session of the seventh annual conference on diversity in international affairs. this conference is jointly presented by the council of foreign relations, the global and theeline international career advancement program known by its acronym i cap. room, ieveryone in the would like to welcome those joining us on c-span and those joining us via the internet as we live stream today's talk. toant to encourage everybody tweet about the event using the ia2019. a bit of background on this conference. we hold this conference in recognition of the fact that while america's ethnic and racial makeup has changed dramatically over the last half-century, the ethnic and racial makeup of the foreign policy community has not. and that is not likely to change without concerted efforts to talented members of underrepresented groups, expose them to career opportunities in foreign policy and to recruit them for positions in the field. in international affairs conference is one of several initiatives here at the counts of intended to do just that. we hope that the conversations taking place here today and the networks that are being built will bring important and new voices into the foreign-policy debate. for those of you watching us on c-span or the internet, you can see the public sessions, not just of this conference but of past years conferences by visiting our website, cfr.org. i note this is the seventh conference we have had. the seventh time we have also had the pleasure of collaborating with both gap and i cap and i want to recognize the leadership teams at both organizations. not just for the work they have done to make today possible but for the really terrific work they do throughout the year to broaden the foreign-policy community. youso owe a special thank to mr. tom roe. if he could stand. [applause] you can see why i wanted to thank tom as he has some big fans. both organizations and has been a leading voice in putting diversity onto the foreign-policy agenda. i also want to thank some of my colleagues here at cfr. our meetings program and events team and human resources team for the work they have put into today's event. finally, i would like to thank joan spiro, a former cfr board member and it is her generous support that has made this year's conference possible and we are deeply in her debt. now, without further ado, i am turning things over to eduardo who well introduce today's keynote speaker, stacey abrams. i hope you enjoy. [applause] [cheering] ms. abrams: hello. afternoon.od it is a great pact house. i am excited as you for the opportunity to speak to stacey abrams and hear her thoughts about our politics and foreign-policy. i would be remiss as a journalist not to start this conversation by asking the question that -- [cheering] for 2020?he plans vice president? something else? ms. abrams: i'm going to tell you a secret i have told no one else and if you believe that, i have a bridge to tell you -- to sell you. i recognize the critical nature of the senate and the role it ,lays in promoting our ideals but also the role it plays in shaping our judiciary and protecting our values. however, i do not believe that you run for office because the office is there. the office is a job and the skills are important but so is the intentionality of the job. my particular set of skills i think could help me win that election but when i thought about doing that job and that being the nupathe i would take because it is a different career path. the senate was not the right place for me. my path has been systems, how to organize systems to create change, to structure and promote the ideals i hold to be true. and there are a set of jobs i think would best allow me to use that. i have created the georgia project to tackle the issues that i see and those tend to be more executive level jobs. i have run organizations, been a part of managing teams and i recently tried to run a state. i did not quite get there. all of that to say that i am looking at executive level opportunities and that means that i'm going to look at the 2020 presidential election. stop. i did not announce anything. [laughter] ms. abrams: ok. look, we have an amazing crop of candidates running but as i of tried to articulate, it is early. it is early for the race and it is early for all decisions and i want to see what these candidates talk about. on number of them are doing the work that needs to be done. i want to see how many make it through the first gauntlet. as i think about my future, my goal is to see if i need to be part of that conversation. my goal is not to be in second place. but i am open to conversations after june. and there is still the state of georgia and it needs a governor and so i am looking at that also. [cheering and applause] the topicurning to that brings us together, i was not aware of your interest in foreign-policy and foreign affairs. i have been made aware that you are a lifelong member of the council. can you tell us a little bit about this side of io? -- of you? ms. abrams: it began with the carnegie endowment. i have a dear friend from college. we were summer fellows here together. i was working -- we were both working for different departments in the u.s. government. he invited me out to lunch to have a conversation. we were diametrically opposed on many things in one of the arguments we had was the privacy of foreign policy over domestic policy. i was pushing the domestic side and he was talking about the foreign policy. he pushed me and said if you want