longer has connection to the internet. he claims hundred obvious volunteers. it's unclear who they are or where they are, where they're actually publishing these from. host: dan from oregon on our democratic line. caller: good morning. my question is about journalism. i always thought that journalism was supposed to be reporting the truth and i know these wikileaks things have not been confirmed or anything. but here we are putting them out there as if they're the truth. thank you very much. host: what's your response? guest: i think certainly at the hill we've been pretty careful to make sure that we're identifying the fact that these e-mails haven't been confirmed. but that they are now out in the public eye and are having an impact on the political discourse. host: donna from ohio,

republican line. caller: good morning. this hill, the paper you work for, do you write things about both parties? do you lean more towards the democrats than the republicans? guest: i say we strive to be as middle of the road as absolutely possible. host: thank you s c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning at 7:00 ..m., david wasserman

also, george washington university professor of law and a columnist will discuss the integrity of voter systems. c-span washington journal live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> i came up with the idea for reproductive rights. i went to a end researched and i knew i could find information me figure outelp which points i wanted to say about it and how to form my outline. approach.a methodical made thehat really piece as dense as this i would say. reworking a end working as i was trying to come up with my theme.

i was coming up with more ideas ideahen i came up with an i would be like, ok that would be a great shot. that would give me another idea that i would do research on. what does not work and keep going until you find what works. >> this years theme, your message to washington, d c. tell us, what is the most important issue. our contest is open to all high school and little school students grade 6-12. cash prices. students can work alone or in groups of up to three to produce a five-admin minute documentary on the issue select it. rises will0 in cash be awarded and shared between 100 empty students and 53 teachers.

the grand prize will go to the student or team with the best entry. deadline is january 20, 2017. spread the word to student filmmakers. go to our website studentcam.org. a bipartisan panel recently discussed at how things have changed during the presidency. an advisor to the jeb bush campaign in former advisor. this 90 minute conference was harvarda conference at kennedy school in cambridge, massachusetts. >> now i have the pleasure of introducing the moderator for our next and final panel. he is a new york times best-selling author. assistant adjunct professor at columbia university. and the teacher, actor, and publics weaker.

each of keith's books have been nominated for literary awards. won the american library association stonewall award in 2013. educated at dartmouth and harvard, he attended school with president barack obama. he served in the white house as a special assistant to bill clinton where he was once he highest ranked openly gay person in the white house. he participated in the first ever meeting between a sitting president and members of the lgbt community. he has been involved on progressive causes. on involved progressive causes. he is a veteran of six political campaigns including two presidential campaigns and was named one of the top instructors when he worked at american university. he is currently a cnbc columnist. and b et there is a lot here.

one more thing. i think it is important. firsta founder and president of the national black justice coalition. he has spoke to audiences large and small. he delivered a landmark speech to 200,000 people. on the eighthech epidemic -- aids epidemic. : thank you, i was definitely not expecting that. we are going to discuss race in after obama for the final panel discussion. we are blessed do this a little differently. i think you had a chance to meet almost all of the panelists before. i am going to throw out some questions and move along as quickly as we can. answers that are concise.

allow for opportunity for conversation with the audience here as well. i want to begin, i'm not going to read everyone's bios, just a briefs and obsessed. i'm going to begin with mary frances berry. we have a hundred days left in the obama administration. after that, we will have president trump or president clinton. what should the agenda before the next president in terms of issues of race and social justice? mary: first you have to read my entire bio. keith: first we have to get your microphone working.

mary: then you can read my entire file. then i will answer the question. seriously, when michael was talking, i was thinking, it made me sad what he said. he was so full. one of the books i read, i'm not going to tell you which one it was, five dollars and a pork chop sandwich. vote buying and the corruption of american democracy. thats about people who say they have been waiting for politicians to do what they say they are going to do when they run for election and come around each year, generating turnout for every election, both state and local, and make all these promises.

ms. williams said, they never do what they say they are going to do. they tell you they are going to do this and do that. put a roof on the school. say never ever do what they they are going to do. some of them don't even try to do. at least every year, when they take me to vote, they bring me back and give me five dollars rk chop sandwich, so at least i know i'm going to get that. what i think obama, and i have to explain, what you can do so you can get something done. essentialotest is an ingredient of politics. i have written that someplace, too. focus just one politics and what can happen after obama and so on, what can happen with clinton, if we are

not prepared to bring pressure to bear and all we are prepared , frederick recite douglass said power concedes nothing without demand, and we do not demand, we will get nothing. view, whoever comes after obama is going to have to try to overcome that polarization in order to get some policy done. the reason why it has happened, not just him. he has not been able to figure out a way to do what michael said about the rest states, blue states, and all of that stuff that people thought was so hopeful and beautiful what he said. we like it. all the polarization, obama has been very effective at trying to likece some issues of race police shootings, the role of the police. he has been less effective in my

view in trying to balance other issues, like immigration and lb gtq issues. i favored position he takes, that is not the point. all that disaffected people, the deplorables out there still, remain disaffected because the way they feel they have been treated is we don't even want to hear what you have to say. we don't want to try to think of what youto discuss have to say. you people are just outside the realm of discussion. we don't want to have anything to do with you. the heck with you. when you do that to people, whether personally or in terms of policy, all you do is harden positions with people. you don't have to agree with them, but you can at least say, you may have a point about x but let's talk about y.

polarization is going to be the main problem. the issues to be dealt with her clear. obamacare needs to be fixed, it has got to be fixed. that is going to require less polarization. immigration, if there is going to be reform, that is going to require less polarization. some way to make people feel they are being accommodated. refugee policy, which we did not discuss this morning. there has to be some kind of middle way. we don't want terrorism but at the same time, we are a generous people. we want to take people in who need it. police issues. black people are not going, young people especially stand aside and cds continued shootings and people getting killed without doing anything. i am out of them. i have been trying to pass the baton for 30 years.

