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?

it is not funny. what do you do with that? joel: first of all, i think cartoonists made the same mistake. we are not prognosticators. to think he was a buffoon, thinking he would be next -- gone and next week or next fall. okay, in four years. [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 political campaigns in general over 30 years. day to 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 ou john,, -- you have drawn,

if everybody on the field does that that day, your whole body of work is not that great. you get to the end of the year and realize you did not draw anything about world population, not educating girls, polluting the oceans, or whatever your favorite topics are. it can be a distraction. >> how many people here like cartoons about donald trump? [laughter] mean, people react to them. as i 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. really, the significance of the cartoonist is best felt in their home country. they really feel it there. i try not to do what joel is saying is a temptation. i was drawing yesterday, the day of the election, i did not know how it would turn out, so i did

a local cartoon. while i was drawing it, the publisher walked by and said you are doing donald trump, aren't you? [laughter] and i said, no. maybe i should do donald trump. there is always a push and pull on that. i do think we have a responsibility to draw them as we see them. as we see him more and more as a hands up-type a dictator, waiting, i think that's something good that we can draw. his visual and reminds people what we have been in the past. mr. pett: a hands-down winner is what she meant. it is going to be beautiful. [laughter] ms. wilkinson: we have drawn all these cartoons, and he is still running. [laughter] maybe i should turn and be nice to him. moderator: let's take some questions from the audience.

we will start with you. thank you. as repulsive as donald trump is, one thing he has mentioned time and time again, is political correctness. his interpretation may be different than ours, but i would like to ask you about two events that were politically correct. and i think it is dangerous for the country. right after charlie hebdo, and i dvr cbs and pbs news hour every night. cbs during that week showed a number of covers and photographs of mohammed cartoons. nbc said that out of respect for our muslim brothers, we will not show any of these. i thought that was really pandering and disgusting of nbc and sent off a couple of 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, white females, score 2 points 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. i felt, if that 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 have cartoons done about that? ms. wilkinson: it is true what you said, that after the charlie

hebdo there was a parody playing out on various networks. some networks literally censoring, that was one situation. they went wild in re-postings online. i pulled up an interview and the cover and the camera person said , you can't show that! what happened was, on the one hand, these images are everywhere. it became a resistance movement. the argument behind that has been, that we are just going to continue to make pictures because pictures don't count. -- pictures don't kill, you kill . i have a fair amount of sympathy for that. i also have sympathy for the argument that cartoonists cannot be racists, or put out

anti-semitic cartoons. or cartoons that the great black people. that used to be quite prevalent in european and in 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. it helped stereotype them by saying that they would implode upon income checked with those images. that was not true. all the broadcasting networks 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. in some regards, it was certainly not helping her in the field. the question is, does larry summers have free speech to say anything that comes into his mind when he is the president? yes, he has free speech is a private person, but not as a president. nor do i have free speech to say anything that comes into my mind. i am obligated to speak on the basis of fat ant -- of fact and evidence. if i want to have private views that may be repulsive, i have the freedom to say that. but i cannot mix that up with my authority.

there was a lot more to it than that one remark. >> if i heard the questioner right, he implied that summers have some facts at his disposal. ms. klausen: the statistics are very complicated in the sense that it is not self-evidently true that women scored lower in science. there have been remarks between women's brains and males brains. this is a legitimate topic for research. i remind you that larry summers is an economist and not a neuroscientist. it was an undiplomatic remark. i thin we should all get a free pass on undimmed by the remarks

every once in a while. >> did nbc answer your e-mails? >> thank you for your observation. moderator: the man in the back. >> i want to reinforce something that the person who had trouble with getting your book published. before charlie hebdo, my wife and i were visiting a friend in paris who was a lawyer. he wanted to see a documentary movie that had just come out. the movie was called, "the title of the offensive cover." translated freely as "it is really tough when you are in love with shitheads." meaning the cover was not trying to denigrate muslims but criticize 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 own a copy. 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. they 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 his religion. it is a great documentary, and i

think it reinforces the comments you have been making up there. moderator: yes, sir. >> i am a poet. i frequently write things not to be published, but because i'm interested in saying what i think or 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 it. 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? >> that is a good question. [laughter] that is a question i have never received before. >> no, my other. -- my either. of really badot poetry. [laughter]

the other thing that poetry has in common with the cartoonist, is that you can't paraphrase it and communicate what it really is. you have a kinship, it seems to me. ms. wilkinson: i have done cartoons that are still sitting my desk from 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 am drawing too small, and it is a big family circulation newspaper. >> but because you are concerned it is too controversial? that you are overstepping a boundary that you set for yourself? mr. pett: i did it recently, in fact. i thought it was hilarious but utterly tasteless. involved 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] ms. wilkinson: the funny thing about naked male anatomy, family newspapers still to this day, we subscribe to that 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 do not 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 line is between free speech and good taste? >> good taste? [laughter] >> there must be times when you say, i would really like to draw this but i don't think i should. mr. pett: we all do the same. 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 call it self-censorship, but everybody conducts

