tv U.S. Senate CSPAN December 28, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
dimensions. this volume begins in some of our discussion this morning i'm sure will touch on some of these matters with an overview of perceived national security needs and priorities of how they have evolve and fall rather rapidly or so in the last decade or so are and are likely to change going forward. so readers of this volume will encounter discussions of the way definitions of strategically and tactical doctrines have changed with the evolution of perceived national security priorities. .. >> prepared for the situation
they face and so on, and what happens to them once they leave service. so we try to explore the role of the military both within and beyond the modern battle space. now, today's -- one of our premises and, i think, one of the underlying premises of this discussion this morning is that today's military is not your grandfather's, nor even your father's armed force. it is, first of all, relatively, quite small. there's actually less than one-half of 1% of the american population. we can put that number in perspective if we recollect in world war i the 16 million men and several thousand women who were taken into uniform represented better than 10% population compared to today, and also, though, this is maybe somewhat more controversial, today's military force is relatively inexpensive even with the supplemental appropriations for the iraq and afghan wars,
the department of defense budget is approximately 5% of gdp. at the height of world war ii, the military budget was over 40% of gdp, and during the height of the cold war it ranged from 8-10% of gdp. so relative to recent and further back historical experience, we have a military that is really extraordinarily modest in size relative to the population in whose name it fights and relatively inexpensive compared to the incidents of military costs or defense costs on the larger economy in recent history. also, of course, today's force is as everyone in this room knows a volunteer force. that's a well known fact, but many of the implications of that fact are less familiar. the volunteer force by its very nature as a volunteer force is, and i'm sure two generals to my
right will have more to say about this, the volunteer because it is a volunteer force is unrepresentative of the population as a whole. for example, in the cohort of people in the labor force between the ages of 8 and 44 -- 18 and 44 in the african-american population that represents -- african-americans are about 12.6% of the people in the labor force between the ages of 18 and 44, but they are almost 20% represented in the military. reciprocally or conversely, i guess i should say, hispanics are 17% of the 18 to 44 cohort in the labor force but only about 13% of the members of the armed forces in that same age cohort, so hispanics are underrepresented in the armed forces, and african-americans are overrepresented. and, of course, again, a more controversial item, but just to put the number out there, women are almost 51% of the population in the 18 to 44 age cohort, but
they're only 14% of personnel serving in the military. and yet another sidebar but still, i think, an interesting one for this is the role of people who are not in uniform but nevertheless are undertaking military missions of one sort or another, and i have in mind here in particular the role of contractors like blackwater now changed its name who by some measures at least were more than 50% of the total u.s. deployment in iraq. outgoing secretary of defense robert dates' -- gates' speech at duke university last year went out of his way to call his audience's axe attention to the unrepresentativeness of the force, and he was urging people in his audience to think about a career in the armed services, and he made a the point that recruiting is coming disproportionately from the south and the rocky mountain states, again, a matter that the generals here may care to comment on. in sum, i think we have before us here this morning, and we try
to explore these in the volume that i keep referring to, i think four leading questions. the first is how well have we, in fact, defined our national security priorities for the immediate future? secondly, how well have we configured and composed the force that is asked to secure those priorities in order to fulfill the mission that they're asked to pursue? thirdly, what does the configuration and structure of the force imply about political accountability for decisions to actually use the force, a matter of particular interest to me, and i'm particularly interested in the way the structure of the force and its nature constrains or amplifies the scope for political maneuver of the political leadership when it comes time to make the decision to shoulder arms. and have we, finally, the first to question, have we configured the force in line with our professed national values of fairness and shared obligations? and on this last note i'll just
make one last observation about the relation of service to citizenship in its most inclusive sense. immigrants in the armed forces today, that is noncitizen aliens in the armed forces today, of whom there are approximately 70,000, are fast tracked to citizenship thanks to some measures in the g.w. bush administration. so service, armed -- service in the armed services can earn you a fast track to citizenship, but at the same time no citizen is actually obliged to serve in the military thanks to the all-volunteer force we've had since 1973. so service can earn you citizenship, but citizenship does not obligate you to serve. i find that a very curious asymmetry. so a former and illustrious member of this academy has been quoted a lot already this weekend, so i'm going to uphold the tradition and close with one
final remark from, at least from me, about, from the mouth or the pen of george washington who said in 1783 the following: he said, it may be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our system that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal service to the defense of it. a system that today we do have. so i'll end there and be happy to pass the baton, first, to general bostic and then to general martin. >> thank you, david and, leslie, thank you for the invitation here. this is a great honor for me to be here with greg and david to talk about -- >> excuse me for interrupting you when you just got started, but i've just been reminded that i should have mentioned the cards that you have at your places, and if you would, please, write any questions you might have for the panel on those cards, and they'll get handed up here in a manner that i can't describe to you, but
somebody will take care of it -- [laughter] and then we'll try to respond as best we can. sorry for the interruption. >> it's okay. but this is wonderful for the army to have this opportunity. we deeply feel that we must remain connected with the american public, and opportunities like this although i leave the pentagon very rarely, i jumped at this opportunity. and having it on a sunday made it a little bit eastier, but i thank you for inviting us. it's very important work that we do. you know, my father was in the military. he spent 26 and a half years in the army, and he was a sergeant. and i was convinced after watching him, first, go through the desegregation truman executive order -- i mean, i didn't watch it, i wasn't born, but i know about it. fight in korea, fight in vietnam and then live the life of a soldier for 26 and a half years with my mom and five kids, i was convinced that's not what i
wanted to do. so -- [laughter] i have 33 and a half years in the service, and i'm convinced he left early. [laughter] so when you think about what i do, i listen to the title, and sometimes i have a hard time explaining what it is i do. i'm kind of like the head human resource person for the army. and i have a lot of responsibilities in that, but suffice it to say we have 1.1 million soldiers in the army. we have 330,000 civilians. about 60% of our army is married, so families matter. we have active, we have reserve, and we have national guard. that's the army. and that's who i work for. and they all have my e-mail address and write me frequently. [laughter] but, but it is a joy to serve for them. i thought i'd run through a list of things that are on the plate of the army and that we're
working today, some of them we'll get to, some of them cross into what david was talking about. but as we go into the question and answer period, there are some topics that may not be in line with the theme of today's session, but you may have a question on it. so i want to just talk about some of those. first and foremost, our mission is to win our nation's wars. and we are doing that in iraq and afghanistan and in other places around the world doing what the congress and the american people and the president expect us to do. in doing that for ten years as an army at war, we are very concerned about the health of our force. no one would have guessed, i think, that we would be at this war for this long with many soldiers who have only known war since they've joined this military. so the stress is significant. there are a lot of negative signs that we're seeing in a number of different areas whether it's suicides that have increased from 2011 to about,
from about 50 suicides in our active army to well over 160 by 2010. so we've tripled the suicides, we have alcohol, abuse in some of our soldiers that have stood in combat formations for many years. we're seeing signs of child abuse and sexual abuse and assault. our wounded warrior population has increased significantly. we have 300 amputees, 26 of them are serving in combat today, something that we did not do in the past. very few amputees even stayed with the army. folks like secretary shinseki who is an amputee and has led the charge along with gentlemen like general retired fred franks that amputees can continue to serve and other wounded, ill and injured soldiers continue to serve in our military. we have a number of cases of
posttraumatic stress, we have traumatic brain injuries in significant numbers from the type of the war that we're fighting. and another topic many of you may know that we have been engaged in, i'm sure s the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, and i saturday on the commission that reviewed that for over a year with the general counsel of the department of defense, jay johnson, and it was recently repealed. and i think the army, our military will do just fine. we're working on a topic near and dear to my heart, and that's women in our military and how they serve and where they serve. we still have policies that talk about the front line of troops which women are well beyond, and we don't serve, and we don't fight in that fashion anymore. so we've got to review our policies on women. religious accommodations, we're about potentially to go to court in some cases of religious
freedoms that different soldiers wish to have in terms of wearing beards and turbans and longer hair and different jewelry and items that recognize their religious freedoms. and how do we balance that against the strict discipline policy and uniformity that is necessary in our army. i spent four years as the head recruiter of the army, so i've been all over america and the world reaching out to colleges and universities, high schools trying to insure that we can tell our story. i was in the pentagon during 9/11 and worked very closely with secretary rumsfeld and the president in many of the decisions that were made on that day and the subsequent days and have been deployed to bosnia, iraq and other places around the world. i just wanted to give you that background so as you think about the questions that you would like to ask, i'm prepared to talk all about that. and despite the health and
stress of our force, i want to just say that this is the best trained, best equipped and best led army that this country has ever fielded. and we are ready to do what the nation asks us to do anywhere, in any place, and i'm very, very proud to serve. it is an all-volunteer army, and there are differences of opinion, but i and many other leaders prefer an all-volunteer force for a number of reasons that we can talk about today. there's a myth that many folks can serve in the army. the fact is less than 3 out of 10 high school students or those in the age of 17-24-year-old can actually wear this uniform. they're unqualified because of education, aptitude, they're unqualified because of their medical conditions, and they are unqualified because of their conduct. so when you see a soldier, he's one of those less than 3 out of 10 that can wear this uniform.
not everybody can serve. secretary of defense robert gates said most americans honor and respect those who have chosen to serve, but most citizens, to most citizens this war's an abstraction, a distant and unpleasant series of news items that do not effect them personally. this is why i think it's important for us to engage and have this opportunity to speak with you today. i was at, i go to many different functions across the country as the head recruiter, and i remember walking into one hotel. and i was going down the elevator, and there was a lady on the hoe hell -- elevator, and she said you're looking mighty fine in that uniform. so i took a step back, and i said, okay. [laughter] she said, have you made sergeant yet? [laughter] i looked up to make sure i had my rank on -- [laughter] at that time i was a two-star. and i said, well, no, i'm
actually an officer. she says, oh, okay, i understand. so have you made captain? [laughter] but america understands -- and, you know, i felt pretty good about that. i didn't feel at all bad that at least america, those that really aren't in touch with american, they're not thinking about generals and the senior leaders, they're thinking about sergeants and captains. and it's those sergeants and captains and those below them that are carrying the bulk of combat force. but we do need to reach out. we do need to continue to stay connected to america. we're about to draw down our army. you've heard it in the news. in the active army we have about 570,000 soldiers. we're going to draw it down to about 520,000 by fiscal year '16. so about 50,000 soldiers will, will leave the end strength of our army. that said, every year about 150,000 soldiers transition and
leave the military, and we need your help. we need your help not just in thanking or our soldiers, airmen, military all alike for their service, but help them in the transition. again in that age group of the 18, the younger age group of our military, 18-24, you're all about 30% of them are unemployed. each year i pay unemployment compensation, that's part of my budget. my budget is about $62 billion. and part of my budget is to pay unemployment compensation. about a half a billion dollars a year goes to unemployed soldiers that are looking for jobs. many of these are very, talented soldiers. they're medics that have saved lives for individuals across the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan, but they don't have the credentials to work as a medic in an emergency medical team in a hospital.
and what we're asking is for some ability to transition these soldiers taking some risk in society. you heard that i taught engineering at west point. my wife is a elementary school principal. if i wanted to go teach elementary math in her school tomorrow if i took off my uniform, i cannot do that. i have a lot of certification requirements and other things that i currently don't have time to do. and this isn't about me, but many others have the same challenges that they must get certified in the states where they need to be certified in order to take on a job. so we'd ask ask for some assistance as they move on. since the beginning of our country, two institutions have sustained our democracy. one is the united states army, the military, and the other is public education. francis his l wine said -- she's the winner of the presidential medal of freedom -- that those
are the two institutions that we have to sustain. my family's involved in both with my wife as an elementary school principal. and the army is all about education. as i found going across the country many thought that the military was not interested in education. nothing could be further from the truth. last year in the 9/11 g.i. bill we spent more than $5 billion in money for college for men and women of the armed forces. more than 60 million of that money was used here in massachusetts in schools in 2010 and 2011. just last year during the year about $40,000 -- $240,000 were spent on tuition assistance where soldiers while in the army were taking courses online, courses in their local community, courses while serving in iraq and afghanistan. and i'll close here by talking about a soldier from st. paul,
minnesota, and what he said when he was a senior in high school. he wrote a credo paper outlining how he wanted to live his life. michael was excellent in sports, and he loved football, wrestling, weight lifting and skiing. he thrived on competition and the rush and the throngs of all of those in the crowds that would yell and scream his name and the others on his team. but while he could have pursued an athletic career both in college and then, perhaps, in the pros, he decided against it. he wrote, when i am on my death bed, when i'm going to look back on 30 years that's going to be important to me, will it be 30 years of playing a game that in reality means nothing, or will it be 30 years of protecting the
country from all enemies, foreign and domestic? i want to fight for something, be a part of something that is greater than myself. michael was killed in a bradley fighting vehicle that overturned in iraq, and he was 22 years old. my job is to make sure that soldiers like michael and the many like him have everything they need to execute their mission for this country each and every day. thank you. [applause] >> general? >> thank you. and, leslie, thanks for organizing this conference, and thanks everyone who's here. congratulations on your huge success. thanks for what you do in your life, your profession and the huge difference you're making for our country and for the world. david, i want to congratulate you on this excellent addition. this is fantastic. if you haven't had a chance to
read this, what a great capture of all the current issues going on in today's, in your modern american military. my job is commandant of the u.s. army war college, so i am the college president of the army's graduate school for strategic studies. we are sort of the bookend to west point. west point does a bachelor's degree, undergraduate, we do strategic studies, national security affairs, master's degree, and we launch a number of our students out to elite universities and think tanks, and a bunch of them are in the back of the rook up there. so i would encourage you, get to know these army war college fellows that are out at places like mit and stanford and around the country. as well as get to know your military. that's really my bottom line up front, this is your military. we love this country. we are proud to serve. we're honored to be serving you in this great country. get to know us. take the time, get to meet rotc
students, meet the national guardsmen in your hometowns, get to know the units in wherever it is you live. figure out how to reach out to them. and right here if you're at harvard or mit or one of these great schools, we've got several that are here with you as neighbors. the big idea about the army war college, it was founded 110 years ago by great american who was the secretary of war, came in right after the spanish-american war. his big idea -- and people said, you know, mr. root, you should call it the army peace college. he said, no, i want to keep focused on war because it's that most tragic and horrible of all human conditions which mankind can't seem to avoid peating. he said, the big idea of founding this school is not to promote war, but to preserve peace through wise, strong leadership. hopefully, we can deter war through that strength and wisdom. and the motto dovetails nicely with the academy, and the motto of the war college is prudence --
[inaudible] or prudence for the future or providence for the future or wisdom for the future. but that is the big idea, and that is what we attempt to do is to develop our leaders so that they will be wise leaders who can advise civilian authorities and explain to them the limits of military power, how best to use or not use military force. hopefully, to talk about can we use diplomacy or information or the economic element of power and, hopefully, avoid using the military element of power. the epitome of strategy is if you can convince someone to do what it is you want them to do without having to fight, so that's the mindset we have at the army war college. the question that leslie asked me to answer is, how does the u.s. military contribute to and help advance a civil democratic society? so i've got a couple points to make. first, first point is that i believe the most significant thing that your u.s. military
does to advance a civil society is that we hope create a more secure, predictable, orderly international system upon which we have the predictability to have commerce, to have economics to invest in education and the arts and in science. in this anarchic world where there is no global police force, that is, essentially, the fundamental thing we do to advance the civil society. you know, we don't send trading ships full of goods that traverse the oceans, they don't have naval escorts. but for someone who wanted to do us harm, perhaps, you know, capture those ships, they have to calculate there is a u.s. navy and a coast guard out there. maybe this won't be worth it. and so i think the great hobbs yang quote which i just want to share this with you if you haven't read hobbs lately, but he talks about without having -- and this was in the leviathan
written in the 16th century -- he said that without having some sort of force that can impose order and underwrite security, there will be no commerce, there will be no arts, no letters, no society. and which is worst of all, continual fear and violent death? in the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish in short. and if you want a more updated, modern version of that quote, i'm going to quote president obama when he accepted the nobel peace prize, and i quote: i face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the american people. for make no mistake, evil does exist in the world. a nonviolent movement could not have halted hitler's armies. negotiations cannot convince al-qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. to say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history. the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
so i think that is the number one thing that the u.s. military does, is to give us the basis upon which to have a civil society. let me move to my next point at the national level. we've chosen since vietnam to have this all-volunteer force, and i like the idea of an all-volunteer force because i believe in free will and choice. i think there is inherent goodness in people being able to choose or not choose what they're going to do with their time and their life. i think it's inherent in the declaration of independence. it also provides a very effective force. i will tell you, on the eve of launching the attack into, from kuwait into iraq, i was a brigade commander during that, it sure helped that all of our soldiers were volunteers. and when we got to baghdad and the guerrilla war started and we were clearing roadside bombs, the fact that every one of those soldiers was a volunteer made it
much more effective. no one was there against their will, they had all volunteered. however, as david pointed out, perhaps the country has lost something with this idea of military service. maybe the gap has grown and people aren't serving their country in the way that we traditionally did going back to the founding of the republic. i had the opportunity back in may to speak at the harvard club in new york city to a group of world war ii vets, and what impressed me, these were great americans who went on to be leaders in business, academia, we had judges and so forth. and they had all served in the military. there was a bond, a sense of common purpose that united them and their generation that perhaps we've lost some of that as time has gone on with the all-volunteer force. so that's something to think about. i do believe at the national level that the military has been an engine of social change, and general bostick talked about the racial integration. the g.i. bill was a huge engine of education, leadership,
productivity. so i think that much has been done for society because of the way our military, the benefits in the our institution. i'd like to talk next about the institutional level. every officer and soldier takes an oath to support and defend the constitution. and that is taught, it's discussed, it's repeated at enlistments, promotions, in every soldier, every officer knows and understands why they serve; to support and defend the constitution. the subordination, the respect for civil authority, that is ingrained, it's in our dna, it's part of the fabric of the u.s. military. from day one soldiers are taught and instilled with values that come from the declaration of independence, the constitution, and we take that very seriously, this idea of compromise, of respect for others, of listening to other people from diverse backgrounds, diverse points of view in order to create a team,
is something that we take, it's part of the ethos, it's part of the culture of the military. at the individual level, i would tell you people join the military today for service, for self-development, for adventure, for travel. if any of you -- could i just see by a show of hands how many of you have, perhaps, served in the military? okay. the reasons are the same. i mean, it is, it is development, it's adventure, it is, it is service to a cause greater than self. and so that continues. and what we in the army try to do, in the military, is we take these tremendous young men and women, and i will tell you, that's the reason i have stayed in the army. it is a joy and a privilege to serve, and when i was a commander in missouri, it's one of the biggest -- [inaudible] did everything from basic training to officer education, ncos, but from day one when a soldier or an officer comes in, we are about leader development. ..
