this country, you do something that people don't like , they write you a nasty letter, or give you a nasty phone call. the guy in the middle is the syrian cartoonist, who for a while was actually on the side of the government there, but when they started crossing lines he did not agree with, he drew a few cartoons against them and his reward was to be dragged out into the country and being beaten within an

inch of his life, and had all of his fingers broken. people criticize is a lot for -- because he criticized the country. people say, you should go to russia or cuba or whatever, but actually i'm really patriotic. , this is the country that lets you do this kind of stuff. [applause] joel: the thing about cartoons , as you sow with the donald trump thing, you need a caricature. with a lot of people, you only need a couple of things to make them them. like for donald trump, that is already donald trump. [applause] [laughter] joel: you can put his fat, nasty looking, angry face, and his fish mouth underneath it. but basically, it is already donald trump. you just need the invective of course. and the cartoons swearing to come out of his mouth. [laughter] [applause] joel: sorry about that.

i have not mastered the art of doing this without my body. [laughter] joel: it is often the hair, like with ronald reagan it was that. once you had that, you sort of had ronald reagan. [laughter] [applause] joel: and then this is the last one, living in kentucky i've had the great good fortune of having my career exactly match that of mitch mcconnell. [applause] [laughter] joel: he was elected to the senate in 1984 when i started work there. basically, with mitch, -- [laughter] [applause]

joel: you do that, you already got him. [laughter] [applause] moderator: if you cannot get heroin this is really -- [laughter] moderator: we'll go next to you. >> this is a tough act to follow. [laughter] >> in 2005, a certain danish newspaper did a cartoon contest . it wasn't really a contest, it was a survey. they asked all the newspaper illustrators in denmark to produce a picture of mohammed, as they saw him. they wanted to test if the illustrators were afraid to draw

mohammed, they wanted to see if political correctness had muted the ability of our danish newspaper illustrators to stand up and make pictures. cartoons. of some very important things that were going on in danish society at the time. amsely, that a bunch of im had gone to the government, because the newspaper was too critical of muslims. the result was very ambiguous. because there were not that many -- about 100 cartoonist in the country, and only a few of them actually sent an a drawing. out of the 12 drawings that were sent in, these are actually of a very different nature, all of them.

some made fun of the newspaper. one actually said, in arabic, actually written in farsi in the corner, that the editors of the newspaper are a bunch of reactionaries. and it is a boy named mohammed who is a student in school that everybody knows because it is in a very immigrant neighborhood. he was wearing a soccer shirt, defending a soccer club that is primarily immigrants. this was from an exercise that , for reasons that were hard to believe, six months later, it produced deadly riots across the world. there were a lot of -- one was

six months later, hearing that people, did the people writing these cartoons, did they understand? did they ever actually notice that some of these cartoons are positive to muslims? i wrote a book about it. the book was a result of travels all over the world, called "the cartoons that shook the world." i spoke to all the main leaders in the episode as well as some of the cartoonists. i wrote a book about it. of course, i had the illustration in the book. because i wrote about what the meaning of these cartoons, what did they describe. one of the problems with cartoons is that you all understand the cartoons because you know the background. do you think this has -- cartoon has any meaning whatsoever in pakistan? so, pictures and cartoons are forms for own imagination.

that is why i wrote a whole chapter about the history of depicting mohammed. in both western art and islamic art. i raised money. it costs money to produce books. it costs money to get nice pictures in books. so i raised money to pay for the right to reproduce this picture, page from beautiful showingan manuscript, ng into wardi together with ali. there are hundreds, many hundreds, of such pictures. i wrote about why it is that so many people have come to believe that muslims do not tolerate depictions of mohammed, when self evidently, there are lots of such pictures? kara travels, i went to on

