Bill Kristol and Neera Tanden: In conversation

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS ANGELA DILLARD AND

IT IS AN HONOR TO BE HERE TO

HONOR "WE LISTEN" AND

INTRODUCE THIS AFTERNOON'S

KEYNOTE PANEL.

AS THE ASSOCIATE DEAN OF

UNDERGRADUATE AND THE LARGEST

UNDER GRADUATE COLLEGE, THE

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE

AND THE ARTS, I HAVE HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY TO THINK DEEPLY

ABOUT THE NEW AND DEVELOPING

TRENDS ON CAMPUSES LIKE OUR

OWN.

I AM MOST STRUCK BY TWO

THINGS.

THE FIRST IS A SENSE OF

POSSIBILITY TO BE A

PARTNERSHIP WITH STUDENTS,

REAL AND AUTHENTIC

PARTNERSHIPS, THE ONES THAT

ALLOW US TO PUT OURSELVES IN A

POSITION NOT ONLY TO TEACH

YOUNG ADULTS, BUT TO LEARN

FROM THEM AND LEARN WITH

THEM.

"WE LISTEN" EMBODIES THIS

POSSIBILITY.

THE SECOND THING WE HAVE BEEN

STRUCK BY IS THE POTENTIAL

CAMPUSES ESPECIALLY PUBLIC

INSTITUTIONS TO BE THE

TRAINING GROUND OF DEMOCRATIC

ENGAGEMENT AND CIVIC

RESPONSIBILITY, AND WHAT SOME

PEOPLE CALL INNER CULTURAL

MATURITY.

AN IDEA THAT HAS DIVERSITY OF

THOUGHT AND IDENTITY AND

ACCEPTS THE FACT THAT THERE

ARE WHAT WE POLITELY REFER TO

AS CLIMATE ISSUES ESPECIALLY

AROUND RACE, GENDER, FALL

ORIGIN WHILE CREATING ADORABLE

APPARATUS FOR WEATHERING THE

INEVITABLE CONFLICT.

THERE IS A BIG PUBLIC

NARRATIVE THAT THEY ARE

INSULAR AND PROTECTIVE TO THE

POINT OF COD -- CODDLING.

FREE SPEECH AND FREE SPEECH

IDEAS CRIPPLED BY POLITICS AND

INUNDATED BY SMUG LIBERALISM.

THE IDENTITY I WITNESSED ON

THE GROUND IS QUITE DIFFERENT

AS WE STRUGGLED WITH AN

ENVIRONMENT THAT YEAR AFTER

YEAR BRINGS YOUNG PEOPLE

TOGETHER FROM REVERSE

IDENTITIES AND BACKGROUNDS,

BACKGROUNDS THAT ARE OFTEN

CULTURALLY AND ETHNICALLY AND

SOCIOECONOMICALLY DISTANT AND

DISTINCT FROM ONE ANOTHER

BECAUSE OF THE REALITIES OF

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION IN OUR

COUNTRY.

OFTEN EDUCATEDY AND 0

TOLERANCE HIGH SCHOOLS THAT

COME WITHOUT A STRONG SET OF

SKILLS THAT NAVIGATES THIS

DIVERSE AND VIBRANT

EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT, AND

WITHOUT MODELS TO DO SO WELL,

CERTAINLY NOT IN MUCH OF OUR

MEDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA OR

SADLY IN TODAY'S INCREASINGLY

PARTISAN AND RANKEROUS

POLITICAL UH RENNE PHO.

AS A NATION WE ARE

INCREASINGLY DIVIDED BY COMMON

LANGUAGE.

ENTER "WE LISTEN."

TO QUOTE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF

MARKETING FOR "WE LISTEN,"

QUOTE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO

BRING TOGETHER PEOPLE WITH

DIFFERENT IDEOLOGIES BECAUSE"

WE LISTEN" IS CHANGING THE

NARRATIVE THAT COLLEGE

STUDENTS CAN'T ENGAGE IN

CONVERSATION WITH THOSE WHO

HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS FROM

THEM.

INSTEAD OF DEBATING OR TRYING

TO CONVINCE OTHERS WHY YOUR

VIEW IS RIGHT, WE INSTEAD ARE

ENCOURAGING STUDENTS TO FIND

COMMON GROUND DESPITE OUR

DIFFERENCES.

AND TO GAIN A DEEPER

UNDERSTANDING OF THE VALUES

THAT SHAPE OTHERS.

THIS IS AN APPROACH THAT CAN'T

BE LEGISLATED OR MANDATED IN A

TOP DOWN WAY.

AND IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT

THEM IMPRESSIVE STUDENT

ORGANIZATION HAS SPAWNED A "WE

LISTEN" STAFF EDITION.

IT IS LIKE A MUSCLE THAT NEEDS

TO BE TRAINED AND EXERCISED TO

GROW IN STRENGTH AND

FLEXIBILITY.

IT IT TAKES A PLACE LIKE THE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN WHERE

WE ASPIRE TO TEACH WHAT CAN'T

BE GOOGLED AND THE PROPOSITION

THAT INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND

TO TRAIN STUDENTS IN A

TRANSFERABLE SOFT SKILLS, DARE

I SAY LIBERAL ART SKILLS LIKE

INNER CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

AND LEADERSHIP AND EMPATHY

AMONG OTHERS.

IT WILL SERVE THEM WELL AS

THEY ENTER THE WORKPLACES AND

THE COMMUNITIES IN THE

FUTURE.

WE ARE DOING THIS LIKE INNER

GROUP RELATIONS AND WE LISTEN

FOR OUR STUDENTS AND STAFF,

AND IN THE SCHOOL'S

CONVERSATIONS ACROSS DIFFERENT

INITIATIVE THAT LAUNCHES THIS

FALL AND OF WHICH TODAY'S

POLITICALLY AMBIDEXTROUS PANEL

IS REALLY INDICATIVE.

I AM DEEPLY INSPIRED BY THE

COMMON MISSION THAT BRINGS THE

FORD POOL AND AND LSA TOGETHER

AND SPONSORING "WE LISTEN" IN

TODAY'S CONFERENCE, AND IT

ASSEMBLES ALL OF US THIS

AFTERNOON FOR THIS KEYNOTE

EVENT.

WE ARE HONORED TO BE JOINED

THIS AFTERNOON BY UNIVERSITY

PRESIDENT WHO WILL BE MAKING

CLOSING REMARKS AS WELL AS BY

UM REGENT ANDREA

FISHER-NEWMAN -- I'M SORRY,

GOSH, ANDREA AND VICE

PRESIDENT TIM LYNCH WHO SERVES

AS OUR GENERAL COUNCIL AND OF

COURSE BY ALL OF YOU.

FINALLY IT IS MY PLEASURE TO

GIVE A TIP OF THE HAT TO OUR

COLLEAGUES IN THE GERALD R

FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US IN

THE LSA DEAN'S OFFICE AND

AROUND THE COLLEGE ESPECIALLY

OUR INTERIM DEAN, ELIZABETH

COLE.

AND TO INTRODUCE VERY BRIEFLY

TODAY'S PANELISTS.

AND FOR WHOM YOU CAN FIND

LARGER BIOS IN THE PRINTED

PROGRAM.

FIRST WE ARE PLACED TO WELCOME

WILLIAM CRISTAL WHO IS THE

EDITOR OF THE WEEKLY STANDARD

WHO APPEARS FREQUENTLY IN THE

LEADING MACHINE TERRY SHOW --

COMMENTARY SHOWS BEFORE

STARTING AT THE WEEKLY

STANDARD HE LEAD THE PROJECT

FOR THE REPUBLICAN FUTURE

WHERE HE HELPED TO SHAPE THE

STRATEGY THAT PRODUCED THE

VICTORY.

WE ARE PLEASED TO WELCOME NERA

WHO IS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF

THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN

PROGRESS AND THE CEO OF THE

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

ACTION FUND.

BEFORE JOINING THE

ORGANIZATIONS SHE WORKED AS A

KEY MEMBER OF THE HEALTH AND

REFORM TEAM FOR FORMER

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WHERE

SHE HELPED TO DEVELOP AND PASS

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

AND THEN FINALLY TODAY'S PANEL

WILL BE MODERATED BY MICHAEL

BARR WHO PROBABLY MOST KNOW AS

THE JOHN AND STANFORD WHEEL --

WHILE -- DEAN OF PUBLIC POLICY

AT THE GERALD R FORD SCHOOL OF

PUBLIC POLICY AND THE FRANK

MURPHY CAN YOULY JET PROFESSOR

OF PUBLIC POLICY AND THE ROY F

AND GENE HUMPHREY PROPHET

PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAWSUIT

MITCH -- MICHIGAN LAWSUIT

HE SERVES ON FINANCIAL LAW

AND POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF MICHIGAN.

IT IS MY PLEASURE TO TURN

THINGS OVER TO DEAN BARR TO

GET US STARTED.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[APPLAUSE].

THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

ANGELA, FOR THAT TERRIFIC

FRAMING OF OUR CONVERSATION

TODAY, AND THANKS FOR ALL OF

YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY FOR

THIS TERRIFIC CONFERENCE IN

THIS KEYNOTE EVENT.

LET ME ALSO THANK OUR

DISTINGUISHED GUESTS FROM THE

REGENT'S EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

AND PRESIDENT FOR BEING HERE.

I WANTED TO THANK OUR PROBOST

WHO COULDN'T BE HERE, BUT I

WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS

VISION AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT

FOR THIS TERRIFIC SERIES.

AND ALSO A BIBBING -- A BIG

THANKS TO OUR COMMITTEE MEMBER

FOR SPONSORING AND SUPPORTING

"WE LISTEN" WORK INCLUDING

THIS CONFERENCE TODAY.

AS ANGELA SAID, THIS IS A

KICKOFF EVENT FOR US AND A

PROGRAM WE ARE CALLING

"CONVERSATIONS ACROSS

DIFFERENCE" AND PART IS ABOUT

HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT

WE ARE GOING TO HEAR TODAY.

TELL US ABOUT WORKING WITH OUR

STUDENTS AND WITH GROUPS LIKE

"WE LISTEN" TO HELP TRAIN AND

SUPPORT THE ACTIVITY GOING ON

ON CAMPUS THAT HELPS STUDENTS

AND FACULTY, ALL OF US, LEARN

HOW TO LISTEN BETTER TO EACH

OTHER AND HOW TO TALK ACROSS

OUR DIFFERENCES.

AND TO WORK TOGETHER ON TRUST

BUILDING AND ACTUALLY DOING

PROJECTS IN THE WORLD TO BUILD

TRUST.

AND LASTLY AN IMPORTANT

PORT -- PART OF THE

CONVERSATION ACROSS

DIFFERENCES INITIATIVE IS

ABOUT FOSTERING A REAL

GENEROUS SENSE OF BELONGING.

NOT TRYING TO DRAW NARROW

BOUNDARIES AROUND EACH OTHER,

BUT TO REALLY BRING EVERYBODY

INSIDE.

LET ME THANK BARRY RAIB WHO IS

OUR PHAK -- FACULTY LEAD

ACROSS CONFERENCE INITIATIVES

FOR HIS WORK IN THIS, AND OF

COURSE LET ME GIVE A SPECIAL

THANKS TO ALLIE AND TO NICK

FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP OF "WE

LISTEN" DOING PHENOMENAL WORK

LAST YEAR AND NOW THIS YEAR IN

THE LEADERSHIP CHAIR ROLES.

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THEIR

TALENTS ASKING QUESTIONS IN

JUST A MOMENT.

SO AFTER THE INITIAL

CONVERSATION THAT I AM GOING

TO GUIDE FOR AWHILE WE WILL

TURN THINGS OVER TO ALL OF

YOU.

YOU ALL HAVE INDEX CARDS TO

FILL OUT.

THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING ON-LINE

CAP SEND US REQUESTIES ON --

CAN SEND US QUESTIONS ON

TWITTER.

NICK AND ALLIE WILL BE

GATHERING YOUR QUESTIONS AND

BRINGING THEM TO A FORMAT THAT

WE CAN ASK OUR PANELISTS

TOGETHER.

SO WITH THAT LET ME JUST BEGIN

OUR DISCUSSION BY THANKING

BILL AND NERA FOR BEING HERE.

THEY ARE UNBELIEVABLY BUSY

PEOPLE AND FLYING ALL OVER THE

COUNTRY TO DO THIS, BUT AS

SOON AS I ASKED THEM TO COME

TO THIS EVENT THEY BOTH SAID

YES RIGHT AWAY.

IT WASN'T BECAUSE I ASKED, LET

ME ASSURE YOU.

IT WAS BECAUSE OF ALL OF YOU.

IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE WORK

THAT "WE LISTEN" IS DOING,

BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER

AROUND CAMPUS AND AROUND THE

COUNTRY.

IT IS A POWERFUL, POWERFUL

MODEL FOR OUR STUDENTS.

SO LET ME GIST START WITH

MAYBE AN OPEN-ENDED -- WE ARE

GOING TO DO THIS VERY

INFORMALLY.

AN OPEN-ENDED CONVERSATION.

SO YOU BOTH COME FROM VERY

DIFFERENT POLITICAL TRADITIONS

AND BACK GROINED --

BACKGROUNDS.

I WILL ASK NERA TO START SINCE

BILL IS TRYING TO GET A LITTLE

WATER.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT BILL,

WHAT DO YOU --

YOU REALLY WANT TO GO

THERE?

