Transcripts For CSPAN Morality In America 20171225

On the director on the center here at religion and culture director of the center of religion and culture. Coverage by our friends at cspan for this event tonight. Sharp, try to behave. Put yourself ones on mute. Feel free to tweak the event as you like. Maybe even our president will be tweeting the event at some point. It seems hes more interested in general in other manners. Of this to conceive Program Shortly after mr. Trump on thected last november Famous Campaign slogan make America Great again. We are taking something of a risk by having this program, because we were betting in the course of one year he would not in fact have achieved his goal, an achievement that would have made this evenings discussion. Oot it does seem the issue of National Greatness is still very much in play and in our case very much in doubt. Nationalism, a service of naked hatred garrity, rampant. Ropaganda they are all problems that if anything have gotten worse. Is operating thesis shouldnt donald trump, he who shall not be named in some respects, is really more of a symptom than a cause of our crisis. But it does raise the question of what National Greatness means. Value that is so important to our National Identity really means. It has been said america is great because america is good. Ronald reagan uses that line in a speech. It to ng one of the earlier examples of fake news, i guess. It was fairly instantly deployed. As we say its too good to check out so it has become the standard trope of stump speeches ever since. What does it mean for a nation to be good and have we all been good . Did we simply fall short of an ideal . And have we bailed on those ideals . Is there a path back, is it a path we even want to follow. These are the questions we wish to explore with our distinguished panel this evening. A former editor at the Chicago Tribune and a columnist for chicago catholic, the newspaper of his own archdiocese. Don will introduce our panelists and guide us through the presentations and discussions that follow. A couple of housekeeping notes. On your chair as you will find two cards and one pencil. Yourfor writing down questions after dawn moderates a discussion we will collect your questions. I will sort through them by theme and hand them up to dom to don houle pose your questions to our panelists. Please be sure to write or print legibly. There is also a second yellow card, asking how you heard about this event. You can check one of those boxes. As we seek to better serve you. I hope everybody can hear me, i have a tendency to speak softly. Honored to have moderated the distinguished panel. All of you have a brochure. As he or she begins to speak. A personal reflection about the topic tonight. Of 1965 i was a college at the university of notre dame. Wanting to study politics and political science. The presidency of john f. Kennedy. Had theired me, as Civil Rights Movement. Both are examples of how politics can make the world, the nation, the destination better. The first thing he had us read is aristotles ethics. Think it was on the education of this. Wondering what does this have to do with winning elections . And making things better in the society. I began to understand. Every policy is the citizen. ,deally wellinformed, ethical who participate fully in the life of the policy. Year americans did something that has shaken the faith of a lot of people. Thats why we are asking this question. The evidence seems to be all around us. President lected a that seems to have respected none of the traditional norms. Maybe things need to be shaken up but calling into question the respect of the rule of law is and other basic principles is fairly radical. We are waiting the result of an election. It appears that a man who is incredibly confused in pedophilia may win hes being supported by one of the major parties. We live ideologically segregated lives. And different Political Parties and opinions. The question of the health of our society and moral center is up in the air. With powerful and important thoughts on this issue. Ands a featured columnist has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the l. A. Times. Aboutll tell you more herself as she arises. Each of the panelists will speak initially for eight minutes. And then we will have some discussion and back and forth. Am glad to be here and part of this important conversation. Im going to talk about the problem of fake news. Things thathe many we are all worried about. Almost a year into this administration. The truth needs to be at the top of this list. Trump tweeting out those islamophobia committee of us. Videos that came from a convicted rightwinger, somebody who is totally discredited as a hatemonger and when a white house spokeswoman stands up there, they ask about whether the videos are really authentic, she says it doesnt matter. Fake and askede us to dismiss that. Doesnt matter if the videos are real. The idea that someone is speaking on behalf of the president , frankly this is not that surprising. Have a mission to celebrate and defend Free Expression. We viewed the spread of fraudulent news in terms of the many events of Free Expression in this era. Some people have argued wise it an expression issue . Protectedake news is under the First Amendment. You can spread false is him as it rises to the level of deprivation in this country. We argue if you care about free speech its not just the First Amendment. E see ourselves as guardians we think fraudulent news represent a real threat to that. First the scale of the problem. Gallup, only 32 of americans have even just a fair amount of trust in the media. Down eight points from a year before and 20 Percentage Points from 1997 over the past 20 years. Pew Research Center has done a study showing that 64 of americans felt fabricated new stories are in confusion about the basic facts of Current Issues and events. Virtuallyess than any other institution in our society. Even worse on the index of trust. False news is widespread and spreads uncontrollably. One third of americans fabricated political new stories online. Assault, beingn mounted from the white house on the Mainstream Media with the aim of denigrating and discrediting the confusion about what is fake news. What we call fraudulent news, news that is not substantiated, that a spread with the aim of deception. Party much the exact opposite of what President Trump calls fake news. To him fake news is coverage he finds unfavorable. He labels it that way. The result has been a depolarization and Media Consumption where half the country is watching foxnews. The rest of us are tuning into cnn and nbc. Between this pattern of denigration continues relentlessly. We have documented over 100 examples of it. I think the case is going to be even higher. What are the applications for our society and democracy . Run through a series of them in my limited time. It is understanding the breadth that of this potential impact. That doesnt have the facts and information and data they need to make sound decisions at the ballot box, to formulate views on policy. A popularson said government without popular information or a means of acquiring it is a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. I think we are willing to that. Arcical tragedy the second is unending polarization and read lock. If people expose information that only originate from politically aligned sources, they lose the ability to see issues for the opposing size or. Eal empathy when policymakers are politically split, the result is. Aralysis a third consequence of the rampant spread of fraudulent news is the undermining of legitimate news media for cutting for government accountability. To be an outlet for whistleblowers and others who want to expose mitts expose ms. Expose misdeeds. A way of weeding out scribblers and an effective leaders. I think that is a reason why the president has attacked the media. He is laying the groundwork for perhaps how he got its office in what hes doing in office and what the consequences will be laid bare. It its all asay bunch of falsehoods, on a pack of lies. Fourth up is the longterm risk to the viability of serious news. The traditional Business Model that supported them based on advertising and Television Advertising has come under enormous strain. Most people get the majority of their news through social Media Outlets that dont have the same level of support for the newsrooms that generate that content. An erosion of trust and leadership. Boost in leadership and all rally around the Washington Post. That comes from the eastern seaboard, the urban centers. Its not coming from the heartland. We see an erosion of interest in the Mainstream Media and effective and ultimately that will affect our bottom line. A fifth consequence relates to toicymaking and the risk evidencebased informing pretty much every policymaking whether it be a economy, health care, education. Thatdigest the analyses are coming out in the academic centers. We depend on our news media to interpret, analyze, and what to credit. Going to finish off with rattling off a couple of different issues. The big Digital Media companies. If the credibility is undermined it cant play that role. To help guide us in terms of how to react. If their role in credibility has been eroded. We have seen in the context of the recent hurricanes that misinformation is rampant. Finally a plague of cynicism. The moral center of our society crack soap in. I think he has been a signal an authoritarian society. Power that requires moral authority. The defeat of moral principles as such. The senior fellow at the ethics of path ethics of Public Policy center. Hes