-- ankara, and managed to find pictures of mohammed. sectsia muslims and other within islam revere mohammed. the point is, many religious muslims were angry, not because they were depictions, but because they were disrespectful. all of the muslims were angry at the cartoons because they actually seem to say that all muslims are terrorists. and they felt maligned by the implications that all muslims are terrorists because of their faith. this is a very academic book. i'm a professor, i write academic looks, i have my evidence in order. i put these images in my book. my surprise was that the yearly university, that published the book, actually censored the book and took all these images out. [gasps]

signe: there were different images showing different divisions of mohammed. here is the second part of the story. this is why censorship is bad. because, most sensors try to erase the tracks of what they do. because, they do not want you to know -- that there has been censorship. yale university, i made an agreement that i would redraw the pictures, in return for a forward in the book, that marked that the book had been censored. so that is in here. so everybody would know what had happened. they had to go ahead and do it, they had signed the legally and binding contract with me, and i had legally and binding contract with them, but not that i had the right to have illustrations in the book. but they wanted me not to put that in. they developed a 15 page memorandum that said world war iii would break out if these

images were published in the book. i was called into a meeting where the vice president of yell university -- yale university told me that there is fear about what happened to me and my children. i know that it is blasphemous when i was doing, and it is punishable by death. intimidation was involved. that is typical. it is typical that when censorship is at play, there is intimidation next. luckily, i did have many good friends who helped me, 16 associations and learned societies published very large protests notes about what had happened. it was truly a unique event in academic publishing. the downstream consequences, in my view, have been quite significant. there is a lot of talk about the rights of people to make pictures and artists. but, actually, i think the real

important thing for free speech is the right to education. the right to consume knowledge. and because of this act of censorship, readers today cannot actually see these pictures. there are a lot of misunderstandings about what cartoons looks like, what they were about, and what they said. there's even more misunderstanding about why muslims were angry and why there were protests. at the end of the day, the conclusion from this episode was the wrong one. the conclusion was, that muslims don't tolerate images of mohammed. and if we make them, they will shoot us. but, that is not true. terrorists, are in the business of shooting people. they shoot cartoonists. because, they want to send a message for the same reason that they shoot jews, kill jews, kill shia muslims. they are looking for targets. so, when this happens, in

january, 2015, the two men walked in to the editorial charlie hebdo, the satirical magazine in paris, and shot and killed the 11 members of the editorial staff. everybody presumed it was because they had made pictures of mohammed. it was not. it was because they were a good symbolic target. there are not assassination squads lurking in every parking lot of every publisher. everywhere in the world. in fact, the terrorists have been underground. but, we have now come to the conclusion that you cannot even show these things. now, how many people actually this is what

charlie hebdo's piece looks like? all is forgiven, i am charlie. this is the cover from after the shooting. this is mohammed. did you know? it does not look like mohammed to me. it does not actually look like mohammed to most people, but this is the language, the type of script that charlie hebdo, this magazine had specialized in. it is only comprehensible to the french. i never understood. [laughter] signe: the real danger of not having an ability to speak about controversial issues is that we all become a lot more stupid. [applause] moderator: do you have the clicker? it's not working. >> it doesn't work? >> well, i want to thank the

council of humanities, and particularly kathy masters who helped us get here, she deserves a pulitzer prize for organization, trying to organize cartoonists to do anything is virtually impossible. so thank you. [applause] >> i also wanted to say a quick word about the pulitzer prizes. a friend of ours, a cartoonist, says that if you tell them who is on the jerry, he will tell you who is going to -- on the jury, he will tell you who is going to win the prize. and in my case, that turned out to be quite true. in 1991, i did quite a few cartoons about the supreme court nomination of clarence thomas. which, those of you who were around, who would remember, was super controversial because he was accused of impropriety with

anita hill. so, i had many cartoons about the supreme court-anita hill-clarence thomas. those were in my pulitzer entries. you fill out the matchbox with 20 cartoons. [laughter] and if you are really lucky, you get a jury that is mostly women. and i got the prize. i want you to know that if you are going for a pulitzer, find a jury first, and then adjust your prize. [laughter] >> my cartoons -- quickly, that sort of gets to some of the things that people think about me. she is the woman cartoonist. and i am one of very few women cartoonists, and i have done a number of cartoons on women's issues, and i have done most of them as cartoons that men could

do, too. however, there are some that aren't. that's not working. [laughter] >> or this next one. we want to end all abortion. [laughter] >> done. i am the mother of two daughters. i'm very interested in this. and this. and they wonder why more women don't get into politics. [laughter] >> i had one writer right in,

