Crane. At 4 p. M. Eastern, the Historical Society holds a conversation on race from the explorers club, apollo seven astronauts on the first manned spaceflight. New years day on cspan 2 author hector tobar on the 33 men buried in a chilean mine. And the life of nelson rockefeller. That former investigative correspondent for cbs news on her experiences reporting on the obama administration. New years day on American History tv on cspan 3, at 10 00 eastern, Juanita Abernathy on her experiences and the role of women in the civil rights movement. Brooklyn College Professor injured in a car on the link benjamin car on the link between alcohol and driving. Idiot cartoon is it drives and 10 president ial characters and a story and a cartoonist as he draws 10 president ial caricatures and a historian speaks. A discussion on the future of conservatism. A panel at the university of chicago this into a politics discussed how conservative principles could be used to solve some of todays problems. They look at the challenges facing republican president ial candidates in 2016. This one hour, 15 minutes. Republicans won a sweeping electoral yet Many Americans struggle to identify with an affirmative party message. The most sought after conservative policy watch to tell us how they think the Republican Party can close this gap. The leaders collaborated to write a manifesto for a reformer con agenda that ms. Conservatism work for the middle class. Commentators refer to the resurgence of the Political Party and theyll referring to our guests today. You will soon see why. Offers panel as is andrew kelly. Our first panel was is andrew kelly panelist is andrew kelly. She is a prolific author. [indiscernible] he holds a host of senior positions for he served on the domestic policy and earned his phd at a universe should consult. He published the great debate her at the university of chicago. April ponnuru. She has served in both senate and house leadership including a senior advisory. Previously she served as executive director of the nonprofit rational review institute. Her husband, Ramesh Ponnuru is a Senior Editor and columnist and visiting fellow. He is one of the most prolific commentators and his work can be found in the New York Times and many other places in he served as a fellow 2013. Last but not least our moderator will be megan mcardle, she wrestled economics if this is a public policy. Is behind the popular blog. She is currently completing her term asan ip felt as an ipo fellow. [applause] quick im going to start off by asking you a question, ramesh. 2014 is a great year for republicans. A decent, sizable wave. Why do conservatism needs to be performed . First, it is ok to [indiscernible] i think that one thing that republicans should have learned in recent years which is very different from the president ial electorate. You can be very good [indiscernible] thats for a couple of reason. It is easier to get people to let you apply the brake paddle fan to get control over the steering will. President ial elections the people think of Steering Wheel elections if they need to know the republicans take them somewhere they want to go. The obama metaphor. The other thing thats always been a demographic distinction between looters out in midterms and also turnout in president ial elections. For example, the midterm electorate is older and wider. In recent years, that demographic distinction has to convey much more parts cast and we are you super has turned out a much more partisan [indiscernible] it is easy to keep the House Majority is a little harder but still quite doable to give a sense of majority. You have to reach a little further. April, i will go to you. What is reform conservatism . Is it a bunch of different ideas . Is the day since we need reform conservatism is less do it . Isnt that we needed to reform conservatism and lets do it . Not offering anything new the principles has been around for a long time certainly over the last few decades, principle we are comfortable with and feel we need to be expanded upon her what can form conservatism is is apply those principles as we face today. Report the republicans often had no agenda on breaking down thought marginal tax rate which was prereagan confiscatory. A 70 rate. Using real urgent need at the time to prove that rate them from reagan saw the need and prioritize. There was a real urgent need at the time to bring data rate down. We need to bring it down and he did and he was effective. Partly because we were successful, a lot of argenta has become rather outdated. We have not been responding to the challenges of our day. Reform conservatism is trying to bring to bear the principles that we believe in the particular policy challenges that we face as he mentioned today. Can you talk about core policy changes that republicans are not addressing and needed to be . It is important , i think, as a reform conservatism. Our target conservatism but the government and the nations challenges and what is required to address those is reform of our institutions. It is applied conservatism and what that means in practice if it seems to me is a modernization of conservatisms understanding of the challenges. It is not a change in how we as conservatives need to think about changing problems for what we understand the problems to be. If as you say in 1991 were a lot of conservatives, the problems have to do with hyperinflation and high marginal income tax rates. Today, the challenges have more to do with the consequence of globalization for working americans and more to do with stagnating wages. More to do with the pressures that middleclass families confront to the extent we want to talk about tax reform, the tax burden is especially heavy as a result of payroll tax and not the income tax for most americans. It means thinking about how conservatives ideas need to be applied to contemporary challenges. The