a conjure reading writer for the New York Times. Forhank you very much moderating and david for putting this together. And you ladies and gentlemen for being here. 10 minutes. You can dilate on one or two points. Im going to go the latter route. An unprecedented crisis. I think the Public Perception confirms that. The starkly pessimistic view of politics. And the numbers are pretty striking. This would be the new normal, seven out of 10 said the political divisions are great. Americans that are proud of the way our nations democracy is working has doubled. Public trust in government is near historic lows. Republicans and democrats have for each other is growing. You can feel it in the air. Greater than any time than i can remember. Ofo think these perceptions political system failing its a problem of reality. I could point out a lot of things. Trump who elects donald as president has a remarkably low view of politics. No obviousce, qualifications, and it has manifested itself every day since he took the office. What interesting is his supporters and i talked to a their arguments were things couldnt get worse and he wasnt worse than any other politician. A second reason i think that people since the political system is there a lot of economic stress and anxiety come a sense of vulnerability and a sense of politics is not making the situation better. We have the stagnant wages of shrinking middle class, tuition costs, lack of social mobility. Were going through a period of it pumping of anonymous transformation. The bottom 80 have really benefited from that. That is exasperate exacerbating income inequality. They believe the governing class has let them down. I World Wrestling with no experience. Wrestling ent ertainment hall of famer with no experience. Jonathan heights and sam abrams, two professors cite several longterm friends that explain why our National Politics are broken. , asll mention a few of them the political scientist referred them to. To appear for themselves ideologically over the years. Politicians are polarized and so are americans. World verb in rural divide has turned into a gulf with the virgin interests and values. Immigration is rising, leading to larger racial and ethnic divisions paid you have cultural changes in Congress Making it harder to maintain cross party friendships. Its much easier for partisans to confirm their suspicions and put pressure on politicians than to play to the extremes. Has entered what could be called the President Donald Trump not only wants to attack the truth, he wants to annihilated. Postmodernism and deconstructionism. We never see this in the political arena like we are seeing now. We have seen the rise of his acute political tribalism. Moderation and compromise, which had been central to the political life of this country and success of this country. The spreading humanization within politics. On the right there has been an extraordinary valuation of ideas that has occurred over my lifetime. A blossoming is sense of National Identity. People are defined by race and ethnicity. Get the sense youre heading toward a collision of sorts, making its way to fracturing disagreements, to contempt and anger and rage. Are a lot seem there of breaks that can be applied. There is a downward cycle of recrimination. So what we do about it . First its key perspective. We had the civil war, jefferson, adams, and 1800. The second thing is as we are going to get better we have to to obtain inclusive prosperity. That inquires greater social inclusion. I think we need people in politics to make the case for politics. Why its essential. Leaders need to argue for the dignity and necessity of politics. How he wassting speaking about his entry. And to argue what it is, which are which is give or take an debate and compromise. Its also the limits of politics that have to be talked about. I think that explains in part the tribalism we are seeing. Recover theave to deep purposes of dialogue and debate. I think we have to listen well to each other. Not just to respond but to hear. We need people with authority within a particular political tribe to challenge their own tribe. A doesnt help that conservative president challenges liberals. They have have leadership for willing to take a people within their own community. We shouldnt despair. People are not happy with the situation they are in. You saw that with political ethics. Forle are willing to fight the nobility of politics. This was not out of our reach. And a coat not from john kennedy but from bobby kennedy. A lovely speech he gave in south africa. In the course of that speech he said, fewer will have greatness in the course of history itself. Each of us can work to change small events. He sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. Remember he gave that speech in 1966. I think each of us has to try and our own way to send forth on a daily basis. Tiny ripples of hope. Thank you. A professor of law here and former National Director of the sunlight foundation, foreigner former candidate for governor of new york. Thank you all for coming. Thank you to my copanelists. If you are here tonight, probably like me, you have this profound love for this country. You, recently 46 have been halfway through our lifes journey. Much of it has been a real passionate love affair with what america can be. I think the questions tonight are essential. Im a Langston Hughes patriot. In 1935, think about this, this is a black man in 1935 talking about america. He says let america be america again. Let it be the dream or streamed. America was never america to me. He says let it be that great , that anyd of love man be crushed by one above. America was never america to me. Its taught to talk about how terrible American History is but if you read the end of the pollen at the end of the poem, it says we the we the people must reclaim the rivers and make America Great again. Think im ai hughes patriot, he tells us about the weight think about our country, to think about our past, and think about our future. Saying there have been plenty of bad times in america. This is not the worst. I do not think i hope many of us would not choose to live in 1850 america. We have been in tough times before. The same time its incredibly important not to throw out the best part of our aspirations. He is then calling on this aspiration of love and freedom and these dual go these dual goals of public good. Really meaningful goals that i think are returning to at this moment. I was privileged to run for congress in the last election. Iran in the Hudson Valley in the district that voted for barack obama by six Percentage Points and for donald trump by almost nine Percentage Points. I can tell you of the need for defenders of politics, that even when you lose there is nothing as joyous and strange and weird as human and weird and human as running for politics. I saw an unbelievable amount of loneliness. Both in the older people i met. Also an incredible amounts of loneliness and young people. People people who did not feel they had a community to fall back on. And incredibly important part of understanding barrier in this particular moment. I assess on a more and a normas amount of powerless. They are not the same thing. Powerlessness is not feeling constrained or trapped org chart or crushed. You can always do better. People felt stuck and precarious. They often had more than one job. They didnt have benefits. Even in those cases where they did have benefits, they had no sense of dignity or assurance that they were going to stay in those jobs. That loneliness and powerlessness than exhibits itself in the downtowns of the Hudson Valley and i would say the country. I dont want to speak for the whole country, but i do think you see this across the country. One of the questions i start asking when i came to a town is, is there anywhere downtown you can buy socks and underwear . In so manyone of the questions t asking when i came to a town plo more places to buy socks and underwear, nor more local drugstores. Community and coming together, the Small Businesses, which i think the left sometimes ignores, but are actually really extensional as essential as a Building Block in our collective society, had been dragged out. This . At do we do about im probably four minutes in, right . John six. Peter i have zephyr i have two minutes for the solution. Often we turn to Civic Society to solve our civic woes. The level of Civic Society was incredibly high. Its important we look at commercial society and the loneliness it has created by the incredible the loneliness and powerlessness created by the incredible concentration of power by a handful of companies in our country. The other political story of 2016 is not donald trump. Its the year where we had more mergers than we have ever had. Its the year we saw, we are sort of in the middle of handing over the keys to our culture to facebook, google, and amazon, which has power, not just in the social media realm, but in the cloud power over Small Businesses, of a kind we have never seen before. So, i think there are two really key policy focuses i would like to focus on. One is a focus on reviving the incredibly important antimonopoly tradition, which was at the heart of our politics, left and right, up through the 1970s. Returning to a real commitment to decentralize power in the economic sphere. Is the second and related about changing the way that we Fund Elections so that we can have more decentralized hour power in the political sphere. And both of those, together, are, by the way, proposed by the public and Teddy Roosevelt by republican Teddy Roosevelt 115 but both of ago, these are ideas that, in the Langston