but what a talent, the kurdish comedy in the fate the innovativeness, a captain is that these young teammate grade have demonstrated these complex wars. we've never had a generation of young leaders in our country that done with these young people have done. i would tell you it's a national treasure. one of our challenges will be
during the drawdown to retain the best of them for the future. what i would ask you -- but i think he should know and i'm going to kind of wrap it up here. i think this all volunteer force is the fact is. it's a national treasure and an ongoing story. the points race and a list by professor kennedy a think we need to talk about and have a conversation as a country about this growing gap which we talked about. i think it is fundamentally need to try to strike in our civil military ties and some ways to do this art forms like this. there's another one where we've got the mellon foundation has endorsed a florida where we joined liberal arts colleges that military institutions. the dickinson college in the army war college in carlisle with the different academy of liberal arts schools in the area. we've got two programs at the
army war college were we inviting distinguished americans like yourselves to spend a week at the national security seminar command and spend with 150 civilians around the country to spend a week with our students to get to know them, to understand and learn more about your military. another program called the sena leader staff writer we take them to the gettysburg battlefield and talk about leadership in history and what went on in those wars and what we can learn from it. i asked some young officers and noncommissioned officers, what should i tell this distinguished group but all the chance to speak with on sunday? here's what they said. get to know us. learn about who we are, what we believe in. because they believe in the greatest virtues and values of our country and they want you to be more knowledgeable. so get out your military.
reach out and build that relationship. with that, i see the yellow lighted sign. i have much went like to say. i've got wonderful stories i could tell you, but this is a military that you can trust the idea of subordination to civil authority. that is absolutely re: those then we serve you through the elected officials that she put in positions of authority. the thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. and perfect timing. he spoke your last syllable is just as the red on. while we are gathering up questions from you in the room, i would just like to share a little bit of inactivates that i learned in that visit to fort lewis washington a few years back in 90s for your comment on it.
i understand it's a social scientist that anecdote is singular, so we don't want to make too much of this. but it was a telling bit of numbers that made an impression on me. i may not get the numbers precise, but i think i'll come back to get the point. apparently the timeout if they are commandeered recently been completed some internal survey of the general officers in the u.s. army. in amongst the things that had surfaced in the survey, the fact that at that time the boy who is 305 general officers peered amongst them had 180 of their children and service. and the officers that i was seen on a daily basis referred to this if they make sure what i perceived as both tried and anxiety as the family business. the military had become the family business. their next generation was serving 180 of their children in
service to 305 of them. a lot of that was interesting numbers. so i came back to stanford campus and put a research assistant on the task of figuring out how many children of the 535 elected members of the united states congress, how many of their children were in service. in the methodology was a little difficult. it wasn't as clean as a result as you might like. the best we came up with those 535 elected members of congress had 10 children, of their children in uniform. even if the margin of error was substantial and it was double, so the disparity between the intergenerational obligation of service in the services of and this tranche of civil society's prediction that it. did that to me as one of many ways that stays lodged in my mind, that we have an issue in
front of us here about the disjunction between the military as an institution in our society that is in danger. i use that word advisedly. in danger of becoming so separate and having a sense of itself and even maybe south perpetuating intergenerational income and that that is a worry for the health of our civil society. i would like to have the two generals here if they would comment on the accuracy of my numbers and whether you share my concern that the numbers are even approximately accurate that they indicate a problem have to to worry about. >> i can't attest to theocracy at the numbers. i think that's about accurate. my guess is the number of children serving is probably about accurate as well. greg can talk about his own experience with that. let me at a macro level you some background of our army and where they come from. if you drew a line from west texas to kansas and out to north
carolina, in the southeastern section, just under 50% of the year becomes familiar. about 40% of the army comes from there. in this region, about 15%. if you go to the west, about 24%. everything else is in the midwest. so we are heavily overrepresented in the southeast. in fact, what we have to look at his those qualifications to come in the military. there's about 36% of those young americans that are eligible and not southeastern section. or we take about 47%. so we overrepresented in even smaller population. it is important that we continue to reach out to all of america and that we are representing. the other thing interesting to me is that recruiter.
about 30% of those who come into the military are within less than 50 miles at the military base. so they see the military. they see soldiers. our soldiers come from all over america. there's not towns and communities that are represented. what we ask our soldiers to do and leaders to do was go back home, they are the heroes, the folks like them want to talk to. i was at a conference and a young man and his young son about this all ran all ran up and can we take a picture with you quite i said sure. we took the picture and the father said, so this general what you want to do any growth. he said it went to be a soldier. sap did not to say that just because i'm here. he said i didn't. [laughter] just bust the bubble.
why did you do it? well, there is this one african-american west point cadet that wiped away. so the closer you are and that man away to so that if iran after this cadet. i said you are the one who appeared he looked at me like i was crazy. he said that little kid over there wants to be like you. so we encourage our soldiers to get back to their hometowns, wear their uniform and talk about this military. getting back to david's point, i like a lot more young than men and women to serve and have an opportunity to serve, but the all volunteer force is very important that our soldiers are committed to what they are doing, have volunteered for the tough duty so they had. what i think would help america is we should all serve in some
capacity. we have a lot of requirements for this country, whether it's in education, the department of defense, working in government, hoping the legislature. if you are committed to volunteering a portion of your life to serve in some capacity, and many more will choose the military as a service. i would like you to volunteer to serve this have to do are going to ask you to do. thanks. >> i agree with the idea of volunteer service. i'm a big proponent of get out, help people make the world a better place. whatever that means firing in your personal interests are. going to david's point about children of military officers. i don't know the exact numbers, but i do know that a lot of my peers, general officers kids are serving in the military. one of the things that thomas jefferson was concerned about when he established west point back in 1802 was that he did not
want sort of a military elite who became separate from the society. that's why he instituted the idea of congressional nominations is one of the steps to get into the service economies. this is a concern going back to the earliest days of the republic. i would like to see greater diversity across the board. it's a great step that rotc, a national treasure that was set up to bring citizen soldiers into the officer corps across america. the fact they are coming back to elite universities such as harvard, stanford is a huge step in the right direction. the army and the military needs to work harder and reaching out to the elites in society because of the all volunteer force, it is perhaps less challenging and less effort to recruit places that are more promilitary and friendlier to the message.
it is tougher to tell the army story and recruit a more elite universities. we need to put the effort and because the nation needs its best and brightest. back to your question about what military kids serve. general bostick covered in really well. but we have three boys. i'll just share this with you for a second. our oldest had no desire to serve in the military. he adhered to his shoulders, musician, artist can major in english literature, no desire to serve in the military. that was great. he graduated from college was a schoolteacher in europe. the next thing i find that it's even listed in the add its army. general bostick is recruiting commander. i said why are you enlisting in the united states army? you don't have to do this to make you happy. pursue your dream and your life. he said that, i missed the military culture. i've discovered through the absence of not being around the army, i love the army, the
culture come that people come in the sense of teamwork on a cause greater than self. i want back in that culture. he went to basic training and he's a surgeon serving on active duty right now by choice. so interesting story. >> even though it printed 180,000 a year, we were together personally on sale. [laughter] it was mono and bono. >> i've got another sunday was a a captain on the duty has been a year as an infantry platoon leader in kandahar province in afghanistan. he's more traditional. he grew up moving around the world and he said i want to be a part of this and west point was a school to apply to. a great educational program, good athletics, later development. part of a team doing something important is challenging, developmental and all of those with it. so he chose that. the more interesting is their youngest son is going to college studying art.
i asked him what can i tell this elite group about the value of the military to civil society? he said tell them that i can go towards gold because of the service and sacrifice of these great troopers who are around the world defending and keeping a secure environment so i can study art in peace. >> well, we have a question here about the state of morale in the armed forces and particular in the wake of two episodes of certainly agitated civil society and i guess the question goes to how did they played inside inside the military? the first is the debate over whether the war was justified and in particular after the demonstration that saddam hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, which was a rationale in the first place and the notorious episode of abu ghraib.
both of these in the civil society created are deep in sense of the illegitimacy of the war or is less than optimal character. i'm trying to find the right expression to capture what the civil reaction was. how do those events play it inside the military is the question? did they affect morale and if they ultimately reflect back on the military's attitude towards the civil societies debating its very presence in iraq. >> i'll take the first one. when you think about a soldier in combat and why he fades in what he does the things he does each and every day, most might think it's for their buddies. as for the guys on the left and guys on the right. others think more broadly, more strategically but they are in this mission for their country
and protect the freedoms of their country. all of them believed that this vote, the first and foremost is i need to protect my buddies to my left and right. i need to accomplish this mission, this narrow mission that they are on that day. they must accomplish that mission. now, david opportunity from time to time to listen to the news in your debates ongoing. but at the end of the day, with soldiers are doing is accomplishing their day to day missions. but things like abu ghraib and whether the water is justified or not are following their civilian leaders as they are expected to. when the commander-in-chief that this is what we are going to do as a nation come as a military, they don't question it. they go and execute. as far as something like abu ghraib, it is a great disappointment to any soldier when anything bad happens to our
army. we are expected to treat everyone with dignity and respect. we have army values that taught to our loyalty and duty of many of the values that are very sacred to us. anytime one of those are affect it, then soldiers each and every one of us feel badly about it. but at the end of the day, they'll continue to press on to press on to do the mission they required to do. >> i would say in terms of morale overall, you know, the force has been fighting very, very hard for 10 years since 9/11. multiple deployments, and a lot of repeats and stress on the family send troops and the officers. he contacted some of the fellas on the back of the room who have done multiple tours. the morale, i would say, is good. it is positive. as general bostick tots, there are severe challenges stress-related, but overall we do have challenges, but people
continue to serve because they want to serve. specifically going to some of the examples that you talked about, where things are horribly wrong. most of the time, most of the people in the military are doing the right things in accordance with values, laws and upholding the best ideals of american values and citizenship and the things we believe in. when mistakes are made, we do an after action review appeared with laws are broken and things such as abu ghraib, which was a horrible break down, all those people have. the army revealed that a criminal prosecution under the full authority of the was taken in big changes are made with regard to training, organization, procedures, policies, federate.
each time whenever something happens like that, where there is a breakdown of order, discipline, values or the law, the army takes that very, very seriously as to all the military services and we learn from that, improve things and really punish as appropriate those who broke the lives of the values. >> thank you. a little different order of question. general bostick, come a server for this already, so the question lets you to speak more about it. could you say more about the challenges of transitioning from fighting two wars simultaneously to a presumably going forward it less intense operational environment and as you said, a smaller military establishment. >> shura, one of the things we did what we looked at the forest and general carelli did a year-long study.
in chapter three of the study talked about the lost art of leadership. we have so been engaged in combat and our leaders have done very, very well in that environment that when you come back to garrison and start to unwind, the kinds of things we would do in the past, a note card -- squad leader note card with everybody's name, knowledge about their family, earth day coming anniversaries, understanding the stress they are under. understand whether they had an issue at home or not. those kinds of things come in the of leadership and a garrison environment we have a lot of work to do on that. and we're getting after it. the other is an area near and dear to my heart i major in development. we have developed a wonderfully
tactical operational level leaders. the strategic leaders that these young captains are going to grow into. working in washington, working at the higher levels than in the inner regions the i'm working much more with media that the congress and the american public. those sort of skills that we would grow leaders from a very young age, first an academic institution that many believe, those opportunities have gone away in comparison to when craig and i were growing up. and what has happened is young waiters steal it they leave those, the operational environment for any period of time to go do something other than staying in the fight, but that is not what i leadership wants and nothing could be further from the truth. we really want them to take time out to go like this in your
service to let them learn about our army, learn about the political nature of civil military relations. learn about the big budget battles we are involved in. to get their education and though often work in fellowship in the white house and congress with the judiciary, to learn from so they can lead an army that is going to be very, very heavily vested in our country. >> i think as we do drive down, the young waiters have been deployed over and over again. they have tremendous freedom, flexibility to innovate and adapt in the combat zones. but when we do start to drive down and they are not deploying as regularly, we have a challenge to inspire them and to create an environment where they will feel what they are doing is important for the defense of the country in order to keep them in. and we do need to be flexible and figure out ways to they can
they can to school to teach. if you look at the world war ii generation of leaders, led most magnificently by george marshall. if you look at what the officers did during world war i and world war ii, the army was very small. there is no fighting going on to speak of. the question was how to be developing a few centimeters, bradley, eisenhower, marshall and that generation who lead the nation so well. the thing they have in common was they went to school. they attacked in the army schoolhouses and interact it with the american people. many of the civilian conservation corps unit. they are immersed in civil society and spend time with the national guard and state militias. when the challenge they truly were defense intellectuals in the best sense and the huge challenge of world war ii came, this generation of officers was ready to the. when each of the hike in history
and find ways to innovatively develop and educate these theaters of combat tested youngsters who are then going to be great strategic leaders in the future in this complex world. >> another question that to departs from the challenge premise that both of you have spoken about that the military extremely self-conscious and faithful to the idea subordination to civilian control. at the same time, everyone in this room understand that the military is a major source of advice to the civilian leadership about foreign policy issues broadly and military in particular. the question is, is there any change observable to the two of you in the last decade but they comes in interventions in iraq and afghanistan in the form in which the military trade to influence policy? there were formal changes as you
know of course goldwater-nichols act in the transformation of the role as chairman of the joint chiefs, so maybe you want to explain that, but the question were really interested in is there been any real operational changes in the culture and the context of which the military views the civilian leadership. >> all take a crack addict and then general bostick. that is the essence of what we teach us how our officers is to develop their intellectual abilities, strategic thinking such that they can render the site, candidate, unvarnished military advice at the highest levels of our government so that the military can have this conversation with elliptical leaders, on the been appointed, the political object is then have an idea of what we want to achieve in the road. what america's goals over object desired. to have that conversation with a
military expert professional who understands limits of power for what they can and can't do, how can be best used in concert with economics and diplomacy information with our allies, with civilian agencies and so forth. and have a conversation and layout, okay, here is their recommendation. here is what we think. and that is really the essence of strategic leadership at the highest level of our government to render the expert opinion and judgment to civilian leaders who are authorized to make decisions on when to employ force or not. it's really the foundational piece of what we teach at the army war college. >> i think in terms of what has not changed, we can still freely offer our best military advice to the senior leaders. civilian leaders. we may not agree, but there is
no question that the freedom to offer the best military advice that each senior leader has it that opportunity is there. it seems like with the internet, with technology, with secure video teleconferencing, there's much more dialogue. so where you have limited opportunities in the past, that dialogue is very frequent from the president to the combatant commanders on a fairly regular basis are able to seek to provide guided by a spirit but also has not changed is the ground commander is still fighting that were in the best way he determines that needs to be thought it, certainly when it is civilian control in the military. but he fights the fight and there's much more communication. >> i would just like to add a quote from general marshall in
1943. he was instructing general coltrane on how to organize to run the braided countries after world war ii and set up legitimate government. this is george marshall. i'm turning over to your sacred trust and i want you to bear that in mind every day and every hour you provide -- presided at this military government and civil affairs venture. we have a great asset and that is that her people, our countrymen do not distrust us and do not fear us. our countrymen, fellow citizens are not afraid of us. they don't harbor any ideas to alter the nature of this government in any way. this is a sacred trust. i would tell you that is as true today and it is in the ethos of the senior military officers as much today as it was in 1943 with general marshall. >> another question that will be provocative given the fact that two of you come from the same
service. the questionnaire asked, why do so through breaches of the military? on the army, navy and air force be put together in one? >> all take a job without one. i think first off we have moved greatly towards joint vincennes combining the capabilities. he mentioned the cold-weather nichols that. joint command, joint headquarters, collaboration and teaming among services is the greatest it's ever been in the history of warfare. i do believe their unique strengths and capabilities that each of the services bring by virtue of their history, culture, tradition. the things they are most expert on. there is richness and goodness of having the service cultures bringing what they bring to the fight, to the intellectual debate on how best to employ the force, how to develop strategy. at the end of the day as these
young leaders grow up, we try to get more and more integration, teaming et cetera so you get the synergy of combining them altogether. so i think there's strength in diversity, but you have to pull it together to achieve the common good. >> we have time for one last question in this one summarizes a lot of the core discussion. the question is addressed to you, general bostick, but feel free to weigh in, too. he said you prefer an all volunteer force. what sort of sacrifice that you like to see from us in the civilian population to share in the military sacrifice click >> i think there's a number of reasons why you want to know volunteer force. the teamwork we have developed from an all volunteer force, the commitment when we are going to war and the stress they have to face day in and day out and the ability to keep that team
consistent. if you got a veteran businesses that folks were forced to come in and leave short periods of time, the amount of training required and an ability to build solid teams. but that night, i think the american public can help in many, many ways. we talked about staying connected. and audiences like this to your military is in town and they are going to speak. taking the time to be a part of that dialogue and to understand your military. when a soldier, sailor, airman and marine, open the schools and universities and bring them in. a young sergeant, a young captain is a great spokesperson for military and can tell the story. and i talk about transitions in some of the soldiers believed the military and they will look for jobs in a very poor economy. and how do we help and how do we
accommodate for the? and then i think volunteer. volunteer your services where you can anyway. and many of you to serve on panels. youcome and give your dyson council and we greatly appreciate that. so all those types of things there with the country can get to do. >> greg, did you want to anything? >> yes, there is a rich middle ground between thinking the young troops in the airport, which is very, very nice and the other extreme, which is your child and listing and going in fighting. so, there is lots of ground in the middle for building and strength to need this collaboration and civil military connection. we have mentioned several of those. i think forums like this are commandments to enhance the dialogue, so i encourage you to model the foreign and take it
back to your institution come your school and community and do things similar to this we bring together military people inhabit dialogue and conversation. but i think more broadly when i think about national security and securing and protecting the nation so we can live division of the declaration of independence and the constitution, i think david's quote about having wise counsel at home is key. i would say if the american people can be informed, be wise, understand what's going on and get involved in what decisions are a nation makes in terms of gameplay metaphors somewhere we go abroad and what we do and what kind of country we want to be at home and around the world is huge. even at a more basic level when i think about security, i think about it i talked to lots of groups in various towns and cities. but the role of parents to raise great kids who have good values
and treat each other with dignity and respect and can get along and have a civil society without fighting and things of that nature. if we could raise really good kid and have terrific communities in strong education and build a very, very strong domestic society that really carries out the vision that what you talked about at the beginning and kerry at the vision right here at cherishing knowledge, shaping the future for the good of the country would be what i would ask people to do for the good of our country and the future. >> well, i will conclude by referring to something sandy levinson embedded in a question i didn't get to askhim about your reminds us in an area that extends back now maybe three decades or more, for decades perhaps, in which americans have lost faith and confidence and not kinds of institutions in our society.