themselves in civilized society in some way. with some kind of -- well, well some people don't. [laughter] there is no asperger's school of cartooning. [laughter] that's really offensive, i'm sorry. i apologize to the asperger's society -- [laughter] you see what i mean. the same reason you don't chase everybody out of every dinner party you go to buy learning out stuff -- to go to by blurting out stuff. moderator: the man at the end. >> i have an inside baseball question. to what extent is it important or unimportant to the state of your profession that the records 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?" ms. wilkinson: why do you write them and find out and call us immediately? >> they never respond. [laughter] mr. pett: it is infuriating, neither the new york times nor the wall street journal, the two biggest and best papers in the country, i think, have cartoons or even publish other cartoons. the times used to run a weekly ghetto of cartoons, but they stopped at around five years ago. and that was the number one complaint they got from their readers. when the redesigned that section, what happened to the cartoons? two columns about it and went eh, no thanks. for me in kentucky, but for everybody, if you're can tune was reprinted -- your cartoon was reprinted in the new york times and had an extra audience of one million smart people,

that is out of circulation of 3 million-- \ [laughter] that's 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 can tell from the typography they had cut it 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. "the new york 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, this type of newspaper clinical cartoon. -- newspaper political cartoon and it is not entirely because , of dwindling circulation of

papers or even timidity among 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 does occasionally, on theironline edition, puit cartoonist for the international addition -- he's a terrific cartoonist, but it is online. i don't know how often it's on. i must not see it every time. i am just going to ditto everything joel said. if you look at newspapers, tv, 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, like our platform is disappearing under it. it is a physical thing as well. we all put our cartoons up online, joelpett.com, and i hope you come and subscribe to them online, but it is a very different experience. you can't cut them out and put them on your refrigerator. at any rate, we have all mourned the loss. we hope that with change will come a return to the editorial cartoons. so thanks for raising it. >> they do run the longform piece by brian mcfadden, just to be accurate. i don't know why i care about

accuracy all of a sudden. [laughter] ms. wilkinson: if everybody in this room wrote to "the new york times," tonight, maybe we would have a chance. [laughter] >> i'm wondering more broadly then the new york times, has the shrinkage of the newspaper industry had been wholly negative for cartoonists, or the advent of the internet, has a given you, between websites and twitter and everything else, hasn't it also provided new outlets and bigger audiences for your cartoons, or does it not work that way? ms. wilkinson: lots of outlets, just no inlets. nowhere where people are paying for it. [laughter] mr. pett: 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. we have jobs, but for 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 there was an eight year learning curve where i just was not very good, but had the luxury of somebody saying "keep doing it every day and get better." and i think that is not. -- and i think that is going. it's >> it is very easy for me to see how the sports reporter working on deadline at the end of a baseball game can work on a story. have you folks come up with your cartoons on a deadline, 3-4 times a week? how do you get your ideas, what generates your juices flowing?

ms. wilkinson: i go to ideas.com-- [laughter] and when that does not work, i actually read the newspaper. i personally find great 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 reporters and writers who do the heavy lifting in the papers. that is where a lot of my ideas come from. that, and i row early in the 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. it is easier than ever to get information. you can have it spoon fed to you by subject matter, all day, every day. there is an avalanche of it, and it makes it easier than ever. although, with fewer and fewer actual reporters, you have to have confidence in the information, which is more and more difficult. it is also easier to do the research. years ago, i was writing about brown versus board of education. i needed to know what a 1954 cool bus would look like. 30 years ago, that would take you half a day in the library, if you could find it. now, just search "1954 schoolbus." five seconds, there it is. i need another angle -- bump -- perfect.

that is a minor miracle. >> regarding information on the internet, it is not fact-checked with the rigor of other things, in print so you get a degraded , type of journalism at this point. the great thing about cartoons and caricatures, is that they can be unfair in that you are only presenting one side of the issue. they are by definition, exaggerations, 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. >> brilliant. [applause] moderator: i think we have room for one more question. one or two. >> how do you define the difference between exercising editorial judgment and censorship?

>> as an editor, not just me, but your job is to make a static, political, and other judgments. you try to not have those judgments influenced by what i would regard as illegitimate criteria. and what i regard as illegitimate criteria -- racist criteria, political correctness criteria, i can give you a long list, and you will purge yourself of those impulses. if you work for someone else, as 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 he represents -- to influence how you make those decisions. and i 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. i think it is a luxury of an american context to think that you can talk about censorship in of sort of modular way something that you do yourself. something -- censorship is something done to you. censorship is when you get eaten up because ofen something that you printed because of outside influences. there is a fair amount of on scene and indirect censorship that is actually part of

corporate decision-making. that has gotten far worse in the age of the internet. we tend to think of the internet 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. the bbc has a tremendously difficult time figuring out what is permissible speech, and how to regulate speech, because it is a global news media corporation. and what is interesting to me is to listen to local context. a lot of cartoonists missed the local context. 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 anymore. that has had a huge feedback

loop in publishing and in the corporate world, as well as exaggerated fear. there is a tendency to think if 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", stereotypes, that you have not attend yourself to thinking about what you are doing. there is the deliberation you have. hopefully you push again for normative ideas about what you can or what you cannot do. that is political correctness.