most difficult thing for both parties is to look beyond the to do list of what they have for such a long time actually think about what the country needs to do. A lot of democrats like to live in the mid90s and republicans in the 1980s for it seems like they have Something Real to offer. The economy does not love it either at those times and you cannot pretend like it does. The reason they are trying so hard to pretend is the reason i looked at some the things that reagan got done. So i went to go to the end of our that there, i. Hi. Talk about antielection antiintellectualism. They are sort of rather than having an education policy and reflects in time the academy in dublin it represents reflects in the anti. One of the talking was isleftie one of the talking points is leftie politics. Which serve as a recruiting device. Precisely. That is always been at work to this discussion and rightfully so. You look at a College Campus and see these departments under enrolled majors in womens studies and so on and that will be something to a mainstream conservative that will be not something theyre interested in or interested in subsidizing. Thats one of the traditional talking points on it. For me, this is symptom of a much larger problem. That is a market that doesnt function effectively. That sets consumers say i do not want to learn or a professor that is going to fill my mind with all sorts of nonsense it seems that will make one clearance and make my. Much. Make my parents of much. And make my parents blush. But again, there is a function of a market that rewards kind of behavior and that kind of product because it is not a broader array of options. We get bogged down in the politics. This sort of hand to hand combat over liberalism and lose sight of the fact that is a symptom of his broader problem. Yu isv that preventing republicans from having the sort of resourcesal, and policy advisers that republicans have a small handful of conservatives . Quick to question whether its a intellectualism is very complicated. It is not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. The service is far more intellectual in their thinking about politics. Conservatives are more intellectual and their thing about politics. At the same time an attitude of the academy and the actual academy. In fairness, i do not think reagan was wrong to say next one always here in chicago area always here in chicago. I wrote a quarterly journal of essays about policy it a lot of the people who write for us are people who ought to be at the deuce but are not. People working since who would rather be teaching the people who are on wall street when they were rather be. They think they cannot be academics because they are concerned and sometimes they are right from a lattes they are not smart. It a lot of times they are not right. Heres a huge advantage for the lets look and universities seem to offer more credibility than a think tank and thats understood. My own attitude about the academy is different from a lot of conservatives. In enormous amount of very valuable work being done in social sciences from what it is not in todays academy in a way he used to be in the way it used to be is the learned intellectually even through the 90s and is an into the 19th have these even through the 1960s and the 1970s. That person is really hard to find. That the fault of the university. It is not any better. There are a lot of great specialist. Its not right to see the [indiscernible] a lot of good work being done. I will throw out a list of issues that are the big issues health care, immigration, family formation, Climate Change which of those does this interest effectively and which doesnt . One dimension of conservatism is an attempt to supply politically effective answers about the issues the most Americans Care about. And part that involves reorienting the conversation to the issues. An interesting list you put out there and if you think about the conversation in washington, d. C. Over the last two years, how much has been about immigration or inequality or Climate Change . Issues that on a good day will get a combined 6 of the American Public saying that is the top issue that congress be thinking about you the issues that americans really want to focus on are these bread and butter concerns about the cost of living. About wage stagnation. Health care is one of them. They dont think about it the issues in ideological terms. They like smaller government. They dont like inequality and not at all a high priority. With they really want is a rising standard what they really want is a rising standard of living. I have my own views about each and every one of issues that we discussed. You are kidding. Is very easy for political activists and actors to get caught up in the issues that animate us and lose sight of the issues that our foremost concern of the people. What we end up focus on these things . Partly the folks that scream the loudest get the most attention. You have bit parts of your base that are concerned about certain issues that the general public is not that worried about. I think is the case with the inequality issue in particular. I want to say is around 3 thought the public says is a top issue for them. Ive seen certainly more than 3 of the News Coverage on that issue. The kind of thing that inside the beltway types tend to respond to each other a whole lot. If you are a journalist making a modest sum, a very pressing issue. Have you ever try to get your child into a really good preschool . Quick note richie not rich yet. Mobility, is that a big issue . Is it distinct . One of the more interesting things will see over the past year or year and a half is a pivot on democrats away from some this rhetoric around inequality and toward rhetoric around opportunity. Its a much more appealing friend. For you. You cannot have a conversation about it without hunt by