WHAT DO YOU -- WHEN YOU

THINK ABOUT BILL, WHAT ARE THE

AREAS AND COMMON VALUES YOU

THEN ABOUT OR COMMON AREAS OF

AGREEMENT THAT YOU USE AS A

BRIDGE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS

WITH EACH OTHER?

I THINK I FIND THAT NOT

HARD TO ANSWER, ACTUALLY,

WHICH IS I THINK THAT THERE

ARE REALLY TWO AREAS THAT I

HOPE WE HAVE AREAS OF COMMON

GROUND AND ONE IS A BELIEF IN

THE CORE VALUES OF THE

DEMOCRACY.

MEANING RULE OF LAW, FREEDOM

OF SPEECH AND SUPPORTING HUMAN

RIGHTS.

THESE ARE ISSUES THAT ARE IN

BIG DEBATE AND ARE IN REAL

DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY AND REAL

DEBATE IN WASHINGTON

POLITICS.

AND SO I HAVE HUGE RESPECT FOR

PEOPLE.

HIS ADHERENCE TO THE

PRINCIPALS ARE CALLING ON HIM

TO SOMETIMES DISAGREE WITH HIS

PARTY.

YEN THAT IS SOMETHING -- YEN

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT

PROGRESSES -- PROGRESSIVES

SHOULD AND DO VALUE AND

RESPECT.

I THINK THAT'S A PARTICULARLY

IMPORTANT ARENA THAT I THINK

ON ISSUES AROUND -- SOME

ISSUES AROUND NATIONAL

SECURITY AND BELIEVING AND

DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS AS THEY

RELATE TO FOREIGN POLICY AND

OPPOSING AUTHORIZE TEAR YENISM

AND CREEPING POPULISM THAT

UNDERMINDS DEMOCRACY ITSELF,

THOSE ARE TWO AREAS WHERE I

SEE I SIT AND THERE IS A

COMMON GROUND.

FINAL AREA, AND THIS IS

RELATED TO THE DEMOCRACY

POINT, BUT I THINK THERE IS A

NATURE TO POLITICS THAT IS

REALLY VISIONS OF POLITICS AT

PLAY TODAY.

ONE VISION OF POLITICS IS

BASED ON DIVIDING PEOPLE

AGAINST EACH OTHER.

SEWING POLITICAL VICTORY

THROUGH THE INTENSE DIVISION.

YOU KNOW, YEN ALL OF US -- I

THINK ALL OF US HAVE ENGAGED

IN POLITICAL FIGHTS AS FAR AS

DEFINING SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE

AS NOT AMERICAN IS A DANGER

FOR DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

I THINK BILL HAS BEEN GREAT IN

STANDING UP FOR DEMOCRATIC

PRINCIPALS, BUT AGAINST THE

POLITICS THAT TRIES TO TURN US

AGAINST EACH OTHER.

I THINK THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY

THE MOST CENTRAL QUESTION IN

THE UNITED STATES TODAY WHICH

IS WHETHER OUR POLITICS WILL

CONTINUE DOWN A PATH OF THE

FABRIC OF THE COUNTRY AND

THERE ARE THINGS [INAUDIBLE]

AS WE SPEAK.

THANK YOU AND I REY SIP PRO

INDICATE THEM -- AND I

RECIPROCATE THEM ALL.

THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD ON MY

BEHALF AND I WANT TO

CONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON YOUR

BIG VICTORY ON NORTHWESTERN.

I LEFT AUSTIN AND TOLD

SOMEBODY I WAS A GOOD LUCK

CHARM.

THEY LOST FIVE TIMES IN A ROW

TO KANSAS STATE AND THEY WON.

SURE ENOUGH I LANDED HERE AND

MICHIGAN WON.

I AM OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER

THAT MICHIGAN WOULD HAVE

REGARDED A GAME AT

NORTHWESTERN AS A JOKE GAME.

A TINY PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE

BIG 10 BY ACCIDENT.

IT IS OKAY.

TIMES CHANGE AND NORTHWESTERN

HAS BECOME I GUESS A PRETTY

BIG FOOTBALL SCHOOL.

THE IMPORTANT RESULTS OF THE

WEEKEND IS HARVARD'S TRAGIC

LOST TO RHODE ISLAND ON

FRIDAY.

A NEARLY UNDEFEATED SEASON IN

THE THIRD GAME.

I THINK ALL THREE OF US HAVE

THIS IN COMMON IS WE ALL SERVE

IN GOVERNMENT, AND I DO THINK

IF YOU SERVED IN GOVERNMENT --

THIS IS NOT YOU ARE REVERSABLY

TRUE, BUT YOU HAVE A SENSE OF

THE COMPLEXITY OF THINGS AND

MANY OF THE DECISIONS ARE NOT

BLACK AND WHITE IN TERMS OF

PUBLIC POLICY.

THERE ARE PLUSES AND MINUSES

TO POLICIES AND AUTHENTIC

DIS -- DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT

VALUES AND HOW THINGS ARE

GOING TO WORK AND NOT WORK,

AND SO I THINK IT --

PERSONALLY THAT'S WHY I CAME

TO WASHINGTON.

I WAS MUCH LESS CERTAIN OF --

NOT SO MUCH WHAT I BELIEVED,

BUT MY ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND

HOW WELL CERTAIN POLICIES WORK

ONCE I HAD BEEN IN GOVERNMENT

FOR SEVEN YEARS OR SO IN THE

REAGAN AND FIRST BUSH

ADMINISTRATION.

YEN THAT'S -- I THINK THAT IS

SOMETHING THAT ADDS HUMILITIY

TO ONE'S CONFIDENCE THAT ONE

IS CONFIDENT ABOUT

EVERYTHING.

AT THE GRADUATE LEVEL AND

UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL THAT'S ONE

OF THE THINGS PEOPLE CAN

TEACH.

I TAUGHT AT THE KENNEDY SCHOOL

AND SOMETIMES STUDENTS WOULD

SAY I HOPE YOU LEAVE THIS

SCHOOL LESS CONFIDENT IN A

SENSE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO

AND NOT MORE CONFIDENT WHICH

IS IN A WAY CONTRARY TO WHY

PEOPLE ARE PAYING THESE

EXCESSIVE TUITIONS.

 NOT HERE, OF COURSE.

JUST AT THE KENNEDY SCHOOL.

BUT YEN THAT IS -- YEN THAT IS

AN IMPORTANT ASPECT.

THERE IS A CERTAIN LIBERAL

HOME AND PRESERVING THE

LIBERAL ORDER AND IN MANY

RESPECTS AND RESPECT FOR THE

FORMS AND PROCESSES OF

GOVERNMENT AND CIVILIZED

SOCIETY.

THEY CAN BE FRUSTRATING AND

THEY CAN BE OVER DONE AND TOO

BUREAUCRATIC AND TOO WHATEVER,

BUT REALLY YOU LOOK AROUND THE

WORLD AND YOU APPRECIATE A LOT

OF THESE KIND OF BORING DUE

PROCESS, RULE OF LAW, YOU

KNOW, BASIC THINGS THAT ONE

TAKES FOR GRANTED AND QUIBBLES

ABOUT HERE ON THE MARGINS.

BUT A COUNTRY WHO DOESN'T HAVE

THOSE THINGS AND RESPECTS

THOSE THINGS CAN GET INTO

TROUBLE QUITE QUICKLY.

I AM GOING TO COME BACK TO

THAT THEME AT THE END.

I THINK IT IS QUITE

IMPORTANT.

I THOUGHT I MIGHT SPEND A

LITTLE TIME TEASING OUT SOME

POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES OR AREAS

OF AGREEMENT IN A COUPLE OF

DIFFERENT AREAS JUST TO LEAD

US OFF.

MAYBE WE WILL START WITH

IMMIGRATION.

I'M GOING TO FOLLOW "WE

LISTEN"'S LEAD AND ONLY ASK

ABOUT AREAS OF EXTREME

DEBATE.

AND WORK TO IT.

IMMIGRATION, BILL, YOU HAVE

WRITTEN A LOT ABOUT

IMMIGRATION OVER YOUR CAREER.

YOU HAVE EVOLVED QUITE A BIT

OVER YOUR CAREER.

I WONDER IF YOU CAN SAY A

LITTLE ABOUT THE EVOLUTION AND

HOW YOU THINK ABOUT SAY THE

DACA ISSUES TODAY?

IT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE I WAS

THAT INVOLVED IN.

I JUST WASN'T THE -- IT WASN'T

THE PART OF GOVERNMENT I

WORKED WITH.

WHEN I WAS IN GOVERNMENT

REAGAN SIGNED THE 86 BILL AND

GEORGE H.W. BUSH

ADMINISTRATION, I DON'T RECALL

IT BEING A HUGE -- HUGELY

CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.

IT WAS NOT SOMETHING I WAS IN

THE MIDDLE OF HUGE FIGHTS

OVER.

IN 06 AND 07 WHEN THERE WERE

BIG FIGHTS IN CONGRESS I WAS

WITH BUSH AND McCAIN AND THE

ATTEMPT TO GET A BIPARTISAN

BILL THROUGH.

I SAW PARTLIY THERE WERE --

PARTLY THERE WAS PROBLEMS WITH

THE BILL.

IN THIS RESPECT I WAS RIGHT TO

BE WORRIED ABOUT SOMETHING

THAT TRUMP THEN EXPLOITED THAT

THERE WAS DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON

WORKING CLASS WAGES.

THAT SOME OF THAT PRESSURE DID

COME FROM A LOT OF LOW-WAGE

IMMIGRANTS COMING IN.

I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH OF

AN ECONOMIC FACT, ALMOST.

GLOBALIZATION PLUS MASS

IMMIGRATION PUTS A LOT OF

PRESIDENT BUSHER ON WORKING

PUTS A LOT OF PRESSURE ON

WORKING CLASS WAGES AND I WAS

WORRIED ABOUT THAT AND WORRIED

ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF THE

ACTUAL ECONOMICS AND THE

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF

THAT.

HAVING SAID THAT I MYSELF HAVE

BEEN RADICALIZED TO THE LEFT

ON IMMIGRATION IN THE LAST TWO

YEARS.

WHATEVER DISPUTES YOU CAN

HAVE, THERE IS NO MAGIC NUMBER

THAT SAYS 1.5 OR 1.7 OR 1.2 IS

THE RIGHT NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS

TO HAVE.

THERE IS NO MAGIC NUMBER THAT

SAYS HOW THEY SHOULD BE

DISTRIBUTED AND FAMILY

UNIFICATION AND SKILLS OR

OTHER METRICS YOU SHOULD DRY

TO RUN YOUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

BY.

I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT AND

I BELIEVE THIS, BUT I FELT

THIS, BUT ONE HAS TO RALLY

THAT THE PRINCIPAL OF WE ARE

ALL EQUAL AS LINCOLN SAID, AND

IF YOU ARE THE GRANDSON AND

GRANDDAUGHTER AND IN OUR CASE

THE THE GREAT-GREAT-GREAT

GRANDSON OR GRANDDAUGHTER OF

THOSE WHO SIGNED THE

DECLARATION OR WHETHER YOU

CAME OVER -- OR YOU ARE THE

SON OR DAUGHTER OF IMMIGRANTS

OR CAME OVER AS AN IMMIGRANT

TO BE A CITIZEN THAT WE ARE

ALL EQUAL AND ALL EQUALLY, AS

LINCOLN PUT IT, BLOOD OF THE

BLOOD OF THOSE WHO SIGNED THE

DECLARATION.

AND IN THAT PRINCIPAL IT IS

REALLY IMPORTANT.

FOR TRUMP -- THE POW COMMENT

ABOUT McCAIN WAS ONE OF THE

WORST MOMENTS FOR ME FOR TRUMP

AND THE MEXICAN JUDGE COMMENT

WAS IN A WAY THE MOST

OFFENSIVE AND CUTS MOST

FUNDAMENTALLY AGAINST AMERICAN

PRINCIPAL AS.

THE FACT HE DIDN'T PAY MUCH OF

A PRICE FOR THAT UNNERVED ME

AMONG REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

VOTERS AND I HAVE BECOME MORE,

AS THEY SAY, INSISTENT ON,

AGAIN, WHATEVER POLICY DISPUTE

WE CAN HAVE DOWN THE ROAD

ABOUT NUMBERS AND SO FORTH.

ONE HAS TO HAVE THE PRINCIPAL

OF BEING EQUAL RESPECT FOR

ALL-AMERICANS, IMMIGRANTS OR

NOT.

AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER I

HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE

ARGUMENTS BY SOME PEOPLE WHO

ACTUALLY IT IS AN EMPIRICAL

MATTER.

IMMIGRANTS ARE DOING -- THE

WAGES IS A SLIGHT NEGATIVE,

BUT THERE IS A HUGE NUMBER OF

POSITIVES THAT IMMIGRANTS

BRING.

WITH DACA THERE NEEDS TO BE AN

OBVIOUS FAIRNESS ISSUE AND IT

IS CRAZY NOT TO LEGALIZE AND

GIVE A PATH OF CITIZENSHIP TO

PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR

SO JUST TO SAY A FEW WORDS

IN RESPONSE AND I THINK THERE

ARE PROGRESSIVES WHO HAVE BEEN

CONCERNED ABOUT DOWNWARD

PRESSURE ON WAGES AND IT

HAPPENED ON A WHOLE

GLOBALIZATION TECHNOLOGY AND

WE SHOULD BE TRULY ANALYTIC

ABOUT IMMIGRATION AND WHAT

THAT MEANS AND I THINK THE

DATA IS CHANGING ON SOME OF

THESE POINTS.