and that is why i was shocked by gary trudeau's remark. it seems to hand that judgment is somebody else than the author of the cartoon, or the writer, but i don't think we should confuse those deliberations with what is actually real censorship. >> just one more thing, i like your point about context. because those danish cartoons were taken way out of context. when they hit america, almost no newspapers reprinted it. however, the austin -- the " austin statesman , but nothing it happened, because no one knew

they were supposed to be upfront about it. by the time it came to philadelphia, there was a furor, and the philadelphia inquirer decided to run one of the controversial cartoons. she put it inside the paper, in a box, with an explanation on this side of it, saying, 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, it led to op-eds back-and-forth for many, many days and weeks, and it also led to an interface movement developing in the city of philadelphia, which is now quite robust. when issues arise in the city, like somebody through a pig's

head in front of a mosque after the paris attacks, there was a whole group who came to ameliorate the situation. this is what has been, in my experience, a controversial cartoon, even like the one i showed with the star of david, leads to controversy, and then back-and-forth on the issue. and the issue becomes much 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. so, that is another reason i

think we have to go toward trusting the audience, and trusting people to be able to handle things in a civil way, as you said here, in the council on humanities. moderator: thank you so much. this was quick. we are out of time. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, a public policy fellow at the wilson center will be with us, talking about the latest developments in the syria refugee migrations into the u.s. and europe. and then, a health-care reporter for politico. she will discuss the latest on the rollout of the affordable care act, plus the ongoing challenges to the law. live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. next, a look at the

recent terror attacks in belgium, and how europe is dealing with terrorists and refugees. we will hear from constitutional lawyer constanze stelzenmuller, who attended a conference in dallas-fort worth on thursday. this is an hour. >> good 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 thankful to join pegasus bank. pegasus bank is our major sponsor for this program. [applause] >> as you know, both of our organizations have focused on education with high school students. and today, we have students from

several high schools. if i could ask all the students to stand and be recognized. i hope you have hard questions. [applause] >> our program today could not be more timely or relevant. just two days after the tragic terrorist attack 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 christian democratic party suffered defeats into out of three states, and the leading newspaper called the results "black sunday for conservatives." other right-wing parties also increased turnout, with voters deciding the refugee crisis as a major reason for their votes. with such uncertainty, you now know why we are so fortunate to have with us dr. constanze stelzenmuller. she is the inaugural robert bosch senior fellow with the

center on the united states in 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's kennedy school of , and her doctorate -- school of government, and her doctorate from the university at bohn. 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." ladies and gentlemen, would you please give a warm welcome to dr. constanze stelzenmuller. [applause]

thank you for being here. dr. stelzenmuller: thank you for the fabulously warm welcome, and the beautiful state of texas. it is my second or third visit to texas in my lifetime. as always, fault -- far too short. i can only say i am thrilled to get out of the beltway. [laughter] >> i can only 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. dear 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. in fact, the title i gave her host when they asked me for one was "storm over europe." theatrical enough to get your attention and general enough to cover a lot of issues, to the 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, terrorists 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. on wednesday, the state department 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 your questions, of which i am sure there will be many, because there will be many things unaddressed, because this is truly one of the most complicated public policy issues in europe. my four questions are, what happened on tuesday in brussels? why did it happen there? what can and what needs to be done to fix the problem about terrorism in europe? and what does this mean for america and relations between united states and europe? and yeah, i have 25 minutes. [laughter] you will find that i will make certain stark assertions, which you can please feel free to question in q&a. i will say up front i have no easy answers, and i guarantee you, none of them involve a waterboarding, nor would you get them if you waterboarded me. [laughter]

>> these are really complex issues that cuts to the most serious problems of national and international governance of our time. i believe that anybody who otherwise is probably a populist rat catcher, trying to bring up our worst fears to get votes, money, whatever. but i do hope i can set out some propositions for further discussion at the end. let me start with my first question. what happened this tuesday? three days ago, bombs were detonated within an hour at the airport in the belgian capital of brussels, as well as in the central subway station. the bomb at the airport was particularly large. this is 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 who was killed there. as of today, 31 people have died

as a result, including two of the bombers. the fourth appears to be wounded. more than 140 people were left injured, and the perpetrators, as far as we know, were men, belgian citizens, muslims, and of second generation south african dissent. the islamic state has taken responsibility for the attacks. authorities are saying that four men carried out the attacks, three of whom are dead, one is still being fought. and there appears to be a connection between the paris bombing attacks of november 2015. the most recent case in which a european captured city was at the center of of such an attack. because of the size and the scale and organization of the attacks, it appears increasingly likely there is a much larger jihadi cell and network behind the four men, very likely to transcend national borders.

while i.s. is taking responsibility, it may be quite a while before we know the motivations of these four individuals. it seems likely, though, that this particular act was already being planned and brought forth because of the arrest and ongoing investigation of one of parisrrorist suspects -- suspects. these attacks were brought forward either in retaliation, or to preempt detection. brussels, of course, with more than 3 million inhabitants, is home to a substantial muslim population, mostly originating from northern african countries, also in libya, turkey, and further east. there is also a sub-saharan minority, with colonies in congo, rwanda, and burundi.