this is quite recent, a very long letter saying, this brought down the tenor of the newspaper. [laughter] >> ok. so, noted. all right. [laughter] >> donald duck staffing, this was last fall before he even came out as a full-blown fascist. i'm proud of this. the hair makes the man. as you well know. did you read in the new york times story the other day that he has this butler who does all of this stuff for him, but he combs his own hair. very telling comments. [laughter] cruz, these, ted carpet bomber, your member that. so when the guy -- the letter writer was saying, ok, this was

so objectionable that i did these guys flashing, i also felt like -- and i had one guy say, in fact, ted cruz was not -- did not participate in that back-and-forth. but for me, men and bombs have a certain amount of comparing size, too. i'm not the only cartoonist to notice that. i feel that way about ted. his eyelashes i love. [laughter] >> let's see, who is next? [laughter] >> i include these, i can't do these beautiful sketches that joel did, so i just did a couple of quick ones, what i do at night, not every night, but it

seems like every night, has there not been way too many debates? when there is a debate on, i sketch and i just pick a photo and tweet at the sketches, so ben carson all of a sudden talked about fruit. that was ben carson and his fruit salad. [laughter] >> marco rubio. this was from a few nights ago. there is a great sort of icon that i got marco rubio sketch from. you of a certain age will know that the cartoon ended in 1975, but you younger people do not know who he is. it is marco rubio. and then donald trump. i'm sorry, the color is really bad on this one. it's bright orange. suddenly it occurred to me in the middle of one of the debates that the guy must be sun tanning

with the white eyes and the orange face. i just went for it. that was new hampshire, you'll got to see him, you must have noticed. lastly, free at last. free at last. everything in america will be free at last. [laughter] [applause] >> i am not a cartoonist, and i figured out that you are not high school students. [laughter] >> i apologize for not being able to do this great thing that our cartoonists are doing up here. but, when i am doing up here is that in 30 years, as editor, then as publisher of the nation magazine, only once did the staff march on my office.

in the nation as a bastion of word people, they take ideas very seriously, as those of you who read it know. but when they marched on my office, it was with a petition that demanded that we not publish something. and that something was a cartoon. so, i got very -- let me tell you a little bit about it before i show it to you. i got a call one day from david levine, the great caricaturist who does the caricatures when he was alive for new york review. he was an old friend of mine because when i was in law school many years ago, i started a political satire magazine called "monocle." our motto was in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. our editorial policy was the views of our contributors, no matter how conflicting and contradictory are the views of

the editors, and we signed up a bunch of great cartoonists and caricaturists to do things for the magazines and david levine was one of them. so i knew him from them. he calls one day, and he said that he had done a caricature for new york review books for an article that was coming out about the caribbean basin and it was a caricature of henry kissinger and it was too strong for them. and were we interested. and i said, describe it to me. so he said, it shows henry kissinger on top, and the world in the form of a woman's body on the bottom and henry kissinger is screwing the world. so i said, well david, i'm very interested, but it is going to get me in a lot of trouble. he said, why will it get you in trouble? i don't know, but i know that it will.

[laughter] >> i said send it on down. he sent it down. let's see if we can get it on the screen. here it is. [gasps] [laughter] >> to me, this is a spectacular statement. there is henry kissinger with a view in his face that mingles evil in ecstasy under an american flag blanket. so, i called david up and i said, david, we will run it. two and a half hours later, the petition signed by 24 members of the nation staff and i thought i'd employed only 23 -- [laughter] >> landed on my desk. objecting to our publishing this. so, what i said was, what i will do is call a staff meeting, so i

called the staff meeting to discuss it, and at the beginning of the meeting i said, there are three ground rules to this discussion, the first is, we are not going to take a vote at the end, because, it is wrong to vote on matters of aesthetics. and luckily, nobody asked me why. [laughter] >> the second was that everyone should feel free to say whatever they want to say, but, if you want to make the adjustments for changes in this picture, don't. because it has been given to us on a take it or leave it basis. we can talk about than a minute. and finally, i said, i told david we are going to publish this, that does not mean that we have to publish it if there are good reasons not to. i can rethink that, but it will have the whiff a censorship

about it, just know that. rightly or wrongly. with that is the way into the discussion, we entered the discussion in the most articulate objection, the person give a person at the beginning of the discussion was a young woman who was our assistant circulation manager and she summed up the general objection which is, look, at the nation we're supposed to be fighting against stereotypes, and this cartoon reinforces the stereotype that sex is something that an active male on top does to a passive woman on bottom. and that it is somehow dirty and evil and not nice. so, with that as the basis of the discussion, we had our discussion, and christopher hitchens, who many of you probably know about, then was working for us, he is a british guy who later became more conservative and left.