I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF

ISSUES AROUND RHETORIC THAT

BILL REFERENCED, BUT I THINK

IF YOU LOOK AT THE POLICY OVER

THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, WHAT

IS CONCERNING IS A REAL EFFORT

TO LIMIT LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

THIS ADMINISTRATION, I THINK

IT HAS BEEN CLARIFYING THAT

THE ADMINISTRATION WHICH HAD A

LOT OF RHETORIC ABOUT, QUOTE,

UNQUOTE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

AND MEXICAN GANGS AND ALL THAT

STUFF IS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW X

ADOPTING A POLICY TO REDRESS

AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE LEGAL

IMMIGRATION AND TO BE

SEEMINGLY MORE HOSTILE TO

IMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT

TEND TO BE PEOPLE OF COLOR AND

MORE POSITIVE TOWARD

IMMIGRANTS THAT TEND TO BE

FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE MOSTLY

WHITE.

AND I THINK THAT HAS TO SOME

DEGREE UNMASKED THE RACIAL

LIESED NATURE OF THE

IMMIGRATION DEBATE AND FOR

SOME PEOPLE IT WAS ALWAYS

UNMASKED.

I THINK THE WEIRD THING ABOUT

THE DEBATES WE HAVE IN

WASHINGTON IS THERE COULD BE

AN OBVIOUS POINT AND YOU GO TO

CABLE TV AND SOMEONE WILL

ARGUES -- ARGUE THE POINT AND

THE FACT THAT THE

ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN

PUSHING TOWARD BASICALLY AN

IMMIGRATION POLICY IS IT SEEMS

TO INDICATE THAT -- AND THE

RHETORIC TOO SEEMS TO INDICATE

THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE JUST

NOT AS WELCOME.

I HAVE BEEN IN POLITICS FOR A

REALLY LONGTIME.

I HAVE BEEN IN LOTS OF

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND I

FOUGHT WITH BILL CRYSTAL MANY

TIMES.

I HAVE BEEN ON-LINE AND I

TWEET PROBABLY WAY TOO MUCH.

I NEVER HAD THE EXPERIENCE

THAT I HAD IN 2016 WHICH IS

LIKE PEOPLE WOULD GO ON-LINE

AND BASICALLY SAY THAT I

SHOULD GO BACK TO INDIA OR

BASICALLY COMMUNICATE OR SOME

FORM OR ANOTHER THAT I AM NOT

TRULY AMERICAN BECAUSE I AM

INDIAN OR BROWN.

THAT NEVER HAPPENED TO ME

UNTIL THE 2016 CAMPAIGN.

IT NEVER HAPPENED REALLY.

I THINK THAT IS A -- YEN THAT

I THINK THE COUNTRY IS

STRUGGLING MORE THAN EVER

BEFORE.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHO IS

TRULY AMERICAN?

THERE IS AN EXPANSIVE VISION

OF THAT OR AN INCLUSIVE VISION

OF THAT, OR I THINK IN

INCON -- INCONTENSION IS A

VISION OF THAT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE CORE DEBATES

AND WHY I THINK THIS MOMENT IN

TIME IN POLITICS IS MORE

IMPORTANT THAN ANY MOMENT OF

TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED

IN, AND WHY THESE DEBATES ARE

SO CENTRAL AND WHY IT IS

IMPORTANT TO TRY AND BRIDGE

THESE DEBATES, BUT ALSO

RECOGNIZE THERE ARE CORE

VALUES WE ARE FIGHTING FOR.

BILL, WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON

THAT?

DO WE HAVE A CHANCE OF HAVING

THE KIND OF DEBATE THAT WOULD

LET US SEE OUR COMMON HUMANITY

IN WHAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED?

IS THERE A CHANCE FOR

REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS TO

COME AROUND DREAMER

LEGISLATION?

HOW DO YOU SEE THIS MOMENT WE

ARE IN RIGHT NOW?

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS

MORE THAN WHAT PEOPLE WOULD

SUSPECT.

LOOKING AT WASHINGTON WITH

SOME COMPROMISES, I SEE

SCENARIOS WHERE LEADERSHIP

DOESN'T WANT TO, BUT WHERE

BACK VENTURES DECIDE I DIDN'T

COME FOR A PARTY LEADERSHIP OR

INEFFECTUAL PROTESTS AGAINST

PARTY LEADERSHIP.

OBVIOUSLY THERE IS ENOUGH

COMMON GROINED IN THESE AREAS

LIKE DREAMERS, IT WOULDN'T BE

HARD IN A SENSE THAT IT IS NOT

DIFFICULT TO WRITE THE

LEGISLATION.

IT IS A QUESTION OF GETTING

THE VOTES AND GETTING THE

SIGNATURE AND TRUMP MIGHT SIGN

THINGS NEXT YEAR THAT DOESN'T

SOUND LIKE HE WOULD SIGN TODAY

AFTER A DIFFERENT ELECTION

RESULT.

I ADMIRE WHAT YOU HAVE ALL

DONE HERE IN TERMS OF SEEKING

FOR COMMON GROUND AND HAVING

CIVIL AND RATIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON CROSS ISSUES.

I WILL SAY WE ARE ASKED TO

RULE -- I WON'T SAY RULE

THINGS OUT OF BOUNDS, BUT ONE

HAS TO BE TOUGH AGAINST

CERTAIN THINGS.

I AM NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN

GOING ON TUCKER CARLSON -- HE

STARTED AS A 23-YEAR-OLD AS AN

EXTREMELY TALENTED

JOURNALIST.

YOU GOING AND LOOK AT

WONDERFUL, COLORFUL SET PIECES

ABOUT THE CIRCUS OF POLITICS

AND SO FORTH.

HE ALWAYS HAD AN IRONIC EYE.

HE HAD A TOUCH OF PALE YOKON

SERVE -- PALEO-CONSERVATISM.

NOT A PERSON THAT SAT DOWN AT

THE WEEKLY STANDARD OFFICE AND

SOME KIND OF ETHNO-NATIONALIST

AND EXPRESSING

ETHNO-NATIONALIST

CONVERSATION.

ON THE EVENING FOX NEWS IT IS

MAKING IT WORSE.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE AND

ALWAYS THESE SENTIMENTS.

PEOPLE ASKING ME WAS THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY ALWAYS THIS

WAY AND TRUMP IS EXPOSING

STUFF THAT WAS ALWAYS THERE?

IT WAS THERE AND IT WAS

SUPPRESSED.

BUCHANAN GOT THE VOTE AND THEN

FADED AWAY AND THEN LEFT THE

PARTY AND BUSH SORT OF DROVE

HIM OUT OF THE A -- PARTY.

RON PAUL GOT HIS VOTES IN 08

AND WENT NO WHERE.

WHEN TRUMP WAS A BIRTHER, RON

DID ACCEPT HIS ENDORSEMENT ON

STAGE.

BUT IT WAS LIKE EIGHT MINUTES

AND THEY DID IT AS QUICKLY AS

THEY COULD AND ON STAGE.

I WAS ON FOX.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS

THAT NIGHT OR SUNDAY -- YEN IT

WAS SUNDAY.

HE SAID THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE

GIVEN THEM THAT MUCH.

ROMNEY SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO

APPEAR WITH HIM.

NO ONE IS PUSHING -- THAT IS A

TACTILE QUESTION.

THE FACT THAT THE EQUIVALENT

ARGUMENTS TODAY ARE

RESPECTABLE AMONG A CHUNK OF

THE MEDIA AND THEN SOCIAL

MEDIA HAS CHANGED THE DYNAMICS

AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

ENFORCE ENFORCES THAT.

SOME CAN BE UNPLEASANT

RECESSIVE GENES IN A A

POPULATION AND IN A POLITICAL

SYSTEM.

IT WILL ALWAYS BE THERE.

NOT EVERYBODY WILL BE

WONDERFUL AND TOLERANT AND

FORWARD LOOKING.

EXCEPT THE FORD SCHOOL

AREA.

BUT THOSE WHO REINFORCE

THAT AND APPEALS TO PREJUDICE

IS THE PRESIDENT AND IT MAKES

IT WORSE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST

ALARMING ABOUT TRUMP.

STUFF THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN

THERE, BUT MARGINALIZED CAN

BECOME CENTRAL AND VERY

DAMAGING.

HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT

DEALING WITH THAT FRINGE, WHAT

USED TO BE A FRINGE ARGUMENT

THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO

THIS MEDIA AND REPUBLICAN

CONVERSATION?

HOW DO YOU POSITION

YOURSELF -- HOW DO YOU THINK

STRATEGICALLY ABOUT IT IN

TERMS OF HOW YOU FIGHT AGAINST

VIEWS THAT YOU THINK OR

SHOULDN'T BE IN THAT

CONVERSATION?

THE WAY I THINK ABOUT THIS

IS THERE IS POLICY DEBATES IN

THE COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD

DEFINITELY ENGAGE ON POLICY

DEBATES IN THE COUNTRY.

THE CORE ISSUES LIKE WHETHER

WE ARE ALL-AMERICAN OR WHETHER

WE SHOULD HAVE DEMOCRATIC

INSTITUTIONS LIKE A FREE PRESS

IS A GOOD THING, I THINK YOU

JUST -- I MEAN, MY TAKE IS WE

HAVE TO DEFEAT THESE IDEAS AT

THE BALLOT BOX.

WE HAVE TO CREATE AN OBJECTION

AND AN OPPOSITION.

ONE INTERESTING THING ABOUT

THE COUNTRY THAT I AM SOMEWHAT

OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IS AFTER THE

ELECTION OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

TEAM LITERALLY LOOKED AT OUR

BOND AND THERE IS A RIGHT WING

POPULOUS WHO TOOK POWER AND

REALLY A MASS POWER WENT AFTER

THE JUDICIARY.

IT IS EASIER FOR SURE WHEN YOU

ARE IN A PARLIMENTARY SYSTEM

TO OVER RUN THE OPPOSITION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS

INTERESTING IS THAT WHAT

HAPPENED IN HUNGARY IS THE

OPPOSITION WAS OVERWHELMED,

SHOCKED, DEPRESSED, DIFFUSED.

 THERE WERE INTERNAL DEBATES.

MOST WERE RECEDED UNTIL HE

TOOK OVER AND STARTED WITH THE

ATTACKS ON THE JUDICIARY AND

THEN WENT AFTER THE PRESS.

PASSED A LAW TO CHANGE THE

VOTING STRUCTURE.

IT WAS REALLY HARD TO GET HIM

OUT NOW.

AND SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THEIR

COUNTRY WAS VERY DIFFERENT.

YEN -- I THINK SOMETHING

IMPORTANT TO THINK THROUGH.

THE DAY AFTER DONALD TRUMP WAS

ELECTED THERE WAS A MASS

UPRISING, THE LARGEST PROTESTS

IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY.

I WILL SAY AS A LEADER OF THE

PROGRESSIVE CAUSE, THAT WAS A

VERY GRASSROOTS ORIENTED

PROTEST.

THERE WERE THREE PROTESTS

PLANNED IN JANUARY.

ONE WAS AN IMMIGRATION MARCH

AND ONE WAS A HEALTH CARE

MARCH AND ONE WAS AWOMAN'S

MARCH.

WE CAN SEE ON-LINE, NOVEMBER,

DECEMBER, THE WOMEN'S MARCH IS

REALLY GROWING AND GROWING.

WOMEN'S MARCHES WERE GROWING

AND GROWING IN INTENSITY.

IF YOU STEP BACK IN THE LAST

YEAR AND A HALF, SO MANY OF

THE DEBATES WE ARE HAVING ARE

HITTING CULTURAL TOUCH

POINTS.

 THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO

GO INTO THE MID-TERMS, INTO --

WE ARE 37 DAYS FROM THE

MID-TERMS?

BUT WHO'S COUNTING?

AND WE ARE NOW IN A BIG

DEBATE ABOUT ESSENTIALLY

SEXUAL ASSAULT AND THE

TREATMENT OF WOMEN.

I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A LARGE

SCALE CULTURAL RESPONSE TO

THIS MOMENT, AND HONESTLY THE

WOMEN WHO ARE COMING INTO

POLITICS, AND THE RESISTANCE

IN THE COUNTRY IS REALLY BORN

OF WOMEN.

IT IS WOMEN -- THE NEW

ACTIVISTS ARE COLLEGE EDUCATED

WOMEN, BUT REALLY MOTHERS COME

FOG POLITICS FOR THE -- COMING

INTO POLITICS FOR THE FIRST

TIME.

IT IS A REACTION TO THE CORE

ISSUES.

PEOPLE FLOODING THE TOWN HALLS

AND HEALTH CARE, WHERE WOMEN

HAD HEALTH CARE.

THEY ARE NOT LOSING HEALTH

CARE, BUT THEY HAD HEALTH

CARE.

IT IS SO DECISIVE AND PUSHING

PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER AND

REALLY DEFINING SOME GROUP AS

ACCEPTABLE AND SOME GROUP AS

NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I THINK WE ARE STILL DEALING

WITH THOSE ISSUES AND MAY WELL

SEE THE LARGEST -- I THINK WE

WILL SEE THE LARGEST GENDER

GAP AT THE MID-TERM.

I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF WE

DIDN'T.

I THINK THAT HAS BEEN

TRANSFORMING OUR POLITICS IN

FUNDAMENTAL WAYS.

SO MAYBE WE WILL JUST USE

THAT AS A SEGUE TO TALK ABOUT

WHAT IS PROBABLY ON A LOT OF

PEOPLE'S MINDS.

WE JUST HAD A REALLY RATHER

EXTRAORDINARY HEARING IN THE

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

ABOUT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH.