Hughes tradition, call upon the ideas and traditions we have in our past to deal with very real, serious, contemporary problems of power and isolation and the fear that comes from that. Thank you. [applause] john thank you. John carr is a writer for america magazine. John its a pleasure being here. Thanksgiving, we passed on not only the food, but a co ld. I apologize for my voice. They say, thanksgiving, the one thing you shouldnt do is talk about religion and politics, so thats what im going to do, talk about religion and politics. After hearing these eloquent statements, im reminded of the line when everything that should be said has been said, but not everyone has said it [laughter] john im your guy. Several people made the point that we shouldnt exaggerate the glories of the past, nor minimize the challenges of the present. Its great to be at a jesuit school. Its great to be at this center. Is building on it and bringing tremendous assets do it. I will to it. I now work at a Jesuit University that sold 272 people so, there debts. And was some problem with our moral center at that point, and it still is, and it still goes on. If you were to describe the moral center, there would be two ways for me. Was,sundays gospel whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do unto me. I wont ask for a sign of how many were there. We pledge liberty and justice for all. I would suggest that our politics and, frankly, the intersection between religion and politics, is not getting us there. Is around the First Anniversary of President Trumps election, the fifth anniversary ,f pope francis election probably the two most surprising things that have happened in the last 10 years. Both outsiders. They couldnt be more different. One builds bridges. The other wants to build a wall. One says im a sinner, the other says i have nothing to be forgiven for. While one dimming isis demonizes immigrants, one raises them up. While one says wealth can be a problem, the other glories in his wealth. But they represent something important. They were both outsiders. They both challenged the status quo. And they represent something that, i think, both offers problem and promise for our situation. Int happened to georgetown, dealing with the slavery matter, constructively, was we had a set of principles, in our case catholic social teaching and jesuit values, and we had leadership. If we want a path forward, i think we are going to have to be clear about principles and we are going to have to develop leadership that we dont have. I would suggest that the moral ter i have to say, i am a private product of mixed marriage. My mother comes from a republican family, my dad from a democrat family. But i think what is at work in our politics is two different, but complementary kinds of excessive individualism. Some on the right, it is economic individualism. Libertarianism that makes the market the measure of everything. That says we are in this on our own. Good luck. And now weve added a dose of nationalism and racial resentment to that in a special way. On the left, it is a kind of lifestyle individualism, which makes personal autonomy, choice, in some situations consent, the measure of everything. Neither of those leave much room for the common good, for care for the poor and the vulnerable, for dealing with the injustice of racism or Economic Educational disparities. And in one,for we are really onr own. In the other, we are a collection of interest groups. And i think that kind of individualism, when you add it to the polarization and the ideological isolation that peter ofked about, leads to a kind tribalism that is based on resentments and feeds our anger and makes it very hard to pursue the common good. Tribalism ishat best reflected right now in the Alabama Senate race, where, apparently, christians im christian have put a person who is credibly accused of being involved with young women, young girls im a father of girls ahead in three polls. Cardinal george of chicago, who had a way with words, was quoted once as saying, the democrats have lost their soul, and i never believed the republicans had a soul. [laughter] John Pope Francis says we shouldnt be judgmental, so i have a different version. I think the republicans have lost their mind, and their heart. In many ways, trump is the enemy of this individual the epidemic epitome of this individualism. Best, thebiggest, the only, and anything that gets in his way, whether it be the media, or institutions, other republicans, another party, people in the white house, he will destroy them, if he has to. Truth is what you make it. There are no boundaries, no standard. Incidentally, everyone he touches is diminished. Ik for many years worked for many years, peter was part of this, with paul ryan. Has anyone suffered more from an association . Think of general kelly, how he has been diminished. And the Democratic Party, i think they have lost their way, their voice, and their capacity to compete in large parts of the country. Donald trump is right about one thing. This election was lost. It was not won. Democrats are doing what parties always do. They first blame the candidates. And there is a lot to work with there. Then they blame the campaign. Maybe it would have been good to go to wisconsin. Or poll. And then they blame the voters. And i think thats the most destructive. That voted for obama twice and obama wants and obama once and trmump now 206 counties in america voted for obama twice, then trump. I know racism was alive in america, but i dont know that its the only thing that can explain this selection election. I think republicans have gone in the direction that their rhetoric they talked about lifting up the poor. Right now they seem to be responding to the rich. Democrats have written offrheto white workingclass voters. There is no outreach to voters of faith, no evangelical, catholic outreach in the last election. Ask yourself who has more clout in the Democratic Party planned parenthood or the Labor Movement . Weve gone from safe, legal, and on abortion to no restriction, no reservations, no discussion. Whether you are running for mayor of omaha or for senator in alabama. Me, an alternative is the leadership weve got from pope francis. Its important to say what a difference, what a surprise that was. If you wrote a book that said, here is my story about the Catholic Church i need to wrap up here. I will tell you my story, than a word about pope francis then the word about pope francis. The pope is going to resign, and an old gesso it from argentina is going to get an old jesuit from argentina is going to get elected. What do you think they would tell me to do with my book . [laughter] john thats an alternative form of leadership. From the bottom up, from the outside in. Its not only his words. Its his ways that make a difference. The opposition to francis is strong, powerful, and narrow. But we need to find a way to deliver his message. The day after two days after he talked to the congress, i was privileged to be in the hall, i met with a group of senators, and i asked how come you dont talk about the poor at all. They said, well, we sort of do. Finally somebody said, we dont think its right and it will numbers. Urt our poll i said, well, you are in the teens on a good day and pope francis is at 80 on a bad day. Why dont you try it . I think we ought to try it. Its the pastor the moral center the path to the moral center. [applause] thank you to each of the panelists for a really stimulating set of opening presentations. I wanted to focus initially on a question posed in the program for tonight. Can our institutions and values save us from this crisis . And, in particular, i would like to focus on two of the institutions, the press, which suzanne focused on initially, but also our two parties. We well, i wont dilate. Is it too late for the Republican Party . Is it too late for the Democratic Party . Anybody want to address those . Zephyr sure, i will address them. On the press, i want to elaborate what i was talking about earlier. Suzanne suggested this, but i want to be very explicit. 98 toow, all i think 99 of all the new, digital ad revenue that is coming in because of the work of newspapers like the New York Times or your local newspaper all of that money is going to facebook and google. It is like the troll under the bridge taking the tax and taking the value that is created through our press organizations. I have a clear answer to that, but that is a serious problem. Thats what economists who i disagree with on all kinds of thing call rent seeking, taking away the cash from essential public features. One of the things i think is important to emphasize is using the full panoply of antimonopoly laws we have traditionally used, providing the brandeisian tradition of saying, when companies basically become so large they are governing us in all of these ways and really hurting our access to press and, by the way, they are not neutral. They are not neutrally delivering news. But using algorithms that shape and reward the most base kind of behavior. This is totally separate from the russian news question, totally separate. I think we are taking on these intermediaries that are sucking when a lot of the power of the way a lot of the power of our news organizations. Its a central part of supporting news organizations. In terms of the parties, i can tell you more about the Democratic Party than the republican. The Democratic Party has a strong fighting chance. I believe in institutions. Part of the reason im so worried about loneliness is i think there is a rise in the belief that our political actions are expressive, as opposed to people coming together in community