but he used to wear white suits through the office, and christopher said, i don't think this is an act of sex, i think this is an act of rape. and i think that henry kissinger is forcing himself on this woman. and the young woman who had objected say, i do not agree with you, if you look at her hand on the mattress, it looks to me like the grip of passion. and christopher leaned over to the young woman, gripped her, and said trust me, my dear, it is not the grip of passion. [laughter] so we had the discussion and then i invited david to come back and to have the discussion with the staff, itself. and we went through it a few times, and david -- he was shown no courtesy. david, in my view, was as good as it gets when it comes to caricatures.

you cannot do better and david, quite seriously about his work. you are shown no deference, he was shown no particular respect for what he had done. but, he said all the wrong things. in an office like the nation. for example, he said, i'm just showing what normal people do. the nation is against -- is not against political correctness, the people at the nation, although, i, myself, worry about that a lot. and try not to be a prisoner of political correctness. at the end of it i asked david if he was sorry that he came and he said, no. he said, he has been doing this work for more than 20 years. and he has never had a serious discussion about what he does as he did at the magazine. so he was glad to have that.

the article, the cartoon. we got mail and letters on it from a bunch of cartoonists, praising the cartoon. and saying that they were glad that we ran it. we ran a statement by the staff and the letter from the staff which was the petition that they had originally sent in. we got letters endorsing the staff's point of view, and i sort of forgot about it. i didn't really forget about it, but i put it aside, the nation is a weekly magazine. editing a weekly magazine is a crisis a week. although, not that dramatic. and then, along came what you heard about earlier, the danish mohammed. for the first time, it occurred to me that what the objectors is

that we are objecting to were not political incorrectness, they were objecting to political correctness in the form of a cartoon. of a visual image. because, of what happened in denmark, and i said, let me just look into the history of what has happened to cartoonists in this country. so i started looking at it, and i found that from the very beginning, cartoonists were thrown into prison, they were killed. the leading arab cartoonists of around that time, a man was killed on the streets of london. there were first rumors that he was murdered because of under the order of yasir arafat because of an insulting cartoon that he had run of him. and then, they were rumors that mossad and the

cartoons and they never found out who did it. so, the question that i asked myself is, what is going on here, why do people get so emotionally enraged at these cartoons, which are regarded by the general public as trivial and not serious. and i decided to write my own book about it. the other book had not come out yet, but i was not writing about the danish mohammed, so i included, i did not think the danish mohammed cartoons were great cartoons, but i included one in my book because i wanted to show what the argument was about. and like your editor and publisher, my publisher told me that they were not interested in having me publish this and they gave a series of reasons. i think they boiled it down to what you have already heard. but the official reason was, it would be dangerous.

to people in bookstores, getting blown up the way that charlie hebdo got blown up. or which could be blown up the way that charlie hebdo got blown up. because people all over the world were, indeed, protesting and people have gotten killed in the course of it. for myself, i decided that because it was not a great cartoon, and they had it in there, and as i thought, rightly or wrongly, you could go on the internet and google the cartoons of the danish mohammed anytime you wanted to. for me, it was not a great issue of principle, and also, what we decided to do was we got a cartoon by the french cartoonist, which i wish i'd put up on the board, it is in the book. and his cartoon was you see a

a hand with a pen on it, and it draws a sentence, and the pen says i will not draw mohammed, and that says, i will not, -- i will not draw mohammed about 100 times or a thousand times. and by the time you finish, he has drawn mohammed with the sentence. it seemed to me, the ultimate statements about it because of what it implies. which i hope we can talk about in conversation. so, that is what i'm doing up. no, i am not a cartoonist, thank you very much. [applause] moderator: thank you so much. this a wonderful start. one reason i was excited to be asked to be the moderator was because i seize the opportunity to have a chance to ask you what you thought of something that happened right in the wake of the charlie hebdo attacks. people remember that in the days