YOU BOTH CAME INTO THIS LAST

FEW WEEKS OF NEW INFORMATION

WITH DIFFERENT POSITIONS ABOUT

THE UNDERLING MERITS OF THE

KAVANAUGH NOMINATION.

BILL, YOU HAD WRITTEN QUITE

FAVORABLY ABOUT KAVANAUGH

BEFORE THESE SETS OF EVENTS

AND THEY HAVE BEEN STRONG IN

OPPOSITION.

I AM WONDERING IF YOU CAN BOTH

TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT WHAT

THIS PROCESS HAS MEANT FOR

YOUR VIEWS ABOUT KAVANAUGH,

AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY

ABOUT YOUR VIEWS ON THE

SUPREME COURT AND ITS

CREDIBILITY AND BROADERRISH --

BROADER ISSUES ON THE

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

YOU CAN START WITH BRETT

KAVANAUGH AND MOVE OUTWARD

FROM THERE.

HAPPY TO HAVE YOU DIG IN.

WELL, I WOULD FIRST WANT TO

SAY A WORD ABOUT THE PROCESS

IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

I MEAN, I THINK OVER THE LAST

YEAR AND A HALF WE HAVE SEEN A

LOT OF INSTANCES WHERE

FUNDAMENTALLY THE SENATE IS

BECOMING MUCH MORE LIKE THE

HOUSE WHERE IT IS -- YOU KNOW,

THEY GOT RID OF THE DOCTOR

DASH MEAN DEMOCRATS GOT RID OF

THE FILIBUSTER ON JUDGES AND

McCONNELL GOT RID OF THE

FILIBUSTER ON THE SUPREME

COURT WITH A SUPREME COURT

JUSTICE.

THE WHOLE EFFORT TO JUST

REALLY PUSH THIS PROCESS HAS

BEEN FASCINATING TO ME.

I WILL SAY THAT MY ENTRY INTO

POLITICS REALLY STARTED IN

HEARING.

I WAS A COLLEGE SENIOR DURING

THE ANITA HILL HEARINGS.

I REMEMBER GOING TO PROTESTS.

I STILL REMEMBER HOLDING THE

SIGN "WE WILL REMEMBER NEXT

NOVEMBER" AND I WAS REALLY

TAKEN AND WAS SHOCKED BY HOW

SHE WAS TREATED EVEN BY SOME

DEMOCRATS.

BUT IN THAT COMMITTEE PROCESS

THERE WAS AN FBI

INVESTIGATION.

THERE WERE THREE DAYS OF

TESTIMONY AND THERE WERE

MULTIPLE PEOPLE TESTIFYING.

TRUTHFULLY SHE WAS TALKING

ABOUT A HARASSMENT CASE AND

NOT AN ASSAULT CASE WHICH

PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE

DIFFERENCES IN THE LEVEL OF

SCOPE.

TRUTHFULLY DIFFERENT TIMING.

STILL, IN THIS CASE I HAVE

BEEN REALLY SURPRISED.

I KNOW -- I MEAN I SHOULDN'T

BE SURPRISED BEING A YEAR AND

A HALF IN WASHINGTON JUST NOT

EVEN THE RHETORICAL INTEREST

SAYING WE SHOULD GET TO THE

FACTS AND LET'S OPEN AN FBI

INVESTIGATION AT THE BEGINNING

OF THE PROCESS.

A NORMAL THING WOULD HAVE BEEN

THIS COMES FORWARD AND AN FBI

INVESTIGATION WOULD HAVE

HAPPENED AND THEN YOU HAVE THE

HEARING AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE.

INSTEAD THERE WAS A A

NEGOTIATION ABOUT THE HEARING

AND TWO PEOPLE SPOKE AND ONLY

BECAUSE OF THE DAM BROKE AND

WE WENT IN THIS DIRECTION.

I AM SORT OF DEPRESSED ABOUT

IN THIS MOMENT IS JUST THE

WHOLE DEBATE IS ESSENTIALLY

WINNING OR LOSING THIS

NOMINATION, AND NOT REALLY

ANYTHING ABOUT, YOU KNOW,

SHOULD WE GET TO THE FACTS OF

WHAT HAPPENED?

SHOULD WE TRY AND UNDERSTAND

THE FULL PICTURE HERE?

IT WAS ASSUMED ON ONE SIDE

THAT SHE WAS -- THAT THERE

COULDN'T BE ANYTHING TO THIS.

ONLY I THINK HONESTLY AND THIS

IS A MOMENT OF SOME IMPORT, I

REALLY THINK IT IS THE FACT

THAT TWO WOMEN JAMMED

THEMSELVES IN AN ELEVATOR AND

TALKED ABOUT THEIR OWN

EXPERIENCE OF ASSAULT THAT

MADE THEM ACTIVE TO CHANGE THE

DYNAMIC SO WE HAVE AN FBI

INVESTIGATION.

I THINK HOPEFULLY WE GET BACK

TO A PLACE WHERE WE WOULD --

YOU KNOW, YOU INVESTIGATE

MATTERS AND DON'T JUST THINK

ABOUT WINNING.

I THINK THAT IS A HUGE

CHALLENGE WHICH IS THAT IT IS

JUST EVERYTHING HAS BECOME --

LIKE EVERYTHING IS SO TRIBAL.

YOU LOSE AND I WIN.

 KAVANAUGH WENT INTO HIS

TESTIMONY LIKE NO NOMINEE HAS

EVER ACTED THAT WAY.

IT WAS LIKE, I AM GOING TO GET

EVERYONE TO HATE DEMOCRATS,

AND THEN I WILL SHORE UP

SUPPORT AMONG REPUBLICANS.

HE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS A

THAT'S WHAT IS DEEPLY

UPSETTING AND DEPRESSING ABOUT

IT.

I HOPE WE CAN MOVE TO A PLACE

WHERE WE CAN GET RID OF -- GET

OUT OF THAT.

I HOPE WE LEARN FACTS OVER

THE NEXT COMING WEEK THAT AS A

FAIR AND IMPARTIAL SPECTATOR A

PLACE THAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR

THE COUNTRY IF PEOPLE COULD

COME AND BEGIN CLEARING WHAT

HAPPENED OR ONE OR THE OTHER

WAS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH OR

INADD VEN TENTLY --

INADVERTENTLY NOT TELLING THE

TRUTH BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO

RECOLLECTION.

IT IS OBVIOUSLY BAD, BAD FOR

THE COURT.

I WOULD BUT I THINK AFTER WHAT

KAVANAUGH SAID, IT IS HARD TO

SEE HOW HE COULD BE VIEWED AS

AN IMPARTIAL -- OR EVEN

SOMEWHAT IMPARTIAL SUPREME

COURT JUSTICE.

WE HAVE HAD JUS ADVERTISES --

JUSTICES WHO WERE POLITICIANS

AND RUTH GATORS BEGINS --

GINSBURG SAID THING AND

THOMAS, THAT WAS A WRENCHING

MOMENT FOR CULTURAL REASONS

FOR MANY REASONS, BUT THOMAS

DIDN'T ATTACK THE DEMOCRATIC

PARTY AND DIDN'T ATTACK GEORGE

MITCHELL.

IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE.

JOE BIDEN MADE THE RULES.

HE DIDN'T ATTACK

QUESTIONEERS.

THOMAS WAS CONFIRMED WITH

THAT WAS A BAD MOMENT FOR THE

COUNTRY IF A SENSE THAT PEOPLE

WERE LEFT UNHAPPY ABOUT AN

OUTCOME AND FEELING THAT IT

WAS UNFAIR OR WHATEVER, BUT HE

GOT 11 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS TO

VOTE WITH HIM THAT THREE DAYS

OF HEARINGS WITH 18 ADDITIONAL

WITNESSES, AND IT DIDN'T

REALLY RESOLVE ONE WAY OR

ANOTHER.

ONE FELT, OKAY, WE HAVE DONE

OUR BEST TO GET THESE

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF WHAT

HAPPENED A DECADE BEFORE.

NO ONE FELT THAT WAY ON

THURSDAY.

THAT WAS THE KEY POINT.

NOT THAT THE FBI WILL SOLVE

EVERYTHING.

THEY REPORT ON THEIR

QUESTIONING.

THEY DON'T RESOLVE THESE

ISSUES.

THEY DON'T HAVE A JUDGE AND

JURY.

THEY ARE INVESTIGATIVE.

THE IDEA THAT MARK JUDGE WHO

WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN AT THIS

PARTICULAR THING AND

PARTICIPATED THEY THE ASSAULT

AND WAS NEVER INTERROGATED BY

ANYONE, THAT'S SOMETHING NUTS

ABOUT THAT.

IF THIS WERE THE UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, GOD FORBID SOMETHING

BAD HAPPEN, BUT THERE THERE

WAS AN HR COMPLAINT, BUT THERE

WOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION AND

PEOPLE WOULD TALK TO BOTH

SIDES.

ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT

UNIVERSITIES IS THERE IS NOT

ENOUGH DUE PROCESS AND THE

COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT IN SOME

CASES.

YOU DO NEED TO TALK TO BOTH

SIDES.

SO TALK TO THEM AND IF YOU

WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE --

STENOGRAPHERS AND LAWYERS

PRESENT, THAT'S HOW YOU

DISPUTE THIS KIND OF THING.

THE IDEA YOU CAN GO AHEAD WITH

THE HEARING AND YOU DON'T HAVE

PEOPLE E-MAILING STATEMENTS

FROM LAWYERS, AND THAT'S IT,

THAT'S REALLY CRAZY.

I DO THINK -- I THINK WE ARE

IN A BAD PLACE IN A SENSE THAT

WE COULD HAVE AN OUTCOME THAT

THREATENS THE INSTITUTIONAL

STANDING OF THE COURT IN A

WAY.

I DON'T THINK THOMAS HILL DID

SOME DAMAGE -- WELL THOMAS

HILL AND SINCE THEN WE HAD TWO

CLINTON NOMINEES EASILY

APPROVED WITH BIPARTISAN VOTES

AND TWO BUSH MOM -- NOMINEES

WITH NO HUGE RUCKUS.

ONE WAS OPPOSED BY PEOPLE LIKE

ME, CONSERVE ITSELF, BUT

WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED BY VERY

DISTINGUISHED JUDGE AND TWO

OBAMA NOMINEES CONFIRMED

UNPROBLEMATICLY AND GORSICH

WAS CONFIRMED WITH SOME HEATED

DEBATE, BUT NOTHING UNTOURED.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE LOOKS AT

THE BENCH AND SAYS JUSTICE

GORSICH SHOULDN'T BE THERE.

SOME PEOPLE PREFER IF YOU ARE

ON THE LIBERAL SIDE AND SO

FORTH, BUT THIS TO ME IS A BAD

MOMENT.

WE WERE JOKING ABOUT THIS --

WELL NOT JOKING, BUT TALKING

ABOUT IT, THE INSTITUTIONS

HAVE HELD UP WELL IN THE YEAR

OF TRUMP.

CONGRESS LESS SO BECAUSE THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN SO

EM PATHETIC, BUT THE OTHER

INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN

GOVERNMENT AND FEDERALISM AND

CIVIL SOCIETY AND YOU COULD

ARGUE THIS IS WHY WE ARE NOT

HUNGRY.

WE DON'T DESERVE CREDIT FOR

IT, ANY OF US IN THIS ROOM,

BUT OUR ANCESTORS, PREVIOUS

GENERATIONS CREATED

INSTITUTIONS WITH QUITE A LOT

OF DEPTH IN AMERICA AND THE

ABILITY TO WITHSTAND APPEALS

TO NASTY ELEMENTS OF POPULISM.

I THINK THE COURTS I I WOULD

PUT IN INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE

DOING WELL.

LIBERALS DIDN'T LIKE TRUMP'S

APPELLATE APPOINTMENTS AND

REGRETTED GETTING RID OF THE

FILIBUSTER, BUT MOST ARE

DISTINGUISHED JUDGES AND LAW

PROFESSORS AND NO ONE

REALLY -- IT WAS A NORMAL

OSCILLATION IN TERMS OF THE

APPELLATE JUDGES AND DISTRICT

COURT JUDGES.

AND THEN SUDDENLY TO HAVE

THIS -- IF THIS HAD GOTTEN RAN

THROUGH YESTERDAY, I THINK IT

WOULD HAVE DONE A LOT OF

DAMAGE AND IT MAY STILL DO

DAMAGE A WEEK FROM NOW.

I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS

ABOUT THIS WHICH IS TO MAKE

THE POINT IT IS NOT JUST

TRUMP.

YEN A BIG CHALLENGE FOR THESE

DEBATES GOING FORWARD IS THE

FACT MAYOR GARLAND DIDN'T GET

IT AND DIDN'T GET A HEARING OF

ANY KIND.

A RULE WAS JUST CREATED OF THE

WHOLE CLASS WAS JUST BECAUSE

HE WAS WITH OBAMA HE DIDN'T

GET A VOTE.

I THINK McCONNELL'S DOING

THAT, REALLY THAT KIND OF --

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WILL TO

POWER AND I GET TO DO THIS

BECAUSE I CONTROL THINGS

REALLY MAKES -- I THINK THIS

IS THE CHALLENGE OF THE

SPIRAL.

THERE IS A VIEW AMONG LOTS OF

LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES AND

DEMOCRATS THAT REPUBLICANS

CHANGE THE RULES, AND THEY

ADHERE -- DEMOCRATS ADHERE TO

THE RULES WHEN REPUBLICANS

CHANGE THE RULE AND THAT LEADS

TO EXTREME ACTION.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE CASE THAT

ALTHOUGH OF COURSE GEORGETOWN

PREP HAS A REMARKABLY

EXPERIENCE TO BRETT KAVANAUGH

AND IT WAS HANDLED

DIFFERENTLY.