to be a leader, you have to understand more than your space. you do that in your academic life and intellectual life. i could not effectively rebut him which was very annoying and so i started learning. the cousin of my friend, i was introduced to the seminars, i have been doing a lot of work independently on civic engagement and voter registration in college and have become well-versed in how we build a more robust voter class and became an international fellow on civic engagement. i have worked with some amazing and sierra colombia leone. from there, i was invited to participate in east asian studies to think about what was missing in particular the lack of awareness in communities of color. from that, i worked with the british council, the italian counsel, the german marshall fund -- i was a fellow at all of those places. i traveled. was in australia for a few weeks. tried tot that, i have build a robust understanding because the u.s., while i think we are a leader in so many ways, we do not have all of the answers. part of my responsibility included a need to understand an international approach to these questions as well as an intersectionality of our policies and their impact on the world. i have visited 11 countries. worked with the council court in atlanta. i have worked a lot with our central american and south american council court. i have done a lot of work with israel. both the previous and current ambassadors that are stationed there. and writ large, i have tried to a lifetime-- i am member of the council of foreign relations and i read a lot of stuff. all of which to say that i no longer believe there is a bright line between domestic and foreign-policy. what we have seen play out in the last few years has shown how existsat line is if it at all. and you cannot be a domestic understand theou international situation. the intellectual exercise is married to my political interests. i care a lot about foreign-policy and have been doing it for a while. [applause] eduardo: what is your assessment? foreign-policy has taken a radical turn in the last few years. i would love to hear you evaluate what is going on. ms. abrams: we have, unfortunately, were turned to -- when weten be ,ere an isolationist country when our national leaders issue responsibilityir -- instead of being grounded in a sense that america is stronger by it self, it has also been couched because of our leader ,nseam -- in xenophobia misogyny and others driven by a fear mongering undermining exactly who we should be in the body politic in the international conversations. my deepest fear is that we will toe to take a long time restore our position in the world because our moral credibility has been diminished. it is difficult to articulate ideals of who we should be and who we expect the world to be -- when you engage in family separation or when you temple minority rights, when you enshrine into law or attempt to trust ande a lack of dehumanization of your own people, you cannot then go abroad and espouse a different set of ideals. you cannot bar transgender atple from our military and the same time argue against countries that are criminalizing, as azerbaijan is, criminalizing and lgbt you community. we have to recognize the suppression of minority rights when we yell at burma for its treatment of the rohingya -- we have a muslim ban on entry but we have also undervalued and mistreated voters here at home and have allowed the blessing of laws that have systematically suppressed minority rights and minority votes in the united states. these are matters of degree and not difference. i may have disagreed with recent presidents on issues but i've never disagreed fundamentally with the positions that the u.s. holds in the world order but i do now. it is a challenge on how effective we are at intervening. and we have to recognize that this through line is not going to be tied off with a new leader. rebuildoing to have to and restore credibility and so we will have to confront the harm done to our foreign-policy by the current administration. [applause] tion. [applause] . >> the point of how the administration shows a hostile stance against immigration and trade and how it comes from a reading of what is wrong in the united states. the united states. so how do you address that are change that quick. >> window 2020 election. [laughter] . >> they cannot get the toothpaste back in the two but we may have to buy a new tube to me this is a terrible analogy. [laughter] so here is the reality. as of midnight tonight in the largest trade war we have been in in a generation. this is a trade war that has real impact the us consumer will pay the price as we have been for this trade war. and so far most of the cost has been passed along and hidden in our prices we are about to see a consumer goods wave of tariffs you feel at target and walmart and in your daily life. and those who have stagnant wages and with the lowest unemployment we have ever had you cannot recover from a trade war with the resilience so we have very real consequences for that. the only option is trade policy that is not based on brinksmanship which is what we have seen the last few years think of the immigration position we will have to restore with the refugee policy because that is the obligation and who we are but also for my state for example, the cultural sector is the number one for a number of states. when you cut off those who are exporting our goods, the farmers cannot afford it you are undermining the