they host the organs of the european union, the commission of the european parliament, as well as that counsel, and nato headquarters. it is the seat of many embassies, think tanks, several thousands of europeans from other member states lived there, 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. that is probably true. as a city, brussels is an kind of an -- brussels is kind of 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, the overall scrubbing is. yness.uff

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 food, the latter being something that belgians take extremely seriously. much like the big apple, its citizens defend it fiercely. to call it a hellhole, as some have done, is is wide of the mark. 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 was at a conference there last weekend, and i flew out of the international airport on sunday, less than 48 hours before the attack. most of my acquaintances and friends are safe, as far as i two close friends were in a taxi queue at the airport when the bomb went off. this is not just an abstraction for me, it is about our loved ones, friends, neighborhoods,

and our cities. it is also about europe as a civilization, a policy, and a project. the attack on tuesday morning, like previous attacks in europe, are an attack on all of europe, and all europeans. that brings me to my second question, why did this happen? and why in brussels? as i said, it is going to be a while before we learn about the individual motivation of the four guys who carried the suitcases and made them detonate. but the larger question is, why do 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 all, as a misanthropic, and in many ways, anti-islamic death cult? after all, the brussels attacks follow a pattern of bomb attacks

by al qaeda and other affiliated groups, intended to strike at the heart of european life. i will remind you, madrid in two dozen four, london in 2005, and paris twice in 2015. inmadrid in 2004, london 2005, and paris twice in 2015. some of the announcements published in recent days, most of european muslims are in ghettos. 50 million or so are decent, hard-working people, are often citizens of their countries in the 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 murderous oppression, and they despise organizations like isis and al qaeda. that is important to keep in mind. still, it is equally true that ghettoized communities do exist in europe, and they are problems. the reasons why they exist, very -- they should never be

generalized, but there are recurring factors. postcolonial resentment, citizenship without education, social inclusion, or economic old -- economic opportunity, or alternatively, guestworker status solidified into multigenerational homes without citizenship. or simply, a life of illegality, lived in daily fear of being picked up and returned to an even worse like. the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings are willing to endure some form of this for decades speaks to the abject misery of the conditions they left behind. but it is also a european failure. add to this, 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 that the great majority of these refugees are

sanctuary, not on creating harm, but they are easily abused. no doubt, some are vulnerable as potential tools. -- some made the in reality may the in reality terrorist infiltrated. but this situation is heightened by the there is own abilities and lack of sorption -- lack of absorption capabilities from the countries these people migrate to, from declining industries, joblessness, and complete lack of experience, whereas -- 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 the divisions created by the global financial crisis of 2008. some countries in europe are

seeing a slow recovery, but others are still grappling with the hardships created. belgium, unfortunately, is something of a special case. daniel benjamin, a former colleague of mine at brookings and the former town or terrorism coordinator for the state department -- former counterterrorism coordinator for the state department a few years back, now teaches at dartmouth, had a recent political piece, where he said that foreign to -- 470,000 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 belgium's 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 government that could have set up the policies

or stronger security services, much less funded them, for 541 days, it did not even have a government. that was longer than it took to form a government in iraq. some authors, who have far greater expertise than i have in matters of intelligence and counterterrorism, such as my brookings colleague, have said cutting things 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 address belgium's deeper government issues. this is not to suggest that this could only happen or will only happen in belgium. most of us in europe, including my own country, germany, are looking at all of this and

wondering whether we, having 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 had the perfect answer i would not be here, i would be working hard in a windowless cellar in some european capital. but i do have a couple ideas 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 course -- this discussion always has an element of the hypothetical, the counterfactual, when you listen to people writing op-eds now about what needs to be done. if only be belgian police and intelligence services had better surveillance capabilities of what was clearly a brewing jihadi threat, if only merkel had not opened german borders to

refugees, if only obama had bombed syria's dictator, if only europeans had taken more responsibility for peace and stability in the middle east, if only all muslims could be sent out of the country into we -- until we figure out what the , i think manyon of these are not helpful as secular -- singular policy prescriptions. by saying that, i am being polite. they have a kernel of truth, but the roots of the problem are far more complex. and i think we do them and ourselves an injustice if we pretend that there are simple solutions. i think it is already a start, if we understand that any approach to containing, managing, and minimizing the problem, and that may be as good as it gets, have to simultaneously occur three levels. the nation-state, europe, and europe's relations with its neighborhood and the rest of the world. if that sounds like a tall

order, of course it does. at the nationstate level, it is easy for me to stand here in texas and say that belgium needs to address its security problems, and we do better at integrating muslim minorities. of us,ought to know, all and germany ought to know, from our experiences of nation building elsewhere, or in my case, nation building at home, or democracy building at home, which we had to do quite a lot of after 1945, it is essentially a governance problem, will not it will not only not solve the problem, but will often make it worse. as shocking as this may sound, i think what we now in the west have to understand and face, is that we have mistakenly assume d that western-style democracies are fundamentally stable. that rule of law, representative institutions, and a functioning social contract are things we