maybe now i found somebody i can pass it to. i think what he has left to his successor is capitalism intact, but you still got all this inequality. they probably teach here at the kennedy school that capitalism requires inequality. that is part of the definition. the point is, how much inequality and what can we do about it? ofhas left a good example how you behave in the presidency likenally so you can look somebody who should be in the office. if anyone black or latino and wants to be president, nobody says, we cannot have anybody like that be president. keith: let me move on to charles badger, a republican strategist. you heard from mary frances

berry four items on the agenda. she mentioned exceed obamacare. immigration. refugee policy. policing. would you agree with those issues? what approach would you like the president to take on those next issues? charles: i would agree with a number of them. there is a humanitarian crisis in syria, the likes of which the u.s. has not seen in a long time. possibly cents milosevic. most of the general milosovic and rwanda. obviously, we've got to get

refugees. health care is a delicate balance. there is a huge political polarization going on, that is going to make it difficult to get anything done. president obama and his , if it is president clinton who i believe it will be, they will have to figure out how to make fixes but the republican congress does not want to make fixes. misguidedink is a position. berry brought up our big issues. i want to talk about poverty. i think we haven't talked enough in this campaign. one of the issues that does not get very much discussion at the national issue, cost of living. the affordability of our cities, where folks live. back in the 1970's, mitt romney,

his father george romney, he had a big fight with nixon. romney had this visionary idea of using federal dollars as a chokepoint to get local municipalities to make progress toward racial desegregation. to roll back policies. of public variety policy challenges by way of local ordinances, municipal policies, around limiting the housing stock. limiting buildings. not in my backyard issues, when you want to add economic diversity to a neighborhood. there is a large body of social science research coming out over the last 20 years about poverty

is its own sort of issue. robert putnam and others would talk about poverty being a problem, and added issue, a force multiplier, the concentration of poverty. how do you break up concentrations of poverty? new jersey has an interesting history. trying to create economic diversity in a neighborhood. that benefits everybody there. there are ways to use the leverage of federal policy and grants to lean on states and municipalities to bring about these sorts of things. also, it is about organizing at the local level. every major city has a homeless problem. an issue of gentrification. both people of color and low income folks, the working poor. every person in the service sector to every major city in america, pushed further and further out. the cities are unaffordable.

also, ways in which the federal government can be involved. one example, hud, for a number of years has been doing this idea of mobility vouchers to deal with the issue of concentration of poverty. how do we break up those concentrations by moving folks to neighborhoods with a different income? where schools are better and the crime rates are different. things and ithese becomes an economic benefit for everybody, up and down the scale. you get the social effects, whether you are talking about schools, parks, neighborhoods, shared resources. when folks have to share resources with folks who don't look like them, come from different backgrounds, different of --s, you get all sorts low income folks having access to networks. resources, transportation resources. closer to jobs.

that is the major area of poverty. i think it has been under addressed. a is a fruitful area that if president wanted to taco, they could and should. is president of the foundation. i went to find out from you, we have had six items on the agenda. that list?ith what would you add to the agenda and how would you approach it? leah for to thank having me at this conference. it has been wonderful to learn from everybody. we can talk a lot about the policy agenda. i would agree with almost everything that has been said.

i would like to take it a step above that. we can all put our heads together, we are smart people, come up with great policy initiatives we would like to see the next president sign and congress passed. none of that matters unless there is broad public support that allows you to get through the house representatives, 60 votes for the senate, and the president to sign it. for me, the biggest hurdle we have to overcome is not that we don't have ideas to address these problems. there is a degree to which we need better ideas than of the past, i think that is true. particularly addressing poverty. -distribution has not worked. we need to do a better job finding jobs for a, economically improve communities.

the macro problem is segregation. i don't just mean in the sense of black, white. in the economic and social science cents. that ideologically, where liberals and conservatives live are segregated. you have rule communities that are more homogenous. urban and suburban communities that are more diverse. that leads to different cultural outlooks read the fact that partisan affiliations are more segregated. wealthy and poor people in segregated areas. college educated and non- college-educated individuals are geographically segregated. to two different countries, living simultaneously within each other. that, i think that is the dominant reason we have the polarization we have in america.

the fact that we are talking one of the big problems for criminal justice isn't that the ideas of aren't good. the challenges, you have a large group of people who live in communities where, i have never had a bad interaction with the police. this is made up. this isn't my experience. this is politically correct exaggeration. accuse cases, you can them of racism or just not wanting blacks to do better. but the biggest problem isn't that evil intent. you have people who just don't know anyone who has had that experience. they just don't have that ability to empathize and relate because it is not part of their life. and vice versa, by the way. i think there are a lot of people in the urban intelligentsia who have no sense of what it is like to struggle in a west virginia coal mine.

the people who live in those communities feel like, people on television and in hollywood have no sense of how they live and the struggles they face. they are told that they have white privilege. they look around and say, what privilege do you see in my community? that is part of the challenge, too. a big part of what i am trying to do with this new think tank, research for equal opportunity, , i want to free-up build a new ecosystem on the right that tries to build common ground with progresses and people in the center on issues we all care about. i think that has been a big challenge for both sides. actually create these mechanisms where we are learning from each other. one thing i have benefited so

much from, i spent a lot of time on msnbc. as one of their token conservatives, i guess. the advantage of that for me, it has been tremendous. lotas allowed me to learn a about the thoughtful people who are bringing up issues of real gravity on the left that the right is not talking about. i have learned from that and brought some of those concerns and issues to the right. others have, too. a big part, in general, macro theme of what i am trying to do, assemble the ecosystem of institutions that are liberty minded and doing this kind of work. about social mobility and economic mobility and poverty. addressing the historic legacy of slavery and segregation. bring them together to build a new conservative movement that is not merely stating it is