political institutions, media, data, polling data shows we have less confidence in leadership in these institutions and integrity is when the exemption. the military shows that. one is rebuild its reputation to have such a great reputation. so again there's something to be remarked and contemplated that the military has gained this respect in the context of its being more and more detached from the civil society and whose name it i in which society honors the military reputation so extravagantly. so there's another anomaly but the distance of the military from civil society as the military assigned the respect latter. so i'd like to think that two of you for joining us here this morning. in fact come in the is going to
sponsor at least one if not two more forms of this type. one of the buy home institution at stanford in december and others to be determined thereafter. thank you all very much for being here. [applause] >> more now from the american academy of arts and sciences with a discussion on how american it work in a civil society. former supreme court justice david souter moderated a panel in october, looking at the constitution, courts, congress and politics. joining him were former clerk yell prof foster heather kurgan and oklahoma mickey edwards and geoffrey stone from the university of chicago law school. this hour and 15 minute event took place in cambridge, massachusetts. >> i know i speak for my
colleagues here at the table and saying that we are very grateful to have the honor of addressing this group. and i know i can also speak for them when i say that we have certainly been convinced by her predecessors this morning at the civic obligation to put our support behind the modern military. however, not to the point over again of allowing ours does to follow them in a panel discussion. [laughter] but we will do our best. and that make it the ball rolling by saying i will take you nine i may safely take it as a given that we are living in a society, which is increasingly cared to rise -- curt erased by a and substantially intransigent
approach to civic life. polarization is the one word, which seems most regally characterized the articulate public life around ice. and the constitutional lawyers something very disquieting. there is a distinct dissonance between a rhetoric and a substance of polarization. and both the history and a required part asunder the constitution of the united states. and let me just take a second to elaborate votes on the history and the pratt is to explain why it is the constitutional lawyers as a particular group find the
current state of discourse disquieting. as for history, those who has studied the history of the 1787 constitutional convention invariably start correctly by pointing out in the mind of james madison, the most significant issue that had to be resolved and carrier to all the other substantial decisions to be made at that convention was the issue of representation in congress. was it going to be on a state-by-state basis or was it going to be on a population basis? msa subset of that concern, how was representation going to take into consideration the difference in interest between the slave states and the three states to the north?
we know how those issues will resolved. and they were a result by what is frequently called a great compromise. and we know what that resolution wise. the states are equally represented in the senate. the population is the basis for representation in the house. and for the period of time between the ratification of the constitution and that of the 14th amendment, the provision in the constitution for recognition of the institution of slavery on the matter of representation was the so-called three fifths clause, which as i said did not survive the 14th amendment. but the point that constitution lawyers and scholars and historians of the constitution can never forget as i think of
that was put in jack's book in meetings a few years ago, that the resolution of these representation issues by compromise was that necessary, not the sufficient, but the necessary condition for the resolution of the substantial issues and the capacity of the convention to propose a constitution, which ultimately succeeded in being adopted. so that the american quality is in fact governed by an instrument whose no signal feature of history is the compromise that made it possible. what i meant when i said a second ago by the compromising nature of constitutional pratt does, is something like this. i think we are all intuitively
aware of the fact that as between the powers granted with the national government or for that matter reserved to the state that can be found or inferred from the structural part of the constitution, there is frequently a clash and intended to be a clash with the structure of rights guaranteed to individuals by the bill of rights, including the 14th amendment. these clashes are not resolved by any text in the constitution itself. they cannot be resolved by regarding either the powers of the government or the civil rights of the individuals as absolute. they can only be resolved by regarding them as competing principles, each good in itself, but none of which can be
exercised to the limit with time. there is a constant process of adjustment and the constant drawing a line and sometimes the shifting line of your time in over the circumstance. the constitution simply cannot operate without that kind of adjustment, that kind of compromise. so you can see when you bear this in mind, why it is the constitutional lawyers find it very disquieting when the american quality seems to speak most lovely interns that anti-compromise and in terms of the non-compromise the bull absolutism of principle on the part of one speaker or another or indeed on the part of one major political party and
another. and the question which insists on being phased in these circumstances is this. how long can we expect the american people in their hearts to support a constitution, which on a daily basis is demonstrably in a state of inconsistent the with the daily part to of politics and our american life. we don't have an answer to that question. and the point is, we don't want to find out. and because we don't want ever to have to find out the answer to that question, the alternative avenue is to try to focus some of those influenced is that seem to contribute to
bring about the intransigent rhetoric and the reality behind it and to consider what can be done about mitigating the force of those influences and propelling so much of american rhetoric can crack this today in the direction of anti-compromise and that is going to be the subject of my colleagues this morning. obviously, with only four of us in a limited amount of time, we are not going to can't miss the entire land gave. you will not, for example, be hearing -- i think you will not be hearing anything about the influence of internet news sources as a source that sort of cherry-picking by those who do not want to hear any viewpoint likely to oppose their own.
i personally take it that is one of the sources that leads to or speed to an inclination to intransigent and anti-compromise what we will try to address this morning are the following subjects, both to assess their significance in leading to a culture of intransigent and in giving some consideration to what can be done about them if indeed they turn out to be the culprits, which i think are generally -- they are generally assumed to be. first, we are going to spend a little time looking at the effects of congressional district in and creating an uncompromising politics, the kind of districting decisions
that was certainly the acquiescence of the supreme court regards it as legitimate, to try to protect incumbents when district lines have to be redrawn and the kind of redistricting that as a consequence of the, produces what we all refer to safe seat, seats in which the competition among political positions is reduced. and heather curt and is going to pull the board on not to start with. we are then going to pass to the question of the influence of the current limitations on regulating political campaign finance as again bleeding to a kind of extremism in positions.
geoffrey stone is going to lead off with that and he is also a think going to cover a factor related issue of political kids. and that is the significance of the popular primary and again leading to the phenomenon that we got this morning. following just, mickey edwards is going to deal, acting primarily, with the political primary issue of some thoughts in particular from the standpoint of someone who has been in a political arena, which the rest of us have not. some thoughts about what can be done in practical terms. and i probably should add that i know from our discussions amongst ourselves that there is no -- absolutely not porous border between the subject matter than any one of these
members of the panel are going to discuss in the subject matter of the others. so there's going to be a certain give-and-take for a subject matter. those are going to be the three high point. and let's get going with heather wright now and districting. >> so, i'm going to talk a little bit about the question of whether or not the source of our current state of partisan politics and political polarization is caused by districting and whether the course in particular can do anything about it. i share just as souter is concerned about the constitutional arrangements and the democratic ones. one way to frame the point might be that we'd actually not a politics that is well-suited from parliamentary systems, but we have a structure that is fundamental. the political polarization and cohesion we see today might work well for a system where one party can control the entire government. but ours is a system of divided powers and electoral lives.
in that kind of system, polarization can recount it. and the best of the world, nothing gets done in the worst of emily play chicken with day-to-day governance issues. now the truth is, there has always been a lack of fit between our constitution and democratic arrangements because i might most other constitutions, ours did not contemplate the rise of party politics and the infrastructure that would be necessary to regulate them. go here and at the state level we typically lashed the mediating institutions that are an essential part of arrangements elsewhere. as a result, added on to the coors to do much of that regulation, our democratic arrangements have become constitutionalize. bush v. gore is just the tip of the iceberg. in many areas we look to the court to set the terms of political engagement. campaign finance, redistrict
team. the courts are doing much of regulatory work in these areas. precisely for that reason, many of the salad to the courts, particularly the supreme court to save us from our polarized politics. because of the constitution can be invoked to force the entire country to keeping with the one person, one vote principle and in the two validate the congress itself commanded and influence the outcome of a presidential election, surely the courts can do something now. the argument seems so easy. most think that polarization is rooted in redistricting, the thesaurus is a blatant effort of self-interested politicians to draw districts easy for them to win. the safe districts for the argument goes cater to the extremes, not the moderate. they elect candidates from the edges of the political spectrum and those candidates bring their extreme views to watch to. i wanted to do according to the
stories and his egregious gerrymanders and the party will return to the center where they belong in a first past system like our own. the temptation to tell the story becomes even greater to anyone who is familiar with the court some work in this area because it is the one area where the court has been shy and even deferential on regulating politics. the supreme court is competently entered many parts. but in the partisan gerrymandering context it has been more circumspect. its initial cory adopted standards so high that no gerrymander can possibly be needed. a few years ago the supreme court looked to the question again and split so badly that we were left with a world where four justices believed that the court could adjudicate part of the gerrymandering claims including just as souter say it could adjudicate them. and one justice saying that maybe the court could adjudicate them, but not right now.
as a result, party hacks are well aware that this is the one area of partisan politics where they can act without constitution of the demand. to the extent that the ugliness of partisan gerrymandering has entered into the courtside, it's instinct is often than blessed or at least tolerated, unlike other cases where they these considerable muscle to force politicians to do the right thing. the court has been very willing to tolerate the self-interested at the heart of redistrict team and is held it's legitimate for parties to draw districts to protect and convince them do just what we were there doing now, which is creating safe districts. if only we think the court would censor and eliminate incumbency protection is a legitimate interests, it would only mandate that some of these districts be competitive, perhaps i'm at the moderates would have their say. so this is the tale we tell ourselves about the relationship between the constitution and
politics and i want to offer a skeptical view. i want to tell you that detail is too simple. we have been too confident in our diagnosis and we are too quick to think there is a cure, let all make sure the courts can hear. let me first start with a diagnosis. it seems entirely possible that gerrymandering is responsible for current levels of polarization because safe districts in competitive districts populated with thoughts of others from one side or the other. it wouldn't be that surprising they would of liked candidates from the extreme as well. vicious one problem with this story. there's not much evidence to support it. it's true that incumbent reelection rates have been rising. it's true they are more safe districts now than in the past. but it's not clear that gerrymandering is the cause. safe districts increase more than tearing them at five feet, which tend to be gerrymandered have also become safer because voters are sorting themselves
into enclaves of like-minded people. far more importantly, states the dog seemed to be much more likely to produce extreme candidates and competitive seats. on both sides of the outcome of the voting patterns of people from swing districts is only slightly less extreme than those of the colleagues who enjoys the seats. if you see a moderate in congress, the odds are he comes from a district that lanes to the other side of the outcome of the links towards a different party. so gerrymandering is not the source of bases, what is? , live it up again with party realignment that started it in a new dealer during the 1960s in the voting rights act began to shed fat. others look to economic factors. whatever the source of changes were once governed by a four party system, one that contained to include republicans and southern democrats with a fractured system allowed for moderation and political deals
that join members from both sides of the aisle. but southern democrats in new england republicans with a few exceptions are now an extinct species, at least on the national stage in the parties are much more closely aligned and discipline. something to the problem is political laser causing polarization. i believe jeff will talk about the way primaries and that and the real problem ironically enough is the well-informed voter. if you appeared you were the ones who know a lot about politics. you are the ones the politicians pay attention to and you are the ones whose views no further to the left into the array. coming to reference the sites here. i want to suggest the causes of polarization seem to be at some distance from sharing in during it as best we can tell, they are complex and contingent sources. it's not clear if the courts have enough evidence to fix this problem if they wanted to. many, many likely causes of politics are beyond what courts
can conceivably address. now while the leader of the court can save us our polarized politics, they too have been a slight departure for no. politics are remarkably flexible and dynamic. the parties are changelings. political leaders are shape shifters. that makes regulating them very difficult. some then it doesn't bode well for those of us who want to lie to care what currently yields us. to think for example about the struggle we see in campaign finance to regulate sources of money. every time you regulate one institution, political interests shape shifts and become another. first they inhabited the parties, then the 520 sevens coming out a five o. one c. 36. karl rove was once inside the white house. he is now running a shadow republican party that has no formal authority of the hundreds of millions of daughters and his war chest. while the fluid and dynamic nature of politics makes it very difficult to solve a specific
album at a specific moment, it does have one benefit. it ensures many problems will be temporary. dynamism and politics is short in this respect. consider for a moment the question of polarization that plagues us all today. for decades, people were worried that the parties were too weak, too divided, too incoherent. we were worried about polarized politics. we were worried about race is between candidates that gave voters a real choice. it is tweedledum versus tweedledee. as recently as the last two years come academics have been calling for efforts to make parties more coherent, not less. many academics were mourning the rise of the candidates of the election, where they did nothing more than cater to the people running for office and had no in the once over the these candidates to. now of course the rays just the opposite. maybe the sarcasm -- be careful
what you wish were, but the lesson is a deeper one. we should be cautious in assuming the political arrangements will remain stable. it would be a mistake to think what we have now is permanently etched in our system. political will have incentive to have little question for example that the gop today is currently highly disciplined party, but it is an uneasy alliance. ..
>> they will change. thank you very much. [applause] >> everything that follows i guess has to be placed in the perspective of others -- headers lecture in effect do whatever we come up with is going to be very limited shelf life. [laughter] but with that in mind, jeff, do you want to try? >> i will be briefer than i thought i was going to be. what's the point? [laughter] so, there's a general understanding and agreement that polarization in american politics today is a problem. and that it seems incompatible with our constitutional aspirations for the way our government should operate. but if that was the case that polarization simply reflects the views of the american people,
then that would at least give us some comfort that what's happening in politics is the result of what the political system and the democracy at this particular moment call for. it turns out not to be true. that the american public in fact is not all that polarized, relative to the past. in fact, political scientists tell us at the present time between 40-45% of american voters are more or less moderate, and that's fairly standard for much of american history. so to the extent we perceive a great polarization today it's not a polarization that is reflected in the electorate. and actually give us pause. and affect if you look to see what polarization means you can see very easily and how the congress act. again, political scientist tell us in 1970, 47% of members of the united states senate were regarded as moderate. today, that percentage is 5%.
and it's even worse in the house of representatives. what does suggest is a kind of dysfunction that there's a gap between the views and attitudes of the american people, and the commonality and differences that exist among our citizens, and what we wind up in our elected representative to that extent we are polarized in our politics. that suggests something is going wrong to produce that. so, heather looked at one possible culprit which is the gerrymandering process, which the line drawing of districts has been done in which are reserved to safe and safe seats. as rightly noted the fact that the current data that is the cause of treachery, is still not well established. another possible culprit is the
primary system, ironically. and part of the theme of this panel is on the intended consequences, and in this instance the primary system to the extent it is a culprit certainly is an example of unintended consequences. so party privately came into existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, primarily as a reaction to the backroom deals of party hacks you were selected candidates without any input or interest on the part of the people who would then simply given the opportunity of choosing between two individuals have been selected by individuals in a smoke-filled room. and progresses in particular thought that was not a very good way to run democracy, and, therefore, devised the idea that primaries a way of selecting candidates and taking out of control the political elites. and for a long time primers were thought to be a highly democratizing institution, that
strengthened the american political system. but ironically, party primaries are now seen as one of the potential culprits in this polarization problem. the reason why that might be true is actually fairly obvious if one thinks about it. one of them is a fact that in choosing the candidates in a primary system, you have republicans voting in one primary, and democrats voting in another, and what they tend to do is pick someone who is the most popular among republicans and the most popular among democrats, and they are likely to be a very for distance from the center your and consequent of that issue to candidates who are not necessarily want who reflect the moderate middle, 40-45% of americans who see themselves as moderate, but those who see themselves as the other ends, the 30% on, the middle of the 3% of the chance. and that plays a large role, at
least appears, and producing the kind of polarization of having to candidates who are fairly far apart. in the old days of the smoke-filled rooms, the professional politicians were looking for somebody who could win. and that meant they looked for someone who was near the middle on their side of the middle, but nonetheless someone who could win. and candidates, therefore, were much more moderate in their views because the theory was if one side produces a moderate and the other one is extreme, guess who's going to win? so the party elite in that situation understood causes and consequences. exacerbating this is the fact that participation in primary voting has gone down dramatically over the last half-century. it was over 70%, 50 years ago. now it's down to about 40%. and, of course, people who most likely vote in party primaries were those are most interested iin the selection and thus likey be the people are more extreme than the more moderate ones.