can take for granted. dance --ey take a dent from time to time, they are capable of self repairing. 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 powers and pressures to bear on the nationstate. i have to say, one of the most compelling and moving analysis that i have read in this problem was in a book from 2014 which chronicled the lives of a dozen or so americans over a half decade, and describes how their lives are affected by things like the subprime mortgage crisis and a host of other factors. the common theme of all their lives is the legitimization of institutions, and the politics. the widening between the rich and the poor, the hollowing out of the middle class, and the individuals losing control of

their livelihood in their lives, despite their best efforts. i cite this not to take a cheap dig 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 described our problems we will have to deal with. and for the first time in my life, as a security and foreign-policy analyst, i have come to understand our essential preconditions and limitations on the ability of governments to foreign andctive national security policy. that is where we're at, and it is deeply serious. is the first time people are thinking about this. in fact, i would give you another avenue at this.

the case of belgium is uncomfortably like the case of greece. the reason why the german government and a dozen others in the eu is worried about the dire state of the greek economy, and this financial crisis, was something that is described as contagion. this is something that any banker will know, because 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, and because of the deep mutual integration of european economies, the vulnerability of one state meant the vulnerability of all. i did not like the intransigent style of germany's finance 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 lasting reforms, reforms that would benefit normal greek citizens. and the truth 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 own backyard, think puerto rico, headed for defaults. this is possible, and it is possible in other places as well. and it is a result of things falling apart in ways that maybe we have not paid enough attention to. that brings me to the european level, which is often invoked when people want to solve problems they can't solve the national level. the irony and the demented -- and the dilemma of belgium is internal security is a

jealously guarded national prerogative. whereas in the treaty, the fundamental document, the articles of union for europe, sees an important role for european corporations in external security, or domestic -- external security. domestic security, has been firmly kicked out of the purview of the european union. that said, i don't want to give you the impression that the european union has remained disconnected. a lot of european states, they have really upgraded their intelligence and police capabilities as well as their cooperation and intelligence sharing among each other, and with the united states, by the way. that confrontons european police and border security have been upgraded, so we are very far away from where we were 50 years ago.

still, there 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 perceptions, and above all, different technical human and institutional capabilities. again, if this seems weird to you, think of the difference between texas and vermont. you at least have the same language. although i wonder sometimes. given the fact that we have different languages, it is astounding how much we have been able to accomplish. one reason for that is the shared memory of war and deprivation and the shared memory of poverty. and the shared memory that some of our cultures, not just the eastern european countries, but

spain, greece, and portugal which were right-wing and nearly fascist dictatorships have become democracies in the course of being numbers of the european union. these are remarkable achievements. they are i think would gives life to the project still. it is easy to stand here, or in say, like the premier and we need more european integration. we need european intelligence. we need european security union. it is lovely. it would be a good thing. personally, i deeply believe that if we want to preserve the european project under the conditions of globalization, and the external shocks that we are refugees -- four refugees and others, we need

rules and policy. on fiscal policy, managing refugees and domestic security. we need that. ,nyone who champions this cause this is what they should do -- they have to be aware that such ideas have opponents. for example in poland or hungry notungary, which should escape communism to become part of yet another super national enterprise. -- theyr some people think of that is not much different than the warsaw pact. there are people that think that. one has to understand, if we do go ahead with this, this could impotencece to the -- to the brits, or who wants the

eu to break up. there are in fact serious discussions underway in some of the old western countries. such as belgium, netherlands, luxembourg, some people in germany. some people from the baltic states who are wondering whether in case of a brexit they should not just join a smaller union where cultures are sufficiently close to forge ahead. i worry about this. i worry it would leave more vulnerable, poor countries behind. i am personally not a fan. this kind of thinking shows you how consultative the questions are. any politician that was to promote this kind of thing, deeper integration will have to proceed with caution and make

the case persuasively. europecouple of words on and the neighborhood. it is also, i think, self hopent that europe cannot to resolve the issue without playing a larger role in the security of northern africa and the middle east. several european countries are participating in the us-led footholdo deny i.s. a in syria and iraq. my country has been training with the kurds and iraq. if anyone knows the history of my country, that is startling. , this is not the time to engage in a conference of critique. on in the going middle east, and he was doing what right or wrong. i will make two sobering observations. one is that our efforts to hit hard at i.s. and come to a

settlement in syria, to take the pressure off the refugee issue from the other end have forced us, the u.s., but also europe, into bed with problematic partners, saudi arabia, turkey, and russia. we are making copper mice is with unpleasant people. that undermines our legitimacy. let there be no mistake. one of the reasons we are dealing with an increased return of so-called foreign fighters returning to europe is precisely the fact that the coalition has been successful in denying i.s. attempt to establish itself as a territorial state. so, what does this mean for relations between u.s. and europe? my final question. i read down a lot of points that i will spare you. i am aware of the passage of time.