about opportunity for all but actually executing on that. keith: thank you, i want to follow up. i will interject, i had an experience as a token liberal on not quite haved the same revelatory results. we will move on, here. rissa, we have heard three different points of view. i would like you to add your point of view and perspective. what issues would you like to see on the agenda that have not been mentioned? or what you want to second others have mentioned? on the policy agenda, mostly seconding. we are very much focused on domestic policy, not because foreign policy is not important

but that is what we are focused on here. a serious policy intervention on jobs. as you mentioned earlier, one that is targeted to the communities that need those jobs more than anywhere else. athink that is going to cover number of different communities. it needs to be targeted and real. criminal justice reform, which for me also includes policing. also immigration. immigration reform. because it is important for immigration policy, but because it is having impact on the civil rights of any that doesn't look american, whatever the notion of looking american is. i do want to go to the point you made. those are the policy priorities.

who gets elected in november matters a great deal, the reality is regardless of who gets elected, whether it is the democratic i'll or republican aisle, we need a cleanup on aisle three. civil society. i totally agree what we are seeing, we need to figure out how we are going to strengthen the civil society to up the game on accountability and delivery. folks have talked about how politicians come around when they are up for election and you do not see them again. the only people who win on election day are the candidates who have the more votes. for communities to win and the country to win, we need to be there the day after and hold them accountable. also, to have their back when they try to stretch themselves to work with the other side,

whoever the other side is. without the ability to work toward agreement, there is no governing. state of politics where agreement has almost become a quilt and with treason. equivalent to treason. there is no upside for people to try to deliberate and get to something. we need all of us to pressure on the outside so those agreements do capture the aspirations of the vast majority of americans. the reality is, we are not necessarily rewarding problem-solving. that is a big issue for all of us in terms of how we engage. segregation, in all its forms, what it tends to feed is a lack of exposure to each

other. not that exposure alone leads to empathy, but it is the opening to at least understand, even if you don't agree. a requirement in some ways, conducive to reignite the problem-solving approach in our communities. the opportunity is there. it is not an easy task. that is the next thing we have to look at in terms of a civil society. that is what i would like us to see. what steps, big and small, can we commit to take? so we pullaround us, back from simply thinking in what did this president do or not do? why are politicians so messed up? in some ways, the reality is

elected officials are a reflection of us. to be more active in the process of doing that. i'm sure we will talk about --istricting and heart of and other things that are part of the systemic problem. results in having, causing eyelids -- having kamikaze pilots instead of legislators who are happy blowing things up. keith: i'm glad you mentioned redistricting. that leads to the next question i wanted to get to. this whole issue, i have heard it over and over, with the limitations are of the presidency. the president can do this because congress is against this. what point do we start to revisit, reconsider, the whole concept of federalism?

we reconsiderdo the possibility of constitutional amendments to change the structure of government itself so we don't have these debates that we can only argue on the margins? we can change what can be accomplished by any president. is that a possibility? avik: the idea of state and local accountability has a stigma on the left because of segregation. are able tohat -- transcend that, it is more accountable to citizens. it is easier for community to change what is happening at the local level then win a presidential election and get 60 senators and congress to do something. one thing about the conservative movement, because it has been more friendly to the idea of state and local economy -- economy, there are state and nks in everyta

state that try to generate policy ideas around state and local reforms. i mentioned the missouri, changing the way police departments are budgeted. we were talking about the texas public policy foundation which has a whole program called the ride on crime initiative. this is an area the progressive movement has neglected. there are not state-based and local-based progressive think tanks the same degree. around particular issues, grassroots. in terms of the policy engines, it is not so much their. -- there. emphasis there, we wouldn't invest all our hopes and a president and then get disappointed. : i am deciding whether or

not to say something i know will be unpopular. [laughter] i was think maybe i should just stop. thought long and hard about what you said about federalism. federalism is like judicial activism. when the national government you something you like, and don't like what the states did, you would love to not have the states have any power in that area. as my friend says on lgbt issues. why do we have to fight with the states? but when the national government does something you don't like, then you are happy in your state constitution, be it massachusetts or california or someplace, you still have a degree of autonomy to shape what

you in massachusetts want to do. it depends on whose actions we are talking about. the founding fathers, i know they are dead white men, the founding others who put this jerryrigged thing -- and i teach about this, so that is another , new it wasn't perfect. throughout our history, we have shifted from this. a lot of people think we have a national right to vote. i have run into that in a lot of studies. comes up any issue state passes something, they think the national government is in charge of our voting. the constitution gives that to the states. only come in in the federal government if there is under theimination constitution, 14th amendment. that is good when your state wants to do something. i would shutter to have someone

call a constitutional convention. what do you think would happen if in the polarized situation we live in in this country right now, somehow congress got itself together and started, or the states demanded, a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution? ify are people that think trump got elected, we would be slaves. if we had a constitutional convention, all kinds of things could happen. have one, going to that is number one. they made it hard to change the cost to ship -- constitution. i think federalism on balance, despite over the years the ups and downs, leave some states as to engage in often

progressive politics that you wouldn't he able to do if you just depended on the national government. i would say instead of doing -- campaignget finance money in politics. charles: i think we should go to complete public financing. to subversively blow up this concept of federalism. there is a south african concept, i am because you are. i think we could use a greater sense of that in our politics. federalismy in the issue. case, was notre

the mandate question. there was a second, lower -- got much lower press, medicaid extension. there is a body of law out of the supreme court about the federal government is constricting the states to be an agent of the state. that is what the legal question turned on. the absurdity of that is, i have worked in state governments. if you have worked in a state government, the asserted he -- absurdity of that question is 80-90% of state agencies are composed of administering federal programs. hud is administered through state and local governments.