education. Appealing frame. I filling with accounting and getting kids through college i filling with hamilton and getting more kids through college and less kids graduating high school. I feel like we are pounding in getting more kids through College Electors graduating from high school. Both parties have been guilty of that of this problem. Democratsnatural inclination is to solve from washington. They cant do that. They can pass laws that asked the bureaucracy. George w. Bush fell into the same trap with no child left behind hunt. A prescriptive attempt to fix schools from d. C. With my colleague and i tried to lay out is a different way of thinking about the federal role in the antithesis of centralizing power over decisionmaking and it is to default out to actors folder to the ground who can actually solve problems. In his wonderful chapter, allow people through trial and error figure out better ways to solve the problems they face in their local area in their School District in particular school. Have washington retreat from it but bear in mind create space for problem solvers to do their work. Youve said some green stuff about this, leaving more space between the federal government for local government, institutions that are not the government. We tend to view either the big federal government and a little State Government and everything is individual sphere and almost nothing in between. Republicans have long talked a great game about these visualization the decentralization. You look at the iraq war and no child left behind hunt behind. Why dont republicans put their money where their mouth is . Part in think about devolution. It gets to your right . The subjects you pick up. In some ways, the place would be more useful is not thinking about the subject that can be picked up and in need of a how to approach public problems. This is great difference between the left and right in america. The question of how to approach . This inclination on the left and it is rooted in progressive thinking that is very interesting and a lot of contemporary do not wrestle with the very much in it suggests we ought to think about American Society as consisting of individuals and the state. The role of the state is to enable those individuals to live the life they want to leave. Its a very appealing idea. Conservatives synthesize what happens in the space between the individual and the state, where our families are our civic institutions, where the market economy is, and levels of government are. We emphasize that not just because we do not like the federal government, but rather because it seems to us and that is where people thrive. That is where you saw problems is hand to hand face to face. Is going to have to be able to address peoples concerns where they are. It means there is an Important Role of government but a supporting role, enabling role. When able between to enable able quickly to stay in individual to help people solve problems. If you think about how things happen in that space conservatives often talk about this in terms of market oriented space itd turn some people off because we put one in the middle of it, it is not about money or works in that is. But work is as problemsolving mechanisms. We think about how you saw problems from the bottom up, you allow people to experiment with different solution if i people who need help to choose between the options allow the options chosen to follow way. Markets Enormous Economic incentive to work create the norms economic incentive to work. The consumer has a lot of power to choose among options. And things that do not work go away. Government programs do not work this way. Regulation does not allow for experimentation. The people or receiving a services do not choose among options and failures never go away. We just will try had started in even though everybody agrees it doesnt work. We just vote for head start again even though everybody agrees it doesnt work in it is not about markets in the sense of money but a way of solving problems that enables those institutions to function. Allow him try Different Things and people to choose from among options that allow failures to fail . Thats what our approach to Higher Education looks like and a lot of our welfare reform i just look like. If you think about how that would apply to space asked whether soprano to solve, it seems like it is for us space x i think this creativity and the markets you started talking about, it is much more in depth with the time it interesting that liberals are really out of step. These technocratic, topdown solutions do not seem to yield the creativity and flexibility that American Consumers can enjoy from the private sector from civil societies. The rest of our lives have become more customizable and leaner and much more responsive to individual concerns. Government continues in this sort of nonresponsive, sort of topdown way that is just it is really interesting that conservatism is when theres room for creativity. Let me ask, shifting gears a little bit not entirely. The big movement of conservatism that has been noticeable is the team part. Tea party. How much they they contribute to this question contribute to this . Is it about opening up space . I think that i would not say reform conservatives or myself fall into the tea party or establishment camp. Each has elements of the truth but neither is quite severe. Which group has which element . Tea party seems to be more realistic about the means of achieving. Youve got a reverse set of virtues and vices for the team part. I am stuck by the extent to which the division between team partiers and the establishment tea parties and establishment does not have tea partiers have a healthy reaction to visit the idea of the Republican Party that just solely about keeping fortune 500 happy. They do not have a lot in the way of ideas about, what exactly are we going to do