national security and with a robust and policy for immigration that is our responsibility but we have congress and the president actually have to confront these issues if he is worrying about the next election but the next 20 years. [applause] . >> is at the title of the congress which is about diversity, i would love to hear your thoughts diversity of the foreign-policy establishment. there is a lot of white guys. >> you are right to. [laughter] . >> is that a pipe dream? is there a strategy? so how do you change that quick. >> has a 2018 hour foreign service core is 8 percent white and two thirds mail. under george bush clinton and obama we actually saw a diversification of foreign-policy that was reflective of who we are as america. it is a native good for us representation matters but also the diversity and the ability to engage when we center court to the middle east having women to have conversations with other women is important of what we have long espoused and in the recent leadership we have lost having senior advisers who have not only the cultural competence but also relationships to be built matters. fortunately - - and fortunately we have seen retrenchment to the 19 fifties set of what foreign-policy looks like. but we can solve that in three ways. conferences like this. one of the reasons it is so important for me to have the conversations i had with foreign-policy because i was never spoken to about foreign-policy. we dismiss in the conversation at the earliest stages. in those places where they are not expected to be to expand their capacity and it is hopeful to have better and more effective leaders. number two we can show the world we value minorities then we have a moral leg to stand on and show it is important. we know authoritarian regimes come into power their first act is to eliminate minority rights then you make it much easier to do the work and that is what we are seeing a nationstates that have gone back egypt. turkey. austria. we knew suppression of minority rights is the first hallmark of the end of the liberal democracy communities so there is an international good to minority representation but we cannot demand that because people can see we don't do it ourselves so for the foreign service core to reflect the composition of america right now it is 6 percent six.8 percent asian 3 percent native american that is not all reflective of the position of our country. when people are checking our values, they can see our representation with the international order does not reflect who we are so our credibility is undermined immediately. >> talk about your work with voting rights and battling voter suppression or voters of color. if you will but also on the international stage. . >> they are fundamental to democracy. . . . . >> now, you can about. what we have seen play out in the last 20 years is an aggressive attempt of odor suppression that is targeted to communities that have long been outside the body politics. it began when they started to enter started to affect elections in real tangible ways. let me give you some recent examples. there is georgia, where we had a secretary of state, the election superintendent who was in charge of the election, most recently with a group of foreign ministers and when i was introduced, i did not say anything, when they introduced me and explained the tagline, the secretary of state over some election, the booze and hisses from developing nations was a bit problematic. even the worst authoritarians understand, if you want to medically election, be in charge of it. that is what happened in the state of church. the fact that there was silence people who say they believe in civil society, that's more problematic. there should've been scourges written against him during the 2018 election. but there were not because the naked attempt at grabbing power was more powerful than the protection of her democracy. chris cobol was a secretary of state, he does not show a great deal of shame, he was too embarrassed to run his own election. i was in the only state were secretary of state was seen for governor and ran the election and used an entire goblet of odor suppression activity. three types, registration access, valid access and valid county. we know that this works because rosina played again, tennessee saw 90000 new african-american voters put on the rolls in 2018 and in response they have not passed the law the criminal third-party registration and makes it nearly impossible for other resource groups to do this work. the law basically says if you get refer you to turn and because we don't want people picking who consider the applications for voter registration. this says if your two reforms that are completely filled out that not the person who forgot the wrong form by the organization that did the work to get the forms to be criminalized for doing so. you also have an issue of access or texas where they have passed a law that says if you accidentally go to the wrong county because we vote or the way you're told to vote, if you make a mistake there certain mistakes that will result in your ballot but and jail time. -- you know if you make a mistake if you go to joe, you won't go. in arizona, where male in balance are part of the process, because of the dramatic increase of latino voters, their passing roles that will limit access to the mail-in ballots in anyone that uses emergency and transient emergency centers invite others about. and then there's order, 1.4 million people were