the one potential expedition for the problem is to use a primaries which wind up producing more extreme rather than more moderate candidates, which didn't get chosen between, during the course of the election. one possible solution for that was the use of the open primary, which basically said that parties could not limit voting in their own primary, only two people who were already committed members of the party. the open primary essentially said that anyone can choose to vote in a party primary, regardless of whether they have been affiliated wit with a partn the past. the supreme court held that unconstitutional. the supreme court held in 2000 that the parties have a first amendment right of association, that guarantees them the right to decide for themselves who are members of the party and to,
therefore, temperatures in the selection of the party's candidate. and to allow individuals who are not members of the party itself, distort the selection process, it's an unconstitutional violation of the parties own right of association. more recently a few states, california, washington and a few others, have begun experimenting with a different form of open primary which essentially is a nonpartisan primary. that is, in the primary anyone can run, and the two highest vote getters, regardless of who they are, even if they're of the same part or nonparty, whatever, get on the ballot. that gives moderates a much greater influence on the outcome of the primary system. been the parties themselves can either endorse one or the other, or both of those candidates, or they can use other mechanisms to put their own candidates on the ballot. but at least it assures more modern candidates will be on the
election ballot, and the constitutionality of that system remains to be firmly established. 2007, the court suggested that such a policy might be constitutional, but it remains to be seen whether the court ultimately will uphold it. the other issue i want very briefly to mention, poses a very different role than what heather was talking about. header come in terms of gerrymandering issue, was talking about the problem of the court being arguably too passive. that is, the court allowing states to have party gerrymanders and not saying they are unconstitutional. in the campaign finance context the objection to the role of the court is somewhat different. the campaign finance context the concern is that money and particularly corporate and union money, having too great an
influence on the clinical process, creating dissolution and alienation on the party of voters who feel the system is completely outside their control or influence, and, therefore, turned them off on the democracy. and also it is has a much reinforce both in terms of corrupting candidates and officeholders and terms of allowing the views and interests of corporations and unions to dominate the political process. and in face of that congress and bipartisan legislation signed by president george w. bush enacted the bipartisan campaign finance act, which limited the amount the corporations and unions could spin in political campaigns. and the supreme court, in citizens united two years ago, in a 5-4 bitterly divided decision held that legislation unconstitutional conclude that it violates the first amendment to restrict the rights of
corporations and unions, to disband whatever they wish in the political process. and that decision puts an enormous obstacle in the way of those who believe that that state of affairs is incompatible with a healthy democratic system. and the only way to realistically that citizens united could be changed would be either by constitutional amendment, which is unlikely, only four supreme court decisions have been overruled by constitutional amendment, or presumably by the fears of the congress and the fears of the dissenters. in citizens united proving to be true. that is, one of the issues in this is united, the majority concluded that the reason for these regulations was speculative and damage to the democratic system had not sufficiently demonstrated and proved to justify the severe restriction on the rights of
corporations and unions but if it turns out that the members of congress, when acted to legislation, and the justice in citizens of united proved true in the world we now have, free will and corporate union, unrestricted expenditure, then it's possible for a future court will be willing to re-examine the question and say that in the light of the realities that have been demonstrated, in citizens united could be overruled. [applause] and. >> of course, you all know that i've had sort of in advance look or an advanced hearing of what my colleagues would be saying this morning. and so i'm going to take advantage of that advanced look when i turn to look to the end of the table where mickey edwards is hitting, and i think we may hear from him some commentary on this that comes
from somebody who does not at least start with the assumption that centrism is where we ought to beginning. mikki? >> when we start our conversations about this panel, i quite naturally, as most of you would do, i would refer to geoff and to heather and to mr. justice, and david souter being who he is would say no, don't call me david. so i call him now mr. justice david. [laughter] and the reason i do that, democracy is about process. it's not about policy outcomes. democracy is about process. and process is about institutions. and to have a successful democracy, you have to have successful institutions that carry out their functions well, to earn the respect of the
people, and, therefore, make the people comfortable with the system in which they live and in which they're willing to participate. i might see her, i'm a little reluctant to talk about politics with an expert like sandy levinson here, or my old colleague at the kennedy school, francis. but i will try not to repeat everything they have heard me say before. but when we talk about the institutions, our political system is not working. our election system is not working. and our governing system is not working. and that is a fundamental problem in terms of getting people to have confidence in the kind of an electoral system and a governing system that we ask them to support. and i want to posit that the root cause of these problems is
the amount of control over all of those systems. the election system in the governing system, that we have ceded and our governments have ceded to the private clubs, the political parties, that control access to the ballot, that control how district lines are drawn, that control who sits on what committees, that control the basic functioning as of the congress. just to add a little bit in terms of access to ballot, all of us, everybody in this room, once choices in life. we want choices in the kind of telephones we have. you know, you want an android or die pad or a blackberry, you want choices in the kind of microphones you can have. but we allow these two private parties to pretty well tell us, except for if you are able to
jump over major barriers, that when you go to the polls in november, you may choose among all of the people in your constituency between candidate a or candidate be. now, i don't know why we insist on more choice with the telephones we use, that among the people who make our laws. but that is the way we have let our local and state and federal governments cede the power that we entrust to them to these private organizations that have as their only goal they gaining and keeping of power. so, just to add a little bit to what geoff said, the problem, in my mind, i come at it from a purely process and constitutional direction. so the problem was in the delaware primary for the u.s. senate, state of a million people, 30,000 people voted for
christine o'donnell. and as result might counsel, former governor and popular congressman, could not appear on the ballot. the same thing happen in utah, a state of 3 million people, where 3500 at a convention, you know, voted for somebody other than robert bennet. and he did not appear on the ballot that most of the states by the way now have a system whereby if you lose in the primary, you cannot be on the general election ballot, no matter how many people in the state might have preferred that candidates who lost in the primary as their first choice among the voters in the state. so, in my mind when you are elected to public office, when you're elected to congress, as i was, you should be basing your vote on three things and three things only. one is, what your constituents
believe, prefer, what are their interests? and then as edmund burke put it, you know, not to be a rubberstamp for your constituents but to also bring to that your intellect, your experience, your thoughtfulness, your judgment. and, finally, what does the constitution to allow you to do or not to do? and when you let other things enter into that equation so that you are voting because it is good for your party, or you are voting because of who contributed to your campaign, you are not merely playing games with politics. you are the road and the entire political system. so, which to me is not about whether or not the people who come out of it are centrist or moderate. it's about whether or not you're letting voters have a choice among all of the possible people that might be able to select to go to washington and make their laws for them. and i will just say, because
justice souter referred to this, i am -- it would be nice if you had a more centrist outcome. that is not my primary concern. because most of the great movements that have made progress in our country, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, a gay-rights movement, the labor movement, were not movements from the center. so the center has no magic to it. it's a matter of having principles and operating a system where the people have full choice. redistricting, i'm just going to make this comment about redistricting. the constitution says that, this was a break from previous expense and elsewhere, that if this country, to be a member of the in state senate or the house of representatives, you must be an inhabitant of the state from which you are elected. that means that you, therefore,
know them. you know their concerns. you know their preferences. well, let me say very quickly what happened to me. when i was in the house, i'm a republican, and i want in a very heavily democratic district. they had not elected a democrat since 1920. the democrats didn't control the legislature, i'm i say republicans do the exact same thing, they try to redraw my district so, i don't know if you've been to oklahoma, it's a big place. so i went from the center of a global all the way up to kansas and then in an upside down l. halfway over to arkansas, and i would talk about look what they did to me, poor and needy, they redistrict me. that's not what happened, is it? if you're able, if this thing wasn't them you could see that i'm wearing loafers with tassels. i tassels. ifac dude, and after the redistricting, i was representing wheat farmers, cattle farmers, small 10 people
whose views and perspectives and concerns i didn't really understand. they were the ones who were hurt by a system that allowed districts to be redrawn, a warning to what's served the advantages of the political party. now, just quickly to governance, in the wake of the "washington post" wrote a column when george w. bush was president, and he talked about the fact that the president was stepping out of his role to function in his other role as head of state. i was teaching at the wilson school at princeton at the time, and i asked my students, what jumps out at you about that description? is it trade agreements? the answer is no. the president is not the head of government. we don't have a head of government. we have three separate, equal branches of government and that separation of power is critical to the way we operate as a free people. and what's happened is that
because of the system we have, so much power is invested in congress. final say over going to work in the final say over tax rates, over spending decision. about creating or indian programs. and instead we have a congress that is made up from governor sullivan, you remember a parliament comes a roma in the queens navy because i always voted in my parties, never thought of voting, thinking for myself it all. we have congress that your party label decides how you vote on kagan or sotomayor, how you vote on stimulus, how you vote on almost every kind of issue that comes up. so there are solutions, we will get to those and other things, i favor, everybody running on the same ballot. i favor the nonpartisan redistricting commissions that now 13 states have tried to do, and i favor changing the entire
basic functioning of the congress to have nonpartisan staff, to take away from party leaders the ability to choose who sits on what committees in exchange for their promises to vote the party line, in creating a less partisan speakership, which is clearly constitutional. so maybe we'll get to some of those solutions, but in my mind were not going to solve the problem no matter, we keep going back to take back our government if we did in 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. nothing changes. it's because of the system we have which is based on the good of the party, not the good of the country. [applause] >> micki, or since you insist on calling justice souter, mr. edwards, i can't resist
one comment that you have indicated the founder of this society this morning with your emphasis on broadening the primary choice, and presumably primary participation. your basic faith in democracy, you called what supposedly were john adams last words, thomas jefferson still lives. [laughter] and i gather now we are going to collect some questions. in fact, i guess it is going on right now. let me, while the questions are coming up to me, let me just sort of get the ball rolling with one of my own that occur to me, as we were going on. and that ghost would point that i just glossed over for a second, when i was making my
quit with leading up to the added school. and that is the step between broadening access to primaries by making them of a nonparty character, and the presumed increased participation of people in such primaries. and i guess anyone am maybe start with mickey edwards. what reason is there to believe that if, in fact, that changes -- that changes made, that people are going to start voting in primaries in greater proportions of the electorate than they are doing now? is it just a help? >> well, it is a hope because there are only now three states that have the primary system in which everybody can vote and advocacy wretched voter can vote in that primary. no matter their party, runs in
the primary to california has only had it now since 2010. washington state since 2006, so we don't know enough. but one of things that determines turn down is the candidates themselves. it doesn't matter when you go to the polls whether most people are for you or not for you. what matters is whether the people who go to the polls are for you. and every candidate spends a lot of effort in voter turnout, getting people there. so if you have more candidates on the ballot representing a broader range of views, it would seem to be there's a good chance that as they all turn out their own base of support, you would have an increase in the number. there's certainly no data yet to be able to validate that. >> geoff, any thought, any thoughts to add on the? >> the only other point i would make a guess is, on the assumption that having a candidate who is more appealing, a viable candidate, more appealing to the voter will make it more likely.
so if they're moderate and they see the candidate is on republican side, democratic side and they don't really feel excited about any of them, then they're less likely to go out. they see some of us actually reflecting their views in a more accurate way. so i think that would incline to increased turnouts. >> i, too, am worried about primaries and to control it leads to over them. i would just point i would caution you know, which is the problem about primaries is voter ignorance. and so it election, cynical, cynical crowd. we have a partner game which involves telling each other what is it that the average voter doesn't know. and the average voter often doesn't know, for example, the name of the vice president of many voters don't know that we have a senate. there's a huge, many don't know who controls the legislature at the moment. so the dilemma for all of these
questions, and it's just a tension we have to negotiate in these things come is that what really matters for voters and the way they negotiate elections now is what i would call her mistake and what my parents would call a shortcut. that is, party press help us organize the world. the truth is we know less about our politicians than we know about our phones. we know less about our politicians that we know about a baseball teams. so what do voters who don't know a lot about politics do is they rely on these good housekeeping seal of appeal, democrats and republican. and in some ways the current polarized state of politics is what political scientist will always wish for because there are now clear choice is between two parties come and that's thought to be actually pro-democratic. the mornings on the ballot, the harder it is for voters to negotiate them. the mornings on that ballot, the more voters rely on the cues
divided by party elite of the more voter, it may you have mobilization. so the mornings on the ballot also means the more power that the small elites that voters come to depend on, i mean, there is a good solution. it's just a dilemma. and interestingly enough, even the little evidence we have about these top two winners is that oftentimes you do get a democrat and a republican because of name recognition and party muscle. so in some ways the task is difficult because voters know so little, and figuring out how to construct a world where voters are able to make the choices they need to make and still lead their lives and earn their living and take care of their families and not be political junkies psycho suspect most of the people in the room are. i mean, that's the core dilemma of political regulation. >> heather, one thing you said, not only caught my particular attention, but it leads to one of the questions that we were
asked. and i will read it in a second. the premise of the question is you are starting from you with your suggestions for change and perhaps even your analysis of what is going wrong, starting too far down the line in the process of the voters growth. and the question is this, why isn't quote, how to be a good citizen, what is the structure of government law, i.e. civics, regarded as important in high school, and college, and as important as math, science, et cetera? heather touched a moment ago on this date in fact behind that question. and that is that civic education has not come in the last generation or two, been regarded as a separate and substantial
subject in american education, starting from the schools. heather, i gather from your remark that you wouldn't have any objection to a revival of some form of civic education. and i wonder if you'd comment on how important you think that is and see what our other panelists think of that. is educational reform what we ought to be talking about instead of laundry for? >> we were at dinner last -- last night comparing notes but i would've a very old-fashioned public radio high school that social studies one, social studies two, three in four. i didn't teach economics or it didn't teach history. it taught social studies are learned quite a bit about the structure of government. so, knowledge is incredibly important, and many of our kids don't have it. i think the more important piece of it is civic education can teach participation the learned habit. this is in some ways the reason people vote has as much to do
other every day, with their everyday habits and how they understand their role in the world as anything else. i was giving a speech in south carolina, and an old man came up to me who had been a teenager just in the wake of the foreign rights act being passed. and he said when he was a kid every kid in high school, and all black school, was brought to register vote even though they were too young to register to vote but it was just a symbol in the community to say a moment that you can become old enough to register, this is your job. everyone went and did it together. you know, i believe intended to do work, but also take a kid to the voting pool. my youngest get stickers. we go to the poll every time there's a stupid little election just so that they see that voting is a habit. if you look at the drop off in voting, it happened at a moment when young people go out into the world and they move around
and it is the sort of ties to the communities that they have. and they don't come back to vote until they begin to rebuild those ties. you see some of those moments are moments of opportunity for us to teach. because then they'll come at a high rate to the primaries, and then you have a fair chance of electing the right kind of candidates and not the kind of candidates that can be elected by 30,000 people. >> a few weeks ago, justice o'connor and i were speaking at an event at the gates foundation, and as you know, she feels very, very strongly that civic education is absolutely critical, that the demise of the teaching of social studies, various kinds of civic education in our public schools is one of the primary causes, problems we have politically. >> what's fascinating is why that happened. i don't understand exactly how that fell off the table in public education, but it seems
to have fallen off everywhere. and the generation was in charge of education all had civic courses, and yet it all got pushed out by whatever else replaced it. but i agree with the panel. it's a serious problem for american democracy, and it is easily solvable if we just make up our minds and do it. >> actually, in an very unsophisticated way i can answer part of your question, geoff. because like justice o'connor, i have been involved or am involved in an effort to try to beef up civic education in my own state, which is representative of most, and you said how did this happen. as i said i cannot answer this in depth, but at least in a superficial level i have learned through the process that starting back around, i think it
was around 1970, there was a sort of movement of thought within the educational establishment, that there really was not a discernible causal line between the teaching of civics in schools and more broadly, the teaching of history in schools. let's say social study in a broad sense. and the actual participation and sophistication of the voters who ultimately got out of school and either went to the polls or didn't go to the polls. that nothing was really in practice being accomplished. and so, on a presumably in. of bases, it simply became unpopular. what has happened since then is perhaps council aided by one statistic that i read, and i hope i'm not getting this wrong because i'm doing it from memo memory.
but the statistics showed that on an and. we measurable basis, the sophistication of high school students on simply basic knowledge of government today is equivalent to the sophistication of high school dropouts 30 years ago. and so, the supposed empirical basis for evaluating civic education has itself been devalued. and i want that i don't want to digress too long but there is an uphill fight in getting social studies generally and civic education in the specific sense pushed back in the great them for the very simple reason that it is very hard to find the time to teach it if, in fact, the testing on math, science and reading is going to dominate the motivation in the schools. and i personally think we've got
to require some testing in civic education in order to provide the incentive. i have found in practice that the teachers are ready to teach it. the problem for them is find the time to teach it, and finding support for doing that, consistently with the other mandates that have come along. and just one last thought. i don't want to leave the impression that no child left behind is the culprit behind the lack of civic education. this is a process that started long before no child left behind came along. but the incentives of no child left behind has to be taken into consideration in the reestablishment of it. let's switch to an entirely different approach, instead of education from the ground up, we
have a question that goes to one of the manifestations of our no compromise culture, or let's say more broadly, our culture of extreme rhetoric. and the question is, which i think probably is addressed in the first instance to you, geoff, as a first amendment lawyer, should we emulate other democracies in restricting hate speech and advocacy of violence? >> i don't think that hate speech or advocacy of violence, whatever else one thinks is much the source of the problem here. i think the source of the problem is actually much more central to the first amendment. the supreme court decided a case in new york times v. sullivan which involved the extent to which the government can allow liability for individuals who
have been the subject of defamation, and particularly for individuals who are either public officials or public figures. and traditional law in new york times v. sullivan decide in the 1960s was that defamation was not within the first amendment. and, therefore, states and the federal government were free to provide remedies for false statements of fact made about an individual, largely outside of any cause additional limitations. and the general and that was false statements, in fact, were actionable unless the person who made the statement to prove they were too. there was a variance on that but that was basically the central common law principle. "the new york times" versus sullivan, supreme court held that no, the regulation of false statements in fact is
problematic under the first amendment not because false statements themselves are valuable, but because to create liability from false statements will chill willingness of individuals to speak openly and freely, boldly about matters, because of their fear that they might make a statement that turns out to have been false, and that they could be held accountable for the. so when we to think about that is supposed, in this room suppose we made willis in what makes a false statement in fact go to jail or period. welcome you can imagine the impact that would have on discourse. because even though you wouldn't, not only would he make a false statement that, it may turn out something you said is false, and it might turn out that even if it was true some factfinder would erroneously find out, conclude that it was false. so you would be extremely affected by such a rule. that's what the supreme court in
your times are sullivan was concerned about. it adopted a very broad perspective. even the plaintiff had to prove their false instead of the defending prevent a work trip and were not actionable even if they were false, unless the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had acted with knowledge or false or reckless disregard to the true. the new york times versus overhead a real impact on public discourse in the united states. the ability of individuals to make statements like swift boating and that obama was not born in essays or whatever, those kind of comments injury would have been actionable in the past. and individuals would have been much more reluctant to make a statement fix again as an example of unintended consequences, here you have a widely celebrated supreme court decision, one of which anthony lewis sort of, has written a
wonderfully about the new york times versus sullivan. and yet it has its consequent fits of record as coach would change our first amendment, if that's what i think in this respect on issues of hate speech or text that was the other example? i forget the other one year whatever. pure political speech. it happened to be false because that's really, there's been a corruption, political discourse. it's been in some sense at least argument unleashed by the courts celebrated protection of the first amendment. i don't call for the change there. that's unintended consequence of free speech. >> we have a general question, directed to all of us, although i have to admit my name got stuck on the question. i'm calling it one for all of us. what is the significance of the electoral college, if there is a
significance to it, and the phenomenon that we're discussing? into the electoral college should be abolished? mickey, i think that is closest to your alley. >> i don't have strong things about electoral college but i think with the effects of the electoral college was at one point at least to force candidates to spend more of their time in states that have smaller populations, but nonetheless had particular interests, whether it was boiled in a week in oklahoma, which was, you know, basically flyover country and if you just have to worry about putting a majority in major cities, yeah, you would never bother to go to oklahoma. and a lot of other states. so i think there was, i'm not sure that was the original purpose of the electoral college, but it did have some
beneficial effect in that regard. but everything has changed, just as i now take in regard to what heather said before about party cues, which has long been part of political science, which i think were very valid in the 18th century. you know, you know, i think times have changed and i'm not, i'm not a strong defender of the electoral college. i don't have any particular feelings one way or the other. >> any other thoughts? >> hamilton said of the electoral college that it does not prevent it was nearly so. and remarkably that is not the reason that aaron burr shot him. [laughter] i mean, i find electoral college puzzling on almost every dimension. i take the point that it's important represent regional interests and state interest, but we have a house and senate to do that. and i think the president is a national politician.