about health care, Higher Education . The establishment doesnt either. The reason ive been so hopeful the one reason i am hopeful is i think at some point candidates, particularly president ial candidates have to run on something. Itd nobody else offering something so maybe some of ideals will catch on. Im going to you because you are the education guide and you know what the kids are up to. The youth. It has been a big thing, what ramesh was talking about earlier, democrats are the party of the young minorities, in single women. Republicans, everyone else, many of those people have a very low rapid mortality rates. So, is there hope, is this the sort of thing that speaks my understanding is you pick up someone when they are 24 and the first time they vote and youre likely to have their vote forever. What are the issues that speak to you these days . On the higher ed side, it is tough for republicans now mainly because democrats have turned this into Student Loans in particular, student debt as a campaign issue. It is at the center of the agenda, elizabeth warren, sousa refinancing student loan bill went down, didnt make it through, she went to kentucky to cap advocacy Mitch Mcconnell is that he is siding with millionaires over students. Democrats are giving young collegeeducated people subsidies. This is a strategy wouldve seen for two consecutive elections. We want to give you low Interest Rates and allow you to refinancing your loans. That is stimulus package. It is a top things to answer on the side of the publicans. There is a population in the middle not necessarily the youth vote, but early 20s a mid20s, people have some college and no degree. They often have debt and have been let down by this system. They need something some options not as timeconsuming and as expensive as a full college degree. They need something. Thats a segment of the population and it is big on 20 20 5 of the country indefinitely be wiooed by some of the ideas we talk about. That we talk about in the book. Those ideas are very compelling and can be very compelling to the ground. To the broader point there is a mistake a lot of people think about politics which is to slice the electorate into demographic groups in a misleading way. After the 2012 election, there was a lot of talk about how republicans were doing poorly among 304 groups in particular, hispanics, single women and white and educated workers. When you do that, there is a group specific reason that needs to be addressed. The contraceptive mandate, immigration, samesex marriage. Those play a role, absolutely. The thing that people often underestimate is that each one of those groups is more economically insecure than the national average. Each of those groups is having trouble getting good jobs having trouble affording health insurance, in many cases, having trouble paying off Student Loans. Each of those groups, when you survey them, they put economics at the top of their list. Even if you are to solve those group specific problems, if you dont have a compelling message on the breadandbutter concerns, you underperform with each of those groups. Is interesting to look at fdr , to the africanamerican vote would have been much more republican and despite the fact he did nothing on civil rights he picked up huge proportions of that the vote by israel Economic Needs by picking up Economic Needs. The feeling he was doing something about their needs. The one thing i would add to that is especially on the higher ed side, a lot of proposals the democrats are putting for our progressive. That reward the higher educator. That doesnt go to students who need it most. It goes to the flagship campuses. These ideas, there is a window for republicans to sort of call that out and say it is not right , were going to do something different. I will ask april 1 more question, how much headway isnt making in washington . Is it making in washington . I certainly hope so and one of our goals i think is to affect that field which is bigger by the day. You know, thereve been a few champions on the hill we take particular we pay particular attention to. Mike lee in the senate has been a phenomenal idea generator and is talking about everything from Higher Education to taxes to health care and he is a really phenomenal talent in the senate. Indocin for marco rubio has been outstanding. It does a lot of legislation. They are teaming up on a tax proposal we are looking forward to. Paul ryan has been doing good work in the house. I made two potential president ial candidates there. We have guys that have been around for a long time that are interested in this stuff. I think that some the most talented someone a more talented politicians in washington are paying attention because theres been a vacuum that those really interested in trying to come up with an agenda, there are frankly not a lot of places to turn. We are happy to fill that vacuum area vacuum. A lot of interest generated with this book and it was remarkably successful. Thats what you get when you get smart guys like this working together on a project. On that happy note i will open up the floor. Theres a microphone that will be circulated and please be good to the microphone for him please raise your hand. Please speak into the microphone and please raise your hand for [indiscernible] specific about paul ryan. An article, i cannot remember it is titled its paul ryan too smart to run for president . [indiscernible] and i guess my question is, is that a real trap that these were for conservatives can fall into and how do they come back . I will say one thing quickly. My sense is that the smarter guys will be running for president know that they cant keep doing more of the same, it has not been successful. The last president ial election there wasnt much of a conservative agenda offered. That is fair to say. I think those looking at how many cycles have been that