there is not enough staff in hud, washington, or their satellite offices to in minister section eight. -- administer section eight. constrictingre state, if we are going to use deal.ord, it is a huge with the romney thing, using federal dollars and grants as a chokepoint to lean on states as a point of leverage. reasons -- of the particularly around decriminalizing marijuana, doctors are afraid -- the fda leans on them. one of the reasons doctors are afraid of writing prescriptions, they are afraid of the fda lean on them.

getting in trouble with her ability to write prescriptions. we talk about the interplay between federal and state governments. we extent to which, overwrite the degree to which states have autonomy. mary: they have the right not to do it. charles: if you don't take the funding -- keith: i want to focus on the question of what happens next. the next part of the question, a political question. a professor has argued, i believe in the new republic, hillary clinton would actually ofmore effective in terms race issues or social justice issues than barack obama because

she is a white woman. as opposed to a black man. anyone who would like to tackle that question, how they would respond. do you think a white person, even a president trump if he were so inclined, would be more capable of achieving african-american civil rights or social policy agenda than a black president, obama? president trop could be effective because it is like nixon going to china. he built a campaign on blue lies matter and lock her up. if he flipped, that would be a powerful gesture. the case of hillary clinton, president obama could have been more effective on criminal justice reform. the one thing i would say in that case, i think he spoke out quickly. -- eloquently.

one of the problems with president obama, he was not very good at directing with people in congress to hash out the details of legislation. speecherred to give the and let congress work out the details. where is a, because of her temperament, is somebody diligent about listening to people, put people together. that was her reputation in the senate. convening and bringing people together. fashioning deals. that aspect of hillary clinton, her temperament and personality, could be effective accomplish of these objectives. not necessarily because she is a white woman. keith: anyone else? i think there is something to that. it was bill clinton who took on welfare reform because it was the unexpected.

frankly, or organization had a lot of problems with how he proceeded to read in some ways, he had more space because he was a democrat. the same way potentially george w. bush could have done immigration if he hadn't waited so long because he was a republican. if you follow that argument, you might forbeing white, your hand to move forward. obama, itth president was also an attempt to deflect an attack that was very much out there. a narrative being built that he would only be a president for african-americans or for certain people. he was very cautious on how he approached those issues, at least in the narrative around the steps that were taken. mary: if she did something counterintuitive with well for

reform, race and cops, she would be doing something bad for black people. welfare reform was bad for black people. which is why the guys at the kennedy school, they had a tough time being there. my good friend peter edelman. in any case, that would be bad. if you mean by your question, which she then be some money -- somebody who would feel the pressure to do something because she is white? the answer is she probably would feel greater pressure, because african-americans are more to ang to say something white person who is in office than barack obama. we just want him to be there and stay and don't die. what she would do, i don't know. if she follows the pattern the clintons followed before, which i am very familiar with, she

will do a lot of social things. thele would sleep in lincoln bedroom. any bigmouth preacher could sleep in the lincoln bedroom. people could come to this and that. you are expressing an opportunity for change simply likelihood ofore accountability from the community? mary: might not vote for you next time. africano you expect americans or other communities of color will held her more accountable? mary: they will notice more what she does and she will worry more accu. keepill worry, i have to these people. that is what the sleeping in the bedroom and coming to parties is about. [laughter] keith: there is another issue,

explicitly political. the lame-duck session of congress. after november 8, we have until jenn my 20th when there are a number of issues. tpp, the supreme court nomination of garland. some sort of presidential directive, articulation of drone policy. a lot of these issues affect social justice concerns or people of color. what pressure can people in our communities put on whoever the incumbent president is to focus of issues of our concern? or the current outgoing president, president obama, during this interim time? you mentioned a number of them. paul ryan has a criminal justice reform bill he is hoping to get

through the house. it is something he wants to do. in terms of likelihood, i have not studied the vote count. cannot put odds on it. the reality is we are in uncharted territory. if you look at the lame-duck in 2010, it was incredibly productive. issues.n lgbtq you almost saw progress on immigration. they worked almost all the way till christmas. this one, who knows? wins,olks say, if clinton republicans may want to confirm the justice before she puts someone more liberal, rather than someone who is a moderate. they might want to get some of those things done before she comes in. you could make the same argument, if trump won.

they would like to make some progress before they face an uncertain presidency. it is a crapshoot, really. questione last along this line. depending on who wins the yoution, how different do think the strategy should be in terms of the civil rights community approaching president trump or president clinton? what should be the approach? -- hewith president trop changes his mind. his policy advisers are having papers ande old write new ones. fortunately, we are not going to have to deal with at most likely. clinton, thet

opportunity is there. on both sidesle ideologically working on this issue. terms of strategy in sentencing reform is available. i would say, as we were talking about earlier, a big part of reform is at the state and local level. there are certain things the president and congress can do, but the energy has to come locally. es: i find difficulty going with the question. the notion of a trump residency is so noxious, i have difficulty engaging with this as a thought experiment. my conviction is so certain he cannot win, first of all. let me ask you about

that. you are a republican. what happens to your party if there is a trump residency -- presidency? i know it is kind of hard. even if there isn't a trump presidency, what happens to the republican party? harles: i don't know how this -- in anything other than a logical universe, this would be the end of the two-party system. not just the selection, but the primary, what we saw with bernie. the lefta demand on for more options, as we clearly saw in the primary. a parent demand on the right as well. we are the only western liberal democracy that has the two party

system. it had a good run. 200 plus years. i find it difficult, it is like a wounded animal in the woods. i don't see how it persists much longer with this loss of blood. you've got to let it go die a merciful death. we've got to have multiple parties. you look at the europeans, i have talked about the white nationalist part of the gop. democracyr liberal has a white identity party. there is a political party for those people who want to use their politics and the national government. advancing white nationalist interests. every other democracy, they have their own party. you need multiple parties.