i will try to be short and sustained. ct.succint for any of you who read the piece in politico you are aware the u.s. has a -- less of a islamic problem in europe. for the sun will that american muslims seem to be far better integrated. there has been more work done in doing that. there has been greater attempt at bringing -- building trust between muslim communities and governments. there is of course also very little truly uncontrolled immigration. -- our problem is not quite your problem. we do not share the same issues in the same way. think, also entitled, i this is something i have felt for a long time, you are entitled to ask us to take

care of our own problems more than we have in the past. to share a greater burden for our own security for which we ought to be grateful for most of the cold war. you have a right to expect us to help you bear the burden of protecting the international order that all of our disparity in peace depends on around the world. that said,. let me add one final point, you also have legitimate security interest elsewhere in the world. saying, youest in europeans take care of your own neighborhoods. we have other things to do elsewhere. we cannot expect you to help us. all of that is there enough. -- fair enough. i have sympathy for ordinary americans tired of war and wary of new entitlement. -- entitlements. lements.g

unless you take the line that america should pull out of europe, there are important reasons for america to stay engaged with europe because many of our concerns are euros as well. -- are yours as well. stability in the middle east. stability of energy supplies. stability of northern africa. what happens to russia? all of these are first order strategic concerns for america. our ability to deal with that, to share the burden, to take on a greater responsibility for all a strategicot just interest for us, it is also one of yours. it is are we have significant overlap. is since one of the host also the american jewish committee, the security of israel is also an interest we have. a burning concern. one where we would want to work together. for those of you who do business with europeans, i don't have to

remind you that the economies are integrated. through investment, jobs, plants, factories, you name it. what happens in europe has an impact on the american economy and vice versa. finally, i feel it is not need to be said, but i will anyway, we share important values. there is nobody else that shares your values the same way we do. i think in many ways we are truly bound at the hip. i would say even in a day and age where hard power does not go , havings it used to good allies who share the same values and who can handle results and problems effectively is a good thing to have, even for a superpower like america. so in some i think there is a

great deal we have to talk about and to be worried about together. think there is a great deal that we can ask you for advice about and use your help for. certain, only if europe resolves its own security dilemmas will we be apple to join the united states in providing stability and security on a global level. we need to do the have a lift -- heavy lifting ourselves. we need coordinate with you because some of -- so many of our interests overlap. one final point valid for all of the terroristat once more than anything else is for us to overreact severely. in other words, to act, to deny our own values. to deny values that inform our constitutionality. as anant to use that

excuse for the next attack. if we betray those values while fighting, we have lost the game. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. [applause] take questions from the audience. before we do that, we have a tradition to give a student the first question. sabrina from the parish of fiscal school -- applicable school says here in the u.s. there has been a lot of conversation about nader and the cost to the -- about nato and the cost of the american people. is it still important in europe? why has it not paid a more decisive -- decisive role? that is anmuller: good question. it is not as though the candidate was the first to question the value of nato to

america. there is a whole school of realist thinking in american political thought he goes back to the beginning of the cold war the questions that. that is legitimate. unfortunately the first sentence is, it is complicated. nato was invented as the military armor of the transatlantic alliance to deal with one threat. the threat emanating from russia during the cold war to contain and deter it. at the time when can -- when that i used to call overkill studies, and other words you are counting divisions, warheads, and tanks and trying to calculate how much you would have to and need to deter the other went -- one from

acting first. with the resurgence of aggression from russia in the last two years, particularly the annexation of crimea, let there be no mistake, the for minting of unrest in europe through what the intelligence call hybrid warfare, trolling on social media, funding a fascist parties, undermining of legitimacy of politicians and media, that has acquired this new urgency. it has a slightly new -- the emphasis has shifted. we still need old-fashioned territorial defense. we still need to be able to deter the russians from ever thinking they could possibly natocross the line into territory. redlinethe biggest there is, there can be no question that is nonnegotiable.

which is why, and head to the summit in warsaw in july this year, people are planning feverishly to make sure that nato and the preparations are adequately serious and that is conveyed to russia. nato still has a purpose there. it is very important. if nato were not there, i do not want to thank -- think what things would look like. that said, i also think within that context europeans need to carry more weight. to some degree we are. the germans are saying they are increasing their defense budget by a staggering amount. they are participating in reassurance efforts. i will not bore you with details. there is effort. the question of using nato against terrorist is more difficult because as i tried to

explain, the terrorist problem is a domestic problem in europe. -- has addressed border threats. terrorist are essentially a threat to deal with by police. there is not much you can do with tanks. thereher problem is that have been internal discussions betweento -- in nato states whether it would make sense to use nato as a framework of the attacks on isis. prevent them from gaining a territorial foothold in the middle east and terrifying the rest of the region into submission. i think the coalition of the willing that is currently running at operation is an expression of and i wouldn't -- unspoken decision to not go down that route. large membership is so

with its 27, 28? this is embarrassing. i think it is 28. it is far easier to marshal support politically for something as obvious as a territorial threat on nato's borders. for for strikes -- than strikes by fighter planes and special forces. supported by intelligence deep in the middle east. that is politically in many ways so sensitive. it is also sensitive for other middle eastern governments that i suspect you would not find a -- tel aviv. rehab somewhat wonky explanation. there is aline is good reason for nato to still exist.