wouldve not one of the popular vote but were five or six. You cannot continue this. The formula is not working. The smarter ones will realize there is something in common here and we need to develop an agenda. The other thing is, i think its really important that conservatives because we believe in limited government and we are sort of often for trades as being antigovernment theres a sense that a lot of folks do not want to get to in the weeds of policy. It is a known conservative thing to do. I think that is wrong. With got to go for to that. We have got to confront that. Paul ryan has an excellent reputation among colleagues, they recognize something in him and his taking the hard work of policymaking and understanding the problems that we face today is to the situation we find ourselves in which is a bloated government full of a gazillion programs that need reform. Somebodys got if you want to dismantle or change or reorient that, you have got to understand it. I think ryan is a popular guy nationwide. With the conservative base and i think that intellectualism doesnt concern me. No plans to issue room to grow as a popup book . [laughter] anyone else . It is a good question and it seems to me that there are a couple of questions it brings up. First of all, part of what we are trying to do is not so much to find a candidate that will be a champion for these ideas is that we at the home for these ideas as a whole . Different candidate can take different ideas and take his way of thinking and try to approach the public with it. It is very strange that the model of paul ryan is not for members of the house. It is the incredibly successful for him. He did basically by being a nerd career is what he did. It is not that hard he picked an issue and became an expert, it took him a while. She is very smart but plenty of people are smart. He decided he was going to make a name of them subplot offered concrete policy ideas. It got very far very quick. His about to become the most important chair member in the house. Members think of course you should be chairman of the house and means. It is strange there are not a lot of others who think that way. I could become and asked for in this or that and a way to shoot up the chain of command. It is not happening a lot. Is not entirely unprecedented. You have who authored tax reform from a backbench not even on the committee. You have jim talent. It has been done, it can be done. I disagree, i think it is hard. Hard work. Maybe not for yuval but for the rest of us. It is what you are elected to do. I would just say i have him personally very impressed by his work on education in particular. And to make a broader point april is right. There is a suspicion of understanding policy details on the right that is bizarre to me. It seems to me to be a critical ingredient of efforts to rein in the federal role in a way that is productive. If you do not, if all you want to make is doing away with things, that never goes anywhere and we not get very far. The first two years of the obama presidency, the republicans became known as the party of no. It was far superior to be defined as the party of me too, but a little bit less. I think it was more important to develop an alternative agenda, but it was not crazy for people to thank him you are running against an incumbent president into is liberal personified, against a referendum. I think that was a mistake. I think there is a lot of evidence that was a mistake. But it would have been a natural tendency to turn towards a positive agenda as you got closer to the end of a twoterm president. I think you will see that happen , for example, with senator cruz. I have been arguing with him for 20 years. He is a smart guy. I suspect he and other people will develop a positive agenda over the next couple months. It would just be kind of been arguing with bizarre to run in 2016 without one. I think the last few months have been different from the last few years in that sense. There is a lot of policy on the right. There are more politicians should say he should offer something instead of i should offer something. Other questions . Rand pauls influence on foreign policy, pew did a study a couple months ago that conservatism has never influence on foreign been less Popular Among Young People than it is today. It is my theory republicans cannot stop talking about the 1980s. There are photos of president ronald reagan. I dont know how you win Younger Voters when you cannot stop talking about days before some of them were born. I was wondering when we are going to move on . He was great in the time for bonzo. Kids love that one. I think there is no normas generational i think there is no norm generational difference among conservatives. Sometimes it is a real philosophical difference. Among republican lawy people over 40 are different from people undere 40. Rs i think there is a difference between people who remember the reagan years and people who know the stories. On the whole, not in every way i think younger conservatives are more constructive and more inclined to think about policies and the ways we are talking about it here, more inclined to think about the present, less inclined to want to repeat the ends of the sentences that people started in the 1980s. The beginnings of those sentences are great, and we should start our sentences that way. We should have the same principles, the same commitment to the constitution, the same believe in america, the same optimism. But it has to be a response to what is happening now. That is the first order of business for anybody who wants to think about politics. I think that is changing some among younger conservatives, but it will take a while. [inaudible] nature has a way of dealing with that. Are you saying they are going to be culled . You know, evolution is healthy. I think a generational shift in time naturally, but the fact