I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT

JUST TRUMP WHO IS DOING THESE

KINDS OF THINGS.

TO HAVE A MOMENT OF OPTIMISM

IS ONE THING I DO THINK WAS

INTERESTING ABOUT THIS MOMENT

PARTICULARLY FOR ME IN

POLITICS IS THERE ARE SO MANY

PEOPLE RUNNING FOR OFFICE WHO

ARE COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE

POLITICAL PROCESS.

THERE ARE IRAQ VETERANS OR

SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

THEY ARE NOT GOING THROUGH THE

TRADITIONAL PATH.

SOME ARE LIKE A STATE

LEGISLATOR AND THEN RUNNING AS

A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR PEOPLE

WHO HAD SERVICE IN THE

COUNTRY, AND MANY PEOPLE

WORKED AT THE PENTAGON OR THE

STATE DEPARTMENT OR JUST

TRADITIONAL VETERANS AND THEY

ARE JUST -- THE HIGHEST NUMBER

OF WOMEN ARE RUNNING.

I DO THINK THOSE PEOPLE WHEN

THEY GO TO CONGRESS ARE GOING

TO BE FOCUSED ON TRYING TO

SOLVE PROBLEMS.

IT IS VERY MUCH PARTICULAR

CAMPAIGNS THEY ARE COMING INTO

POLITICS.

IT IS TO TRY AND SOLVE

PROBLEMS, SO I THINK THERE

WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES ON

INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER AREAS

WHERE AT LEAST YOU WILL SEE AN

INTEREST IN PASSING BILLS THAT

CAN GARNER SUPPORT, AND

WHETHER TRUMP SUPPORTS THOSE

OR NOT WILL BE AN INTERESTING

PERIOD.

IT WILL BE LIKE THE FIRST TIME

IN MANY YEARS THAT IF YOU HAVE

A DEMOCRATIC HOUSE THEY ARE

FACING OR A REPUBLICAN

PRESIDENT RUNNING FOR

RE-ELECTION, SO IT WILL BE A

VERY INTERESTING DYNAMIC

WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO SOLVE

PROBLEMS OR BE ON A CONTINUAL

PATH OF JUST BITTER PARTISAN

SHIP WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE

SEEN SO FAR.

I AM ACTUALLY BULLISH ON

THE 9/11 GENERATION IN TERMS

OF YOUNGER VETS AND OTHER

ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE

AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMING TO

CONGRESS.

THERE ARE MANY FROM BOTH

PARTIES AND DEMOCRATS MAYBE

MORE THIS YEAR.

EASIER FOR DEMOCRATS TO

RECRUIT PEOPLE AND TELL THEM

THEY SHOULD TAKE A SHOT AND GO

THROUGH WHAT YOU HAVE TO GO

THROUGH RUNNING FOR OFFICE,

BUT THAT'S FINE, AND I AM GLAD

THEY HAVE.

I THINK A LOT WILL BE GOOD

MEMBERS.

THERE IS A YOUNG WOMAN I KNOW

WHO IS A VERY STAUNCH

REPUBLICAN AND CONSERVATIVE

AND BY ACCIDENT WENT TO A

SESSION WHERE THERE WERE FOUR

OR FIVE DEMOCRATIC WOMEN

RUNNING FOR CONGRESS ON A

PANEL.

IT WASN'T A SECRET THING.

IT WAS A PUBLIC THING.

SHE WENT AND SHE WAS REALLY

IMPRESSED BY THEM.

SHE IS STILL A CONSERVATIVE

REPUBLICAN AND DOESN'T AGREE

ON MOST ISSUES, BUT THAT IS A

GOOD SIGN.

THERE ARE GOOD SIGNS, AND THIS

IS A HARD YEAR FOR

REPUBLICANS, BUT GOOD SIGNS ON

THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

ONE OF THE CRAZY THINGS ON THE

KAVANAUGH THING FROM A STAND

BACK AND LOOK AT, I CAN SEE

WHY IT IS UPSETTING ON

GARLAND.

 THAT SEAT WAS FILLED BY A

REPUBLICAN APPOINTEE, A TRUMP

APPOINTEE.

IF KAVANAUGH WITHDREW TODAY,

TRUMP WOULD NOMINATE JOAN

LARSON ON TUESDAY OR BARRETT

OR NOMINATE A WOMAN AND MAYBE

WISE TO DO THAT THREE MONTHS

AGO.

SOME OF US URGED THAT AS A

PRACTICAL AND POLITICAL

MATTER.

IT SEEMS NUTS THE REPUBLICANS

ON THE CORRIDOR ARE MEN.

 HE HAS A GOOD CHANCE OF

GETTING THAT PERSON THROUGH,

MAYBE NOT BEFORE THE ELECTION,

BUT IT IS NOT LIKE AS IF I

DON'T THINK THEY WILL HOLD

SOMEONE OFF WHO IS WELL

QUALIFIED FOR TWO YEARS IF

THERE ARE 48 AND 49 REPUBLICAN

SENATORS.

THAT'S TOUGH TO DO.

HONESTLY WE ARE FIGHTING AND I

DON'T MEAN -- JUDGE KAVANAUGH

FEELS UNFAIRLY TREATED AND HE

ISEN -- HE IS ENTITLED TO MAKE

A CASE.

IT IS FUNNY THAT IT IS NOT AS

PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT

THAT IF KAVANAUGH DOES NOT

BECOME A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

THAT THE DEMOCRATS GET TO MAKE

THE NEXT APPOINTMENT WHICH IS

NOT THE CASE.

WORST CASE IS YOU HAVE EIGHT

PEOPLE FOR TWO YEARS.

YOU HAVE TO BE SUPER

CYNICAL, BUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH

IS EXTRAORDINARY ON HIS VIEWS

OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.

UNUSUAL FOR -- UNUSUAL AMONG

CONSERVATIVE JURISTS THAT A

PRESIDENT CAN'T BE SUBPOENA --

SUBPOENAED.

IT IS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN

JUDGE LARSON AND JUDGE BARRETT

AND ON A PARTICULAR AND ODDLY

ENOUGH -- THIS IS THE GUY WHO

CHOSE IT -- PERSPECTIVE THAT A

PRESIDENT WHO, I DON'T KNOW,

FACING INDEPENDENT COUNCIL --

COUNSEL WOULD NOT NEED TO

TESTIFY IS IMPERVIOUS TO ANY

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT.

IT IS UNUSUAL.

ODDLY ENOUGH HE PICKED THAT

GUY AND IS FIGHTING TOOTH AND

NAIL FOR THAT GUY.

OF COURSE IT MAKES NO SENSE.

TWO WEEKS AGO THEY COULD HAVE

PUT BARRETT UP AND SHE WOULD

HAVE HAD MORE SUPPORT ON THE

RIGHT THAN KAVANAUGH WHO IS,

JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS UNPOPULAR

FOR A NOMINEE.

IT IS EXTRAORDINARY.

THE LAST PERSON AS UNPOPULAR

AS KAVANAUGH, EVEN BEFORE

THIS, WAS HAIR -- HARRIET

MYERS AND SHE WAS PULLED.

I HATE TO BE CYNICAL, BUT THIS

IS WHAT TRUMP REQUIRES WHICH

IS FOR YOU TO THINK THROUGH

PERHAPS THERE IS SOME EFFORT

TO SAVE HIS OWN SKIN IN THIS

DETERMINATION.

THE NICER VERSION WAS HE

WAS A GOOD FRIEND OF MCCANN'S

AND HIGHLY RESPECTED IN THE DC

LEGAL COMMUNITY.

EVERY POLITICAL PERSON I

TALKED TO IN THE WEEK OR TWO

AFTER KENNEDY'S RETIREMENT WAS

ANNOUNCED AND THE SPECULATION

WAS GOING AROUND ABOUT THE

PICK, EVERY POLITICAL PERSON

SAID A WOMAN WOULD BE BETTER

THAN A MAN.

MAYBE THEY ARE NOT READY AND

HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE BENCH LONG

ENOUGH, FINE.

TAKE A A CLOSE LOOK AT THE

FEMALE CANDIDATES WHO ARE ON

THE LIST, OR MAYBE NOT ON THE

LIST.

THAT'S AN ARTIFICIAL THING,

BUT WHATEVER TRUMP HAD DECIDED

TO DO THAT TO SIR COME

CIRCUMSCRIBE HIMSELF.

THERE ARE SEVERAL WELL

QUALIFIED WOMEN.

AND TWO, GIVEN THE EIGHT

JUSTICES SITTING HAVE GONE TO

HAIR -- TO HAIR REGARD AND

YALE -- HARVARD AND YALE LAW

SCHOOL.

IT WOULD BE NICE FOR SOMEBODY

FROM ANOTHER SIDE OF THE

COUNTRY.

THERE WERE MANY WELL REGARDED

WHO WERE PUSHING FOR.

McCONNELL PUSHED FOR

SOMEBODY ELSE.

McCONNELL PUSHED FOR A

YOUNGER JUDGE.

THERE WERE PLENTY OF PEOPLE.

I WILL STICK TO YOUR THEORY

THAT YOU HAD TO GO OUT OF YOUR

WAY TO GET TO KAVANAUGH AS THE

PICK.

ASSUMING THEY ARE ALL

QUALIFIED AND THEY WILL ALL BE

DISTINGUISHED JUSTICES.

MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT.

MAYBE THAT'S WHY TRUMP DID

THAT.

ON THAT NOTE I WILL ASK

ALLIE AND NICK TO START

COLLECTING AND ASKING THE

QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH.

WE ARE GOING TO GET STARTED

WITH A QUESTION THAT IS

SALIENT TO US BEING ON A

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, AND

THAT IS REGARDING THE ROLE OF

UNIVERSITIES IN ESTABLISHING

ROBUST CONVERSATIONS THAT

BRING DIFFERENT I'D LOGICAL

VIEW POINTS INTO THE

CONVERSATION.

HOW DO YOU VIEW THE ROLE OF

THE UNIVERSITY IN THAT?

I MEAN, I WOULD SAY I WAS

NEVER A LIBERTARIAN AND WAS

INTRIGUED BY MORE CONSERVATIVE

LET'S SAY -- NOT JUST

CONSERVATIVE, BUT OTHER

ARGUMENTS ON THE LIMITS OF

PURE LIBERTARIANISM.

I HAVE BECOME MORE STRAIGHT

FORWARD LIBERTARIAN.

ONCE YOU GO DOWN THE SPEECH KS

SEPTEMBER FOR THE OBVIOUS

EXTREME CASES, IT REALLY IS A

VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.

I GUESS I DON'T TRUST THE

GUARDIANS OF OUR DIFFERENT

INSTITUTIONS OR POLITICAL

FIGURES OR ANY FIGURES

REALLY.

OBVIOUSLY PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

HAVE THEIR OWN RIGHTS WHICH IS

DIFFERENT FROM PUBLIC

INSTITUTIONS AND COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES ARE DIFFERENT

FROM SOME BUSINESS THAT IS

HAVING A CONFERENCE AND SO

FORTH.

I WOULD SAY EVEN PRIVATE

UNIVERSITIES THOUGH I THINK

LEGALLY THEY ARE UNDER A

DIFFERENT STANDING, I AM

AVERSE TO LIMITING SPEECH

ACCEPTANCE IN EXTREME

CIRCUMSTANCES.

I THINK IT IS DANGEROUS.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK

IMPERICALLY IF THEY DO MORE ON

HATE SPEECH LEGISLATION IT HAS

BACKFIRED.

IF YOU LOOK AT EUROPE IT IS

NOT A HAPPY STORY OF TOLERANCE

AND LACK OF BIGOTRY.

I AM SORT OF AN OLD-FASHIONED

JUSTICE BRANDIZED LIBERAL ON

THIS STUFF.

I LOOK AT THE QUESTION MORE

BROADLY.

I AGREE AND ESSENTIALLY THE

IMPORTANCE OF FREE SPEECH, I

AM A A BELIEVER IS THE BEST

RESPONSE TO INTEL --

INTOLERANT SPEECH IS MORE

SPEECH.

I THINK TWITTER'S -- TRUMP'S

TWITTER FEED OVERWHELMS ME AT

TIMES.

THE BROADER QUESTION IS HOW

IMPORTANT UNIVERSITY IN FACT

THEY ARE AT THIS TIME.

I WILL CONFESS THAT AFTER

TRUMP WAS ELECTED I DEFINITELY

HAD SOME EXSEW STEN SHALL

MOMENTS OF THINK TANKS AND THE

MOMENT OF FACT AND WHETHER IT

ACTUALLY MATTERED IN THE

DEBATE THAT THERE WERE FACTS

ON ONE SIDE AND EMOTIONS ON

ANOTHER.

WHAT I FIND INTERESTING AND

IMPORTANT FOR THE ROLE WE ALL

PLAY IS TRUMP IS HIMSELF.

HE IS UNTO HIMSELF, BUT IN

TERMS OF THE DEBATES IN

CONGRESS, FACTS ACTUALLY DO

MATTER AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE

ACT HAS WORKED RELATIVELY

STRENUOUSLY TO DEFEND THE ACA

AND TRUMP AND -- AND MANY

REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SAID

THERE RAY -- THERE ARE

AVERSIONS OF THE BILL AND IT

WOULD NOT REDUCE HEALTH CARE

COVERAGE.