and its circuitry that there is incentive of a small place but that also means if you believe in the principle, one person one vote, in essays were many people are being neglected, because of it, i worry about any particular night here i should disclose that i am a lawyer for obama's national election protection team so i may be skewed in my view of this, but i do worry about the manipulation of the electoral college going forward. so there's two things that happen with electoral college. one, it reduces the map to very small number of states. and the reason why that matters in perspective of lawyering and democracy is that it also creates a gigantic incentive to win a very small number of states. so this is inside, not mine. when there's a fire for the national election system is very hard to steal enough votes legally or illegally, to win over a national popular vote. especially not that hard to win votes legally or illegally in
one state or another. and so you see tremendous incentives for politicians on both sides of the a to manipulate the system in advance exciting, for example, what kenneth blackwell did in ohio during the election when he was secretary of state, as sector as he decide one day that all voter registration material should be printed on heavy bond paper, the kind of paper used for wedding invitations. now, there's no possible justification for that as a matter of voting but it was simply done to make it harder for some segment of the population devoted to raise one -- incentives to do these things i would posit is because ohio could've been the reason the presidency was won or lost. right now, for those of you who are real junkies, pennsylvania is considering splitting its electoral vote. why is it considering its electoral vote? because this means that would be allocated instead of a winner take all system as it is now, it
was who a couple states will do which is divided those regionally. so why isn't thinking of doing that? you can imagine many good reasons why this might be an ex-idea but in thing to do that, and there's a question even if you ask the people sponsoring it because republicans control pennsylvania legislature by the democrats have more votes. so what does that mean? image republicans can ensure that for the next one of the presidency pennsylvania's those will be split. them is known will go to pennsylvania but it will also mean it will be less like a president obama will be reelected. so it leaves open to partisan money pushing the kinds of things i don't think should be left open to partisan manipulation pics i would prefer to see a system where we have a national leader and he is voted through a national election. >> great answer. >> we have another nuts and bolts question, which is directed specifically to mickey edwards, with hopes for comments from others.
and that is, and i think, nikki, this is implicit in some of what you said, but you might welcome the opportunity to expand. what do you think of caucuses before primary elections? can the upset democratic choice? >> well, you know, i don't have any expertise in the caucus, in the caucuses if they're merely for strong vote, what i would does or whatever. i think that's fine. you know, i favor, as open a system as possible when you're choosing your leaders to give as many choices as possible among the people who might be selected to represent you, and investment opportunities for the electorate at large to participate. caucuses tend to be, i think, more like conventions. they tend to be dominated by the
activists in the party. they are not broadly represented. so i mean, i've never lived in a state that was a caucus state, so i don't have real strong feelings about it. i think what you want to do, this is a system of self-government. it's a system of self-government where what the people want should matter, and not what some small activist some set of the public wants. and so, you know, i think caucuses have been dashed have a built-in problem, the utah convention and. at the people show up who are the most zealous, or the most extreme, and you are not typical of the people who were in their state. and i just think that provide a skewed outcome that goes all the way up to how our laws are finally made. >> we seem to have consensus of
that on the pelvic before the red light finally goes on i'd like to wrap things up in much the way that david kennedy wrapped up the panel before us, and i want to go back to the original theme that got us here. and that is sort of the rhetorical and perhaps, in fact, substantial intransigence that manifests itself in politics today, the refusal to look at questions from the standpoint of other people and to recognize the legitimacy of those standpoints. and i want to wrap it up with a story that i hadn't thought of for a long time, but it was suggested at lunch yesterday. the four of us had lunch to sort of try to coordinate what we're going to say, and a name came up in the lunch conversation and it was the name of the late paul freud who taught constitutional
law at harvard law school, and was surely one of the most splendid teachers i have ever had in my life. and i said at lunch that paul taught his course is not so much by sort of pounding facts, but by establishing an understanding of the mood in which one ought to think about constitutional questions. and one way he did that was by telling stories. he had a great story. and he taught as much by the stories he told as by the cases that he expounded. and one of his stories that has its relevance to the subject before us this morning was one about president taft. and maybe not everyone knows that between the time william howard taft was president of the
nested and later chief justice of the united states, he went back to yale law school and taught. and one of the things that president taft loved was a college football game. and mrs. taft did not share his interest in it, so he had to go alone. but by that time, and, in fact, he did. anytime yield was playing in new haven, william howard taft was at the game. and even though he went by himself, he was at that time weighing in i think around 330 or 340, and he couldn't fit in one seat. and because he was a gentleman of the old school, he thought it was only fair that he buy two tickets. and so he would arrive with his two tickets, and one day, according to paul, he arrived at
the game and made his way up to the tier that the seats were on, and he presented the two tickets to the student usher who looked at him and looked around, and he was perplexed and he said, you have given me two tickets, serve. and taft said, he said yes, yes, i have. and he said, i really cannot sit, sit in one seat and i think it's only fair that i should have to, pay for to pick and the usher said, but, sir, these are for seats on opposite sides of the aisle. [laughter] at that point in the story, that's the way paul kagame, and he said i would like to think that in those circumstances, president taft exercise his extraordinary powers of conciliation and compromise by
turning first to his neighbor on one side of the aisle, and persuading him to switch sides for the first half of the game so taft could have a full two seats on the outside. and when the halftime came, that taft would've gone to the other side of the aisle and persuaded his supposedly neighbor there to switch onto the other side so that, again, taft could have two full seats. and that we, as paul said, both president taft and each of his neighbors would have been able to watch the game from varying perspectives, which is a very valuable thing. [laughter] so if we have any wish this morning, it is to return to the america of at least paul's view of william howard taft and we will end with that. [applause]
>> and here's what's ahead. next, china central television and their coverage of north korean leader kim jong-il's funeral. >> mitt romney and rick perry today assailed on paul gosar in the u.s. has no business bombing iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. both mentor and a sharp contrast
with a rising rival as he returned to iowa days before the leadoff caucuses. and if you like to learn more about all things campaign related, c-span.org is your place to go online. you can watch events from the trail, stump speeches and town hall meetings. we have linked to the candidates and related editorials and endorsements. that's all at c-span.org/campaign2012. ♪ ♪ >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire in south l.a. and florida primaries late in the month, c-span series the contenders looks back at 14 candidates who ran for president and lost, but had a long lasting impact on american politics. tonight, barry goldwater. thursday, hubert humphrey, friday, for time governor of alabama george wallace. and then on saturday senator and congressman from south dakota george mcgovern followed by
billionaire businessman ross perot. the contenders every night at 10 eastern on c-span. >> have you tried the free c-span radio app? here's what users are saying. >> it is fast, easy-to-use and visually appealing. the audio cord is convincingly clear. >> get streaming i of c-span radio as well as all three c-span television networks including live coverage of congress. you can listen your interview programs including q&a, newsmakers, "the communicators" and afterwards. c-span, it's available where ever you are. find out more at c-span that dashed at c-span.org. >> north korean leader kim jong-il passed away earlier this month. next, couch of events marking his death courtesy of china central television, a state run
network. this is just over 50 minutes. ♪ ♪ >> hello. you're watching cctv news, special coverage on the funeral of the late leader kim jong-il. the democratic people's republic of china is currently bidding farewell to its late leader, kim jong-il. hundreds of thousands of mourners are expected to attend the event. cctv news is bringing you live footage of the farewell ceremony in pyongyang. according to early arrangements, kim jong-il's coffin and convoy will be taken around to pay
pay final respects at the palace. and kim jong il and the military mission as detonations later, kim jong il, bad pain silent tribute among the army government officials. in uniform soldiers in the city, clad in black suits or korean traditional dress. many people in the country alright jd involved throughout
the nation. and tomorrow, on thursday, they expect to feature it 30 minutes of silence at noon local time, followed by ships sounding horns . you are watching cctv special coverage on the figueroa of delay kim jong il. we are bringing it to life at age and pyonyang, the capital. and the world palace with this alert of pirates that for the leader. three minutes of silence has
then go back to kim jong il to the royal palace. for nine days, it has been in sorrow since the announcement of the leader of kim jong il. what a sad way now is a bidding farewell being held at the harris of kim jong il in the capital city of pyonyang. hundreds of thousands of mourners attended. morning citizens of pyonyang lining the street then hundreds,
even thousands of military salutes marches in the streets. it is expected that the hearse of kim jong il will arrive and i squared later. and then, the hearse will return , finishing the three-hour farewell. the event will be followed by kevin l. sound -- earlier today, thousands of people passing to
pay their final respects at memorial palace. kim jong il san'a local vice-chairman of the central military commission of korea and leader of the army state paid silent tribute among the senior army government officials. meanwhile, uniform soldiers clad in black suits or korean traditional dress. many people in the country have mourned the top leaders death.
>> well, you have been watching the dprk people bidding farewell to kim jong il and to bidding farewell has been held with hundreds of thousands of mourners attended. and now let's take a look back at key moments from this event to wake up from a korean central tv. ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪
>> kim jong il's coffin escorted by a picture and pyonyang to pay final respects. in the morning citizens of pyonyang are lining the street and marching in remembrance. and i suspected, the hearse of kim jong il will arise at candle song square later, where people at the dprk will get their final clamps of their leader.
kim il sung. and now let's get back to pyonyang to see the large signal of the people bidding farewell to their dear leader, kim jong il. and joining us in the studio today, a research fellow at the china institute of international studies. we still can see that the whole dprk is in deep sorrow to pay their respects to the late leader, kim jong il. how are they react to? how should they react to the
death of kim jong il? >> many people in many countries we can see that most countries have achieved conscious now that it is important to make sure the country's stability. china has expressed our condolences to the nation that we call for other nations to join us to keep the stability for the country's development. >> and what will kim jong il's death mean the local stability stability -- and asia?
>> i think this country, first of all, they will say farewell to the old leader and try to address and perform and make sure to the other countries. and so that they will after that. >> after more discussion, we look at that to you. but now let's get to our correspondent, eugene john to see what she has got to there. hello there come a chain. what the reaction to a today's farewell ceremony and pyonyang. >> good dprk television broadcasting pictures of kim jong il's funeral at 2:00 p.m.
local time. however, the local media in south korea of whether the pictures are really coming in live from the dprk or whether they were recorded. we checked with the unification ministry here and a sad they weren't sure whether this is live or prerecorded, but they say that these images were filmed before being broadcasted on dprk television. also, they have ordered other agencies that has been knowing heavily since 9:00 p.m. yesterday and pyonyang. says the immense node may have caused delay, and did expect the
funeral to begin at 10:00 a.m. local time. what is also interesting, what they are also pointing out here in south korea is that there was a shot of the funeral coach driving through the city. we could see kim jong dune and other officials with the funeral coach with kim jong il's coffin inside. so they are here analyzing the dprk makes leadership will be the one who are guarding the fan wrote coach and pointing that kim jong un is being courted by the brother-in-law of kim jong il and also the current vice-chairman of the national defense commission. and also, the vice minister of
foreign affairs of the dprk. so the kind of place is a word they were founding could also reflect what they say in regards to the positions in the next leadership. >> and have the official statements from the south korean government. have you gotten anything about both the farewell ceremony and the memorial services that are going to be held tomorrow? >> well come as far as i am aware that has not been any official statement from the south korean government regarding ice. in fact, on the phone conversation we had with the ministry, where they said whether these images were in fact live or recorded conman we may have to wait a couple more hours. an official statement is released from the south korean
government. it seems that might not be very likely that the government will respond to the message about the funeral or what takes place tomorrow, though we may have to see. >> and the south korean morning delegation has arrived already home, so one day before this farewell ceremony. so can you give us more details on that? >> that's right. the two high-profile figures in south korea on monday and may return back on tuesday. they paid their respects to kim jong un on monday afternoon. they were not going to attend the funeral and going to come back on tuesday. the main reason was that when the dprk validation can be south
korea for the deaths of the late former president in 2009 and also in 2003 when the chairman passed away, they didn't apparently attend the funeral ceremony in south korea either. so in a way, there is a sign that these people are not still in the dprk to attend the funeral. they returned back to south korea tuesday afternoon. they held their press briefings, which lasted for a very short period of time and no political messages have been exchanged with kim jong un or any other dprk officials. there is one comment received from the dprk, wherein said the dprk wishes to june 15 declaration and the october
october 4th decoration, these two declarations signify and symbolize the joint cooperation and good relations between the koreas. they said that these explorations showed live on into korea ties. but at this point, there has not been any response regarding nice. it cannot really be seen as an official message to south korea. >> thank you very much. u-jean jung, the late leader of the democratic republic leader, kim jong il died 10 days ago. the leader of the workers party and is a close friend of the chinese people helping improve dprk relations. >> welcome to cctv. i am at bryn mawr or beijing. that democratic of korea has
been holding a farewell sewer money for it likely of kim jong il in the capital pyonyang. the morning. began at 7:00 a.m. local time is expected to continue until tomorrow. then, there'll be a a national memorial service. kim jong il was this a plain letter of the dprk from 1994 until 2011. stanley lee has more details. ♪ ♪ >> kim jong il's coffin escorted by a convoy is being taken around the city of pyonyang for mourners to pay their final respects. the hearse passed the military base and a civilian force called workers and farmers. it will have a brief stay in the square and i will go back to the memorial palace, a place which the leader's body will rest permanently.
earlier, kim jong un, the supreme leader at the dprk said farewell to his father. the ceremony began early on wednesday, 10 and a senior parties and. they are here to pay their last respects to who they call their leader. but for some, the sight of his body is heart wrenching. others refuse to let go. there's no one as great as our leader. our leader hasn't left us. a general will forever live in our hearts, through our souls. >> despite the sorrow, resilience seems to be a byword at the dprk people, rallying behind the great successor, president and pyonyang are picking up the pieces and looking ahead to the future.
i will change today's sorrow into thousands of times of courage to achieving our generous aids, and a powerful and prosperous nation while holding a supreme leader, kim jong un heightens the same. >> this state media of kim jong un is the likeness of hope for the nation. the message is clear. the state and the people united at one point. a great successor followed in the footsteps of his brother and will lead the nation to prosperity. stanley lee, cctv. >> dprk workers at the joint industrial complex are the south korean border have been told to take two days off for kim jong il's memorial services. south korea's unification ministry spokesman, troy peon announced the break on
wednesday. the industrial complex run jointly by the dprk in south korea is one of pyonyang and few sources of foreign currency. the spokesman says during the two days, south korean businessman can still get normal entry to the complex, which opened for business in 2004 and is home to more than 120 south korean firms. they employ a total of 44,000 dprk workers. south korean morning delegates have arrived home after a two-day visit to the dprk. they met with leaders that expressed their condolences for the death of kim jong il. u-jean jung has more details from this report in south korea. >> widow of the late korean south president, kim jong un chairperson are the only
delegation approved by the south korean government to visit the dprk. seoul made this conception because kim jong il has sent delegates to south korea when the former president kim il sung, late husband passed away in 2009 and 2003 respectively. the group crossed the military demarcation line north on monday morning. the dprk state run television showed video personally expressing his gratitude to the south korean delegation. this was the first time for kim jong un to come face-to-face to south korea since kim jong il passed away. the chairperson return person on the doorstep and were no political messages were exchanged with the new dprk leader. >> we pay our respects so we haven't had time to discuss other matters.
>> late kim jong un and seven at a president from 1998 until 2008. and the year 2000, kim jong un was invited by a kim jong il for world effects were two leaders agreed on the june 15 north-south declaration. in october 2007, late former president pyongyang walked across and went to pyongyang to hold the second inter-korean summit. they signed the peace declaration, calling for the treaty and an armistice that ended the world war. in march 2010, south koreas warship sank to south korea claimed the dprk with the high and it while pyongyang rejected the declaration. in 2010, the island was bombarded by the dprk's artillery. diplomatic and economic ties between seoul and pyongyang have been at a standstill ever since.
>> according to local news, south korea's relatively calm after hearing the news of kim jong il stats compared to 1994, when kim il sung passed away. this time around, south korea has expressed empathy to the dprk people and also allowed for two high-profile figures to visit the dprk in person. >> south koreans were surprised by the news last monday, but their day-to-day lives have not been affected. still, differences exist among south koreans on the future of inter-korea ties. >> i hope the negative perception stores the dpr can change after the korean delegation to pyongyang and also the marks a given policy towards the dprk. >> there will be change in inter-korean relations. inter-korean ties can improve that there's not a exchange between the two koreas. >> just like the next voices on
the street, there is in a clear view on the future of inter-korean ties. and he had to change in the two koreas policies towards each other will not surface until the end of the dprk morning. come which ends on the 29th of december. u-jean jung, cctv, seoul. >> we will continue coverage of the events coming from pyongyang and the dprk and this seems us have been shown by the television network. the very own motives people with featured prominently in the crowd of mourners saying farewell to train three. it needs no commentary to explain just how the people they are and pyongyang are reacting as they have seen over these past two hours or so the procession of the costs and, care and kim jong il's body,
which has several circuits around the main part of pyongyang earlier today. kim jong il's costs and was escorted by a convoy taken on pyongyang for mourners to pay their final respects. and as you can see from the live pictures now, the snow has been falling in pyongyang, a very heavy falling snow earlier today. and this is adding to the atmosphere of the occasion. hundreds of thousands of people have been lining the streets of pyongyang for the military salute and the marches and remembrance.
and for many people who lived in the dprk and also analysts watching today's event, it seems that the funeral today has been very, very similar to that of 1994 when kim jong il's father, kim il sung was farewell. live pictures coming to us from tv in the dprk. when we get more, bring them to you throughout the day. you are watching cctv. we will be rare but after short break. or signals coming in from state television in north korea and we are going to try to do is to show you the very latest on the final moments of the funeral, which is now and there is a farewell to kim jong il.
these are the latest scenes coming from the memorial palace. it is where the hearse left today for the start of the line journey through the streets of the capital, pyongyang. the hearse bearing the very large picture of the late leader, kim jong il. it is being seen now by millions of people in north korea's capital, the dpr capital pyongyang and of course throughout the dprk on state television. after moving through the streets of pyongyang, the hearse is now arriving where it started at kim il sung squier and the memorial palace is way or the late peter will be giving his final resting place. a varied weekday and pyongyang
today, heading to the atmosphere of course of this farewell to kim jong il. heavy snow fell in the morning and has blanketed the capital. the commentary you can hear in the background, of course, is from the state television network. and the talent has become very familiar to people not of course just in the dprk, but for those watching the coverage since kim jong il died 10 days ago. much of the procession through pyongyang today has been fairly quick. it seems to have done one or two circuits to counter the entire city. but nowadays slow down of course
as the course has returned to the kim il sung memorial palace. and it is here well kim jong il's father, kim il sung, lies. and a place where people from all over the dprk come every year to pay their respects. it is also a place where many foreigners are taken to. they are asked to bow three times at the place where kim il sung lays. and no doubt there will be a similar procedure for kim jong il.
a very, very day of high emotion. a lot of the people who have been lining the streets of pyongyang had been weeping openly and it seems particularly the women have been crying very loudly. some of the soldiers and the men appeared to be holding it back, but let's get some more on the atmosphere because we have in the studio with us at the moment, now special guest who we were talking to earlier. and that is who shall play, research institute of national studies or perhaps you can give us some idea of what is happening now at this final farewell to kim jong il.