to solve things. The Democratic Party, since the 1980s, has sold a lot of its sold on the river to the middlemen that it used to fight against its soul down the river to the middlemen that it used to fight against. Fdr stood up against the princes of wall street, who were feeding from the people thieving from the people. Starting in the early 1990s, the Democratic Party made a conscious choice to try to basically sell itself out to large donors. I dont think the democratic. Arty can win with them i think it can win without them and is scared about losing the money. But it hasnt been working the last few years while taking the money and no longer taking on the power. If what voters are looking for rightly looking for, not wrongly correctly looking for, is someone who will genuinely listen and fight for them against the people who are stealing their paycheck and their power i think its an essential , critical, crucible moment for the Democratic Party, but it has to make the right choice. Peter let me start with a broad point about institutions. Of of the important features this era and modern life is the almost acrosstheboard collapse of faith in institutions. Those are institutions of every kind, from the press and Political Parties to churches to large corporations to many others. If you check the gallup poll numbers on that, you will see that over the course of 20, 30, 40 years, that has happened. I think it has happened for a couple of reasons. I think it is serious. I think some of it has happened because these institutions have, in a lot of cases, failed. But i also think there has been a loss of authority and the kind andxpressive individualism, people have decided to go about life themselves. They dont put their time and energy or commitment behind institutions. Of the two that you mentioned, don, in terms of which institutions will save us, the press and the Political Parties, those are two that are among the least trusted in American Life today. They have a role to play, for sure. And i think in the trump era that our institutions, by and large, have done pretty well, actually. Our judiciary i think the press is finding its footing. I think the kind of attack on our institutions that i worried might happen with donald trump so far hasnt been realized. My concerns are different. But i think they have stood up pretty well. But those two institutions are not going to save us. They will if they do their job checki think, act as a potentially on the worst impulses of the president , but if the supposition is that we have a moral crisis, then the answer is going to be in the moral formation of individual human lives, and that is ultimately what we have to focus in on. Zephyr mentioned a couple times about loneliness. I think thats quite right. As a former Surgeon General did a tour of the country, because he was curious about finding out what explains this distemper in the land. His finding is that there is an epidemic of loneliness. I do think that one institution which could do a lot more than it is is the church itself. I should say im an evangelical christian. So, probably the most painful thing of a lot of pain in this political season is just seeing what has happened with a lot of prominent public evangelicals and their support for donald trump, which i think is inexplicable and discrediting to the faith. I also think that the church has an enormous opportunity. If you look across the landscape , what you see is a fragmentation and isolation in American Life, and you do see it among the elderly and the young. It is striking if you see the statistics about suicide rates and loneliness. People are crying out for community and for wholeness. Thats what the church is you for ao provide lot of people provide. For a lot of people, they look at it through the prism of the culture war and a sort of morality which often manifests itself in sexual morality, to the point of being obsessed. I dont think we are going to get saved by any single institution, but i would put the notat a higher talking about salvation, just andrepair of human lives dignity. Churches and individuals, people of faith, are doing a tremendous amount. I dont want to be unfair in painting with too broad a brush when i take my son to soccer, my wife and daughter go to a homeless shelter. There is a lot that is being done quietly that makes a difference, but i dont think nearly enough. Just one more point on the Republican Party, since zephyr talked about the Democratic Party, and can they come back. Political parties can always come back. The question is whether they will or not. I think both Political Parties are exhausted, and i think that was manifest in this last election. I think the candidates they nominated exemplified that. The Republican Party is, i think, in a terrible place right now, and i think it is being corrupted every day because it has made a deal with a figurative devil in donald trump. You can see it. You can see standard after standard after standard being worn down. Goalpost after goalpost after goalpost being moved. The solution to that is if they lose. That may well happen. These discussions are always more interesting if there is a little bit of class. Im going to disagree clash. Im going to disagree with peter and dont say and say i dont think our institutions are faring as well as we might hope. The idea that we should trust in our institutions is inherently dangerous because we need to animate and inhabit and push those institutions. Trusting in them i think implies a kind of passivity. , yes, we had some good judicial decisions, but we also have judges who are unqualified, who are extreme in their views, being confirmed at an alarming rate because of the end of the filibuster. Shape andat the ideology of our judiciary is , in my view,rmed for the worst. Institutions like the state department, where ive worked, are being hollowed out with a mass exodus of Senior Foreign Service officers and career officials who have served both parties with loyalty and professionalism. We have a secretary of state who was called for a 30 budget cut to the state department and our diplomacy with no rationale, no explanation of how he will confront the conflicts that we face around the world. The epa goodbye, Consumer Financial protection bureau. I think the church the church eroded in or mislead over the last year because of the political positions that they have taken. Erodedyes, in theory, churchesd religious institutions should be a corrective to loneliness, but we cant wish away the things that push so many, particularly so many young people, away from those institutions. We have to address that. We cant turn back the clock. We have to look at what people are searching and seeking for now. I do think there can be solutions in our culture and in community that we need to look to, but we have to address the populations that we face and not look back to an earlier in a way eyed way a dewyeyed to reasons and rationale that arent mor necessarily compellig today. People have every right to be institutions. Ur i worked for 25 years for the catholic bishops at a time when they were facilitating a horrible scandal. Week, few weeks, roger ailes, bill oreilly,ks, roger ailes, bill oreilly, two morning talkshow host, two ho have two people from npr, an been fired for their behavior towards women. Let me give an example. Ive worked a good part of my life on the Child Tax Credit. The Child Tax Credit in the senate bill will be increased to 2000. It will not help people who make less than 30,000 because of the way it is constructed. They will get 75 or less, those children. It now goes up to 500,000 in income. Somebody who makes 500,000 will get 4000 in health. The republicans designed this senator rubio and senator lee have tried to fix it by saying, lets take 2 of the 18 reduction in Corporate Income taxes to pay for this, and the president opposed that today. And, guess what . You can watch cnn, at msnbc, anything but the New York Times and the Washington Post, to find any description of how the Child Tax Credit has been designed to not help the poor and to help wealthy people like me. I think there is reason to be skeptical of our institutions. Zephyr, in your initial remarks, you talked about this. Oneliness assign the reason clarify, if you would, if ive gotten it wrong. If you would. Zephyr ok, yeah. Theres loneliness and one of the causes, not the only cause there are many causes. But one of the causes is the radical concentration of our economy in a handful of hands. So, that does not mean that one of the causes is the existence of an open market. It is a total distortion of the market. The reason that i quoted the extra part of hughes is Langston Hughes is talking about tyrants, kings, but also private tyrants. Tradition inng American History that understands the importance and the danger that comes from highly concentrated power. I think the easiest way to explain it is i will give you a story. There is a store in millerton, new york. Anybody know millerton . Wow. Do you know sapersteins . Have you ever bought pants there . Your shirt. Ok, good. It is a Department Store in a small downtown. It sells a miracle. T sells pants, shoes, socks two years ago, Ray Saperstein got a note from oshkosh that they would no longer sell to them in bulk less than 200. He is not going to sell more than 200 oshkosh per year. Oshkosh, we think, was told by walmart, dont sell in smaller bulk, because then we cut out all the small towns. The same thing happens with small pharmacies. You think, they are competing and losing. No, this is unfair competition. This is big pharma saying we are not going to even sell you what you need to survive