PEOPLE WOULD KEEP THEIR HEALTH

CARE CINCH.

IN FACT, HOUSE REPUBLICANS

ATTACKED THE CONGRESSIONAL

BUDGET OFFICE WEEKS BEFORE

THEY WERE COMING OUT WITH

THEIR ANALYSIS THAT 23 MILLION

PEOPLE LOSE HEALTH CARE

COVERAGE.

IN THE END 65, 70 PERCENT OF

AMERICANS BELIEVE PEOPLE LOSE

HEALTH CARE COVERAGE BECAUSE

THEY SEE FACTS AND FIGURES OF

PEOPLE LOSING HEALTH CARE

CINCH, AND THAT WAS A DRIVING

FORCE AS TO WHY THE BILL WAS

DEFEATED.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT

POLITICIANS SAY SOMETHING OVER

AND OVER AGAIN, I MEAN THERE

IS A REAL PROBLEM THAT PART OF

TRUMP'S PHASE OR THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY BELIEVES WHAT

HE SAYS.

FOR THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS

I DO THINK FACTS ARE REALLY

IMPORTANT.

A UNIVERSITY WITH ADHERENCE TO

FACTS AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR

THE DATA MORE THAN EVER.

I DO THINK ULTIMATELY HAVING A

PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AND

GROUNDING IT IN REALITY, WE

HAVE TO FIGURE OUTWEIGHS WE

CAN COMMUNICATE AND IT IS

REALLY VITAL WE STAY THERE.

I WILL MAKE SOME

CONSERVATIVE POINTS SO WE HAVE

A LITTLE BIT.

I WENT TO HARVARD AFTER THE

PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE

INGNAWING RATED AND IT WAS ONE

OF THESE PANELS AND THE CRISIS

OF OUR TIMES AND WHAT ARE WE

GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

I COULDN'T RESIST WITHOUT

SAYING TO PEOPLE AT HARVARD

LAW SCHOOL SHOULD BE VERY

PLEASED THEY HAVE BEEN

TEACHING, OF COURSE, ABOUT THE

LIVING CONSTITUTION, BUT NOT

JUST THAT, TEACHING ABOUT HOW

THE RULE OF LAW IS JUST A

FICTION AND THE RULING CLASS

PORTRAYS ABSTRACT OR NEUTRAL

PRINCIPALS.

THAT WAS LEFT BEHIND IN THE

ALL OF THE HIP STUFF.

MAYBE THEY WERE RIGHT, BILL

[LAUGHTER].

TRUMP AGREES THAT THE RULE

OF LAW AND EVERYTHING IS A

MATTER OF POWER AND IT IS NOT

A MATTER OF FACT AND

EVIDENCE.

I CONGRATULATED THE LITERATURE

DEPARTMENT OF HARVARD WHO

AGREED.

THERE ARE NOTIONS OF TRUTH

THAT ARE OUT OF DATE AND THERE

IS A MODERN HISTORIAN.

I AM OVER STATING OBVIOUSLY.

YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE

DEEP STATE.

THE DEEP STATE IS ONE OF

THE POLITICAL SCIENTISTS WHO

IS -- IT IS NOT A STUPID IDEA

ABOUT COUNTRIES LIKE TURKEY

AND INDONESIA WHICH IT WAS

MEANT TO EXPLAIN.

THEY WERE BEING UPBEAT AND I

AM BEING UPBEAT ABOUT A

CERTAIN RECOGNITION ON THE

RIGHT AND THE LEFT.

LET'S COOL IT A LITTLE BIT

WITH THE SUPER CLEVER, YOU

KNOW, DRIVE OF POST-MODERNISM

AND CLEVERLY SHOWING THAT

PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVES ON

EVERYTHING.

LET'S REMEMBER, A, IT IS

PROBABLY NOT CORRECT

THEORETIC, BUT IF YOU WANT A

DECENT SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE

CAN WORK TOGETHER AND LIVE

TOGETHER, THERE IS SOMETHING

TO BE SAID FOR MORE

OLD-FASHIONED VIEW OF TRUTH

AND FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

I THINK YOU SEE SOME OF THAT

ON BOTH SIDES.

HERE IS WHERE I AM NOT AS

COMPLAISANT, THE REACTION OF

ME AND MY FRIENDS AGAINST

TRUMP THERE IS AN INTELLECTUAL

STRAIN ON THE RIGHT THAT GOES

BEYOND BANNIN AND IT IS NOT IN

A THEORETICAL WAY THAT IS

FINE.

YOU HAVE TO UNDER THE PRICE WE

PAY FOR MODERN CAPITALISM AND

ALIENATION.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A

SOPHISTICATED CRITIQUE ON LEFT

AND RIGHT AND LIMITATIONS ON

MODERN DEMOCRACY, BUT

GENERALLY WILLING TO GO THE

NEXT STEP AND THE BABY WITH

THE BATH WATER.

YOU CAN SEE THAT WITH SOME

THINKERS AND I WORRY THAT IS

ATTRACTIVE AND WE COULD GET IN

A SPIRAL WHERE THIS IS LIKE

THE 20s AND 30s WHERE WHAT

HAPPENED IN THE WORLD OF

INTELLECT PARALLELLED WHAT

HAPPENED IN REAL POLITICS.

EVERYONE GOT SICK OF

OLD-FASHIONED BORING

LIBERALISM.

LIBERALISM WITH A LITTLE L.

EVERYBODY WAS ENTRANCED BY

NARRATIVES BY WERE CON

TESTIMONY FEW US WITH.

DUE PROCESS AND RULE OF LAW,

THAT WOULD BE A BAD PLACE TO

GO.

I WILL SAY BRIEFLY BECAUSE

I KNOW WE WANT TO GET TO OTHER

QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK WE

SHOULD THINK CONSCIOUSLY ABOUT

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR

COUNTRY AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

IT IS NOT THAT THESE FORCES

ARE JUST HAPPENING IN THE

UNITED STATES IN A VACUUM, NOT

JUST HAPPENING INTELLECT --

INTEREST INTELLECTUALLY.

AND THE ARGUMENTS YOU ARE

SAYING ARE EVEN STRONGER IN

EUROPE.

THERE IS MUCH GREATER

CONTENTIOUS BETWEEN -- I THINK

TRUMP IS A WEIRD FIGURE OF HIS

APPARENTLY BEING IN LOVE WITH

KIM JONG-UN, AND REALLY IN

REGARDS TO PUTIN AND THE

SUPPORT FOR PUTINISM, BUT IN

EUROPE THERE IS A MUCH BROADER

AND MORE WITHIN THE PUBLIC IN

TERMS OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR

AUTHORITARIANISM AND RACISM

AND GIST TO SAY THIS, LIKE WE

USED TO THINK BURLESCONI WAS

THE STRANGEST PERSON IN

EUROPE, AND NOW THERE ARE

LIBERAL FASCISTS IN THE

GOVERNMENT OF ITALY.

THERE IS NO REASON -- I THINK

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR

ALL GENERATIONS TO RECOGNIZE

IS THAT WE HAVE TWO OFTEN

BELIEVED DEMOCRACY IS JUST

STATUS QUO.

 IT WILL ALWAYS BE THIS WAY.

I BELIEVE THE 21st CENTURY

IS GOING TO BE A DEEP CON TNGS

BETWEEN AUTHORIZE TEAR YENISM

WHETHER IT IS FROM CHINA OR

RUSSIA AND THE LIBERAL

DEMOCRATIC NORMS WE BELIEVE

IN.

THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN

SORT OF LAZY ABOUT THESE

THINGS FOR A GENERATION,

REALLY SINCE THE COLD WAR, HAS

ALLOWED PUTIN A LOT OF SUCCESS

IN HIS EFFORTS TO DE-LEGIT

MYSELF DEMOCRACY AROUND THE

WORLD.

JUST TO ADD -- REALLY THIS

IS PERFECT FOR THE ACADEMIC

ENVIRONMENT, BUT IN ADDITION

TO THE NORMS, OBVIOUSLY WE

WANT TO HANG ON AND REITERATE

AND DEFEND, GOING BACK AND

THINKING MORE THE WAY THE

FOUNDERS DID AND OTHER

FOUNDERS OF OTHER LIBERAL

DEMOCRACIES POST WORLD WAR II

AND GERMANY AND ITALY, JAPAN,

THINKING SERIOUS ABOUT THE

INSTITUTIONS AND THE

STRUCTURES.

I THINK THERE ARE ASPECTS THAT

FIT INTO MORE LIBERAL POLICIES

IN TERMS OF -- AND OTHER AS

SPECS -- ASPECTS LIBERAL

POLICIES.

THINKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THE

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES WE

HAVE IN GOVERNMENT AND OUT OF

GOVERNMENT IN TRMS OF THE FREE

MARKET AND NOT FOR PROFIT

INSTITUTIONS AND COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES THAT PROVIDE

WORKS AGAINST A WAVE OF

DEMIGOGARY SWEEPING OVER THE

SECTOR FOR MAYBE A FEW YEARS

OR MORE THAN A FEW YEARS AND

OTHER COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE

SUCH WORKS.

IT IS PART OF THE ATTACHMENT

TO THE NORM AND A MATTER OF

THE INSTITUTIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE SO TO SPEAK

WHICH WE ARE PRETTY FORTUNATE

TO HAVE.

NOT THAT WE SHOULD TAKE IT FOR

GRANT -- GRANTED AND WHICH OR

COUNTRIES -- I WOULD HAVE SAID

I WAS SURPRISED HOW WEAK THEY

TURNED OUT TO BE.

THAT'S WORRISOME I THINK.

SO THIS QUESTION ASKED

ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESS IN

FOREIGN DEMOCRACY.

SPEAK TOGETHER ROLE OF THE

PRESS AND THE CURRENCY OF

AFFAIRS DAVID FRENCH OF THE

NATIONAL REVIEW WROTE, THE

NEWS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD

ASSUME MAURY RESPONSIBILITY --

MORE RESPONSIBILITY FROM WHERE

WE HAVE COME.

WHAT IS YORE TAKE ON THIS IN

LIGHT OF THE HEARING AND TODD

AND FRENCH AGREE ON THE VALUE

OF THE FREE PRESS IN SOCIETY,

AND HOW STUDENTS AT THE

UNIVERSITY LEVEL SHOULD BEACON

SUMMING -- BE CONSUMING NEWS

IN THIS ERA OF, QUOTE,

UNQUOTE, FAKE NEWS.

SOCIAL MEDIA IS A BIG

PHENOMENON.

THE COMBINATION OF THE

INTERNET AND THE MOBILE DEVICE

AND THE INSTANTANEOUS

INFORMATION TRANSMISSION OF

INFORMATION AND OPINIONS AND

THOSE OF THOSE BASED ON FAKE

NEWS OR TO BE FAKE NEWS.

THAT WAS A BIG CHANGE.

I AM GENERALLY A SKEPTIC WHEN

IT COMES TO PEOPLE SAYING

EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED.

I GREW UP IN THE 60s AND THE

EVERYTHING IS MOVING SO MUCH

FASTER THAN OUR PARENTS.

THEY LIVED COMPLAISANT LIVES.

WE ARE IN THIS TECHNOLOGY AND

IT IS TOTAL NONSENSE.

MY PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS

WENT THROUGH INFINITELY MORE

SOCIAL CHANGE THAN I DID.

THEY MET MUCH GREATER

CHALLENGES WITH THE DEPRESSION

AND THE WAR HERE IN THE U.S.

TO SAY NOTHING OF PEOPLE IN

EUROPE AND ELSEWHERE.

THERE WERE TECHNOLOGICAL

CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION AND

COMMUNICATION.

WEIRDLIY FROM 1955 TO 1995 YOU

CAN SAY THERE WAS LITTLE

CHANGE IN PEOPLE'S LIVES.

PEOPLE CHUGGED ALONG.

I THINK THE CHANGE OF THE --

THE CHANGE IN COMMUNICATIONS

NOW IS AWFULLY BIG.

LOOK, YOU CAN'T STOP IT, AND

YOU DON'T WANT TO STOP IT.

LIKE ALL CHANGES IT WILL GO

THROUGH THOSE EFFECTS AND I

DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE CAUGHT

UP THINKING THROUGH HOWING TO

MAX -- MAXIMIZE THE GOODIE

FECTS AND MINIMIZE THE BAD

EFFECTS.

I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH SOME

OF THE EFFORTS TO SHUTDOWN

THINGS OR REALLY HAVE PRIVATE

ACTORS OR PUBLIC ACTORS LIMIT

THINGS IN SOME RADICAL WAYS,

BUT I AM OPEN TO THERE IS A

BIG PROBLEM.

I SEE IT MYSELF AND PEOPLE ARE

BELIEVING IN THINS.

 IN THINGS.

PEOPLE FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS

AND READERS OF THE WEEKLY

STANDARD AND WANT TO SEE A

WEEK SEEING A PART OF THE

COUNTRY AND HAVE PANEL

DISCUSSIONS WITH ED BARNES AND

EVERYONE.

[LAUGHTER].

IS THAT -- THAT IS A UNIQUE

SUBSET OF PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHY IT FREAKS ME

OUT.

THESE ARE NOT THE DISILLUSION

ED WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTERS

WHO DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AND

ARE NOT IN TOUCH WITH WHATEVER

AND WILL NEVER FALL FOR THIS

PROPAGANDA.

THESE ARE WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE

WHO ARE PILLARS IN THEIR

COMIENT, PHYSICIANS, LAWYERS,

BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN WHO TELL

YOU SOMETHING AND THAT'S JUST

NOT TRUE.