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> -- in the next few months, people will realize again how the country will move forward. >> the scenes that we are watching today i guess is very similar to the funeral or the farewell ceremony that was held for kim jong il's father, kim il sung. is there a lot of difference in what was shown that? >> well, i see they are quite similar as the people in that country mourned for their leader so it is a very serious and very
sad ceremony. and i am not sure whether it will move forward in the same way. but i suppose this is what happened before. >> it's like an opportunity, isn't it, while there is sadness that the death of kim jong il and the passing at that time when he was later for such a long time. there must be anticipation, not just among the people, but other countries around the world. i'm hoping that maybe a new era will bring something great to them than what has been achieved already. >> i agree. the countries will expect some new and the country and this is the source of many years.
the country itself is trying to carve out some reform in the past two years. and in the future, they will keep on working on the reform and to people in muslim countries. currently, the most important thing is to make sure the basics of the future -- to >> it is a time or stability itself is of paramount importance. perhaps he might be altogether your thoughts as you look at this picture here of what is happening now and wishes the final stage of two days precision. this is the hearse, of course, which carries the coffin of kim
jong il. a picture of his father there. >> yes, a country is operating sadly. >> the experience of the people are really what many are doing outside of the dprk, watching with interest. the people of course that the dprk has been a little bit more reserved. >> i suppose a lot of the old and the south also feel sad about the leader passed away. >> generally, generally, the people of the dprk seem a little
more reserved. i know when i visited there three years ago and at this particular place, the memorial for many of them were coming down on the escalators should pay their respects to kim il sung. they were very, very serious. their faces were serious. they were not being in a state that they were crying, obviously like they are today. but still very serious can of very aware the situation, very aware of their former leader. >> yes, the leader of the country is a great man -- [inaudible] our generation of the people will act more. >> of course, that is right.
and there is kim jong un, who was just being very briefly they are walking beside hearse. so much rest on his shoulders. the person who we are not exactly sure of his age, but it seems quite possible that he has not yet 30. so he must be feeling all kinds of emotions today. >> yeah, the new leader is quite young. but not as young as some western analysts exact date. so he is getting into his age now. so it is good for the dprk people perhaps. >> what are some of the things that you are thinking of one, when you mention that the timed event of anticipation may be
changing for the better, or maybe moving to more progress in this democratic people's republic of korea? >> well, as we know, in 2000 the country carried out a kind of reform to better people's living conditions. and i can say that at that time the leaders realize that the country needed to change. but they met difficulties and challenges during the reform. so in the future, the new leader will make more progress in the reform and try more. probably with great caution are probably with great curry each. the changing their future in this country. >> and the changes of course are not just the changes that you
mention, but also changes perhaps then the moves to make the korean peninsula a safer place. >> well, and all the series coming to grant them if that is a place with a lot of uncertainties and challenges. we hope that in the future, after the transition of the power, they will benefit from this country. >> i'm sure that is indeed the hope of people within the dprk as well as those analysts watching what has been going on in the country and especially now at this pivotal time, when a new leader is about to assume office. >> yeah, i suppose they were these the cabinets to the
country. >> i have to say you might like to just describe the scenes of water we are watching now and just get a view from the outside of the memorial palace square, kim jong il will be laid to rest. >> well, and this focus i guess the funeral is getting to the end. >> yes. >> i'm not sure whether this tribute by the dprk, bad promising we can see a huge number of people are gathering together and they are organized and they are wearing dark colored clothes to show their
respect to the late leader. >> i think one of the interesting things that we could just mention when you talk about the clothes that they way or, everybody fair and the dprk still weyers the badge of kim il sung. >> yeah. >> part of their -- part of their outfits and i think may be there are several different patches that have been produced. >> people want to show their respect didn't show they remember their leader after all these years, this country has in its own way. so the people respect the leader. >> and what do you imagine is going on in other parts of the dprk because we are seeing the final stages at the ceremony
here in pyongyang. i guess there are people outside to. we can tell the listeners that are watching the final scenes at the farewell ceremony, outside the constantine memorial palace in pyongyang. do you think there would be similar scenes in other standards of the dprk? >> i suppose people will voluntarily organize a kind of ceremony to show their love to the leader. we just mentioned kim jong un, the success very dedicated to his father kim jong il. this is the salute, the final
♪ ♪ >> i suppose people in this country have been preparing for this because the leader passed away. after that, everything is moving on track very organized. >> there's been a lot of forward separation. well, this of course the most somber moment at the constantine memorial palace. it is almost as if the mood has changed here for a very somber music to now change to something with a more anticipatory nature. kim jong un look at the military
and giving has salute. a new era it appears his beginning. right now. the young man who is not even 30 years old, but on his shoulders, the exploration of the dprk people rest on his shoulders and led the hopes of many people around the world, people who are hoping that the korean peninsula can be kind and more peaceful place and that tension can be reduced. >> i suppose the people also hope that the new leader will lead the country in the right direction, a new era and
prosperity. >> he does have an ekg and outside the western cadre. so he's obviously very, very well aware of what is going on outside. >> and i suppose it is also helpful to the country -- [inaudible] >> so, we have been watching the final moments of the farewell ceremony for kim jong il in pyongyang today and we are speaking the sushi on who is research fellow at the china institute of international serious. if we can just ask one question of you because we have been
talking about the aspirations of the future and it appears we have reached the point of the change in the hopes and aspirations of the people in the dprk. what about the future of relations between the north and south? i suppose in a way we are playing a bit of a guessing game here. >> well, in recent years from 2008 the two countries have been undergoing a very difficult situation, especially in the year before last, found incidents have been and the neighboring countries are worried about that generation. so i suppose in the future, the outside world will pay greater attention on this region and the two countries will also be very careful in dealing with their
relationship. i suppose now that and the rok, verisign details of the leaders of policy. i open the future, the results will be better and a friendly relationship. >> you are watching cctv news and this is our special coverage of the farewell ceremony to trent three. and we will be back right after a short break. and of course, there is one part here in china, where the dprk can be seen across the water, the yellow river from beyond and, the chinese border city where many people have been gathering to mourn their leader today says steve farewells have continued in the dprk and indeed in pyongyang as we saw earlier.
but inventive, more than 50 dprk people working in the north eastern province crowded into a local restaurant near the border bridge to watch dprk states of television, chinese and dprk mourners also brought okays and wreaths of white and yellow chrysanthemums to place at a chinese dprk trade office across from the restaurant. chinese police at the entrance allow staff and mourners to go inside the office come down. >> here is what i had. from this morning's "washington journal," a discussion on margaret thatcher.
>> with his eyes squarely on the general election as the rest of the republican presidential field took aim at one another. less than a week before the contest on the field is as unsettled as any in recent memory with mr. pawn of setting a trap to real clear politics that come average of polls. mr. romney a second and mr. gingrich tumbles from the lee to third. you can keep up with all things campaign related on our website, c-span.org. we would answer that campaign trail, town hall meetings and links to the candidates. a simulated editorials and endorsement endorsement solid c-span.org/campaign 2012.
>> now come a portion of this morning's "washington journal," a discussion of this week's "newsweek" cover story on the former british prime minister, margaret hatcher. >> well, this is our last segment of the day and this is a weekly spotlight on magazines. in the cover story of "newsweek" this week is about margaret thatcher. you can see that meryl streep is
dressed as margaret thatcher. iron lady opens this weekend. here's the movie trailer. >> something has to maximize your appeal and make you look and sound like a leader that you could be. i want to authority. i want conviction. >> no, no, no. >> i've decided to run. >> are you saying for the prime minister? >> the rest of us will all go to . >> no more discourse, no more bringing home. post are now joining us from our new york studio is the author of "newsweek" cover story, historian, amanda foreman.
wiser article in "newsweek" entitled to ms. thatcher era? were issued back in popularity are back in the news. >> the "newsweek" team felt very strongly that the issues that help to bring thatcher down, ironically, are the very same issues that confronting europe today. the most important rule is the question of your european integration. as you know, the euro is sinking. there is a desperate attempt to keep it afloat among the countries of the portugal ireland, spain and greece. and that proposal is for a european super state, where there will be complete escalon political integration. that is the very topic that margaret thatcher put her stake in the ground on. and she says that the greater fiscal and political integration would lead to a stronger
undemocratic no enterprise, high unemployment entity, where individual countries would not be allowed to control their own destiny because they would not build a center in interest rates. they were not able to set their own currency exchange. and she fought against that at last. that is why the party kicked her out. and now at the same arguments again. poster that was in 1990. that was the issue. but great britain did not join the euro, did it? >> guest: no, it did not. unfortunately sot: no, it did n. unfortunately so, there is still a very strong pro-euro, pro-european wing in the country and it is divided between the conservatives who are now in power coalition but liberal democrat and also in labor. but they are not the dominant wing. so you have this ongoing fight between these two sides over
whether britain should be in the heart of europe or whether britain should stand aside and be in europe, but not of europe. >> what will margaret thatcher's 11 years as prime minister be most remembered for? or 12 years. >> sheet we made the face of britain. when she came into power, the relationship between the people parliament and the trade unions has become completely inverted. and it was the trade unions who are in effect running the country. and she arrived just after there had been something called the winter of discontent, where the 157 units in the country is serially gone on strike one after another and often at the same time. so during that winter of 1979,
bodies did not go very. the trains did not run. there was no heating. there was no electricity. there was no garbage collection. if you reset, depending on which areas you are living and you might not be expected to hospitals. if you are taken to hospitals, you would not get sad. another hospitals you might not receive medicines because the tracking unions were on straight. in some cities, like in the north of england, it was turned into a kind of stalingrad. it is a city under siege. no cargoes were about to be unloaded. farm animal starve because the feed couldn't be transported to them. the country was in chaos. so the first thing she did and it wasn't immediate, it took a while. she and bert is the power of the union said she's got the unions from having the right to strike
out well but got a ballot, the right to secondary picketing, the right to have sympathy strikes for matters unrelated to their own industry. .. >> the country was a social state. so, for example, if you wanted to get telephone line you had to make an appointment with brigitte telecom, and the could take you anywhere from six months to a year-and-a-half to get telephone line put into your
house. you wanted to get a new -- you had to make an upon met with british gas. you had to physically go to the store, get the phone number from a store assistant, then go home and call and we for your appointment, and that could take several months. she did away with all these regulations. you now have a country which is as wealthy and profitable as any other, where as in those days britain was known as a tour of country with first full crisis. >> amanda foreman is our guest, she is a historian and author, and we are going to be talking about margaret thatcher and her tenure as prime minister, 1979- 1990 of great britain and influence as ms. foreman has already started talking about. here is a picture from the newsweek cover story that amanda foreman wrote. here is margaret thatcher which hurt -- with her best political ally, ronald reagan.
the numbers are on the screen. you can go ahead and start dialing in if you have some questions. we will begin taking your calls in just a minute. what was the importance of a relationship with reagan? >> so, her relationship with reagan, i think, is one of the great defining relationships of the late 20th century. they understood each other totally. this support each other totally. they shared a vision of an enterprise society where every man and every woman have their right to ride. the right to better themselves. government should be creating a level playing field where anyone can create wealth for themselves. it also had a vision of a democratic society.
the one of the cd and the soviet union. between them they forced a remarkable coalition that brought in the kelp gorbachev as it to begin shooting party. they ended the cold war. >> amanda foreman talented margaret thatcher talked to you for this cover story in newsweek? >> unfortunately lady thatcher is unable to give interviews and is very rarely seen in public. since 2003 she has had a series of strokes that have incapacitated how short-term memory. so although she is very clear on things that happened in the past, she has difficulty having a normal day-to-day conversation with people. >> since she left the prime
ministership in 1990, what kind of a staff to she have? >> well, the staff is now wound down. @booktv of the 1990. this is a woman of tremendous energy and desire to be be useful in doing things. she was able to assemble a very efficient staff. if -- still very involved in politics. for example, choose one of the first and only voices to call for allied intervention in serbia. she was joined by a london albright. and a very strong and very important in ending that humanitarian disaster. but as she got older and stop giving lectures, the staff wind down. it was announced office was
closing completely. she no longer has any staff and all except for paris. >> her daughter is very active. >> well, both her children lived abroad, and so i think the film, perhaps some makes the relationship out to be possibly more than it is. not to say that she is estranged from her children. the thatcher definitely has a very close core of supporters and friends, loyal friends. they do go up to see her and check on her innkeeper company. >> where they're children live? >> my understanding is that they like to keep their vacation quiet. >> the cover story has pictures of meryl streep dressed as margaret thatcher. did meryl streep speak with you
about this? >> she did. we -- we had some hilarious * talking about margaret thatcher. because meryl streep had great access to a lot of lady thatcher's former colleagues. they opened up to her in a way that they might not always open up to a journalist or even a historian like myself. and so they gave in this sort of anecdotes that the possibly reserved for late after dinner drinks. and so, for example, one of them told her that whenever they saw lady thatcher take up her handbag and put it on the table, their heart just sank like a stone. because the handbag, which was originally assembled of ridicule and weakness became her symbol
of strength and power. you never knew quite what was in it, what does she had taken toward research she had done that before. some kind of zinger. there would not be allowed to answer and then there will look foolish. >> amanda foreman, was margaret thatcher personally popular, or was it her policies that were popular? >> they say that lady thatcher was never a people person. if you were to compare her to bill clinton, for example, clinton talked to ms. lee has a kind of aura and magnetism. so anyone who has ever met him and shaking his hand has always said that they just felt that that one second, it was just then and he in the room. there were sort of lift the ban had an incredible experience. plenty tester was not like that. her own father once said
famously, margaret is 99 and a half percent perfect. the other half percent she could, perhaps, be a little bit warmer. and that was her own father who said that. so she was very brisk. she was all business. i think that what started out as somebody who just, you know, like to be doing things, who was not a particularly sensitive soul, but she enters an arena where you would be knocked down all day long by critics, colleagues, the parliamentary sessions. she develops this tough exterior to do with those. and if you look at anybody who is being continuously kept under the will change the character. so it becomes tougher, more aggressive, ready to attack.
that is the -- the mechanism that they used to protect themselves and end up becoming the full person. a squash everything else. so, no, she wasn't that popular by the end. she was like a kind of raging fighting machine. nobody likes a raging fighting machine. but that is what gets things done. >> amanda foreman is a historian with a doctorate from oxford. her most recent book is this, a world on fire, birds crucial role in the american civil war. this book just came out in 2011. it won several awards and also made several notable in the of the year lists to be by the way, covered by book tv. you can watcher at booktv.org. type her name into the search engine. one other note, this weekend, but notes, are on core book notes program interviewed
margaret thatcher won her biography came out, autobiography came out in 1995 or '96 to my belief. that will be aired this weekend. 6:00 p.m. on saturday on book tv on c-span2. gary in phoenix, arizona. thank you for holding. yuan with the story them in the form it. >> the morning. actually, and from california, but i am currently in phoenix is a link. abbott like to say, and 44 years old. i am a trade labor unionists, a democrat. pat, i am more democrats than most democrats. if i was in britain and would be a labor party member beyond. it with, a comrade. anyway, i would like to say tell a rare very well margaret thatcher in the reagan era. our members and friends in school and thought of reagan's was a great president. i remember that. i remember ronald reagan destroying jobs, sending tens of jobs overseas. and margaret thatcher, the
spells, and her ticking on labor, ticking on -- destroying standards in britain in england tried to free-market capitalize all over the world. then reagan doing the same thing here, killing still, labor, deregulation, we lost them, we lost could you give airlines. >> we get the idea. listed a response from historian and a foreman. >> one of the criticisms that has been -- that was leveled against the conservative government, at least in the was that when they went into power in 1979 they had a plan that was based around monetarism. and the way at least the conservatives understood to be was as. came out of chicago that said that we just stopped inflation from rising. we needed to shrink the money supply. and attest to that was this idea
that government also needed to be smaller and needed to it. and what they did not prepare for, as your question points out , is that when you shrink the money supply and use of government subsidy for ailing industries, whether it is steal or manufacturing, you need to have some kind of safety net. what the conservatives fail to do was they fail to prepare for the great social distress that followed with these industries that were ailing went to the war. and there was a time when the over 3 million people in britain , a small country of under 60 million, were unemployed. that was a rise of over two and a half million people in only two years. and there was great social unrest. i think if you were to ask any of these politicians today where
they have done anything differently they would all say we should have had some kind of safety net in place. they would also have, perhaps, that they did not know what their policies were going to produce because no one had ever tried before. as with all these things, you can come up with an explanation polite things happened and what went wrong. it does not always excuse what happened. >> you are on with amanda formant. the topic is newsweek cover story of margaret thatcher. when is gone. sorry about that. we will move on to independence of missouri. go ahead. >> hello. i was curious as to what you thought about margaret thatcher and to european integration with the european union.
the european union with the party of they're in the united kingdom, really trying to push the entire european movement. where you think that is going? do you think that there will win the next general election? >> we have the point. amanda foreman. >> right. absolutely no chance whatsoever for the uk ip, the united kingdom independence party having any impact whatsoever in the next election. is just too small. a single issue party. in single issue parties just do not have a chance in british elections. that isn't to say that it can't take votes away from the conservative party. possibly other parties, but mostly the conservative party, which might aid the conservative opponents.
the issue itself, with britain should be done with the european union is a hot-button topic. and for years and years and years the so-called euro skeptics, the journalists, critics, bankers, politicians who argued that the kind of integration that brussels was calling for would end up producing an unholy. and now he's very critics are being seen as profits so that the question now is what is going to happen? is there going to be a european superstate with, perhaps, just ten or 12 or 16 countries? and then a european out to ring. for example, in american terms, you would have been devastated europe and then you would have these all liars. long, for example. the allies would be written,
poland, hungary, romania, some of these less involved in european countries. >> amanda foreman, from peter hebert. it sounds like ms. foreman is an unabashed thatcher supporters. is this true? >> you know, that is a very interesting question. when i began the peace i did not actually know that much about thatcher. i have not roy thought about her and 20 years. and when she was in power was a teenager. the judges thought it is rather policy millet's lady who would go on and on. and i instinctively recoil from our and did not, you know, i just never thought about her. when i began researching this piece the first thing that struck me was that she is a
feminist icon and that the thing that i have achieved in my life, the team is that i see it my female friends and acquaintances and colleagues achieving are inextricably linked with her groundbreaking success in politics. we believe in ourselves because she believed in herself. the mere fact that a woman was at the top, the very to be top confirmed to me that i could do anything. it wasn't something that i thought about, something that i worry about because there was a woman at the top. so if you were to say am i a supporter of margaret thatcher, yes, i am. i am not a complete political supporter of every policy she ever did, but i embrace our as a feminist icon.