re- franchised and a new poll tax has been passed for restitution. they should have to pay the fees and fines, she was accused of larceny, technically her restitution is $59 million, there is no way she will ever be allowed to vote. we as a nation have decided to result in the loss of right to vote. we put import, botox this says he will never get the right back. that is not who we are in america. an international consequence is more credible as election supervisors and oversight monitors in her own country, some of our largest states are voter suppression as a native good. we know elections are changed when new people come into the process when we can increase minority participation, minority voices often lead to progress, typically they're upset that they were left in progress. therefore, when you submit the votes, and tell people the voices do not count, you have the continent ineffective in the entire community. as a subwoofer, we suppressed minority participation, that's the first step to hypertrophy. we like to think were invulnerable, but we are not. we are not invulnerable it is also fragile. the fragility is what is at stake. when i think about the 2020 election, my deepest fear, we are not going to face voter suppression but the more insidious part will take effect. that is people think they no longer count. people self select participation that's more effective consequent, maybe relevant is a much more permanent effect, when you have a nation state with the majority of the minority decides this is no longer matter, then we are in a dire state, that is a threat to the united states and the direct international. [applause] >> we have been inactive for some time, like participation by latinos, americans, is very low compared to participation -- >> there been lost, forget the wallslaws. wealthy white men have never not been allowed to vote. everyone else has been. native americans were not citizens of the united states until the 1920s. our right to vote was until the 1960s, some places until 1970 spring reviews the power devote to social engineer the government that we want. that's what voting is, shaping who represent you in. what has happened in recent years there is no longer chain on the republican side, democrats were really good about her suppression. they did fantastic work in the south. that is not a book. [laughter] what is happening in communities of color, has the effect of silencing the entire community, when that happens those communities even though they are the victims of most of the concert with this. when you don't vote in young children in the school district, that school just interdistrict does not. try, you do not get the right services that you need, your trash does not get picked up. but you also get a system that is overly incarcerating your community, the long-term consequences that again form national space, it is a signal of how he treated people which means it's the ideal, values abroad, and the ability to call for the liberal democracy order that does treat humans as humans. it's eroded, we have to recognize we don't exist in a bubble, people want to review in the inuit are behavior in the doing this to the america and democracy we have to recognize democracy is not permitted. [applause] >> for sure. i think this is a time, i give all of you and opportunity to ask your questions, please, stay who you are in the victory questions, rather than statements. [inaudible question] >> what criteria do you have and would you encourage us to have as were looking at candidates running for 2020, 22 through things, that i'm looking for any candidate. >> i want to see that they actually have a plan for victory. a plan for victory does not mean i'm going to suppress my values and try to appeal to the broadest group. i want to know their candidate listings and the values that they hold and willing to talk about. number two, we have to have a plan to end voter suppression. they do not have a plan, that is problematic because it will not win. we have to recognize that the accelerated behavior we are seeing in the state that i mentioned will be a custom number of states and we have to fight. number three, i want candidates to recognize we are not running against donald trump, we are running for america. but. >> if you are running against donald trump, you are localizing his behavior and making that the fulcrum in which you make your decision. if you're running for america you're extending the kind of conversations we need to have, talk about foreign policy as an authentic and deliberate space that we should operate. you're talking about inner ways that's awful. you're protecting the notion of demonization of a way of winning an election. if you're coming to market you bring more people to the table. here's fear is giving, many cans were willing to talk about that in a progressive way. >> thank you for joining us, he started off the conversation saying effectively with domestic and foreign policy, is speaking to a vice group, that is not the case for the general public at large, what would you recommend in terms of getting the conversation out there in the foreign policy to the greater public at large customer. >> part is explain wife for multi-matters. the example i use, trade policy, immigration policy, climate change, those are all things that we have to connect the dot. this is true about any possible and impulsive. people care what affects them. you guys earn interesting group of folks who decides about foreign policy but