THERE IS NOT MUCH CONTROVERSY

IN THE FACT THAT THERE WERE

THREE MILLION ILLEGAL VOTERS.

NO, I SAW IT ON TV.

A FRIEND OF MINE SENT ME AN

ARTICLE ABOUT IT.

THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CUT

AND PASTE FAKE NEWS ARTICLES

AND FACEBOOK PROBLEMS AND SO

FORTH.

IT IS A REAL PROBLEM.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT

IT, BUT WE CAN'T MINIMIZE IT.

I THINK THE GREAT IRONY OF

FAKE NEWS IS NOT PROMOTED --

THE RISE OF FAKE NEWS, THERE

IS A LOT OF INSANE FAKE NEWS

HAPPENING.

WE ALL LAUGH AND JOKE ABOUT

IT, BUT I WAS A LITTLE IN THE

WIKILEAKS STUFF AND SO I WAS

MONITORING WHAT HAPPENED EVERY

DAY.

THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE ELECTION

, THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE

ELECTION THERE IS A GIGANTIC

BANNER BASICALLY ELUDING TO A

SEX RING THAT IS LITERALLY

SEVEN BLOCKS FROM MY HOUSE.

THERE WAS AN E-MAIL TALKING

ABOUT ORDERING A PIZZA AND

THEY BUILT IN -- THERE WAS A

NARRATIVE MOVING THAT THERE

WAS A PEDOPHILE PIZZA RING

THAT WAS CONNECTED TO HILLARY

CLINTON.

IT WAS INSANE.

ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS OF --

WE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS

WITH FACEBOOK IN THE LAST YEAR

AND A HALF.

I ASKED HOW MANY PEOPLE SAW

THAT STORY VEE -- VIA FACEBOOK

AND IT WAS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

THAT SEE A CRAZY LUNATIC STORY

LIKE THAT.

WHAT I FIND CONSTRUCTIVE IS IF

DONALD TRUMP WOULD ATTACK

ACTUAL FAKE NEWS.

HE IS NOT ATTACKING THAT KIND

OF LUNACY.

HE IS ATTACKING NBC NEWS --

NOT THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL"

AS MUCH, BUT "NEW YORK TIMES"

AND MAINSTREAM PILLARS OF

INSTITUTION THAT GIVE US A

COMMON SET OF FACTS.

DO I AGREE WITH ALL OF THESE

ALL THE TIME?

IS THERE TOO MUCH OPINION IN

NEWS?

I WOULD EVEN SAY MYSELF THERE

IS WAY TOO MUCH NEWS ANALYSIS

AND NOT AS MUCH NEWS

GATHERING.

THE IDEA WE HAVE POLITICIANS

WHO JUST LITERALLY ARGUE THE

PRESS IS A CONSTITUENCY GROUP

THAT THEY ARE ATTACKING OR

THAT THEY DON'T FEEL IS PART

OF THEIR -- WHAT THEY NEED TO

DEAL WITH.

IT IS A GIGANTIC RED FLAG FOR

AMERICA.

IT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE

ARE LIVING IN DEEPLY PERILLESS

TIMES.

THE IDEA THAT WE FIND IT

ACCEPTABLE THAT WE HAVE A

PRESIDENT WHO JUST LITERALLY

GOES TO RALLIES AND PEOPLE

START SCREAMING ABOUT HOW CNN

SHOULD BE IN JAIL OR BANNED.

IF THAT HAPPENED IN ANOTHER

COUNTRY WE WOULD BE LIKE,

HELLO, WHERE IS THE -- WHY ARE

WE SPENDING STATE DEPARTMENT

DOLLARS?

IT HAPPENED HERE AND WE ACCEPT

IT.

I WOULD ADD I DO THINK IT

IS A MATTER OF ACTUAL PUBLIC

POLICY.

I THINK THE RIGHT ANSWER ON

MOST OF THE ACTUAL MEED YOU

ORGANIZATIONS IS A KIND OF

FREE MARKET AND FREE PRESS

KIND OF ANSWER.

MAYBE WE CAN THINK ABOUT

CHANGING THE ECONOMIC PLAYING

FIELD TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR

PEOPLE, FOR NEWSPAPERS TO

SURVIVE AND MAGAZINES.

AS AN EDITOR OF A MAGAZINE I

WOULD BE HAPPY IF THAT'S THE

CASE.

I THINK THE SOCIAL MEDIA

SITUATION IS ACTUALLY A

VERY -- IT IS A GENUINE PUBLIC

POLICY ISSUE.

THERE HAS BEEN INTERESTING

DEBATES AND HAVE BEGUN TO BE

INTERESTING DEBATES, FACE --

FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE TO A

LESSER DEGREE.

IT IS UNNATURAL THAT SO MUCH

HAPPENS ON ONE PARTICULAR

PLATFORM WHICH BOTH WANTS TO

SAY IT IS A PLATFORM, BUT IT

IS NOT JUST A PLATFORM,

OBVIOUSLY, BUT WANTS TO BE

LEGALLY TREATED AS A PLATFORM

WHEN IT IS TO ITS ADVANTAGE.

WE ARE JUST A PLAT TOMORROW.

ACTUALLY WE ARE FEEDING YOU

STUFF THAT YOU SHOWED AN

INTEREST IN.

AND THEY ARE DECIDING WHAT

THEY SEE.

IT IS AN UNUSUAL

SITUATION.

IT IS NOT COMPARABLE TO NBC,

CBS, ABC, PBS AND CNN ON

COMCAST.

YOU CAN WATCH WHAT YOU WANT TO

WATCH AND THERE COULD BE

PROBLEMS WITH FAKE NEWS AND

DITTO READING COLUMNS FROM THE

WEEKLY STANDARD OR FROM THE

NATION, BUT THERE IS A GOOGLE

ALGORITHM ISSUE AND YOU CAN

FIND WHAT YOU WANT AND READ

WHAT YOU WANT.

FACEBOOK IS A LITTLE UNIQUE IN

ITS PERVASIVENESS.

IF WE CAME DOWN FROM MARS AND

LOOKED AT IT WE WOULD SAY THIS

IS SORT OF WEIRD IN A LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY, THE DISPERSION OF

POWER AND AUTHORITY AND

DIVERSITY OF SOURCES OF

OPINION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT

IT.

THERE ARE A MILLION DIFFERENT

INTERESTING ISSUES, BUT IT IS

IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY.

AND WE HAVE PROBLEMS HERE,

BUT IN OTHER COUNTRIES PEOPLE

HAVE BEEN BASICALLY MURDERED

BY MOBS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE

LITERALLY MOTIVATED BY A

FACEBOOK -- A CRAZY FACEBOOK

POSTING.

IT IS SOMETHING TO BE

CONCERNED ABOUT.

IN THE INTEREST OF TIME

THIS WILL BE THE SECOND TO

LAST QUESTION.

WE'LL TRY AND SPEED UP.

THE LAST ONE IS A GOOD

ONE.

[LAUGHTER].

GIVEN THE FACT THAT SO MANY

PEOPLE ARE NONVOTERS AND

DISILLUSIONED WITH THE SYSTEM

DO YOU THINK IN ADDITION TO

PROMOTING BIPARTISAN SHIP WE

SHOULD INVITE MORE PARTY

MAINSTREAM IN THE DISCOURSE?

DO YOU WANT ME TO START?

GO AHEAD.

I -- YOU KNOW, I THINK THE

CHALLENGE OF THIS STRUCTURALLY

AS WE LIVE IN ANY -- IF WE HAD

A PARLIMENTARY SYSTEM, I

BASICALLY SAY TO BE FAST ABOUT

THIS, I BASICALLY WOULD BE

FINE.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE

IS THAT IN THE SYSTEM WE HAVE

NOW IT IS A LITTLE WINNER TAKE

ALL.

WE HAVE NOW GONE THROUGH TWO

ELECTIONS WHERE THE VOTE TOTAL

IN STATES, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN

AND PENNSYLVANIA, VOTES FOR

JILL STEIN WERE LARGER THAN

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WIN OR

LOSS BY.

THE NUMBER WHO VOTED FORE

RALPH NADER IN FLORIDA AND YOU

CAN SAY THEY ARE VOTING

OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM AND DIDN'T

LIKE HILLARY OR WHATEVER YOU

WANT TO SAY.

IN THE SYSTEM WE HAVE RIGHT

NOW, MY DEEP FEAR IS THAT

PEOPLE ARE ESSENTIALLY VOTING

THE OPPOSITE.

AND NOT JUST DIFFERENT, BUT

THE OPPOSITE OF THEIR INTEREST

WHEN THAT HAPPENS.

IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A SYSTEM

IN WHICH WE HAVE VIBRANT THIRD

PARTIES THAT WOULD BE

BASICALLY FINE TO ME AND

PARTIES SHOULD BE TESTED.

I THINK THE CHAT -- CHALLENGE

IS WE HAVE TWO EXAMPLES OF THE

CONS CONDITIONSES OF THAT

DECISION -- CONSEQUENCES OF

THAT DECISION.

I WOULD SAY IT SERVED US

WELL FOR ALMOST TWO CENTURIES

AND HAS BECOME MORE

PROBLEMATIC, AND I AM OPEN TO

THE NOTION IN 2020 IF IT IS

TRUMP AND BERNIE SANDERS WE

SHOULD -- I WOULD TRY TO

SUPPORT AN INDEPENDENT

CANDIDATE WHO MAY WIN.

I AM OPEN TO THE NOTION THAT

THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM COULD GET

ROCKY HERE AND RICKETY IN THE

NEXT TWO YEARS.

HAVING SAID THAT AS A

PRACTICAL MATTER, I WOULD

ADVISE PEOPLE TO FIGHT WITHIN

THE PARTIES FOR NOW BECAUSE IT

IS STILL WHERE 98 PERCENT OF

OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE

COMING FROM.

THERE ARE REASONS WHY MORE

EXTREME PEOPLE DO BETTER IN

PRIMARIES FOR OBVIOUS REASONS

AND THEY ARE MOTIVATED.

THERE ARE A LOT OF NOMINEES IN

I LIVE THAT ARE NOT THE MOST

OBVIOUS CANDIDATE.

THEY WANT WOMEN

REPRESENTATIVES, BUT NOT LEFT

WING REPRESENTATIVES.

THEY ARE PRETTY MODERATE I

WOULD SAY.

I WOULD RECOMMEND TO PEOPLE

THAT THEY CAN TELL THEM WHAT

THEY WANT AND IN THE

SHORT-TERM ONE REASON I AM

FOCUSED AND THEY FAIL AND I

MAY BE GOING BACK TO THE

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR GOING TO

START A PARTY LIKE SOME OF MY

FRIENDS WANT TO DO.

IT IS A CATCHY TERM.

YOU DON'T WANT TO WRITE OFF

ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES.

AMERICAN POLITICS HAS

BENEFITED A LOT.

WHATEVER YOU THINK OF THE

PROBLEMS AND ET CETERA FROM

HAVING TWO NATIONAL PARTIES

THAT WERE NOT EUROPEAN STYLE

OR AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT WING

PARTIES OR AUTHORITARIAN LEFT

WING PARTIES, BUT IT WAS THE

ACTUAL SOCIAL SCIENCE TERM.

IT IS USED BY POLITICAL

SCIENTISTS.

YOU DON'T WANT TO WRITE OFF

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO BECOME

THAT KIND OF PARTY AND THAT

WOULD BE BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.

YOU DON'T WANT TO LET ONE BAD

ELECTION SHAPE IT FOR THE

FUTURE.

I GENERALLY AM MORE IN THE

MARKET AND IN THE BUSINESS OF

ENCOURAGING THE MARKET TO TELL

PEOPLE TO FIGHT IN BOTH

PARTIES FOR THE TIME BEING.

BRIEFLY ON THIS, THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE U.S.

AND EUROPEAN PARTS WHICH ARE A

MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM BOTH THE

DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN

PARTY ARE BASICALLY COALITION

PARTIES.

THE STRUCTURE IS NOT RADICALLY

DIFFERENT AND IN FACT IF YOU

LOOK AT FRANCE AND THEIR

ELECTION IT IS BASICALLY LIKE

TWO PARTIES IN ONE.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY.

IT IS NOT LIKE VIEWS AREN'T

REPRESENTED.

OF COURSE THE PRIMARIES ARE

THE PLACES TO DO THAT.

I THINK THERE IS A HELP TO

FORMING A BROAD COALITION TO

GOVERN A COUNTRY AS DIVERSE AS

OURS.

GREAT.

I AM GOING TO ASK THE LAST

QUESTION.

THE MUCH ANTICIPATED AND

HYPED LAST QUESTION.

[LAUGHTER].

NO PRESSURE.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE

CONVERSATION YOU BOTH

ESTABLISHED A SHARED RESPECT

FOR VALUES IN AND DEMOCRATIC

PRINCIPALS.

WHAT ADVICE DO YOU HAVE FROM

HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS

WITH THOSE WHO DON'T SEEM TO

AGREE?

STAY AWAY FROM FAKE NEWS.

I WILL GIVE UH A COMMENT

THAT I WAS JUST AT A DEBATE, A

A PANEL IN AUSTIN, ACTUALLY

TWO DAYS AGO AND THIS KIND OF

A QUESTION CAME UP.

SOMEONE ON THE PANEL -- MOSTLY

CONSERVATIVES ARE ON THE

PANEL.

WHAT WE SEE NOW WILL GET WORSE

AND WORSE.