so that we can support the companies that we are related to. The impact is that it guts are downtowns we dont have our downtowns. We dont have the downtowns that have been the heart of america for so long. Martial life as well as civic life has always been part of the way in which we come together, check in on each others health, make sure somebody has checked in on suzy who hasnt been seen for two weeks. Its one of the essential ways. I think we have for gordon forgotten the importance of antitrust, not just to take on these big guys who are taking our tax dollars, but also to support a thriving Small Business community, which is the heart of our social community. Does that make more sense now . Don sure. Suzanne, ive been concerned personally with the state of the news media and, frankly, the state of News Literacy in the country. Some time. Talk a little more, if you would, about what can be done to allow the ordinary american to find their way through the true,t of this miasma of false, some madeup. Suzanne im glad you asked, because i do think when you look at what are the possible solutions to the problem of fake news, there are some that risk where the cure risks being more dangerous than the disease to empower either our government or these social media platforms that already have such overwhelming control over the ideas that reach us, the channels with which we communicate, to ask them or call upon them to censor and constrict and arbitrate what is true and what is false is really risky. I do think the answer lies in an informed, empowered news consumer. We laid out responsibilities for the new consumer, centered on this question of how can we inform, equip, and empower the consumer to be conscientious, to make thoughtful decisions about what to credit, what to Pay Attention to, what to forward, what to share online. There are terrific News Literacy curricula that have been developed. When i was growing up, i read a magazine, a book. There was something called an encyclopedia. It had gone through layers of editors and publishers and fact checkers. Not that it wasnt biased or but it was free of error, there was credibility before it would reach me. Thats not true now. We are all swimming in a vast ocean of all kinds of data and information from unknown sources , and we are drowning in it. These curricula that teach you things like, whats a dateline, what kind of proper sourcing methods does a Credible News Organization utilize, how are corrections handle life handled, what kind of training does a journalist undergo. When an investigation is published into somebody like roy moore and his misdeeds, what goes behind that . What has to happen before the Washington Post is going to put that on their website and in their pages . Educating children and adults nobody wants to be fooled. People dont want to have the wool pulled over their eyes. I think it would require almost a revolution. A couple states have passed bills to mandate News Literacy. I think we need them in all 50. It has to be part of the core curricula, teaching kids to read and do basic math. They need to understand this as well. [applause] don thank you. David, you have some audience questions there. Those,youre looking at and i ask the while you are looking at those, can i ask the rest of the panel a question . Practiceve developed a where very wealthy people on both the right and the left are sort of setting the agendas. Im not just talking about the usual and the bad guys. Bill and linda gates, warren buffett, george soros, the hobby lobby, the Koch Brothers theyre not investing simply in campaigns. Theyre investing in universities, in time magazine. They are investing in a lot of our major institutions. We used to set our priorities in a more collegial, governmental process. That seems completely dysfunctional. The odds we will have congress has not passed a budget in 10 years. Meanwhile, the very wealthy on the right and the left are deciding whats important and they are creating the agenda. Some of it, they are offsetting each other. But how healthy is it that these people, some of them are great people, some of them i dont agree with. Some days im happy they are in charge, other days i wonder who the hell left them in charge. What is it mean to have private philanthropy at this level buying a business school, buy ing a piece of time magazine, buying a good part of the left . Whats it mean to have people making these decisions . Peter its extremely zephyr its extremely unhealthy. If somebody said after citizens united, there will be a clash of different billionaires, so at least we will get a clash of ideas but the individuals its extremely unhealthy. A recent contest i got in recently was an Organization Im involved with said one, tiny, politely critical thing about google, who, by the way, has also invested heavily in our ools and in our politics i think they are largely seen as left wing. Im ok with eric smiths Eric Schmidts policies. Im not ok with any individual or company having that level of power. We said something critical and 10 people were fired from the new america think tank for challenging googles capacity. Danger,there is a real now. Ially right im making a guess from where we are. Those of you who are slightly on the left. Now. Im making a arms and thank them for standing up against this tyrant. I think we are at a different moment where there is a corporate monopolies and wealthy individuals on one side and trump on the other and both of them threaten this basic idea of selfgovernment. Im not a monarchist even on a goodanybody who stands up to tr, we should run into their day. Basically, thats the model here. Suzanne i guess i have a slightly different view. Yes, i think there are dangers and risks and excesses. Weve always had, at least for a long time, a very significant role for private philanthropy and what we consider the great the great institutions of this city have been built up, a large extent, by private philanthropy. I think that this is not my normal setting. I think back to that which you cannot change. Heretical to zephyr. Im not sure this is something we can entirely change. A lot of these actors lets take Something Like the open Society Foundation. They do absolutely extraordinary work around the world, as a bulwark and buttress for disside nts, a source of support for Civil Society organizations, trying to hold open the space for discourse. I think thats extremely important, so i think we have to look at what they are doing, the role they are playing. Yes, if a can empower citizens if we can empower citizens in movements, i think thats essential, too. I think the press needs to hold them accountable. There are risks in every distribution of power. I dont think its inherently i wouldnt lump them all together and draw a conclusion that they are all collectively nefarious. Bush George Hubert Walker George Herbert Walker bush, great supporter of israel, challenged the israeli settlement policy. As long as shown in a person is alive as Sheldon Abramson is alive, no republican will do that again because of the consequences of that. Suzanne its different from philanthropy. Zephyr i love the open Society Foundation in a lot of ways, and i can still say there is an incredible problem with this concentration of our and the shape of power and the shape of philanthropy this way, and it has not always been this way. There was a great book about how philanthropy has changed in the last 40 years and become a handful of people with extraordinary political power. I dont think we have ever been in this steadystate, and we should never assume this is a steadystate of concentrated power. Don i want to move to some audience questions. [indiscernible] don we have a question, somewhat productive provocative. Do the panelists think that a clinton win of the presidency would have helped america regain its moral center . If yes, why . [laughter] peter i will go ahead and start. Im happy to. I dont think that the clinton win would have helped america regain its moral center. Im not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. Im a conservative, and shes a liberal. So, as you can imagine, i would have differences with her on policy. I do want to say one word, inject this on behalf of the people, or at least to qualify a word on the people who voted for donald trump, at least to ask people to try and take a perspective of theirs. I say that as somebody who spent most the entire campaign criticizing donald trump and getting a lot of incoming fire because of my own political history and my association and the local tribe ive been part of. I did hear from a lot of people who made the argument, if you are a liberal, this wont sway you, but you need to set that aside for the moment, which is, if you are a person of conservative beliefs, lets say your prolife and you think there is something damaging and destructive going on in the act of an abortion, and you felt like she would push an agenda that would undermine what you believed to be the moral good, that was on one side, then you had donald trump on the other. You said, look i have friends who said this. They were bothered by him personally. They were troubled by him. They said, look, i think that his Court Appointments and the other things that hes going to do is going to be better for the good of the country. I didnt agree with that argument. I didnt vote for donald trump, but i understood it. There are a lot of people out there who had concerns about it. I dont think hillary has been a paradigm of virtue or morality throughout her life, so i dont think she would have done much at all to repair the moral decay. I do think that donald trump will probably do