if i investigate most of conversations you have a reason why it affects you and why you're doing this. that is true for the broader population, i think the responsibility for foreign-policy leaders is to remind domestic communities about why it matters to them it matters how people operate abroad and it increases our national security if they're n not. >> in increases access to weapons in medicine. it is connecting the dots so that people recognize we are part of a global community and we're safer and stronger and more effective when we have formalities and even for enemies are willing to understand ever for engagement. >> in the back. >> how are you, i'm travis atkins the question i have for you, around something that had this is not who we are, as you speak in rundown with history, the fact of the matter, this is who we are. and wondering, as a leader, you are talking about voter suppression, the other side of that is calling people back because the epidemic because the heavy coming for generations and marginalized in disregard. >> i would take into his, this is who we are not we have to be. our responsibility to always have a forward vision that assumes we will be better than we were. that is been the experiment of the united states. our national experiment has always been about recognizing that we make deeply flawed decisions. we have been inhumane in ways that are shamed toward national history, why we are who we are, we confront those challenges and we try to prove, we don't try to put them effectively, and the timeliness is horrendous, but we eventually typically get to the point and that requires we recognize the pendulum swing against the progress it's also harmful and predictable. that is one piece. i don't believe in voter apathy, i believe in voter despair. most of the communities are not apathetic, they care, they do still think they can do anything about it. that is why am so dog about voter suppression. it commences you that your consequences are your own. it usually air and a systemic error. then you no longer believe you have any control over what happens next. that is why i engaged in this active voter engagement, because is going back to the question, one of the ways you get the people to vote is you actually show them how they're connected to the progress. we are falling out a lawsuit, we do litigation, but we do advocacy, my responsibility is to remind you, you care about voter suppression because you don't have healthcare, unless you get to vote, you will die of a terrible disease because our state is too cheap inhumane to carry the criminal justice reform, the progress we've made in a bipartisan fashion is not permanent, it can be undone a single person who decides he no longer cares about the consequences or the travails of mental illness and drug addiction. our obligation is to connect the dots and not to assume they will connect the dots. they have seen the elections do not need to change and we have to have a conversation about you forcing elections to change. that is our responsibility. >> my question is, you gave a very diagnosis of the problems, the fact that it is damaged when we preach on one hand democracy, of an international agreement. >> my question is, even if there is a change in the white house we are learning credibility is hard to be restored. would you be able to offer how we might be able to restore the world's trusted america customer. >> i have i think we have to worry that our credible he has been thrown. the u.s. is or was very effective at using the public usual overview, they basicall basically -- this is a country that tells you to trust him but their premieres of inequality, racism and why would you believe them. our credibility was deeply damaged in the 1980, having a president who says when no economic system, is not that our credibility has been damaged before, there's a sustained attempt to actually harm our credibility that we have seen from the current occupants, one of the ways to change it is for america to show who wants of the better. there is an absolute good that happens when we change our leadership, when we reject the current order, and then the next that will have to revisit the court. they will have to revisit what we've done with iran, it may be too late to restore the conversation, but we are watching the consequences with therein, with it returning its conversation, part of our obligation so we can be the immediacy of a response, but the reason this is so important, we don't have a foreign service that is ready to respond. there's been a decimation of a foreign service occupant and that is deeply problematic, especially senior levels. that was by design, there was intentionality in reducing who participates in her international conversation because those who were selected by the triple ministration to leader state department did not believe in engagement ring part of the opportunity adobe a lot of jobs available. you need to be available to take the job. >> one of the ways we restore credibility is to demonstrate revenue couple people who are reflective of the values. they're willing to do the work of building the relationships in there is a sustained opportunity that we fix what is broken, there are ways that we need to look at her loss, where we should not of been able to lose our place so dramatically so quickly. that is a conversation for congress and for courts. >> if it's going to engage global influence how would you go about it? >> the complex question, when a