kimberly kagan, let me bring you in. the trump administration has been advocating more hard power than say soft power can things like aid, assistance, diplomacy. it has advocated for sharp cuts to the state department and cuts to usaid. step back from syria for just a second. how similar or different is this what america typically does? in a fragile state how does america usually deal with the balance between using hard power and soft power? >> hard power and soft power are both necessary in many circumstances. in order to help a fragile state recover itself and in order to set conditions whereby governments and civil society can return. and, unfortunately, the solutions that one might hope to see in syria can neither be exclusively military or exclusively soft power lead. each has its role and it is vitally important that the united states have a robust budget for its institutions like the state department, like foreign aid, which are critical components for us to achieve our mission of helping keep the people in the wo

kimberly kagan and nancy president of the united states institute of peace. thanks for talking to us. >> thank you. >> thanks everybody for coming. appreciate it. >> thanks, joshua. >> thank you very much. we have refreshments outside. thanks for all of your questions. >>> this sunday on 1968 america in turmoil, the presidential election of 1968 began with eight presidential candidates. by the end the sitting president bowed out. robert kennedy was assassinated. television coverage was dominated by clashes and richard nixon won a decisive victory. joining us on the program, former presidential candidate pat buchanan and barbara perry director of presidential studies at the university of virginia. watch 1968 america in turmoil live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on washington journal and on america history tv on c-span 3. >>> congressional caucus for women's issues held a hearen ogco -- hearing on

kimberly: it sounds like -- jus. kagan: we are takingjus. blue: 15,000 of the bluest voters to convert the district from a safe republican district to a competitive district. how do you analyze that? mr. kimberly: to be clear i have it straight, the point is lawmakers -- jus. kagan: we want another democrat. annapolis, they say we disapprove of these voters electing a republican in this district, we will move in these democrats to prevent them from doing it, that could be again depending on strict scrutiny questions, and also on the burden, that could be a violation of our theory. >> one question i have about causation for you. before the district court, it appeared you conceded you had approved causation, but for the alleged gerrymandered, the outcome would have been different in the last three elections. the district court expressed in the lower standard, rejecting some metaphysical could be burden in favor of the blood for cause task. in this court you seem to be blue backing away from the -- to be backing away. in favor of something else