don't expect that would be solving all security problems. let's take questions from the audience. >> what will happen to these refugees scattered in europe? i sometimesuller: wonder if i know the current policy. it is so difficult to understand just what is happening at what level. i think that is true, even in europe. it is also true the number of european or eu level approaches have failed. such as an attempt spearheaded by the germans to get every eu country to agree to take and refugees -- in refugees, where particularly eastern european countries said they would not do it. after the polish government, which had promised to take in 600 said, we're not doing that.

at any given moment this is a bit of a kaleidoscope. think it is going to be a mixture of a number of approaches. trying to integrate people who we think we can integrate. there are good reasons for doing that, including demographic. we are trying to close down the illegal trade route. the trafficking route across the mediterranean which has led to so many tragic losses. with this new agreement with turkey where we are saying we will ask turkey to take refugees that came illegally. but her every refugee became legal we will take one that has escaped. that is an attempt to dry up the

trafficking networks. there are so many obstacles on so many levels that most icy are saying it will never work. i am hoping it will. i think of the many plans i have seen, this is an intelligent way of trying to get this. the reality is. that we are only going to be able to integrate a small minority of the people. a number will be sent back either immediately or after, hopefully, conditions in their countries of origin become less violent. example, if that happened --, what this happened during a past war. orchestrator's of the bosnian genocide was sentenced to 40 years in prison today.

i can say, deservedly. i covered those hearings. he truly is one of the worst war criminals that europe has seen the century. -- this century. those refugees came from the hundreds of thousands. germany took in 300,000. which by our standards, was the biggest historically. a small number of those remained. the largest went back after the dayton agreement in 1995. that enable people to go back. some were pushed to go back. -- iccompanied some accompanied some. they have led to something good. croatia is one of the parties of the developed -- they are a member of the european union. the 28th.

, also a major war party is on its way to the bishop. -- membership. sometimes, unlikely as it may seem, at the time that one speaks of these things, it is possible for conflicts to end and peace to return. in syria, that is hard to imagine. that is why i suspect that we may have to work a little harder at integrating syrian refugees than others. the neighboring states, turkey, jordan, and lebanon are buckling under the strain. we need to take some of that off. this is not resolved in my view by putting up bridges. that is impossible in europe. our borders are too long and complicated. they are not defensible. jim falk: we have time for two

more questions. >> i have spent a lot of time in europe in the military and also in -- as an international executive. you said something a little while ago which i think is important, that was the matter of shared values. shared values should be looked at carefully both in europe and the u.s.. going specifically to the today, ie are facing am reminded of a very famous meeting that took place shortly ther world war ii by chancellor and i believe president degaulle, at the end of the conference, they walked to the cathedral hand in hand, dnelt at the altar and aske god for forgiveness because -- for the conflicts between germany and france. that was the beginning of a conference that called for germans graduating from top

schools to spend their last year in france, and for frenchman spending their college years in france to spend their last year in germany. it was so they could get to know each other. i was in germany and france and i met people from both areas who had never gone outside of their own village. -- anyhow,e germans the question i have is this -- should not france and germany be leaders in getting this effort together in europe and moving forward? dr. stelzenmuller: i can only a test that what we you -- what you describe is still alive and well. i am a beneficiary of that. i grew up speaking german and english because i was a foreign service brat. my parents thought by the time i schooldy for elementary

i would be bored with english. they put me into a bilingual german and french school. i have been going back and forth. the relationship between germany and france is look close -- is close. the same is true of poland. my father was a junior speechwriter for the chancellor. he was a hero in our house because he went to his knees in warsaw index for forgiveness -- egged fornd b forgiveness. the stuff that we did to the eastern europeans on many levels is unforgivable. that is not to say we did not try to do bad things to the french. if you have been to warsaw, that is also a hugely important

relationship for us. the reality is that for many people in europe, including people of your age, people in high school or university. the ability, cross-border movement, cross-border friendships -- going to university in different places is a reality they take for granted. they don't know how much suffering went into that. , theeality is also that ranco german motor that europe for a long time is no longer enough to run europe. it is not accepted anymore. there are reasons it does not work internal to the relationship on a political level. swedes, the spanish, the would not accept that with good reason. a moren expect

democratic way of decision-making in europe. haveroblem that we germans is both the u.k. and french are going through moments. as a result, for the first time in our postwar history are presented with a situation where we have to become the de facto of europe. -- people want us to lead and resent us for it. they admire and hear us -- fear of. -- us. i could give you a list of points i think we have failed at and some we have succeeded. >> in the unlikely event that great britain should decide to 23 two withdraw from the european community,

what will be the damage to the members? dr. stelzenmuller: the question was in the unlikely event the --tish secede from europe what would be the damage for the european project. to britain i would add, i sometimes worry that -- my worst nightmares i wonder if europe could have a civil war like the americans did. i hope we don't. i hope that is not a price for union. certainly no one will go to war against the brits. i don't like that on c-span, that i suggested that. of course we now want the brits in the eu. they are a sense of global mission. they are understanding of global trade. their understanding of global