ticket out of context, i want the report that at the bottom. it is deeply concerning the china is leading the way, because that comes with obligation in places where they're going, the fact that they're building africa, building in south america, the work they're doing is not out of the good. and the way they're structuring, consequences for some of the nationstates that are emerging from deep authoritarianism to deep authoritarianism white, there will be her subsequent this for whomever inherits the long-term debt that now will be owed to china. there is a good to build infrastructure in places where colonization in this investment has disrupted development. i cannot dismiss is a good that we do need the projector built america, while i think, the result of having infrastructure in place has long been denied the development is a good, we should be deeply concerned about how coming into being, we need to be prepared to intercede with the bow comes through. china understands what they're doing, they're building out, not only infrastructure but relationships. they're building relationships and places where we have exempted ourselves, of the vision states. that is deeply troubling, that is one for an international foreign service that actually reflective of diversity. we need to be able to speak with credibility. in the history of american intervention and most of these countries is not a good one. therefore, having foreign-policy conversations that are driven by awareness also by recognition of why these countries have a gables in china, i think it will be critically important, and on the next decade but the 20 to 30 years. >> my question is, given the voter suppression, one of the two that we can volunteer to turn the needle in a different direction to have the outcome of changing occupant in the white house customer. >> i would welcome you to georgia. [laughter] >> here's how we should think about voter suppression, therefore states to renew bad things, you have a raft of 25 states since 2010 have passed laws to increase voter suppression and decrease access to the bow. as a largely states, not exclusively but 95% around by republicans. we know that wisconsin and michigan have democratic governors, but they also have republican legislators which means the bills that were passed years ago remain in place. the voter suppression in 2010 did not disappear the democrats in 2018, we need to be there because we know where voter suppression has not been aggressive and active if people had been engaged, we could've won the 2016 election. we know that georgia, arizona north carolina three states that upward ohio in 2016. those are all states with the democracy is trending in the direction of a more progressive belief, we know that in north carolina clinton lost, give a democratic governor but all the voter suppression remain in place. i told you about the horrific nature of georgia, please get a fair fight.org.com if you want to learn more, arizona is a place where we know is a burgeoning population but also the fact that every active and aggressive rate and those are two places where we should go. if you live in the north, go to wisconsin, go play michigan, and if you want to have great weather can't afford her head arizona. >> somebody in the back. >> i'm a graduate student at harvard. my question is, how do we prepare future generations to compete in the job market in the global scale was foreign-policy customer. >> i think you began with an important part which is cybersecurity. one of the issues i made as a central part of argument under campaign, we do not teach her children computer skills unless they live in the right district. i believe that we should start implicating robotics and coding category it is never too early to teach that set of skills, there is never going to be a time where the skills are necessary and we have to start building that. by having the skills, your almost necessarily forced into a remote mind. part of being in the global side is part of the cyberspace works, you are inherently required to think about everywhere else because it is not a parochial conversation. the other piece, goes back to some questions, we have to start having the conversation and localizing the conversation at the very beginning. unless you come from a family that has a reason for international engagement there is no conversation. after the conversation, we grow up and away from this international idea. i want to spend more time pushing people the way i was pretty. i wish her the conversation when i was in high school or middle school, but we tend to treat the rest of the world as rest of the world as opposed to thinking of america as a couple conversation, it does not diminish our strength and privacy to acknowledge we are one in 19 197 countries. actually don't know what happened in the last couple minutes. but her application is to create basis who were at war with, angry, who are buying suffer. our opportunity is to talk about in terms, how do we enrich we are, how do we build deep connections amongst herself, if we think about foreign-policy and if we think about the international engagement. >> you in the back even trained for well. >> my name is mark, i'm starting a nonprofit called inclusive america, many companies when they deal with this problem, the chief inclusion officer, wondering what your thoughts are for candidates that are running for president for 2020 so we see some copying through the committee's predispositions,. >> i think it