it is younger people who are thinking more creatively and the ultrapetrol the older people are not as a good thing. There are still a lot of people who remember why the new democrats were necessary and maybe in themselves are of that mold. Still, younger liberals tend not to be that way and they are a lot less constructive. I would rather be in the situation of conservatives at this point looking to the future. I was just going to add, i think there is a dimension to the crony capitalist corporate welfare side of this debate. I think it could appeal to people who would normally shade to the left. And this has been a big talking point. Yeah, i wanted to get to that. That, to me, is the natural issue for people who are sort of suspicious by nature of big business right, to line up behind some of that stuff. I am an unapologetic endorser of reagan. He was the most successful republican president of the last century. More politically successful since any president before or since. The last three president s have taken office with their party in control of congress. We should learn from the real reagan, not the theological reagan. When you look at the twovolume history of reagan in his time, reagan rarely made it a big selling point with the public at large that he had a program that conform to conservative philosophies, even though it largely did. He had a program that developed from conservative philosophy but he advertise the public on the practical advantages. Lower crime rate, lower inflation, so on, so forth. I think a lot of todays reagan in volkers dont follow his example, they just drop his name. They are more concerned with ideological purity and maintaining the standard. Reagan was an innovator. It also goes to the difference between the tea party and the establishment. So much of this is tactical and attitudinal. Fortunately, we have gotten to this place where a lot of our conservative standardbearers the people who once came up with the ideas that we ran on, are much more concerned about these tactical fights than with developing policy anymore. It is an interesting and that is how you end up with the debates we had in the president ial primaries last time, were a lot of the competition it was who can say it louder. The party of goldwater versus the party of reagan, it is just about liberated versus the party of actually talking about people and how this affected them individually. And it was also really uninteresting. Unless you were involved, it was not interesting. There was not creative. Other questions . I will keep asking them if you dont oh, we have one over here. Thank you. The book mentioned making tax cuts for families where they need them most. What would that look like in practice, and is there any room for may be incentives for mothers who want to stay at home to raise their children, incentives for families to operate economically in the way that they see fit instead of punishing women who want to stay home, women or men who want to stay home and have a single income family . Well, the cost rate of families has increased, and the tax code i think does a very poor job of recognizing the extent to which raising children is an investment in the future. We say that as kind of a rote sentiment, but it is financially in part an investment in the future of the country and future taxpayers. I think the tax code ought to recognize that fact. I dont think we should be providing incentives for mothers or fathers to stay home with kids. I do think we should be enabling families to make the decisions they want to make. You know, a lot of government subsidies in the childcare area flow towards commercial daycare. That is something a lot of families like to use. However, it is an generally the least favored form of childcare for american families, and i would say if you expand the child credit which is a very popular proposal which almost every group and the American Public you are allowing people to make these decisions. If one parent wants to scale back to parttime work, do they want to use it to purchase childcare, do they want to use it to purchase supplementary educational services. You leave those choices up to the families by providing them with tax relief. That is in a certain sense a very traditional conservative answer, and it all to be it ought to be provided in this for now. It is an example where a traditional conservative answer is nothing directed to the right question. Where the problem that exist now is the problem that existed 35 years ago. When you think about how to provide people with tax relief today, what does middleclass tax relief look like . It is not just lower marginal tax rates. For most people, the payroll tax is a huge tax burden. For Many Americans, almost most, it is the only tax burden they actually have at the federal level. They dont have an income tax liability. But conservatives do not talk about the payroll tax is a target for tax relief. And try to shield it often conversations about tax cuts and tax reform. It should be right at the center of those discussions. And the fact that it is not the child credit would be a form of federal tax relief. Exactly, and it is important in that sense. You have to talk to people about the problems they face, not just an abstract economy. It is a better incentive to get rich. Ok, but there is a tendency in general for conservatives to talk about the economy and very abstract terms. Its not crazy, it does matter. Economic growth has to be there as a foundation for Everything Else to work out. If we dont have economic growth, a lot of the other problems become much worse and a lot of the solutions we offer are not sufficient. But we also need to help people with the problems they face and help them understand what we are offering in terms of that. One network commissioned a polling on the ideas found in the book, and it was remarkable on the expanding