more to accelerate the moral decay than she would have, however, because of the reasons that i stated. I think that his nonstop assault on truth and on reality and his really problematic. I think he is tearing at the fabric of the country. I think he is doing tremendous ofage to that, in a sense national identification. I dont think either one would have done a lot to repair. I think donald trump will do more to undermine it. The last thing i will say is, there are moments, fors sure i worked in the white house seven years. President s can make a difference, and politics can make a difference, because politics is an imperfect way of advancing justice. But i do wonder whether we are investing too much hope in politics. Politics and its capacity to revive the moral impulses of the public. A lot of that has to go on in other spheres of life. We are failing there. Donald trump didnt appear he won the election because an awful lot of people pulled the lever for him. I think that was a mistake, but it is not as if the American People are doing swimmingly well in their own moral views and we can just blame politics for corrupting them. This is a synergistic process. This is a selfgoverning republic. You basically get the government that you want and desire. Thats the way it works. I know there are qualifications to that, but thats roughly what you get. It seems to me that when you look up and see the problems with politics today, you cant you have to take into account that people themselves have some , andicity in creating that its not going to be politicians or president s who are going to repair it. Don as america ever, in fact, had a moral center has america ever, in fact, had a moral center . Somebody wants to know, has it, in fact, ever had a moral center . Zephyr can i briefly reply to the prior question and peter . I dont even know you are going to disagree with me on this, but i want to make a real distinction here. Donald trump has been i think a real disaster and brought out the worst in a lot of people. Ven brought out even e limits our best in moments of panic and defense. Its not a good best. Politics,mall p where you are fighting about whether to have a windmill or a solar panel in town, can be quite vicious, of course. I dont want to romanticize it. But i think small p politics, local politics has a lot greater opportunity for bringing us together and forcing us to confront each other as real humans. And also, the focus on the topheavy the topheavy focus on the presidency, as if the presidency is politics, or even as if what is happening in congress is politics as opposed to what is happening locally is politics, is a problem for a bunch of reasons. One is that i think we got lazy after the wall came down, thinking that democracy could kind of work with people just being hedonists in their private life. It cant. It actually does take a lot of work. There is no better training for commenting thoughtfully on National Politics than getting involved in local politics. So, local politics has all of these salutary functions. Like youre going to end up loving your neighbor. You may end up hating your neighbor more for a little while, but at least it will force you to see how important it is, instead of lazily getting angry at others who are doing a bad job. My friends know i am not reluctant to criticize the Democratic Party, but if Hillary Clinton were elected president , wed have a very Different Health care debate, a much better one. We would have a completely different tax bill. And we would have a very different budget. And we would not have congressional hearings about what can be done to stop the president from Going Nuclear without someone else being involved. [applause] so, i actually i share the prolife cause and think the shift among the satisfys and others to the extremes on this debate has been extremely unfortunate, substantively, morally, and politically. But there would have been a way to lock paul ryan and Hillary Clinton in a room and come up with a proposal to do something about poverty in this country that could have been an example of bipartisan cooperation. Weve not only lost that opportunity, weve known it up and its going in the wrong direction we have blown it up and its going in the wrong direction. [applause] hearing your question about sort of a moral center, i think the notion that its a Singular Center that encompasses that is allencompassing, weve never had. There are centers of gravity. Centers of gravity can move in a positive direction. We saw that during the civil rights era. We saw that during the last few years when it comes to the rights of lgbt individuals and gay marriage. I feel the center of gravity in our country shifted in the direction of inclusion and respect and appreciation of difference. I think we are also seeing a generational shift in gravity. One of the things im most hopeful about is young people and how they see some of these issues that polarize and if id us and divide us. They have a broader perspective. They are more accepting of difference. They are more conscientious about how to relate to people from different backgrounds, what lynwood you use what lynwood you use what language you use. [indiscernible] suzanne zephyr is right about what mobilizes people. Its local. They have to be able to touch it, see it, relate to it to understand why it matters in their daily lives. We have to awaken that spirit among young people, give them a sense of agency. Some of this new Democratic Movement that has arisen in this country since the election is very exciting. It is a movement of young people. Happening in communities across the country, it is politically oriented, digital. I think thats exciting, and there is a lot of potential there. There is a moral center of gravity. It can move in positive directions, and we shouldnt lose hope in it. Don this is somewhat related to the question about if hillary had won, and its a personal thing with me. The Republican Party become the preserve of people who dont accept the fundamental american proposition that all men are created equal . [applause] don has that become the case . Im sorry. It strikes me that the Republican Party has become the captive of people who do not accept the fundamental american proposition that all men are created equal. All people. [applause] don thank you. And i just want to know how panelists react to that. Peter let me go ahead, as the republican here. [laughter] peter you know, i dont conflicted. Because i spent so much of my time over the last two years criticizing the Republican Party, but im going to rise in defense there. Let me begin by saying something, which is i actually think that critique is part of w hat the problem of our politics is. Its a complicated question. The idea that the Republican Party or the millions and millions of people in this country who are republicans have given up on the central proposition of this country, which is the equality of all people i just dont think is fair. I think part of it is when people, whether your liberal or conservative whether you are liberal or conservative, its not simply a difference of policy, but its a difference of morality. One of the things weve seen happen in american politics is the idea that not simply you are wrong, but that the people that disagree with you are wicked or morally defective. There are people out there i know its maybe a memo to the people at fordham that are republicans and they are good and decent people. They happen to have a different point of view. And a lot of them voted for donald trump. I think that was terrible. Not a majority, by the way, in the primary. And he was elected by the American People itself. And there were real grievances these people had. And there are people who had a conservative point of view that felt like Hillary Clinton was going to advance policies that were wrong. I understand a lot of people disagree with it, but this was not out of a kind of maliciousness. The idea that republicans have given up on the proposition that all people are created equal, i dont think is fair. The difficulty in politics is when you try and take these principles the idea that republs have and get into particular policy debates about it. Ill give you an example of one that has been for a lot of years, during the 1990s. Republicans were championing welfare reform. Liberals and democrats were against it. There were people saying, if you were advancing the welfare reform that republicans wanted, it would lead to widescale inhumanity and millions and millions of people would be left on the street in the cold. And it would be like a dickens novel. And that they were cruel and they didnt care about the poor. Actually, some of us argued for welfare reform the evidence, we can go into it, was that welfare reform did a tremendous amount of good, not just in getting people off the roles, but the people who were on welfare and for the poor themselves, and bill clinton eventually signed that. That was an honest disagreement about profitable ramifications practical ramifications of policy. It didnt mean people who were in favor of welfare reform didnt care about the poor, and it didnt mean the people who were against it were idiots or didnt believe in individual responsibility. Public policy is difficult and complicated. All of us come to these things with different histories and different predilections. One of the things we are missing is the capacity to listen to other people and to hear point of view hear a point of view. I want to end with one story which may bear on this. I said earlier in my remarks about the importance of debate and debate not to prove one side is more in the superior to the other is