would be useful but i think we have to do it across the board. it is acute foreign-policy and this is what you get stuck well the time, but it is true that we need the inclusion and diversity and must every federal government, i do think the foreign-policy is cortical. i would certainly put the undertreated, retrieved out because by thursday of next week there will be at least two candidates who have these inclusion officers. >> there has to be appropriate intentionality to do this. if we wait for people to decide they want inclusion, it does not happen. with the organize, it is also hard to build. this is an amazing room, but to recruit a sufficient number of communities there disenfranchised or outside of the norm to recruit the levels that we need will take a long time and the reality, we have not only got to fill the foreign service, we are to restore the leadership over foreign services. that means you're going to have to be very thoughtful and creative about where we go to find those folks. you want someone who is giving a lot of thought, this is going to be in very intensive operation. we will have to sting up very quickly. >> hello, good afternoon. an honor to be in your presence. my name is urging, i have so many questions but i'll discuss one. i was wondering your thoughts on the future in resolving complex or compelling other countries to behave in a way that reflects further america, uses trade more versus armed conflict or the military combat, what are your thoughts on that as a future w way. >> i think there is certainly, something appealing about the notion of using trade persons were pretty. the challenge is the harm that is done in the effectiveness of the tool. because we have a global economy, our ability to use sanctions has been diminished over time. as far engagement but as before, with wars that are military, it requires the participation of her allies. as just recently, simply having one or two of the economies out of the conversation completely undermines the reality. the other reality, often the armed conflict that we enter, not always, recent experience demonstrated report decision-making, but there armed conflict about the protection of people's body. we cannot diminish the importance of america to protect those communities at risk. i think we should always be judicious and careful with how the military is a terrible horrific thing, trade war have consequently superior particularly need to cite weapons trade, we run the risk of undermining economies and communities that can withstand the harm but no response will for the behavior, that is a difficult thing to calibrate an economy that the world has today. i understand the appeal of the idea, by thinker to be very careful when we think of the execution and application. like foreign-policy jeopardy. >> thank you. >> what you name. >> i to girl for 400 thank you. >> i am based in york city, you've talked a lot about foreign-policy issues facing the united states, in your opinion, what is the foreign-policy issue in the united states and this time. >> i'm in a be a politician on this one. i truly believe voter suppression is a foundational issue because it is the direct antidote to the policy issues. if you cannot participate, and the values that are leaving our country, then we are in danger. those values are going to be necessary if we're going to address climate change attested democracy, we have a crisis -- use that phrase a lot, but if the earth ceases to function and operate, we got a problem. i will not address climate change in the united states without the ability to hold the leaders accountable, we support health of the leaders. >> the issue inequality in itself. poverty is a danger as exacerbated in her nation, makes people to maintain siding. it is linked to climate change, you cannot do single responses with what is happening in the united states, where to advance in nations to have a single reply because most of our pathologies are intersectional, their integrated. our gun violence is directly related to her economically. in the treatment tour communities. in the education of our communities has a lot to do with how we think about minority rights and minority participation, if we sell the issue of voter engagement and voter suppression, we create a more robust conversation with how we saw all these other crises facing the country. [applause] >> figurethank you there is argf link of income equality in private debt that are generated by corporate, especially wall street. i wonder what is your scan by that, but all of them are delayed, in an attempt of 2020, i'd like to hear your stance on. >> i disagree with income inequality, i think it is an economic harm. i think it exacerbates all the tensions we have in our society. our economy is not simply politicians don't want to be held accountable for conflict. yes we will pass a lot that says we need you to ask about the way the implementations of the song enough for people to forget it, it gives us time that we don't want. that is what i believe happened in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis that we attended to respond but we did so anyway we didn't want to in elite or different the perpetrators of the crisis. that is deeply problematic. what we see happening with the copd that is problematic, it was to protect consumers and is being undermined by the person has been in charge of it. who happens to be the butcher, baker and the candlestick maker. and when you have, a cfpb that is pushing