child credit. Not only was it overwhelmingly popular with the public, but so many of the demographic groups people wring their hands about in washington, it did really really well. For example, you may not intuitively think single women would care that much about expanding the child credit, you know, as it was sort of described as being for families, but it was certainly be applicable to women who have children without a spouse at home. Widely popular with single women. Very popular with minority groups. It is one of those questions tickets to the economic concerns that underlie a lot of the securities that are felt most acutely by these demographic groups that we workrry about in electoral politics. We have two questions in the back. This is about the conservative antiintellectualism you were talking about earlier. Excuse my interpretation about what you were saying, but what i heard is the marketing courage is students is to go off to college is dominated by liberal thinkers and getting degrees in things that are not very important. What would you say the correction is for that whether or not is an accurate detection of what is happening . That is a fine paraphrase of what i said. I would probably only add to that that i think part of the problem is that people cannot tell what the value of a degree is and what it is going to pay off in the long run down the line, partly because we dont have that information readily available to them. Markets are such that there will always be people who want to buy that silly major. There are people who just do. I think the republicans republican governors for instance, the one in florida comes to mind, sort of made a mistake about making this, we want more stem majors and less anthropologists, right . To me, that sounds more like Central Planning in bucharest than a marketbased response. So what i would say is what i think the federal government should aim to do is to inform consumers in a way that allows them to make judgments about the products they are investing in and simultaneously lower barriers to entry to allow new providers who are offering a different product. Right now, the accreditation system, the accreditors who come to accredit you in chicago, the same group. They both probably bear the same seals of approval. At the same time, to keep chicago stayed in business, to keep chicago stayed in business, it keeps out some of the who would want to compete with chicago state that may be offering something different. That may not be staffed by traditional faculty. These are examples of a policy that have been in place for a long time that are actually preventing consumers for making informed choices and from competition, and preventing competition from taking root in this market and a way that drives up quality. In the back room, there was another gentleman . This question is somewhat related to that one. You had said earlier on that part of the problem with Higher Education is that students are often choosing to study things were forced to study things that dont make sense, or studying nonsense. I guess part of my question is, how is it that students starting out choose between things that are nonsense and ideas that matter, particularly in liberal arts or social sciences, where the purpose of education is to be able to make those kind of distinctions to begin with . So i guess my worry is conservatives take the marketshare approach. You talk about making investments in majors to see how they pay off, but i was wondering if there was anything within conservatism that recognizes the Intrinsic Value of knowledge and the potential nonvalue of knowledge and having marketdriven solutions to degrade, d value the very important market values that come with Higher Education . I would like to hear the answer from english major. I sort of preface my comment about nonsense that i was a history major and took plenty of classes that do not really equip me to be a think tank wonk like i am now. I am not one who chose super rationally what they were going to do with their time in college. What i would say that i think is the distinction, where i draw the line is there is a distinction between what the government is going to subsidize and spend money on, especially in the case of Student Loans right . As a lender, the federal government wants to ensure this money they are lending out gets paid back, right . That is their fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. I think above and beyond that, a market will reward, a proper market will reward the benefits that you are describing because people will have pay for that. As a taxpayer, the question i have is whether im subsidizing you know, and lending money to people to study things that im going to wind up being on the hook for when they default. That is where i draw the line. Think taxpayers have a slightly different insurance interest then students themselves. I think you raise an excellent point, and we should not lose sight of the fact that education is about more than just a earning power. Its about creating an educated citizenry, its about creating art and music and all sorts of other wonderful things. I just get concerned when the federal policies we have currently encourage investment in any program at any price and dont distinguish between things that have value in the labor market and dont. I have a slightly different perspective, but i think one that is complementary. I think the biggest problem with the way our society and government approaches Higher Education is that we essentially tell people that if they dont go to a traditional fouryear collegiate institution, they are losers, especially economically. They are not going to be successful. And i think that is a misguided inefficient, and just plain cruel approach, and one of the secondary problems that have arisen from it, i dont think it has done any favors to the ideas of a