>> philadelphia, patrick. you're on with historian and the foreman. the topic is margaret thatcher. >> good morning. i wonder if this foreman's article covers the brutal and illegal occupation of northern ireland while thatcher was in power. does it cover the number of catholics who were sent to prison based on falsified their permission and she was in power? and what about the 13 peaceful marchers a were shot to death on bloody sunday in northern ireland was she was in power? nothing but fun refer. at the she is an evil woman who does not deserve to be given any kind of good status. >> dr. forman. >> could you concern for me the date a bloody sunday? ipod the west in the early 70's. and i believe that it was something that happened before
1979. i think that what one can look at indeed answering was the good friday agreement which brought dublin and london on an index for will path toward reconciliation and commitment to peace which was sealed this year whip the queen's visit to ireland which was certainly, for me in my lifetime one of the great moments of reconciliation and to see a british monarch accept responsibility and ask forgiveness for what has been several hundred years of misery and missed opportunities to do the right thing. so although every government makes mistakes, i think that the
good friday agreement was profound and historic. >> amanda foreman, what happened on october 12th 1984? the ira bomb. >> yes. so lady thatcher's of relationship with northern ireland politics began with the murder of one of the mccourts twins who had in 1917 -- 1974, but about the bill be 25,000 pounds he would pay to anyone who would provide information for ira terrorist activities. a week later he was shot dead on his doorstep. so she knew that people who spoke out against the ira war marked people. five years later the politician
who is responsible for her campaign in one of her great mentors was blown up in his car. after that she received 24 our protection. he goes to use florida. the talk of october 1983, the conservatives for having the conference in brighton. but it was not turned out, not played exactly in the right spot. although it killed three people, injured 17 others. it did not kill either her husband. it was one of the defining moments in her life, and definitely before and after. and the confidence that uc before britain who turns into a
kind of super aggressiveness and defensiveness. , perhaps, actually affected her more than serialized. >> and bloody sunday was january 30th 1972? , who came into the prime ministership in 1979. matthew in miami. >> the concept of wings in the party. as a republican in the u.s. during campaign season, we have seen a disallowance. -- disavow meant. in it, struck me that they were cutting down the party. was wondering if the of this talk about the wings in the conservative party and how she wrangell's them to get things done or was the public disavowal of the wing within her own party?
>> one of the most interesting aspects about the early years of her prime ministership was that she was a had a party and yet her own cabinet was mostly against policies. away the british party politics work. she does not have the right to put just about anyone in a cabinet. it has to be senior members of her elected party. and if they don't like you and you don't like them you're sort of stuck with them. and so she had put together a cabinet where the majority actually supported the policies of the previous leader. there were against monetarism. they thought it was divisive. they believe something called the big society, what they call one nation. they thought that our policies are dangerous. that would actually to the unrest that it did lead to.
but then a small wing of what we now call thatcher writes. and so during the first two to three years would you could see where these rebellions. she would try to introduce policies. and one for cabinet ministers would lead parts of it to the press before it had been popular to talk properly formulated so that the resulting outcry and outrage would lead to its complete destruction. for example, during party conferences there would be attributed leaks or unattributed christendom's was no one to point a finger to. and one of the things that she had to do was to find a way to dismiss them or get other people to freeze them out. so it was like a court. it was like a kind of
constantinople court in the 15th century. this is byzantine wave of doling out and leaving the leverage the power. >> this is an e-mail from a viewer. have you seen the upcoming movie? if so, what are your comments? >> well, i have seen the up coming movie. i have never seen such an extraordinary performance as meryl streep gives of lady thatcher. it is absolutely preternatural how she got her voice and bearing. it is great fun to watch because of that. whether or not people in this country will feel all that comfortable watching the decline of thatcher, the film does make quite a lot of thatcher in her current state suffering from mental decline. if you were to turn that around
and have a film about reagan shuffling around in his pajamas looking unshaven in his ranch at , not sure that would go down all the well. >> what is the current opinion of margaret thatcher in great britain to back. >> the current opinion, well, i think that the film actually has prompted a massive rethink. that most people, my opinion, this is someone who had been in power 20 years ago. she was a big, towering figure. it was like an out of control sherman tank. bossy and loud and just seemed to create more discontent. this film has reminded us that she was also a great feminist pioneer who changed the face of the world in terms of what was possible for women to achieve
and that she entered the cold war. those were two things. somehow i know i have managed to forget. >> next call for a man the foreman. we have about ten minutes left. norm in oklahoma. go ahead. >> we will wasser take regarding alternative medicine sand how was she comparing ideologically to david cameron? >> well, as to the first question i am afraid i don't know what his stance was on that. she was a tremendous a practical woman, and so i suspect that she was going to exempt any with the networks and would reject anything that didn't. as to the second, she seems to have had a lukewarm relationship with the current prime minister. she did not embrace them the way
she embraced some of her other ministers, former leaders of the party, but at the same time she was not as disappointed in him as she was for immediate successors. i think that prime minister cameron is a sort of perfect piece sample of the new tory, someone who embraces the free enterprise wing of the tory party but also reaches back to the one nation idea of a caring, what he calls big society. >> go ahead. >> what would you describe as the margaret thatcher policy toward africa? in power. see supported mandela's touraine
in prison. if her to ask a question today, what would you ask her? how will be regarded. >> thank you. >> a very interesting question. two different aspects to it. the aspect aegis brought up about having an african-american president would be something that would absolutely have to let his hair. she very much believe in the concept of the right to ride. she would set federal political life was about free social constraints on individuals said that they can have the tools to make anything of themselves. she would be absolutely delighted to have the
opportunity to meet president obama. her attitude was very much, i think, shaped by her pre-war, up three infant world war up brain. paternalistic attitude. she was not convinced that african states were models of privity, anti-corruption as a free-market policy. and says she tended to dismiss the entire continent as a basket case her ministers suddenly had to really try to convince her that nelson mandela was not a terrorist but, in fact, fighting for freedom. once she understood that and open the up her blinkers to the situation in south africa she did come on board. but she tended to be more
interested have reviews more colored by what was going on in zimbabwe. and all, for example, very concerned about what would happen to the ugandan asians who were expelled. they ended up, most of them ended up in britain. so she tends to see the bad rather than a good. >> do you follow american politics close enough to have a thought on how margaret thatcher would you the current republican race? >> she would probably embrace someone like that romney. she prides competence above all else. she said that she was in the business of getting things done. of all the candidates mitt romney has both in government and business, he is a free
enterprise promoter. she would probably have felt most comfortable with romney. >> demand a former november 1990, was a last date like? >> in november 1990 she faced what was essentially a could talk by members of her own party . finally the split over europe drove the two wings to go to war with one another. this time it was the pro european wing the one. the challenge is to. she failed to win enough votes to permit a second round. she was persuaded by her cabinet to resign. she did not want to resign.
she called the two cabinet members and one by one expecting that her formidable persona and her handbag would be enough to intimidate them only to have each cabinet member said there, look, i personally supports you and advise you to resign today. she called upper private secretary and said, they deserted me. she spent the night ready resignation speech apparently in tears. the other wing said delegations to try to persuade her not to resign. three of them sat outside her office door waiting for to come out after midnight. she had met remind. the next morning -- the next morning she had to get to the palace, give or resignation to
the queen and then she had to walk into the house of commons for one final debate. one of the people close to her said it was the bravest thing that they have ever seen anybody ever do. she went into. >> amanda foreman, is this the beginning of a new book, this cover story? >> well, funny enough it is the charm. i'm going to write new books. the social history of women from cleopatra to margaret thatcher. >> wrote a cover story. thank you for being on washington journal. >> and here is what is ahead. covering severe weather. the supreme court hears arguments on the case of of on the verses the equal employment opportunity commission. the employees of religious organizations can sue for
discrimination. photographer carol heisman. looking ahead to prime-time join a said, our series the contenders. tonight's feature is barry goldwater, and you can see that on c-span. here on c-span2 8:00, more with a look at biographies and memoirs. and at 8:00 p.m. a look back at politics in iowa on american history tv. a look now at a map of iowa. you concede this state which in just a week or so will be having the first primary. paul west of the chicago tribune says today, returning to i will where polls show him contending for first place. next week's caucus. ron paul and ignored a bronze of news media questions today about fresh attacks from rivals mitt romney and newt gingrich including over incendiary newsletters published under mr. paul's name in the 1990's. the article goes on to say the
76 year-old candida was trailed by a throng of reporters pressed him for a response to gingrich's latest attack. describe paulist too extreme. our website, c-span.org, that is your place. online you can watch events from the trail. links to the candidates and related editorials and endorsements. the website, c-span.org / campaign 2012. >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire south carolina and florida primaries later in the month c-span series the contenders look back at 14 candid it's you ran for president and lost. a long-lasting impact on american politics. tonight barry goldwater. thursday vice-president and civil-rights advocates hubert
humphrey's. friday foretime governor of alabama george wallace. then on saturday senator and congressman from south dakota george mcgovern followed by billionaire businessman ross perot. the contenders every night at 10:00 eastern on a c-span2. >> meteorologist jim can tory said recently he predicts even more extreme weather events in the future with over 3,000 weather records broken this year alone. share his experiences with 25 years of covering severe weather including hurricanes katrina and the rain for the weather channel. he spoke at the national press club for about an hour. >> good afternoon and look into the national press club. i'm broadcast on nine
journalists. the 104th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future where programming events such as this as well as while working to foster a free press worldwide. for more impression about the national press club we invite you to visit our website. donating to programs offered to the public. you can find information on the website as well. so i would like to thank our speaker for the hearing here today as well as all of you for attending. our head table includes guess at the table as well as working journalists or club members. this is the -- let's say, the warning you have to give for events giving any election season will be a political events. what we say is that we have members of the public in the audience. if you hear applause we do not that it is not all working journalists. it's not always evidence of a
lack of journalistic of nativity. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. available for free download on items. you can follow the action on twitter. after our guest speech concludes we will have q&a and i will try to ask many questions as time permits. now it is time to introduce our head table. please note again on this political season that a journalist presence does not imply or signify an endorsement of the speaker. i would ask each of you to please stand up briefly as your name is announced from your right. we begin with kimmel's teaneck, then a member of the national press club, and he is on the air. you will recognize him in washington. good to have you here. wesley's stage. a senior editor of science for nature, also our committee chair. thank you for your work on that.
amy morris, is executive editor and anchor of the federal drive on federal news radio, a member of our speakers committee. i'm so happy that don could join us on the head table today. former president of the national press club from 1973 and our winner of the cost of award this year and a great friend of all of our members of the press club. thank you very much and applause is actually welcome. [applause] [applause] tested his christmas season finest. sofia yen is a reporter for bloomberg news. welcome. david blumenthal is a senior director of corporate communications for the weather channel, and he told me today a former intern for c-span. apparently that program worked out okay. thank you for being here. we will skip over the podium for a moment. a reporter for bloomberg news, and she has filled in as air chair of the speaker's committee to a role that she had filled for several years in the past.
angela is also our newly elected vice president for 2012. congratulations. we will skip over our guest speaker for the moment. jennifer sean burger is a writer for the personal finance, an organizer of today's luncheon and has done a phenomenal job on the speakers' community this year including with this event. thank you very much executive vice president for corporate communications at the weather channel and the guests. thank you. jack williams as and other luminaries from the press club. a founding editor of the "usa today" weather page. remember when that came on scene and it was all the rage. it may still be when that was such a setting information to be gathering. he was the man ahead of the curve as that. also a science writer specializing in weather, climate, and polar regions and also share of our books and brought to committee at the club, so he wears many hats. thank you for that. mark heller is a washington correspondent for a watertown daily times. last but not least among bill
greenwood is the retired white house correspondent for abc news and is a former vice president of the club from 1975. welcome. please give them a warm round of applause. [applause] [applause] if you see our guest speaker today on a beach sometime between june and november, he is probably not there on vacation. and chances are a big storm is not too far behind. whether it is battling the high winds from a hurricane or withstanding countless feet of snow, this on camera meteorologist for weather channel has built a reputation reporting on the biggest storms, making him one of the most recognizable reporters and television. his broadcast appearances reach over 100 million homes. at last count our guest had nearly 86,000 followers on twitter. i think they were working with content from the cookies to today. weather-related cookies, and he has 25,000 or more whites on
facebook. everywhere he goes where tall women ask for autographs, men want to buy him beers, and we are told restaurants into empty -- threepeat said. his main producer for seven years as mr. hurricane. the weather channel ceo mike kelly, viewers find him in during because of his obvious concern for their safety and his intense passion for what he does. he is always in the thick of it showing the story behind the weather. you cover the weather with the same passion, intensity, and purpose as to the speaker. cloaked in a trademark baseball cap, t-shirt, and a windbreaker retells constantly in does cover stores around the nation, often during ships of up to 18 hours a day, and i could imagine he's had a few that lasted more than that. although he was chasing storms, there is a passion. as a teen he aspired to be a baseball stars like new york yankees great reggie jackson. if you had to guess his eventual career would not have been hard
to forecast. as a youngster he would ask his mother to leave the bond light on when snow was in the forecast said that he could watch the first snowflakes coat the families the vermont farm. other kids would ask him whether the weather would cause the cancellation to school the following day. and if you have any doubt whether he is just as passionate about weather, check out youtube and search for jim can tory. after encouragement from his father to pursue his tremendous interest in the weather our guest steady beat urology at lyndon state college in vermont. 1986 he landed the job at the weather channel where he has enjoyed a great career. this summer he celebrate 25 years of tracking storms for that enterprise. best known for his life field covers and major storms, our guest host has a series on that channel called cantoris story. for that he travels to some of the most extreme climates in the world to talk with locals about the weather that they personally
experienced. now we also appears as a frequent guest on nbc nightly news with brian williams as well as the today show and ms nbc. a member of the national weather association and the american bureau of society and told the a.m. as television seal of approval and award for weather forecasting excellence in broadcast. please give our guest the warm national press club welcome. >> now you know my life history. i will put that page away. i really did not know much about this, to be quite honest with you. just walking. first of all, seeing press club and a walking in and seen the
kind of people that got a chance to speak. i was like, wow. this is a pretty big deal. i appreciate that. it has been 25 years. i was very fortunate to get a job at the weather channel right at of college. when i started at a full and fair. each follicle has been taken out which the twitter event. evan plenty. i will start off by talking about 2011. out of all my 25 years i had never seen a year in weather like we just had. we are talking. you just take the four seasons. tornadoes, snowstorms, hurricanes come every possible ingredient that comes together to make a big events came together each one of the seasons. and so we had over 3,000 weather
records broken into a dozen 11. and these aren't just little record highs and lows. for example, philadelphia typically gets about 40 inches of rain annually. 65 inches. these are very traumatic records and a very extreme records, and that has got to kind of raise your alerts. i don't care how long you been on this earth. that is just a huge deal. $12 billion disasters, maybe 14. they have not finished italian tropical storm the or this new october, which many have you got a chance to actually shovel before you get a chance to use a rate this year texas, some of these areas under 3 feet down and water. 3 feet down. our major snowfall that we had in the northern rockies also alerted folks down the river, the missouri river valley to flood once the summer came along and all that melted. they had to open up spillways.
everywhere you look extremes. not only because of the different seasons. the biggest changes i had seen have to go back to this with the dissemination. how we can get weather. when i started it was the morning news. it was sometimes a new show. then comes the weather channel. 1982. a few years after that low calumniates. now if it takes you eight seconds u.s. loan your phone. so that is out quick things are certainly changing. a 70 forecast. is probably as good as the five day. one thing that we see no, very
wealthy, the computer models. a whole coastline. over a hundred million. this tremendous reach. the good news about weather, it has no political agenda. the leader not, whether, forecasting, there is no side to choose. we just want to do what we do to get people out of harm's way. that is the core of our business. you know, social media, i think, has been one of the biggest thing survey to los -- in the last years to come along. covering everything.
i get the chance, i would come back and. being from vermont and once in the bridge almost on the water and knowing how high it must've gone, i was just mind-boggling to me. in the meantime we knew that new york was not going to get as bad. any time you bring a tropical system into lats you have the potential for disaster. so we wound up with, i think for rivers up there, 500 year flood. it's a disaster. for the state of vermont where they count on the season for the major part of the economy, that was just awful. gasol along with ago. they're going to do it. if you go back and look at the time, still recovering hurricanes, i have covered about
75. trouble the precious to most forms, and hurricanes. my first one, second landfall. iss to get a bad marriage. this store never got to catch fire strength again. we stall of the bayou. so i went up and tried to get some sleep. about 4:00 a.m., the old units that these for air conditioners to my air-conditioner blue wind, a blue right then. i'm looking out the window. what is going on? transformers blowing all over the place. i can't tell you the energy. so i woke up, producers we have to live. the system again. we proceeded about 5:00 a.m. the earliest we never gone on the air. now it's regular.
i don't know how many of your member john help. in all weather channel watcher. he was my mentor, like everybody's grandfather. he knew the tropics. when he talked about the topics he had such compassion in his voice. it was genuine. i'm going to emulate that guy. that is the gap want to be. and that say about 1988 so, 1987, he grabs me after one of my tropical updates. he says, your tropical up it's a terrible. you know, first of all, when you love somebody, that was brutal. unitas would be kicked in the head by newell. you're terrible. you don't know of granada from grand cayman. the need to learn the tropics.
the tropical storms. the land the tropics. that was all i need to hear. i am in an objective. and then in 19,906th, hurricane andrew developed east of miami i thought, okay, i'm watching this thing. all the models. back then there were three day forecast calling out. i said, all right. if this thing keeps going it's going to come in somewhere between north carolina and south florida. i thought to know why not share that information with everybody. now i'm going out five days, which is unheard of. now we have five day forecast. here's the kicker. i get off the air after saying that and i walked outside. this element who calls up the radar, there were not computer-generated, he goes to my take, jim, the director of the hurricane center is on the phone. i'm like, yeah right. he does, no, seriously, he is on
the phone almost talk to you. i'm like, mr. sheets, this is jim kent sorry. send out the three day forecast. i said if it keeps going it will come summer between the other banks in south florida. well, don't ever do that again. i just every emergency manager call me. sarks, sir, i will not do that again. after i hung up the phone i said, i think i learned a little something about the topics. i learned, you know, you have to go with to get some times. sometimes it's wrong, but in retrospect the storm moved faster and we all know the rest of the story. katrina was steadily the worst storm i ever 110. we got some bad information about a place to set up and how high they were above sea level.
we lost four vehicles. i ate many weeks with cream cheese on them for today's. fund stuff. of course that did not matter. it was a hardship, some links -- seeing people just torn from them. though this is the gulf coast states overnight. it is weird. you become such a part of it that it is hard to leave. really hard to leave katrina. i felt like i was leaving my wing man, so to speak. but, you know, the best thing to do was get back to my family, rico, and they go down in the fall of stores that ron. anyway, one thing that katrina did bring into light was, in my opinion, the new age of volunteerism. i had so many males and letters. what do we do? we don't just want to give
money. we want to make sure that we can go down there and take our own hands and help these people get back on their feet. it was easier to read check. but now people just started showing up. people started rebuilding the mississippi coast. and after talking to several of the mayor's down there they will swear by the fact that mississippi would not be where it is today if it wasn't for volunteers. so now the efforts, you know, helping coordinate that. you can't just show up. a church organization and everything, it's coordinated. they have done a nice job in getting people that want to volunteer with their own hands. but i think a trader really was the first time that i had seen that new age of volunteers and coming to play. tournedos growing up in new england, did not see a lot. as you can imagine. even though they had have been before and there were seven very memorable.