morally superior to the other, but to try to help us in our understanding of truth. C. S. Lewis, in his biography suprised surprised by joy, had what he referred to as first friends and second friends. Your first friend is your alter ego. When you start the sentence, they can complete the sentence. They see the world the same way you do. Lewis described it as shoulder to shoulder. We all need that. There was the second friend, in his case it was owen. Lewis said a second friend is the same is a person who reads all the same books you do and draws all the wrong conclusions. [laughter] peter he said, you know, owen tong,would go hammer and late into the night, debating all these issues. Lewis and barfield treasured each other because of their differences, because of deep differences. Because they felt like, in that dialogue, in that debate, they were able to see the truth of things Better Together than they were individually, which goes to a very deep, i think conservative and christian notion, which is epistemological modesty. Its the sense that no matter how right we might be on any particular issue, none of us has a full apprehension of the truth and we need other people to help us to see it. And we need other people who have different points of view than us. And with actually got to not just hear them to respond to them, but we have to listen to their experience. Don thank you, peter. [applause] think, youiefly, i know, we are not necessarily all talking about the same thing when we talk about equality. I think thats one of the reasons why this debate becomes so pitched. A differente is conception of what equality really means within those in the Republican Party who would say that i am a proponent of equality. Maybe equality in a formal sense, that, for example, opposing affirmative action because thats, in some minds, a form of unequal treatment or preferential treatment that is not justified. To treat everybody absolutely equally is without affirmative action. Whereas others focus on equality of opportunity and equality of results. There are arguments for a friend of his for affirmative action. Another piece of it is how much of a priority is achieving equal society. Thats where we are seeing republicans right now fall dramatically short. This tax reform proposal would be devastating in terms of intensifying income inequality and deprivation in this country, denying all kinds of opportunity and programs that people have that give them just basic standard of living. Points that have been made about the tax credit, same with health care. The equality of Health Care Outcomes have been grievously setback if current republican proposals were brought forward. I think that the tolerance of ing racist advanc ideas out of the white house and, really, we have become accustomed to i dont know if anyone spoke out today about those videos, but we have seen so many other incidents where it is just radio silence in calling that out. I think you have to own up to that reality. [applause] im not supposed to be participating here, but i just have to clarify one thing. Peter, aboutview, not labeling people as hopelessly immoral, etc. Huge difference between the welfare reform debate in the 1990s, for example, which is about a substantive issue, and what happened last year with a man w rise doing theis most cynical possible thing, the birther business. And everything about that campaign screamed, um, dishonesty and lack of belief in the notion that all men all people are created equal. Everything about it screamed that. And, um, and the party allowed itself to be enthralled to this man. , you wouldntnt, disagree with you on that point about trump. Republicans in the americans who voted for him, it was not as if it was a state secret. People knew what they were voting for. They would make it very different conservative case, for a conference of healthcare reform. Horrible, iit is think with the republicans that supported, there is a range within their, some do not support him, but the gas to majority do. Within there, some are reluctant and some are enthusiastic, but i am happy to say that i am deeply discouraged by what the party did in by what is now represented in donald trump. And i am not sure how much longer i am going to hang around. Conclusion that this is the trajectory of things , represented in donald trump and steve bannon and steve miller, i am getting off that train. It is too early from my position to say that this is done. I feel it is even important for democrats to be a responsible party. I hope that people who have a different feel of what the party should be and what conservatism is will fight for it. But i dont know that people who have my view will prevail. There is a way that trump has of energizing the ugliest instincts and darkest impulses of people, which is horrifying. It cannot be denied. That ito willing to say is much wider spread than i imagined. I may be suffering from my own confirmation bias, i do not know. But if you would ask me five or 10 years ago if this was what the Republican Party represented, or if they produce to donald trump as the nominee, i wouldve said, that is not the Republican Party that i know and those are not the republicans i know. He is president and they are behind him and i think its a my uncle was the republican leader of the Minnesota Senate and the author of the civil rights bill in the 60s. We are committed to equal opportunity. Used to be a big problem and the Democratic Party, and now there is a big one in the Republican Party. That cynicallyp believes that people are not equal and are using that belief to gain power. Is accidentalit that every time trump is in trouble, he talks about black football players, or muslim terrorists, or whomever. There is a little bit of stockholm syndrome going on here. That once trump took over the Republican Party, a lot of people in the party are not afraid of trump, they are afraid of trump odors. That is what paralyzes them. We need a sanity caucus in both parties. The numbers are very small. It is really important for people who are republicans to stay republicans and fight for the soul of their party. If we end up with this as the basis of the Republican Party, it will not only do damage to that party, but horrible damage to the country. Donald trump right now is doing ongoing damage by calling on the people in the party i have the least patience for, the people who cynically will do , to serve in their donor masters, to get the tax andslation they want done, therefore, not to be at a moral voice against donald trump. In the populace, it is a lot more complicated, and people carry with them lots of different impulses. Bigoted,ich are very and others which are extraordinary gallatin egalitarian. Generousitted to being with people, with the public, you had a bigoted impulse we will continue as a country to insist unappealing to your generous impulse, and will not forever right to off, even if we find that troubling, you were not a troubling person for that. We are helpful to call them deplorable. To call theml deplorable. [laughter] in order to talk about civics and our schools [applause] it ties in to the point about , the issues we do a lot of work on in america is free speech on campus. We have done a lot of studies and analysis, whether it is in a safe spaces or trigger warnings, what to do with Richard Spencer coming to campus. When of the things we have learned is that we are at risk of raising a generation of young people for alienating the protections one of the things we have learned is that we are at risk of alienating a protectionsrom the of the First Amendment. I was having a discussion with a and we were talking with a renowned First Amendment lawyer, and she said, the First Amendment was written for me. ,he means that her forbearers were treated as two thirds of a person at the time this was passed. She sees the First Amendment being invoked on campus is just protect racial slurs she considers offensive and marginalizing to her group. She thinks she is deeply alienated from it. What is missing is the understanding of how this protections have been at the heart of what made the Civil Rights Movement and every other social movement in this country and around the world the up, for protest, speak her to have the kind of leadership she did on campus. Gap that really exposes us as a society, and part of the ways we are seeing these principles eroded. I think we need to think hard about how to make these principles and values relevant to rising generations. [applause] i would always talk about how we need more civics in schools. Think about what it is we are talking about teaching. It is not that easy. Yes, of course we need to teach civics and schools. Teaching civics and schools is secondary. Seems schools is a place where we are actually schools are places where we actually develop citizens, seeing them that way is essential. Schools are for creating workers, which was said 25 years ago. And were going to justify everything, even arts, in terms of how they enable deal. Enable you. This is the language and rhetoric we use for public education. Addon tocivics as an a worker creation tool, as opposed to a citizen creation tool those are totally, different views of education. [applause] i have to write a personal note. My workingx years of life, i taught at just what university in chicago. Jesuit university in chicago. I was astonished at the abysmal level of Civic Knowledge of journalism students. They didnt know basic things, like how lost it made laws get made, the kind of stuff i thought children learned in high school. Ago, the state of stateds reinstated in a requirement for civics in high schools. A