to accelerate the ability. what we know we have is laws that have no teeth because her rulers have no intent of doing the work. that is problematic to me. liver framework for addressing inequality. i'm concerned about what the richest person has the makings are of people have the opportunity to. we are having their own conversation. when you only focus on the plane down, people can argue, we can be talk about poverty, poverty in america is a much broader range than it used to be, which is like the trip administration is trying to change. we have to recognize the income inequality is a danger because what it signals to our economy. what people cannot afford to display in their communities, that is hard. we need to be increasing economic security, taking aggressive steps to ensure more people can make more money into my thanks. but i disagree with the notion that if we reduce the top, that's enough, but if we don't increase the bottom we will be in the symposium. >> with time to squeeze one more in. there are lots of hands. >> over. >> good to see you again. the pressure of the last question, we have talked a lot, and you've talked a lot about how the current administration is doing foreign-policy, but what about the threats from russian states from integrity, against people, power and speaking to get the and what other forms of leaders that we as practitioners can used to arm herself against the and how can we protect global democracy and international rules when coming increasing threat and we seems to want an aggressive part. [applause] >> i think about this andrew is, the russian disinformation campaign is not going to stop. our only antidote is to overwhelm this information with accurate information. that's one of the reasons that voter engagement because you cannot stop that from happening in lesser expert can tells how to do it. and lou there only antidote of the information is good information. that happens when you have engaged in educated to discern the difference between what seems wrong and what is actually real. number two, russian hockey is an applet crisis, georgia is going to invest in machines called the most allocable machines in the country. we will spend more money ever spent on the machines and what we can find world history, $150 million to license the machine. we are paying for this for the next two years. we know the machines are heckuva, we know there's a problem, and yet we refuse to resolve it because there are those who calculate it's worth the risk of having someone interfere in our election rather than losing power, as long as that is the calculus that we are in a deeper danger than one of a foreign policy and an agent being aggressive is an internal crisis, when our sense of power is tied to ability to win at all cost even if it's undermined the entity we want to be in charge of. this goes back to what happened for loss, when we deal with income inequality, climate change, any of the issues, russia has a very deeply embedded interest in the dysfunction of america. because as long as we are we are not actually addressing their influence on the south african election that happened. as much as china is trying to build a structure it's doing everything it can to diminish infrastructure and disruptor. to understand that the global good of democracy benefits us all. and we've all gone through gyrations that are deeply problematic and we have had poor leadership, we have had horrific leadership, and democracy in favor of territory regime and hypocrisies, we can reverse the gyrations and actually increase a liberal democracies if we decide we are going to use the united states as the example given before and can be again. if we are willing to tackle our internal crisis, and economic issues, and humanitarian issues, we are willing to be the people are responsible. it was begot better. when they were able for racism, as a nationstate in we got better. when we got better, the ussr got weaker. we have to do that again. putin is never going anywhere. apparently. [laughter] but neither are we. as long as we understand that this is our country, and that we have her on leaders, lusciously clear, 77000 people made the decision in 2016 the change in trajectory of our country, 6 billion people stayed home, you can solve the 77000 person problem with 6 million voices being lifted up, that's my responsible the end you're responsible to cal. [applause] >> thank you very much. this was an amazing round of jeopardy. no one. [ina might see -- -- the history of the soviet union until later. announcer: david marriner tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer: the center for strategic and international studies hosted this discussion on a new report on the u.s. army's air and missile defense strategy. the report is intended to give u.s. strategy through 2028. this is an hour and 15 minutes. we're going to transition to our second panel here. we have a great lineup of very thoughtful people to talk about the strategy and put it in context. i want to turn things over to our moderator for this panel, lieutenant general dick formica, who spent 36 years in the army with a number of posts.

Related Keywords

Myanmar , Georgia , United States , Australia , Azerbaijan , Texas , Iran , China , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Austria , Wisconsin , Russia , Michigan , Germany , Arizona , Ohio , Americans , America , Burma , German , Russian , American , Tom Roe , Dick Formica , George Bush Clinton , Stacey Abrams ,