you break up the two party, it would be a fringe, marginal party as it ought to be, which allow them toy understand they are never going to be a majority. you give opening for coalitions of folks of better will to form. avik: two things to add. the interesting thing will be, what happens the republican goes down. trump there is a split among conservatives who believe it has to be inclusive, and those who believe it should be a vehicle for white identity politics and a white interest group. that split was there before. trump nomination has made it clear who was on what side.

there is a real cleavage. fortunately or unfortunately, the two party system is going to continue. i'm not clear it is going to be the same system we are going to have in the future. you can imagine a system where the sender's crew and the green party become the second already and the democrats become the center-right party. thewhite nationalists keep republican party and that fades away. that split between white identity politics republicans in the inclusive of her terry and conservatives, center-right, is emerging and is going to be more significant. not just because of trump, but is a generational thing, too. forbes columnists at wrote a great piece called the jim crow generation. imagine if you were born in the

born,ear donald trump was 1946. you grew up white in america. although police officers are white. all the politicians are white. all the people and authoriti authority, and all of a sudden you are in an unfamiliar world. the younger generation did not have that experience. we grew up in more integrated environments and more diverse. the younger generations are passionate about fairness when it comes to racial and ethnic of quality, of whatever ideological stripe, then people who are older for whom it is unfamiliar. as the baby boomers die out, sorry to the boomers in the room, we are going to have a much healthier conversation and comity. to be different. clarissa: the one thing i want

to say, regardless of who wins, they may not call it grappling with racial and ethnic tensions, but there has got to be something in that space. we are having, we have to grapple with how do you govern effectively in an increasingly diverse society? particularly in one where we are in the midst of the resulting environment of more than a decade of dog whistle politics, trying to make people afraid of each other and divided from each other. you can't govern effectively if we can't he got a way to tackle that. maybe it is going to be meek and tinkering around the edges. obviously, who wins is going to make a difference. it is hard to figure out where a bemp presidency is going to

in terms of policies because it varies from moment to moment. the one thing that has not changed, speaking from the 76% ofcommunity, whom are u.s. citizens, his platform has been predicated on whether latinos belong in the american family or not. that is very real. other ways done in with other communities, as we have talked before. that is a very important piece. speaking, generally we have to figure out what is our role in pushing that conversation to happen. part of what happened in 2012 was there was one autopsy on why romney won or lost any need to be more inclusive, which i would welcome. maybe naively, i thought 2016 would be the year republicans would give democrats a run for

their money competing for latinos and other communities of color,. frankly, democrats take these committees for granted -- communities for granted and rely and republicans doing their job for them. when it comes to latinos, for example, republicans are their own worst enemy and friend.s' best analysis,election and we don't want it to focus on, it was because we had a bad candidate. maybe it was a bad candidate but it was a bad candidate running on a platform you have been fueling for more than a decade. keith: i would argue in 2012,

they never dealt with those issues. never tookt hold. there was a portion saying, romney was not conservative enough. charles: that autopsy made one policy recommendation. the gop needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform. of course they created it. tok: that created hostility the autopsy. the one recognition was immigration reform. the talk radio right solve this as, the rnc elites have a secret plot to foist illegal immigrants on us. that is terrible. one clarification, and the 2012 aftermath, one of the adjusting things, everybody

involved changed their mind. even hannity was calling for reform.ion that did lead to a bipartisan not perfect,again but led to legislation in the senate. was, by the time you got to the house, that memory was cold. again,were focusing -- in a midterm election went crazy is dominant in terms of ns arrative. keith: we have to let you go. : what was left out of the discussion of what is going to happen to the republicans, what is going to happen to the democrats. the fact that all those people who are trump supporters are not solely motivated by race and ethnic views. a lot of them are motivated by

their poverty and their joblessness and the technological obsolescence. else that has happened to them. and if they do not know what to do. they are our fellow americans and citizens, and if you are going to have social peace, you need to take everybody into account. and in the democratic party, you have millions of disaffected people who supported bernie sanders. supported somebody who has been haveictim of obsolescence, felt like the party has left them behind, there is no party of the working poor and the unions, they are disappearing and being taken for granted. so they are left out. and there may be a coming together of these people, not around the issue -- raise is connected to economics, but not

around -- do you hate latinos or blacks? but a new alignment coming in that direction. what i hear is the writing off of those people who do not fit. we say we should not write off people who do not look like us, thinkso those who do not like us. they are americans like we are. who? does that include racists? i should not be talking, i should let the audience ask a question. remember, you should end your question with a? identify yourselves. we have microphones and the first question right over there. my name is audience.

avian. just following up on some things you said. capitalism requires inequality for it to work. you said that. and the race is a social construct that was created to cause inequality in our society so capitalism can work. after the election, president obama has said he will try to pass the tpp, when reason why he says it has not passed is because he says he cannot help rimary waysinesses' p of making money is to make sure they have cheap labor. with the current presidency election going on with you know, shows us that -- have come out

and donald trump, what happened with bernie, what will you think will happen if this is turned into a corporate democracy my rather than capitalism -- democracy, rather than capitalism for the public? meant that the definition of capitalism, as i understood it, was you assume inequality, because some people will have more, and some people less. and we have an economy under the constitution. we have private property. so we should expect there to be some inequality. people talk about that there will never be any more does not work,t because as long as we have capitalism we will have any quality. the question is, how many

barriers will be put in the way of people, whether race or some other thing, gender, and what will we do about it said that the ups and downs are more fairly distributed. so that is the thing i was talking about. clear, and iit is was running the civil rights commission under clinton and we workedta, and people very hard to get it. we were told it was going to benefit american workers. it benefited those purchasing cheap goods, but not workers. so i think trade is a tough issue. the main problem is, if you really care about poor people and we really care about working-class people who in fact are suffering, we would figure out what is next after every policy we engage in. we engage in policies and then

when there is roadkill, we figure out, maybe we should do something about it. what should we do? like when they tell us, when we have driverless cars, the jobless -- driverless checks -- truck, millions of drivers will be put out of work. what will we do? we are one step thinkers. we do not move on policy. let's hope that the next president, obama has tried, but let's hope that the next one, whenever we want to do something, let's hope they figure out what we will do and how to minimize any quality. keith: a question over here. i will come back to. franklin. is i go to a boarding school in new jersey.