cultures. forward leading security policy. all of that has been a key part of making europe a key part -- their attitudes towards free trade are valuable elements. what i come as a lawyer, fear that a lot of the brexit advocates do not understand is how deeply britain has been shaped by and integrated into the european union, and what it would mean de facto to rip this organ out of the living organism. that would be substantial. i think that most brits or brits who are not specialist in european law, which i studied, think this is an signing a treaty and we are free to sail the high seas again. that is not the way it works. it is more like a state of the union leaving the union,

striking out on its own. i suspect none of you think it would be a great idea, unless of course, it is taxes. i understand -- texas, i understand that. >> during your comments he referred to the united states -- the u.s. has made compromises, i think you mentioned turkey, russia, and saudi arabia. dr. stelzenmuller: not just the u.s.. >> you mentioned iran, would you include iran? compromises? dr. stelzenmuller: i am obviously aware that that meeting would be a sensitive topic. i will look at the which -- watch. i am on the side that thinks is -- whilean deal it has issues, it is probably

the least worst deal. alternative the being quite seriously muted which was a preemptive strike on i can assure you that for a while that was a very serious matter of debate in foreign policy circles. i have gone to the conference in israel for a number of years. it was also something that as who know theow -- israeli debates, a lot of israelis were not happy about it. including mossad chiefs. that it will not have escaped anyone's notice that a number of governments and european governments are falling over each other to make deals with the iranians.

that is not terribly pretty. i still think that iran has a society and an economy that incandescent a longonism has historical tradition of tolerating and welcoming jews. not of israel i grant you that but iranian jews have been another matter. i have a greater hope for iranian society than i do saudi based on a superficial, non-expert sense of what appears to be going on there. slim -- a slim argument for those of you that find the whole idea of the agreement offensive and those of you planning to vote on ted cruz whose mind on this i know.

with russia. like we need to stand up to russia and to the mullahs. that wendrum of life is have to find a way of protecting israel and living with iran. we have to protect ukraine and live with russia. we know where our sympathies lie but we cannot just up and leave. sadly. that is the conundrum of making policy in europe. itsometimes leads uncomfortable moral compromises. there is ad that great deal of conversation about these issues with america. my sense is that we are pretty much in mind on many of the practicalities. >> thank you very much. [applause]

thank you for discussing this challenging topic with such depth. we will be following your writings for some time. we would like to present you with the official world affairs council response. the onlyenmuller: thing that i know about the jewish community in texas is from the literary productions of which i readedman when i was going to university of harvard. i found it mind blowing and funny but i suspect it is not representative were up-to-date so i'm willing to be informed. thank you. thank you. [applause] let me remind everyone, if

you have not yet registered for our program next tuesday, please do so. >> on newsmakers, oklahoma congressman tom cole, a member of the appropriations committee. he talks about the house republican debate over the budget and the creations process. he also talked about this summer's republican national convention. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, a conversation with former counsel for the republican national committee, benjamin innsbruck. he explains what can best it can question is and what the rules will bested convention and what the rules will be in cleveland this summer.

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 when none of the candidates arrive at the start of the convention with the majority of delegates. by definition, they have to contest to reach a majority. host: 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. that document will then go to what is called a temporary convention rules committee, which is made up of delegates, 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,

approve the rules, then it goes 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 call that the ron paul 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 -- number of states for 2016, 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, both campaigns wooed the 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. ben: unprecedented, may be capable of repetition this year. we will see. host: let's go back to kansas city, 1976. president general ford -- gerald ford, as he called ronald reagan to the podium. [begin video clip] [applause]

>> he asked ronald reagan to come down 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 the 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] host: the scene 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. host: if delegates that are selected in june at caucuses in iowa, or 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? ben: interestingly enough, on 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 advance delegates will vote after they are unbound? if nobody gets 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 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? ben: i think the lessons from 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 nearly the sway over their 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 pick their delegates. in those states, whoever wins them will have a lot of sway. in new york state, it is a slate chosen entirely by the states central committee, so it is not exactly clear who those delegates will be primarily loyal to. in texas, another big state, 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 ted cruz's 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? 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. host: if you, were 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 under their state's 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 what 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 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 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. so the campaigns, and that 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 cleveland, for him, or anybody who goes in with the majority of delegates, but not overall, what happens to the delegates? ben: 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 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? ben: the first question is, how 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 policy, perhaps, where you think 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? host: which leads to this follow-up, because it would be a fascinating convention to watch. we have never seen anything like 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 -- when do you start the business of voting? it takes longer historically, because there are conflicts on the 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? ben: sure, 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 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. >> can be positive for the party to have democracy flourishing in public. for theinsberg republican national committee. thank you for explaining all of this. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] students produce documentaries telling us about the issues they want candidates to discuss. students told us that the economy, equality, education, and immigration or top issues. thank you to everyone who competed this