liberal Arts Education. And not only do we have to keep in mind that knowledge and reflection are intrinsically good, i think actually in a way decoupling the economic imperatives from these institutions actually ends up helping. I entirely agree with that. I think its important to see that people who want to study liberal arts and i would say i studied political philosophy in college, and then to become more practical was a comedian at the university of chicago. I dont think that academics who worry about liberal education think enough about the fact that the insanity of the Business Model of the university is a huge problem for them. That the fact that we now have a system that is economically unsustainable and under constant economic pressure means they are the first to go. Because the fact is liberal Arts Education is understood by our society is Something Like a luxury item. That is a mistake to some extent, but not entirely. I think if you think properly about the place of a true liberal education in the life of democracy, im in agreement, it is something that will interest a few and it is a very important those few access have great access to education. It is not what everybody will be interested in, and that is ok. The question is how do those few have access to great liberal education. I dont think it will be in a system that is under the kind of pressure are Higher Education system is now. Part of what were talking about what it talks about reforming higher ed is making the system sustainable, make it answer needs and wants. Some of that will involve Higher Education and liberal education. And the kind of liberal education that you would get here and other places is very important some people. That means it is a market that will be served. But we should not simply think of it as a market in economic terms. But i dont think of markets in general in purely economic terms. Mark is our way of allocating resources and allowing people to find what they want, and some of what they want is an educated citizenry and access to truth and beauty, and its a source of things that a lot of people at this university seek. I think todays Higher Education system is the enemy of those people, and they need to see that. They will be the ones who have to go first. And the kinds of solutions that andrew offers i think could be very good for liberal education. They dont involve rejecting that is an option. They involve allowing people to seek what they want to make it sustainable economically. There is no getting away from economics when we talk about Higher Education. A last question, and since we want to make it sustainable economically. Sure. At the last election, we had the lowest voter turnout and about 70 years. This was echoed other places in the country. Especially talking about a market approach, how do you know what citizens want if so few of them are dissipating in the process . How can we really make accurate statements about what we are going to do in the future are aware we are going to go if so few people are interested in participating . Would we know even if they did participate . Anyone want to its a great question. I think our democratic system is a way of legitimating government in power. Its essential, its necessary. It is not necessarily a way of figuring out what everybody wants. Its one of the ways of figuring out what everybody wants. Other ways include markets. Other ways include everything we do in society. There are lots of ways of pursuing these. To my mind, our political system would work a lot better if more people participated. I think higher Voter Participation should be a golf think republicans have been very bad about this and have allowed the public to have the impression they want fewer people to vote, which is nuts it should not be what they want. That is not to say if everybody voted we would know what everybody wants. You are voting among two options, neither of which is probably what anybody wants. Our system is never going to be a way of answering that question, but it is a way of answering some very important questions about what our government should look like and i think more people should be involved in offering those answers. People in public life should want that, they should want more people involved in voting, and that should be everybodys goal in democracy. I think this is partly why its critical why some of the marketbased ideas are critical for people being able to express their preferences. Because if you have a low voter turnout in a party and one party wins and they happen to be part of the one who wants to impose policy options uniformly across the entire population, you have a huge segment of the population that may be did not vote, but now they are stuck with something that doesnt not necessarily match their preferences. It is another avenue, marketbased social policy is another avenue for people to vote with their feet and have their preferences matter by the government. Obamacare is a great example. It has never had majority support in the country for stop never had. And what we were talking about earlier, to the extent washington and the Political Class in general is talking about things that are of intense interest to the Political Class but not as much to the public at large, i think it becomes less of a reason for people to get interested then vote, because they are not being offered anything that makes them want to get up. None of the above is not a crazy decision in our system. I think our goal should be growing total numbers. When you hear a lot about that we need to win more women or whatever segment of the population, my response is always, no, we just need more. We just need more votes. It is not really matter where they come from. One of the most obvious ways to do that is just grow the pie. I think there are a lot of votes out there we are not asking for. Well, on that note, i