i hear a lot of discussion about divisiveness among the older generations, and millennials particularly, so i wonder if you have advice for those in my generation in regards to tpp trade and race going forward for the next elections ahead of us? keith: i want to ask you a question. i was at the convention in philadelphia and a lot of people were protesting tpp, tell me what it is about tpp that interests young people so much? >> i think with regards to young people, it is about what they do not know. it is a broad thing, especially the prospect of having the private court that would basically let larger corporations bully the smaller countries into letting them benefit from the resources.

for young people, i believe personally, especially around the fact that we do not fully understand the aspects of the politics around it and the way it functions in the world. for us, it is more like it, we want this to happen, but we do not have how to reach it. and at, the main point, the convention we were -- we wanted somebody like bernie sanders or hillary clinton to show us that way to reach prosperity, not necessarily tpp, or other trade -- but other trade bills. to disagree with the indictment of capitalism. [laughter] mary: it was an indictment? keith: you do not think it requires inequality? capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty man any

other system invented by humans. the inequality is simply transferred to the politically connected. keith: that is not a fair comparison. avik: it does not matter. if you are going to say that capitalism is bad. mary: i do not say it was back. keith: i think what she said reminds me of the church hill quotes. i mean, i am curious as to the question of inequality according to you, disagree or agree with that capitalism requires inequality. compared to other systems. avik: it has less any quality than any other system, because it lives people out of -- people out of poverty and it gives them the opportunity through hard work and enterprise. state-based systems in which the government controls more of the economy, more politically connected -- over people who try to work hard and do things out

of the system. it is not just any quality that any quality, it is relative income that matters. churchill said that socialism, there is any quality -- inequality in that system. but cost of living matters. that gets us to free trade. one thing it does is it lowers the cost of goods and services so we can buy. that is effective. ift is inequality, and income is low -- mary: i said that. avik: i am responding to the question. free trade not only makes life better for people today because it lets their dollar go farther, but let's not forget that free trade is also beneficial to the people who are supplying with -- us with goods and services. if you are making a t-shirt in vietnam and that is zero

livelihood, we are helping those people in those countries. keith: if you are making an iphone in china for pennies an hour you are helping those people too? avik: absolutely. china has a middle-class now of millions of people thanks to them entering the global market. we have to note the gains and recognize them and not just say it is so terrible that people -- charles: i think this is -- clarissa: i think this is where we get stuck. every time we have a discussion, we try to make it into a binary proposition. is the reality is, there truth to what you said and it is true that capitalism requires a certain amount of it in -- am ount of inequality. americans were willing to accept that equation that there would

be some inequality because there was the promise of upward mobility. if you work hard and did your job and did what you are expected to do, you would not always be stuck in the same position. and your kids could do better and so forth. but the promise of upward mobility allowed people, generally speaking, to say, ok, i can put up with inequality because there is that promise. what is exposed right now when we see communities who do not have a way forward generation after generation, not only that, their see parents seeing children not doing better than they did, we knew that there were problems with upward mobility, but now it is exposed in a more explicit way, the same politicsdog whistler have been exposed. so we see a great deal of commonality between those

responding to part of the donald trump method or the burning method -- bernie method, these communities are desperate and they may be responding, if the communities could see that they were abandoned and left behind, because it does not matter whether it is democrat or republican, the same people conceded the benefits. i do not want to establish a false equivalent, there are many differences, but that is the reality. many communities are feeling bad and we have heard from both sides of the aisle, talk about blame people for their own condition. whereas, yes, some resilience is important and it is part of the american dna, but the notion that if you work hard and you will have the opportunity has been challenged and the emperor

has no close and that is what people are reacting to. keith: thank you. is there a question back there? >> thank you. keith, hopefully i can get to the question that you wanted to ask. aremy question is, we seeing working with the deplorables, coming from eight years from the president, working with students from higher education, the conversation comes down to that president obama cannot get anything done because he is a black president. for me, i think with this election, is there anything that will be done with for years or eight years of a woman being president? these xenophobia and the misogynistic types that are not just voters, but continuing with the election, that there are politicians using the same jargon. so does that relate to policy and how to we work with those

xina folks, the racists, the populations in terms of policy reforms for a woman president in the next four years? charles: on the gender piece of the question, what is troubling come of supporters have a #, repeal the ninth amendment. in response to things coming out from political scientist, if only women had to vote, they would win the election with a gigantic land psychomotor 400 plus.- landslide, 400 and the opposite is true. if only men could vote, that donald trump would win. it tells us something deeply troubling. about the gender divide politically in this country. back to the point, with the deplorables, and as the resident

millennial over there like you, i graduated in the middle of the recession that came out when jobs were scarce. whether we are talking about deplorables or people of color, we are always stuck in this individual attribution claim. that was discussed earlier with criminal justice. what did you do wrong? millennials who graduated during the recession, right away no jobs. and all they can do -- well, you have to hustle, are you sending out your resume? up?ou file no -- follow yes, i did, and so did the 500 other people. [laughter] mary: the problem -- charles: the problem is we never get to the underlying problems.

when we talk about millennials and we talk about globalization and jobs going overseas. the next up is trade. and displaced workers. into your point about the jobs, thereing of was a great piece in politico about shareholder buybacks. and to the other conversation, the caution about binary sources, there is a good book couple years ago about good capitalism, bad capitalism. and -- has not existed in the world at any other time. every government is regulated. there -- every economy israel of. it is how you will do it. this is all mixed economies. so it becomes a question of good capitalism or bad capitalism and how we operate. there is a piece about shareholder buybacks.