they did not happen in my lifetime. so i saw my first one when i was out chasing. there it is out in a corner we feel. comes down not bother anyone. you cannot even hear anything. it was probably two or 3 miles away at the most. and there is this huge tornado. he could not hear a thing. but as we know, traders don't always drop down in cornfields or we fields. a drop down in people's homes. if you look at the $12 billion disaster we have on the table right now, six of them are from tornadoes and severe weather episodes from this year, which is really unprecedented. a testament to how incredibly strong and multi date events these were. 552 people out of the thousands that lost their lives to severe weather because of tornadoes. these are tornado deaths. the third worst in american history.
so you sit back. holy cow. what do we do wrong? and you looked at the warnings. 99 percent of the people that died or within a tornado warning it's not like they're not listening. they don't know what's going on because a lot of these events, especially alabama, advertised days before happened. this is a testament to our incredibly strong this tornadoes work. you literally had to be underground. people's understanding of a tornado, this was not a stovepipe tornado or a little. these are so big. it was so dark and then everything went haywire. but that was the tornado. this is literally the whole thunderstorm dropping to the ground. what we do? well, a lot of talk lately, especially yesterday with a project of weather ready nation.
how do we change these? should they be more tornado emergencies? do we need to read scaled-back a little bit? , especially in situations that are not like joplin. where you go? and said that is something that we will have to approve are warning system on. five but, again, the takeaways e forecasters did a great job. 99 percent, and warnings on them. a testament to the storms and house of year there were is the take away. when you look at tornadoes as a whole it's usually a very small percentage of the average of 1300 your tornadoes that are in that scale. three or four. the strongest part of the scale. wind over 250 miles-per-hour. wow. we just had way too many. on average you have one every other year. fiver six this year. you know, i have to approach climate. that has been certainly
something that has come up in the last 25 years. it continues to come out. here is. >> translator: for this. that blessing glacier. a beautiful place in the canadian rockies. and just to see how far that glacier has retreated into the recent past was kind of a little bit eye opening. there's nothing going on. and if elected glaciers, there is only one in the whole world that is being added to. so it is warming. you go back and look at statistics. these are facts. the sea level has risen 7 inches since the beginning of the 20th century. the forecast is by the beginning of 2100. we will see that cecum up one to 2 feet. even if it is half that, because
when the sea level rises all the waves, all the storm surge, everything else that comes in will be on top of that. that adds a whole new parameter to everybody who owns a beach home or lives on a barrier island. .. something that interests me because it is going to to affect all of us somewhere down the road but at the end of the day who can never argue with cleaner air, cleaner water, and cleaner
energy? i mean seriously and a problem with all these conferences we are having like the one i just had in durban south africa is you know, when you talk about choosing your whole economy, in your country and you are asking people to cut corners or spend more money, not everybody wants to play. it's kind of like when the kids get together and we are all trying to decide which game we want to play a nobody can decide. pretty soon that hour of playtime is gone so that is kind of what is happening. everyone is kind of kicking the can around and not doing big things about it but it's not like people aren't doing anything about it. but maybe we are just not doing enough. it's certainly something we need to look at in the next 25 years because i think after 25 years is over we are going to know where we are heading with this. i think we will have a much better idea as the models get better and things like that in speaking of modeling, i think we will probably be able to -- it's
not inconceivable that we can't model out a total hurricane season. that may not be in 25 years. maybe in my lifetime or even yours so that would be really neat, with accuracy to be able to model out that far. the forecast will improve 10 to 15 days out. i think we will see a lot better forecasts and if you're an emergency planner that is huge, huge know what's coming up. are warning systems, think they're going to get better. i think that is the main agenda, one of the main agendas right now and also hurricane intensity. hurricane intensity. they nailed new york on the track of irene. what wasn't nailed was the intensity that by the time i figured out the intensity wasn't going to play out there was no time to say okay maybe we shouldn't have evacuated new york. you know what? you should have because you are playing with one category and several hundred thousand people
here. so you have to make that call early on. that storm was not hyped. that is exactly how it should have played out, exactly how it should have worked out. mitigation is a big thing. we have to think about especially a city like new york that doesn't have a ton of floodgates. this guy named jeff masters who works for the weather underground. i love this guy. not only does he write about what's happening in current weather but he is a forward thinker. he wrote this great blog about the different floodgates i would really help out not only in a hurricane but also a nor'easter if we ever have another one like we had back in december of 92 which flooded new york so things like that have to be thought about as we go forward in time and that is going to be a big deal i think for us to remind us down the road and there is no reason why we shouldn't build homes that have roofs that can withstand 100-mile an hour winds. roof should not blow off with
170-mile an hour winds. we have to have some protection for people and really talking about a 13 minute average leadtime which is the average tornado warning which is pretty good, the structure has to hold. it's not going to be with every tornado. the effor india five, the winds are 200 miles an hour. you need to be underground and in a safe room but if we can protect you from the small ef3, ef2 and ef1's that is a good thing because we will save a lot of lives. we we will see another like we had with 552 dead. i've been doing weather for 25 years mainly because i like teaching people about it and i like talking about on the air, explaining it and i like saving lives. being on the beach, being on the coast, even though you guys think i am in getting the beat out of me i am out there because people expect me to be out there and i'm going to keep doing it
maybe for another 25, who knows? it has been a great ride and i've been around a lot of great people especially the weather channel, great meteorologist who call me love. your education meteorology does not stopping college. i promise, it goes on and it goes on after that. so i hope you see some good things on the weather channel and myself as we go through the next 25. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you jim. that was both informative and entertaining and we have a lot of questions from our audience, evil who want to -- the catalog here and i think sort of the newsy part of the questioning that seem to come did involve climate change and also how you kind of lets say partition your own view of that relative to what your own expertise is at
least you describe it so first of all how relevant is the issue of climate change for your day-to-day duties? does it change the business of forecasting on a short-term basis and does it change the assumptions? how does it change the work that you do aside from the experiences of the extreme weather that you just described? >> well again i made meteorologist and we deal with 10 days or less and in some cases getting into 24 hour forecasts right can be difficult. but what i know is in 1980, if you look at today's dollars and you go back to the 1980s we averaged about $1 billion disaster's a year. in the 2000th we averaged almost five, and in the last two years we have averaged $7.5 billion disasters per year so we have seen more extremes and we are keeping, we are going
to continue to see more extremes so what i know is the earth's atmosphere system is an -- one. the sun heats things differently at the equator than it does the pulse of the earth tries its best to keep an equilibrium and keep the status quo unless it's interrupted and try to fiercely get back where it was. how that is going to interrupt or make me deal with my every day whether aspects are simply this. i know that as i go for there is going to be more extreme weather events. that is what you can expect. and not just here. go back and look at europe's heatwave, go look at the pakistan floods and the indian floods, those kinds of issues. and being a guy standing out in the rain all the time, it is raining harder out there and that is really the where it's at that but it seems to be raining a lot harder. more water vapor means more rainfall. >> this one ask his climate
change or global warming, are they really the right terms and they make the point rising water, bigger snowstorms and hurricanes. wooden climate disruption be a better term? >> it would be if we had a basis on which to go from so that is why when i went back and i said if you look at the last 30 years you would see on average a rise in the global temperature. and so, should that trend continue, the climate change will definitely be climate disruption, so no matter what you call it, it is something i think everybody has to pay attention to and we have to mitigate for it and like you said guys who can never argue with cleaner air and cleaner energy and cleaner water? seriously, the population is not going down, it's going up and everyone has to get along. everyone has to get along. if you have ever been out of napa valley or even in death
valley you have seen a beautiful sunrise or a beautiful sunset, i kind of like scene does. those are special. if you ever been in steamboat springs colorado in the fresh fallen snow if you are making the first tracks, kind of like that. i don't want it change, maybe i'm being selfish. >> someone asked is our nation growing more vulnerable to hurricanes since they get their water -- on global warming is a reality in the longer-term than is the pickup we we we have seen in storm activity likely here to stay? >> yeah according to the ip sees he report, a we are going to see more intense hurricanes not necessarily more of them but all it takes is one quite frankly. i think and andrew ory katrina is plenty for everybody. imagine if we had two of those this year into dish and -- addition to what we had. the real worry is the rising sea level. if we go up another six inches,
a foot again, all the action that creates the damage, storm surge, wave action is on top of the sea surface so if you come up six inches all that action is going to be six inches higher and that may not been a lot until you think about it. what is six inches? if your house is sitting in that something is going to mean a lot. >> maybe you can assess or describe to those of us who aren't looking at this kind of data on a day to day basis, what is the take of the meteorological community on this issue of climate change to the extent that you could be a spokesman for them? are they acknowledge and global warming and climate change by and large? >> well i mean, i think there are clearly two sides to this and i think there are people that are saying look, it's getting colder or it's getting warmer or it's not really changing that much. fears has been around for a
logged in time. we all know about the ice age and this warming is a continuation coming out of the ice age. may be. i can't be sure but i think it's more than that. but what i know as a meteorologist and a guy who has been and as for 25 years is the weather is definitely getting more extreme and you know, in this day and age if you are going to lose 552 people because of tornadoes that are more severe than they have been in u.s. history, i just can't chalk that up to, it's kind of an odd year and i think there is more to it than that. so i hope that answers the question. >> someone is asking is are we facing another dust bowl of conditions exist? >> more extremes. in texas three feet down in the water table and it's hard to make up for that just with one season that made even a little bit above average rainfall.
you know that drought absolutely has the potential to expand. it could also go away. it's something we haven't dealt with. we haven't dealt with a drought of that magnitude since the 30s. you can say it's happened before and it's going to happen again. that is true, that is true but i think the kind of conditions we see right now at least for texas and oklahoma, at least through the winter don't let me believe that the drought is going to end anytime soon so it's going to be another rough year going into the spring. and it could expand. >> i will ask one more on this topic that we will move on but i did get a lot of questions on it. in a geological timeframe i.e. millions of years, would you have a guess on how long this trend could last before it would no longer persist or is that just guesswork at this point? >> and this is where the climate model, modelers come in. like i said to you guys i
wouldn't be surprised sunday to actually see a whole hurricane season modeled out with some accuracy. modeling out hundreds of years, you know i don't know. i am not a modeler and i wish i was. i wish i could see these but as computers get better and his information and data get better, as we understand not only the size of the atmosphere or the vertical or horizontal but also the vertical. there are so many different players out there. you just don't know who is going to come up and hit three for three every night. you have nine members in baseball and you don't know who is going to be the big slugger that night and last winter it was lightning yeah. la niña is still around but is only batting 200 this year, 250 as opposed to pretty much carrying the team. does that make sense? we had a negative what what we called north atlantic oscillation which was combining with an ao.
this was your best to hand them out there and that was keeping us cold and snowy in the east. this year, the nal got traded and so it's not around and i'm trying to make this as simple as possible. but that is a the player that just didn't -- was just having a bad year. a good year as far as we are concerned but a bad year in terms of snowfall. >> we haven't had so many baseball analogy sends rudy giuliani was here. he likes the yankees. [laughter] >> good, good. >> i was thinking about the fact that we have talked about this with respect to to terrorism which seems like a completely different subject and it is but it has to do with trying to measure risk and our acceptance of that risk and it just occurs to me that there is an impatience among consumers of information to accept a certain level of risk and an inherent inaccuracy whether it is forecasting something as difficult to do as terrorism as well as weather and so that gets
to the question that someone wrote here and said, you sort of acknowledged this in your prepared remarks. there was controversy with hurricane irene in the forecasting of when and where exactly that storm would land and then here is the kicker, which is sort of asking you all to be perfect, right? so they say why can't weather predictions be more accurate with all the advancements in technology? do you get a lot of grief from viewers that are upset that you are not perfect? >> i have never gotten a thank you letter for nailing a forecast. [laughter] and that is 25 years worth of data right there. so, yeah they only remember when you are wrong. like i said before, track forecast with the hurricane have been extraordinary in the last two years. there has been a great advancement in the tracking forecast. intensity, not so much. there are a lot of different players going along in the forecast and they have not come up with a good way to measure it
yet. so, you know like i said regarding new york, at the time the decision was made to evacuate the city, the storm was forecast to be a cat to coming into new york city which was without question the right thing to do. people would have drowned had they not evacuated the scene. as it was there were still a four-foot storm surge at the battery in new york. granted it was not nine feet but it was for and that is because the storm stayed we can did not re-intensify that when you are playing with 24 to 48 hours and trying to get 400,000 people out of the way while shutting down mass transportation you have to make some hard decisions and imagine what would happen if it was a cat 2 anna came into new york? and you did not evacuate everybody. >> having said that, i know here in the the washington area as well as living elsewhere across the country there does seem to be on occasion on the local
level a certain amount of panic that sets in, certainly in washington where some local media seem to believe that we are all incapable of surviving a five-inch snowstorm. [laughter] so i'm wondering whether, as someone who is a great practitioner of journalism related whether, what you see when you are in the local markets or you see someone doing a live shot that might be 10 feet away from you. what is the level of competency on the reporting of that weather where people are also trying to drive away. there are more motives at play than just trying to be accurate. what have you experienced out there in the field, maybe the good and bad and what is, what is the appropriate level of dramatizing the coming storms? how do you make that judgment and obviously you have accumulated 25 years of experience to figure out what is supposed to be right.
>> i just want to ask you how many know he used no cards for that question? [laughter] no, i'm just kidding. here's the deal. here's the deal. being at the weather channel for 25 years no one has ever asked me to hide the weather. it speaks for itself and that came from my friend john hope and many great meteorologists that work with me and worked before me, so when the weather believe me, whether it is its own ever ending journey. it just keeps going and you really don't have to hide it because even in a situation where it doesn't pan out the way you wanted to, as a meteorologist there are a lot of things you can explain and talk about why it didn't work out that way but in the situation if you look back last year the groundhog day blizzard for chicago, there was no doubt that snow, that intensity was coming
north. how they handle bad as the city you know, really wasn't that great. you know, people just kind of went about their normal business. there needed to be a point where they said we needed to get mass transportation off the road because once a bus went sideways on lakeshore drive, that's it. nobody's going anywhere because you are still snowing at two inches an hour. it's a disaster within a disaster and you have to report that and that is going to take emergency managers, local officials trusting in us and not being afraid of being wrong. you had a situation here where five inches came in about two hours and that shut down. we spent the night in the george washington parkway. anybody? unfortunately, they made a decision to let everybody out early, but you could see it on the radar. there was no question, so maybe the thing to do is just kind of
keep everybody in place especially with a short-lived, hard-hitting event. let the road crews get out there and plowing may be canceled mass transportation for a while. my point is there is better planning that can go underway because the level of forecasting ability has gotten so much better. we can give you times. we can give you what is going to happen within the hour and what is going to to happen within the two-hour period. it's not always going to be right but in a situation like that i'd rather have no people on the roads that have people on the road. >> how would you assess disaster response in the u.s. both from the government and charitable level since you have been around the scenes are go in some ways you are a first responder, right? what do you see out there and we know it's a partnership between government and charity. >> one of the biggest improvements that is come along in the last 10 years is the collaboration between emergency managers, local officials, meteorologist, fema.
of 2011 happened in 2005, i don't even want to think about it. craig fugate is probably one of the best things that have happened to fema. he understands after going through situations in florida in 2004 with four hurricanes straight how you have to pre-plan and make sure people are taking the storm seriously. he is a big proponent of you know, instead of becoming the victim, becoming a part of the solution. in other words do your part. not only in preparing but also helping others and i certainly think in the last five years, 10 years we have gotten a lot better at collaborating efforts, maximizing, especially the big disasters, pre-positioning supplies for storms that come in. like i said i don't think if we had 2000 -- 2011 back in 2005 we would have done very well. >> you ours -- who are some of
the unsung heroes of as far as organizations that have been helping? >> fema and their pre-positioning of supplies you have the red cross and the salvation army. they are all in collaboration and they are on everything. it's kind of nice when i go out on the beach and everybody else has evacuated and the red cross will come out and tell us how many shelters they have opened and what they are doing and what they will be ready for once the storm passes. it's kind of like your friend out there in the storm. i think they are oftentimes the unsung heroes. >> you get grief from people who are out there when you guys are saying don't come out unless you absolutely have to and they are like well, you are here so? >> yes, all the time. somebody nailed me today with it. >> how does that conversation go usually? >> here's what i say. i can't argue with that and they are absolutely is risk involved
in being out in a storm especially when i'm doing night hurricanes. a -- moving at 50 miles per hour is a very dangerous weapon i can't tell you that is not going to happen and something is not going to happen but it's my job. if you ask somebody in the military why did they do what they do, it's their job. they have a mission. i think i make a difference when i'm out there. people expect to see me out there. [inaudible] >> you have been watching a portion of jim cantore's recent appearance at the national press club. you can watch the entire event anytime on line at c-span.org.
commission. who try to return to work after taking time off for a sleep disorder. the school refused to take the teacher back and fired her when she threatened to sue under the americans with disabilities act. the supreme court heard this case on wednesday, october 6. a decision is expected before the end of the term and jan and this is an hour. >> mr. chief justice may and may it please the court? the trick is to not set the criteria for selecting removing the officers of government and government does not set the criteria for selecting or removing officers of the church. that's a bedrock principle and these respondents would repudiate it. they no longer seriously argue that cheryl parrish was not -- instead they argue that even people who are indisputably can sue their churches and claims that turn on their qualifications, their job performance and the rules of ministry. >> would you clarify 1.?
you say the church decides who is qualified to be a minister. as i understand the facts here, she was never decommissioned as a minister and beyond that, she was even recommended by the officials to other parishes. to be a commissioned minister. so, it's odd to say that any interference with who is qualified to be a minister because the churches church is holding her out as being qualified. >> she was moved from ministry at hosanna tabor. they do not have to indulge a vendetta against churches with the senate and if you look at that recommendation it's in the joint appendix, it's not much of a recommendation.
there is excellent commendable, proficient and ministry quality she gets proficient. we all know if there is a 5-4 and a three, three is not very good so they were not recommending her. they simply weren't pursuing formal charges against her before the -- and the problems they had were most severe at hosanna tabor and another congregation that didn't know this history. she might have been able to be effective again and that was for them to decide. they make their own calls but she was removed at hosanna tabor which is where the problem was. >> council, most of the circuits have recognized a ministerial exception, but in one form or another, they have created a pretext exception. the reason