and weeks following the attacks, suddenly everybody was a fan of the charlie hebdo magazine even though most of us had never heard of it before. there were facebook people taking on the slogan, je suis charlie. there were rallies and marches. trudeau came out with a provocative statement. gary trudeau is somebody has cartoons have been banned over and over again when they have been controversial. he has been a symbol of what happens when you go too far for an editor or a publisher. sometimes your cartoons get yanked. what he said was surprising. in the wake of those fatal attacks, he said, essentially, just because you can offend somebody, does not mean that you should. he wrote a piece published in the atlantic magazine and he said that when free-speech absolutist have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group,

does not mean that one must. freedom should be discussed in the context of responsibility. it becomes its own kind of fanaticism. it is kind of a rebuke. i'm wondering what you think. i would like hear from everybody, but let's start with signe wilkinson. she has some images to show us. signe: here is another charlie hebdo cover. fort que la haine. love is stronger than hate. can we agree on that? i would hope so. but, look, it is two guys, and look, one of them might be mohammed. here it becomes again, a huge controversy, and this is what as

you said earlier, this is what charlie hebdo did really well, and i think this is a great cartoon, even though under what we have been talking about, it would not be published here because it might offend some sensibilities. when the danish cartoons came out, i of course, immediately, wanted to go in draw mohammed. because i'm a cartoonist. but, my editor said, that's really not quite in our wheelhouse, the daily news is a very local paper, and my editor backed me up on many, many things. so i stewed about it for a while. and a couple of days later i figured out how to put mohammed in a cartoon. my beautiful assistant is a little slow. here we have all -- a big fat book of offensive

religious cartoons. of course that is mohammed, third from the right. i did not get any complaints about this cartoon. essentially, it backs up what you just said. and that is, people complain about stereotypes, but they complain about negative stereotypes, if it is a happy, laughing, jolly mohammed, everybody is down with it. this went around the world's many, many times, again after charlie hebdo and again, nobody came after me, my publication, or my children. so i just think, you have to do what you have to do on these things. i just want to talk a little bit more about the positives and negatives. it is not just about mohammed, it is about all symbols for all religions. i learned this back in 1992 when i was doing -- next image, please.

this is a tiny little drawing that went with a letter to the editor in my newspaper, it is not mostly funny, just an illustration. it was about complaints about palestinians targeting jews. so, the star of david is obviously the scope of this site on the very badly drawn gun. i was a younger cartoonist then, and i have improved. but i'm no david levine. i drew that, and about three months later, we were in the midst of a senate campaign where a local woman was running against -- back to the clarence thomas hearings, but he was a pennsylvania senator and he was in trouble by this woman who had a lot of steam. so, his camp started a whispering campaign about her

being anti-semitic because one time, somebody at her presbyterian church had spoken who is a palestinian, a bad guy. so, therefore, she was, herself, anti-semitic. so, i drew this little cartoon. it went with letters on the subject. all hell broke loose. this tiny little drawing got me into more trouble than pretty much any other thing, will not any other thing, but many other things that i've ever drawn. people called me feminism's own goring and other little, mild invectives like that. people came in and asked for my -- that i could be better off in advertising. something like that. we had an entire page of letters

that went after me, personally. and the newspaper. but, they went after me saying that the star of david is always off-limits because it is a religious symbol, sacred to the jews. let's go back, back one. this one, star of david, perfectly ok, nobody commented. because, and this one, the next one, because the people who are upset did not agree with the point of the cartoon. so again, it is the point that you are making earlier, it is how the symbol is used. if one bans the symbol, you cannot use it either way. you cannot use it for the positive or the negative. and you cannot let one group on wn a symbol. sorry. the cross is available for all christians, it is available for everyone.

if somebody does something in the name -- something bad in the name of christianity, the cross ought to be able to be used as a symbol and a cartoon about it. so, my line in all of these things is, if you do not want your prophet used in a negative cartoon, do not do negative things in the name of your prophet. [applause] signe: here is the newspaper. one more. last one. just to reinforce where we came from as a country. this is a joseph kepler cartoon from the early 1890's i think, 1870's. it is the vanity, the religious vanity fair.