other clinton talked about it on the campaign show. games with, playing the numbers as a corporate culture. and investing in jobs. right, especially if you are an existing employee and creating new jobs. dealing with anti-competitive practices so that we are finding out new, smaller, scrappy businesses entering into the market because you have big conglomerates, the corporations, who have monopolistic features. keith: ok. another question. i want to ask a question while we are taking a question over here. do you consider yourself a republican? [laughter] heard oneave not republican idea today. charles: maybe before donald trump. [laughter]

avik: he has not said the word republican. vie am from the anon -- tnam. and i am familiar with the import and exports. i have grown up with this transaction all my life. the country is poor, but now it is growing up because we do a lot of trade with england. best we can.the but it is really hard for us. and now we move to america. -- i have ause question, because i watched the debates and donald trump says, fta andnot do tpp or na we need to make america great again, but from my knowledge, i

am asking -- is it these policies? you do not want to trade with anybody, but there is a new generation and people want to go , they do not want to stay in one place. anywhere when you grow up. america is a big country. but the rest of the world, people are trading everyday. you do not know that a small country is trading with england and australia. keith: what is your question? about theam asking upcoming presidents, for donald trump, so who is going to become the president? because there is a lot --

keith: what will the next president do about the issue of trade? particularly, not just with vietnam -- >> all the countries. keith: i understand. i want to give an opportunity to answer. thank you for your comments. america -- for the rest of the world. this is definitely important. how can who will become president achieve this position? keith: america has been perceived as the policeman of the world and the trade issues we think of differently here than other countries where people are affected directly. so who wants to respond? mary? mary: i have been to vietnam. i was there during the war and

sense, -- since, so i am very familiar with the situation there. -- a number of other places with which we trade in the east. my point about trade earlier was about the working poor and unions and all of that stuff. what i meant was, when you make a policy, whether it is about trade or something else, we do not think about what will happen to the people in this country. and it is true, whether we like it or not, as americans and our government, the first responsibility is to the people of the united states. that does not exclude responsibility to others, but think about americans when you do make these policies. and too often we have had policies where nobody thought through what will happen to people in the united states if we have a trade deal this way or that way.

too often they say things like, my good friend here, that it will help the people in that country. it may, it may or may not. or that we ought to do it because it is the right thing to do and after all, we should go where the labor is. i am saying, american workers need to be taken into account. what will we have them do? otherwise, we have a look -- lack of it -- and polarization and people that have to be taken care of. that was my plea. now that we should have -- not trade with anybody. and i think that the next president, if it was clinton, will follow that policy. what she said sounds like that is our policy. deepssa: there is a problem here. i do not think it is necessarily trade, it is how well we do it. the reality is all of these trade agreements might be free

trade agreements, but they are managed agreements, and it is about who has the power to benefit their industry or sector, that is the reality. under the free trade agreement, we had to fight like hell to get congress to agree to the trade assistance programs that would help displaced workers in the u.s. and mexico to manage the effects of it. going to your point. but what we see right now is not unique in terms that politicians will not engage in meaningful conversations with constituents or folks that there -- that are trying to engage. bad, i am against it, becomes the real thing. as opposed to a real conversation of what it needs to look like and what do we need to engage in. one example, this is true on

immigration, where we have had democrats for decades feel like they needed to say nothing or be silent on the issue, they are evil thing from there. -- eveolving from there. but if senator lindsey graham won his primary for senate in south carolina, the most brutal primary in the nation, sticking to his guns and trying to expand on conservative principles and why immigration reform makes sense, you cannot tell me that politicians cannot have real conversations with their constituents. it is that they don't do it. and we sometimes as voters welcome that were demanded that. avik: i will make a quick point. a lot of people think donald trump has no coherent view of politics. i would argue that is not the

case. his views are coherent and this is how i would draw it. he is a nativist across all policies. he is against foreigners competing with americans for labor. he is against foreigners competing with america for goods and services. that is free trade. and he is against american involvement in for policy, broadly speaking, he wants to say, i will not be involved in foreign wars and everything else. so he is a nativist. everything one of his policies are about looking inward and being afraid of engaging with other countries were particularly non-european countries. and that is -- i understand that there are legitimate policies and the debate about whether free trade is good or bad and how to make them work for workers in america. there is a strain of the

anti-trade movement that is about nativism and not about economics. keith: yes? >> quickly. on medicare isy almost all ofse the red states have refused to the expansion of medicaid, and with all the votes that took place in congress, they actually took place on the ground around .he country in those red states the reorganization that is necessary on a political level has to do with exactly that, including everybody and not policies against poor

people go forward. keith: i think we were talking about medicaid expansion in kentucky. do you want to tackle that? and you are from kentucky, right? charles: i went to school in kentucky. been, say that there have and the point about my party today, i will point you in the direction of some republicans. oddly enough, i'm sure that pence could speak about this. i think about my state governor in tennessee. there are these hybrid things with the aca. they are changing eligibility standards and asking people to kick in in terms of premiums. these kinds of things. i believe pence would know better, but there are a handful

of republican governors who have done these expansions and implementations by requesting certain waivers, to do it in their own way and change some of the rules and not do it exactly the way it was contemplated, but to do it in a conservative way, asking people to pay a little bit more. that is as close republicans have come to it. mary: i have something to say about this. i said something about it this one. the only one of those red states in the south where poor people live that have taken medicaid expansion, louisiana, because mr. vitter had these sex scandals, the republican, he lost to the democrat and the democrat got in and he has accepted it in louisiana. the point i want to make is -- ask yourself why there was such inig hole in the language