lot of states in this country do not require civics education, and i always thought that part of the reason for Public Schools was to teach citizens. We dont have that agreement, it seems. How are social media sites like facebook not considered broadcasters . Broadcasters need licenses, so they must fact check because they serve a public purpose. I cant make out the last part. If you could want to beedia sites seen as totally neutral platforms that have no editorial and cannot be sued or held accountable for anything on them. Capacity tont the use algorithms, but that doesnt change the fact that it manipulates the sources of what we have. There is a new Public Policy challenge, and they are trying to get the protection of being seen as neutral, while and not being neutral. Not being neutral. It is very important to do whats to deal with information, but very dangerous for us to be allowing these platforms to be our sensors. Censors. We should go more in the direction of demanding neutrality of these platforms, instead of asking them to censor for us. Does that address it . What is the impact of citizens onted on our moral center, our republic Going Forward . There has been some discussion of citizens united. We talked a little bit before philanthropy. Of i think the role of money in politics is a separate issue. One of the forces i do think is significantly to blame for what we are talking about is the sense of disempowerment and disenfranchisement of individuals, and we need Campaign Finance reform is going to put more ordinary citizens ato more of a central role, sense of agency that they can actually participate. We know how empowering them is. When you can get involved in feel like you have a say and influence. Limits withthese corporate money, playing such a predominant role, that withers away, and that is why we see such resentment, why people felt they were willing to resort to anything to see a change. This is contradictory. It struck me that neither donald trump nor Bernie Sanders have money problems. They did not depend on the diverse. Giver. He money is not everything. Jeb bush had more money, and i dont know what he is doing, where i think it hurts a lot is in congress. One of the Untold Stories of this era is the rise of the religious middle. There have been stories about the problems of the religious right. Peter has done a profile encourage with others. Profile in courage with others. Thing hasurprising been the National Association of , a host ofs mainstream christian groups that organize into something called the circle of protection, who have worked together and work successfully and effectively to help the health care bill. Theyre working tonight to try and defeat the tax bill, who have been working for years with remarkable success to protect programs for the poor and the budget. There isnt anyone in this room who has read that mainstream religious community, including some of its conservative voices, the National Association of evangelicals, with the Missions Conference what the Missions Conference has done consistently is opposed the repeal of the health care bill. They are opposed to people losing their health care. On immigration, who was on the front lines with the churches . It is hard to get in the congressional offices these days. You used to have the credibility of what you believed in and what you did back home, and you could get into ca member. In toreally hard to get see members for two reasons. One, sometimes they dont want to talk to you. About publicans talk say why daca children should be deported is difficult. Also, it is about raising money and giving money. The religioused community, the principal defense of the poor and the vulnerable. But it runs through the power of the centers in washington. There was about 18 million spent in my race. This is only six years after citizens united. The majority of that money was raised neither by myself, nor by my opponent. Pacs, most notably, robert mercer, and a few others who gave over 500,000 each. The 2016 people focused on the president ials and said super pacs didnt matter. Donald trump is partly a result of peoples radical , citizens united. Money and politics mattered enormously in 2016. Many Republican Congress members are now running as if the next election will be decided within norms amounts of outside money. Amounts of outside money. This removes a lot of moral agency from a lot of places, where discussions used to take place. You see Congress Members as not as moral agents themselves, but really serving as courtiers. That really degrades our politics. Thank you. [applause] thank you all for being here, for your wisdom. It has been a delight to listen to you. We look forward to seeing you on cspan. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] this was really insightful. We had some amazing, wonderful comments and insights. This is the kind of thing that models what we need to do if we are to truly recover. That center that i believe is out there, thats moral center. Robert kennedy said, it is a tiny ripple of hope. Please torn me again in thinking our panel. Join me again in thinking our panel thanking our panel. [applause] fornd thank you all supporting the center on religion and culture. Have a Great Holiday and we will be back again february 13, where thread inck up this another great panel discussion, 50 years after Robert Fellows bellows thread famous essay on l religion, we will have a panel road to redemption, or american heresy. Maybe the things that once united us can again provide a way forward. Have a great evening. Thank you. Join us tonight for a debate on the boycott and sanctions movement, a campaign trying to israelsals policy toward the palestinians with economic pressure. Cornell west and under shorts participated. They met at the Debate Center in dallas. Here is a preview. Is, do wetion to you our responsee that to the occupation and colonization that the movement is concerned about if it were a palestinian occupation, would we have the same response, as opposed to the Israeli Occupation of the palestinian brothers and sisters . Displacement, i saw a picture of Martin Luther king jr. On the wall that brother harlan put there. Were thatns palestinianmade has precisely same significance as palestinian babies have precisely the same significance as israeli babies. No matter what the sexual ,rientation, skin pigmentation the moral and the spiritual challenge. No way perfect. Internals own tensions, a variety of different voices. The reason why i join the movement is not because i dont have criticisms of the movement, and the founder of the movement knows that. But it is the last nonviolent thatt to try and ensure character and the human values of a settler colonial enterprise that is involved has involved itself and a fullfledged apartheid, not because israel year israel in any way can be compared with the south african israel,d, but inside of it is a much less apartheid. But those precious brothers and sisters in the west bank and gaza that is a moral issue. Recent debatethe on the boycott and sanctions movement, a Global Campaign of trying to change israel policy toward the palestinians regarding economic pressure. Watch the entire event tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan. American history tv on cspan3. This week in primetime, starting at 8 p. M. Eastern, tuesday night, u. S. Army special forces detachment stationed in berlin, germany during the cold war. Just to give the russians and east germans a hard time. There were critical targets like radio stations and power plants. Railyards. Blackfoot or suppression in the 1940s wednesday night. What a travesty. By the multiplied thousands to the firing line to die in the fight for freedom, while telling them they should have no part or parcel in freedom at home. President Andrew Jackson political struggles to challenge and crippled the powerful bank of the united states, thursday night. Of 1829, when he was president for all of three months, jackson was writing friends that the only thing that can prevent our liberties to be crushed by the bank in its influence would be to kill the bank itself. An interviewht, with senator john mccain, on the vietnam wars impact on his life and the country. I dont hold a grudge against the north vietnamese. There are some that i never want to see again, but at the same time, i was part of a conflict. I thought they were some of the meanest people i ever met. Several that were good people, that were kind to me. That is why it was much easier to support, along with president clinton and others, the normalization of relations with our two countries. Watch American History tv, this week in primetime, on cspan3. Journal ison featuring authors from people published during the year. Join us for a live conversation about popular books. Coming up tuesday morning, republican like me, and that policing the thursday life in the marble palace. Digital world war the fight for cyber supremacy. Land day, no mans surviving america in the 21st century. Gatekeepers. E author series, all this week at 8 a. M. Eastern, on cspan, cspan. Org, and cspan radio. Recent debate on capitalism and socialism with editors and academics. Nick gillespie argued in favor of capitalism. A New York University professor argued in favor of socialism. Michelle goldberg, New York Times columnist, moderated the debate. This is one hour and 20 minutes. [applause] they can also much for coming out on a friday night. We are here to discuss that capitalism improves the standards of living and provides economic opportunity. The reason i was intrigued when someone asked me if i wanted to do this i came of age at a when it seems as i