and it has, it mocks every single religion at the time, mohammed was not involved because mohammed and the followers to not start immigrating here until the 1890's, although some were slaves. here, we have the jew on the left, presbyterian, catholic, mormons, even if episcopalian, he got into this. even the free love, guru at the time, it says free love, your road to heaven. this is our heritage. we look skeptically at all religions. and as new religions come to the united states, they must join this religious vanity fair.

for the good, and for the bad. thank you. [applause] >> i had one reservation about this. first i should confess, i was brought up in a kosher household where my mother kept three sets of dishes, one dairy, one me, and one for my father's bacon. [laughter] >> my view -- the thing that i don't know that i agree with you on, is there a famous aesthetician philosopher who said that the caricature is in the business of mythologizing the world by physiognomy rising it.

he said this amalgam, diffusion, appeals to the emotional mind, and it speaks to the emotional mind. and i think, and he gave us his example, of robert pitt, that he was a, you could say that they were a parasite, but then he sites a cartoon showing somebody as a toadstool, because of a toadstool on the crown of england. to me, it is not just that it is negative, that causes the reaction, it is the amalgam, this fusion that brilliant cartoonists achieve, and caricatures achieve, and that the nation, i think of another dispute that we had over a cartoon, it did not happen the

way levine happened, but it was a robert grossman cartoon, and when a book came out saying that abraham lincoln might be gay, robert grossman did a cartoon of abraham lincoln, it was not a negative cartoon about lincoln, but it showed lincoln with his hatchet, and it showed him with breasts and a woman's body and fishnet stockings. and we got a lot of complaints about it, including some from doug ireland, who is a friend and a contributor. what he is saying that to be a gay person -- gay man is to have a woman inside of your body and this is so discredited and so unreal, the nation is out of it and does not understand this statement. and grossman says, he wrote back saying, he was sorry if you offended him, but for him, as a

cartoonist, all it was when he heard about this book was the babe lincoln and his image came into his mind. the question is, were we right are wrong to publish it, i think they were right to publish it. but i understood the anger of people who felt that they were a part of a discriminated minority and who we heard about before with trudeau who said that cartoonist punch up, and this is not a case of punching up, it was a case of punching. so, that is what i have to say. >> as we now know, from this year's political campaign, white men are the discriminated against class. so, as far as i am concerned, under your rules, i cannot try draw white man anymore. [laughter] >> can i change my rules? [laughter]

moderator: is he right that they went too far and you can go too far? joel: that statement coming as it did in the aftermath of charlie hebdo was widely interpreted by many of not most other cartoonist as having a subtext which was basically, they had it coming. a lot of us were stunned and angry that year he had written that. and he went on a smooth it over tour on television. and it culminated, at least for me, in a panel similar to this at the national cartoonist society, which is not political cartoonists, but an umbrella group of comic strip writers and greetings card people and animators. and a very big, big group of disparate cartoonists. i got to be on this panel with gary and a couple of others.

he did not back down from it, he did repeat as victor said, that he thought, and he is quite right, we're not supposed to -- we're supposed to punch up. pick on powerful people. but, that the second, third generation algerians and other former french colonists who were living on the outskirts of terrorists and not assimilating well, that it was picking on them. but, my viewpoint was, when somebody has a gun, that changes the whole power thing. so, anyway, i said to them, i was going to start my own religion that were shipped -- one of his characters and anybody who draws him, is in for some trouble. [laughter] joel: he did not think it was that funny. neither did they, really. moderator: one more question, and we will open it up to questions from the audience. i would like to hear you speak about the current presidential

campaign. this will be brief. what has struck me is what a rich what struck me is, what a rich target donald trump is for cartoonists, and how some cartoonists have made a whole industry this year and drawing donald trump as a buffoon, a clown, someone preposterous. but suddenly, his campaign has taken on quite a dark turn. there has been violence. donald trump was on television this morning threatening that if the republican party tried to deny him the nomination, even if he is in within reach of sufficient delegates, "we would have riots,." this is from threatening - -- would have riots." this feels like a different kind of race here. does it change the way you feel about drawing him, if the prospect of violence as already happened at some of his rallies?