obamacare, that left space, i put it this morning like a truck could drive do it, for the supreme court to decide that the states could not make up their own minds about this money, when there is money involved, usually there is money on the stump and you take it and run -- but the reason i am told by the guys that negotiated obamacare, they might be lying, people like to lie about things they did or did not do, but they did not want to negotiate with republicans in congress and did not want them to see what they were doing. and they did not want them to read what they were doing. so they were happy to pass it as it was and figure out, we will get the holes taken care of later, so it was a classic that -- itsomething

is a good thing i like obamacare and i like people getting health insurance, but it is another example of something that leads to polarization and more problems for some of the poor people who were left out. keith: we have time for one last question. two people who have had their hands up all day club i can only call on one. day, but i can only: one. >> my name is june and i am a medical student. i am with five other students from the public health school. i say this to everyone, not to offend, but in form. waslunch we enjoyed today made from the replacement workers of harvard university dining services and they are replacement because the workers right now are outside the building, fighting on strike, for living wage.

these people are often people of under people who we label low economic status. so with all of that, i want to ask the leaders right now, how do you reconcile the irony of fighting for civil justice, policy advocacy, and having to be complicit on a personal level? perhaps they would not be an irony if there was not dichotomy, but i want to hear from you how you reconcile the difference? keith: how do you justify yourselves? [applause] [laughter] charles: there are numerous, numerous examples -- avik: of institutions like harvard, because they can call themselves nonprofit, they use it as a shield to engage in greedy behavior.

it is true of nonprofit hospitals, true of nonprofit universities. there is an economy of nonprofit institutions that take advantage of this and do things, if it was a publicly traded corporation doing it, we would be up in arms. keith: the ncaa. avik: exactly. so, obviously this is outside the scope of the discussion today, but i would love for the kennedy school to put some thought into that, how the nonprofit institutions are not living up to their moral obligations. keith: charles? charles: i don't know why you called on me. [laughter] keith: giving you a last opportunity to speak. ofrles: i am quite fond james crawford's quote, never make enemy of the good. says my there are no

solutions, just trade-offs. that is what we do day-to-day, make a series of trade-offs. mary: i am not in the habit of making trade-offs, so i did not know they were outside and i did not know the people that made the lunches were doing that as substitutes. had i known that, i would not have ate lunch and i would have gone out and found out why they were protesting. i love protesters. to see if there is something of like to protest along with them. i am an information person. i did not know that. chance to follow up. clarissa: i would like to build on that question, because it is important to -- again, a lot of times we go for something so specific we miss the bigger point and responsibility. i agree that everybody does make

trade-offs every day. i think the question you posed is important for each and everyone of us to grapple with every single day. certainly, it is a question for us to reflect on. but it is a question at so many different levels, how are we complacent in this situation? and in the broader situation we have been talking about all day and what are we going to do about it? i am privileged, different from my parents who have a job where i work on civil rights and social justice issues, that was different from what my parents got to do and what my first job in the u.s. was in the garment district, ironing. which drove home my mom and dad's advice to stay in school. but i want to build on that point, because that is where i would like us, what i would like

us to think about. i used to think of myself as a pessimist, and now maybe i am a skeptical optimist. and a young lady said earlier, of course, because you did not have -- if you do not have optimism you would not be look to fight for these things. i think grappling with this question is also about, what is our role as a civil society? and strengthening an accurate story of who we are, the story of us and who we are as a country, that reflects what the country really is. not the doom and gloom that some people are selling to scare us away from each other and play it to a political advantage, not glossing over the things we need to fix, but a story where we least aot all, at

majority of americans to see themselves. whether it is latinos, white, african-americans, and bringing it back to the kennedy school, i would say i was here a wild back, but -- a while back, but i remember in a case study, it was apparent that there were also elements of race and ethnicity and empowerment in the crisis that was part of the case study, it was never dealt with. it was handled as a management challenge without addressing those issues. so bringing it home, what i would say in terms of the steps we can each take, big or small, for the kennedy school as it seeks to prepare the future generations of people that will be in public service, one of the biggest challenges facing the country is, how do we govern

effectively in light of our diverse nation? let's not obscure those things and let's make sure those topics and approaches and solutions are infused in every single class. and not just special panels, but part of every class and the challenges we deal with in those context. keith: without we will end the discussion. thank you very much for the panelists for your presentations and thoughts. [applause] i would ask for another round of applause for the wonderful panel. [applause] >> >> c-span was greeted as a public service and is brought to you today by a cable or

satellite provider. >> tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern, to lisa are say talks about her life and experience at the u.n. as none document in immigrant. is an undocumented immigrant who became a wall street executive. as a child not having your parents with you and only seen him every few months, first of all your feel they are a bit of a stranger to you because when i would see my parents, they would come bearing lots of presence and when i visited them in the u.s., it was during summer vacation so does a very different experience than having parents who are with you every single day. tonight on 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv.

c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. senate races. 10:00, live coverage on c-span. chris vance and debate for the washington senate seat. monday evening at 7:00 live on c-span, the pennsylvania senate debate between republican senator pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. a debate for the florida senate and republican senator marco rubio and democratic congressman patrick murphy. thursday night at 8:00 eastern, republican senator kelly ayotte and democratic governor maggie half's debate for the new hampshire senate seat. now until election day, follow key debates from house, senate and governor's races on the c-span network, c-span.org and c-span radio. c-span, where history unfolds daily.

coming up next, hillary clinton campaigns in pittsburgh with the running mate, senator tim kaine. then donald trump outlines his agenda for the first 100 days as president while speaking to be supporters in gettysburg, pennsylvania. at 7:00, washington journal's live with your calls and it looked today's headlines. >> hillary clinton her running mate senator tim kaine working campaign trail this weekend in pennsylvania. one of the first types -- real clear politics shows aheady clinton 6% points in the swing state.