THIS IS THE FUTURE, TRUMP'S

AMERICA, TRUMP'S POLL --

POLITICS.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT AND I DON'T

WANT TO BELIEVE IT, I

SUPPOSE.

Y WE ARE GOING BACK AND

FORTH.

I SAID LET'S STEP AWAY FROM

CONGRESS, I SAID, ABOUT

POLITICAL ELITES AND THE

STATES WHICH HAVE BEEN

HEALTHIER IN SOMEWAYS AND

GOING MORE IN THIS DIRECTION.

CERTAINLY TEXAS WILL BE A CASE

STUDY WITH MORE PARTISAN

SHIP.

I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST LOOK AT MY KIDS WHO ARE

IN THEIR EARLY 30s AND THEIR

SPOUSES AND, I DON'T KNOW, IT

DOESN'T FEEL TO ME LIKE THEY

ARE LIVING IN A BITTERLY

DIVIDED COUNTRY AND IT IS NOT

THE PLACE AND PEOPLE IN VERY

DIFFERENT BACK GROINEDS.

 BACK BACKGROUNDS.

IT IS NOT THAT MY KIDS ARE

PERFECTLY REPRESENTED

SOCIOECONOMICALLY SO MAYBE I

AM CAPTURING JUST A SLICE.

IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THE

COUNTRY IS AS DIVIDED OR AS

BITTER OR AS WORRISOME IN ITS

CONDITION AS OUR POLITICAL

CLASS AND CERTAINLY AS

WASHINGTON.

YEN THE -- I THINK THE MORE

THE COUNTRY CAN ASSERT A KIND

OF COMMON SENSE OF COMMUNITY

AND OF WILLINGNESS TO TALK TO

ONE ANOTHER, WE CAN OVERCOME

SOME OF THE HYPER PARTISAN

SHIP OR HYPER POLARIZATION.

IT WAS NOT JUST DUE TO TRUMP,

BUT IT WAS DUE TO SOMEWHAT, I

DON'T KNOW, ARTIFICIAL RULES

IN THE GAME IN WASHINGTON THAT

LEAD TO THIS DIRECTION.

NOW, IF I AM WRONG AND THE

COUNTRY ITSELF IS DEEPLY

DIVIDED AND THERE ARE SOME

SOCIO LOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT

PEOPLE AGREE WITH SORTING AND

ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF,

THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO THAT.

MAYBE I AM WRONG AND WE ARE IN

WORSE TROUBLE THAN WE THINK.

I WOULD NOT SAY TRAVELING

AROUND AMERICA THAT THIS IS A

COUNTRY THAT IS NEARLY AS

BITTER OR DIVIDED AS YOU WOULD

THINK BY LOOKING AT

WASHINGTON.

SO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY

VIEW IS, AND I COULD BE

TOTALLY WRONG AS WELL, BUT I

THINK ESSENTIALLY PEOPLE --

THERE ARE LARGE SWABS OF

PEOPLE WHO FEEL THEY AREN'T

HARD.

THEY FEEL [INAUDIBLE] AND

INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT

RESPONSIVE TO THAT.

WE WILL SEE A TEST OF THIS.

CONNOR LAMB WHO HAS RUN AS A

MEMBER OF CONGRESS FOR

PENNSYLVANIA AT 18 AND

ADVERTISED AS A CAP INTERN.

I TALKED TO HIM A LOT ABOUT

HIS RACE AND I THINK THIS IS A

GENUINE QUESTION ABOUT HOW

POLITICS ARE GOING IN THE

FUTURE.

 HE BASICALLY KNOCKED ON

 HE SPENT ALL OF THIS TIME

KNOCKING ON PEOPLE'S DOORS.

HE SAW A LOT OF REPUBLICANS, A

VERY BIG REPUBLICAN DISTRICT.

HE GENUINELY BELIEVES HE WENT

TO THOSE PEOPLE AND LISTENED

TO THEM AND A PRETTY GOOD

SWATH OF PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T

VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT IN A

LONGTIME AND VOTED FOR HIM.

IT IS A CAMPAIGN THAT HAS BEEN

DESIGNED IN THE LAST YEAR AND

A HALF AND HE IS GOING TO THE

REDDEST PARTS OF THE STATE.

HE IS GOING TO EVERY PART OF

THE STATE, BUT A BIG PART OF

WHAT HE DOES IS GOES TO RED

PARTS OF THE STATE AND HE

LISTENS TO PEOPLE AND HE HEARS

FROM PEOPLE AND HE HAS HIS OWN

VIEWS, BUT HE IS CONSCIOUSLY

TRYING TO LISTEN TO THEM.

I PERSONALLY THINK THE

DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN TWNT 20

WILL -- 2020 WILL HAVE TO HAVE

THAT KIND OF TALENT.

THE ABILITY TO GO TO PEOPLE

WHO DON'T THINK LIKE YOU DO

AND LISTEN TO THEM AND NOT

JUST AGREE WITH THEM, BUT

CONVINCE THEM THAT YOU MAY

DISAGREE SUBSTANTIVELY, BUT WE

ARE IN THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER.

I THINK THERE ARE A WHOLE

RANGE OF CANDIDATES RIGHT NOW,

AND WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS

IN 37 DAYS, BUT THERE ARE

PEOPLE WHO ARE -- THE

CANDIDATES ARE RUNNING IN

PURPLE AND RED DISTRICTS WHO

ARE DEMOCRATS AND COMING FROM

OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

ARE TO THE RUNNING AS BITTER

PARTISANS.

THEY ARE RUNNING AS PEOPLE WHO

ARE OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL

PROCESS AND THEY ARE WILLING

TO HEAR FROM ANYONE AND TRY TO

ACTUALLY ADDRESS PROBLEMS.

I ACTUALLY THINK WHEN THEY GO

TO WASHINGTON THEY WILL REALLY

FIGHT TO PUSH THESE BILLS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK AT THE END

OF THE DAY A LOT OF PEOPLE

FEEL LIKE POLITICS ISN'T

PRODUCING RESULTS TO THEM.

 WE AS INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO

ANSWER TO THAT.

 WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY DELIVER

RESULTS FOR PEOPLE.

AND THEY HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF

CHANGE, AND THEY HAVEN'T SEEN

IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR LIFE.

THE NEXT PRESIDENT ACTUALLY

HAS TO PRODUCE FOR THEM OR I

THINK IT COULD GET WORSE.

I DO THINK THAT THIS ACT OF

LISTENING AND HEARING PEOPLE

IS A VITAL ACT OF POLITICS.

IT IS ONE THAT I THINK GOOD

LEADERS GET.

REALLY GOOD LEADERS GET THAT.

BILL CLINTON, A LOT OF THAT

WAS HE WAS GOING PARTS OF THE

COUNTRY THAT HADN'T SEEN A

DEMOCRAT IN A LONGTIME AND HE

LISTENEDY TO THEM -- LISTENED

TO THEM.

THAT'S A GREAT NOTE TO END

ON.

JOIN ME IN THANKING THE

PANEL.

[UH -- APPLAUSE].

WE HAVE A SPECIAL TREAT

NOW, AND I WANT TO INVITE

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT UP TO THE

PODIUM FOR SOME ADDITIONAL

REMARRYINGS -- REMARKS.

THANK YOU FOR THE

INTRODUCTION.

I WANT TO GIVE THANKS TO DEAN

AND ANGELA DILLARD FORGIVING

ME MEANING -- FOR GIVING ME

MEANING IN LIFE.

NOW I KNOW TO TEACH WHAT CAN'T

BE GOOGLED.

I WANT TO SHOUTOUT TO

CONGRESSWOMAN DEBBIE D NIE GLE

WHO SLIPPED IN THE BACK IN HER

HUMBLE FASHION A LITTLE LATE.

THANK YOU FOR COMING, DEBBIE.

AND THE U OF M STUDENTS AND

FACULTY AND STAFF AND ALONG

WITH OUR SPECIAL GUESTS WHO

JUST SEEM MUCH MORE PEACEFUL

IN PERSON THAN ON TELEVISION.

IT IS GREAT.

REALLY FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO

HAVING THESE KIND OF

CONVERSATIONS ACROSS THE

DIFFERENCE.

IT IS HEARTENING THAT STUDENTS

ARE HERE FROM ALL THREE

CAMPUSES THAT SPEAKS TO THE

TERRIFIC EFFORTS FOR EVERYONE

AT "WE LISTEN" TO BE BROUGHT

IN RECRUITING STUDENTS TO THE

GROUP.

THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT WHAT

I EXPECTED.

I EXPECTED IT TO BE PERHAPS A

LITTLE MORE INCENDIARY AND

PERHAPS TO BE MORE

DISAGREEMENT.

MAYBE I WAS PROJECTING MY

SENSE OF THE PUBLIC

SENSIBILITY RIGHT NOW, BUT

THESE ARE REALLY PRE-EMINENT

SPOKESPERSONS ON DIFFERENT

PARTS OF THE SPECTRUM AND

LISTEN TO WHAT WE HEARD.

THERE WERE AREAS OF AGREEMENT

AND AREAS WHERE THERE WAS

RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT.

THERE WERE NOT PEOPLE TALKING

OVER ONE ANOTHER.

WE DIDN'T HAVE A COMMENTATOR

INSERTING THEIR OWN

PREFERENCES AND PREJUDICES AND

ALLOWED THE EXPERTS TO SPEAK.

WAY MORE AGREEMENT THAN I

THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE AND WAY

BETTER THAN TELEVISION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AS A UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT --

HE SHOULD BE A MODERATOR.

[LAUGHTER].

I LEARNED TO TAKE

COMPLIMENTS WHERE YOU CAN.

ALL-AROUND OUR NATION COLLEGE

CAMPUSES ARE STRUGGLING WITH

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE

SECOND NATURE AND THAT'S THE

FREEDOM AND COMFORT TO DISCUSS

CONTENTIOUS AND CHALLENGING

TOPICS.

PERHAPS IT IS A SIM -- SYMPTOM

OF THE TIMES IN AN ERA OF

GREAT POLARIZATION AND IN

WHICH THE MEDIA OFFERS US THE

ABILITY TO TUNE INTO NEWS WITH

A DEFINED POLITICAL SLANT.

MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE OF A

MIXTURE OF POLITENESS AND FEAR

NOT WANTING TO OFFEND FELLOW

STUDENTS WITH IDEAS THAT GO

AGAINST THE PERCEIVED

MAINSTREAM ON CAMPUS, OR

FEARING THE SOCIAL

CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO.

I FIRST LEARNED THAT "WEE

LISTEN" A STUDENT GROUP DOING

SOME FIRE SIDE CHATS I HAVE

WITH STUDENTS.

ALLIE WHO IS HERE AND ANOTHER

STUDENT CAME TO MY OFFICE

HOURS LATER THAT SEMESTER AND

SHARED THE PROGRESS THEY HAVE

MADE WITH THEIR NEW

ORGANIZATION.

THEY BROUGHT TOGETHER STUDENTS

OF DIFFERING POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHIES NOT JUST FROM U

OF M, BUT NOW FROM AROUND THE

STATE AND I HEAR AROUND THE

REGION AND HOPEFULLY AROUND

THE COUNTRY.

THEY SPONSOR DIFFICULT

CONVERSATIONS ON GUN CONTROL

AND ABORTION AND FREE SECH AND

IMMIGRATION -- FREE SPEECH AND

IMMIGRATION.

THEY ARE TAKING THEIR MESSAGE

TO THE NATION'S CAPITAL AND

DEMONSTRATING THAT COLLEGE

STUDENTS MOST CERTAINLY CAN

ENGAGE IN HONEST AND

THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION OF SOME

OF SOCIETY'S TOUGHEST PROBLEMS

AND THEY ARE WILLING TO STEP

UP AND PROPOSE SOLUTIONS

THROUGH THESE POLICY CREATION

SEMINARS.

I ALSO THANK DEAN BARNE AND

HIS COLLEAGUES FOR TAKING

ACTION TO RESPOND TO ONE OF

OUR UNIVERSITY'S GREATEST

CHALLENGES, HOW TO PROMOTE

DISCOURSE ACROSS DIFFERENCE IN

AN ERA OF EXTREME POLITICAL

POLARIZATION.

THE CONVERSATIONS ACROSS

DIFFERENCE INITIATIVES IS

GROUNDED IN THE HIGHEST IDEALS

OF THE MISSION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.

IT ENHANCES OUR ACADEMIC

EXCELLENCE BY BRINGING

SPEAKERS TO CAMPUS AND

IMPLEMENTING KAW RICK LAR

ELEMENTS THAT TEACH THE VALUE

AND MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF

CITIZENSHIP IN OUR SOCIETY.

AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF

GOOD CITIZENSHIP IS THAT WE

CONSIDER ISSUES OF THE DAY

FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.

I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT

HEARING IDEAS WE DISAGREE WITH

CHALLENGES OUR OWN WAYS OF

THINKING.

IT HELPS US SHARPEN OUR OWN

BELIEFS AND IT HELPS US GROW.

 ENGAGING ACROSS THE

DIFFERENCE TEACHES US TO WORK

THROUGH PROBLEMS IN GROUPS AND

HOW TO EXPRESS OURSELVES IN

WAYS THAT CAN BRING ABOUT

POSITIVE CHANGE, BUT FIRST WE

MUST LISTEN.

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF

OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST MAJOR

CHALLENGES IN OUR MODERN

WORLD.

TO DEMONSTRATE WE CAN DISAGREE

WITHOUT DEMONIZING AND DEBATE

WITHOUT DEMIGOGARY.

USING OUR COLLECTIVE HUMAN

TALENTS AND DRAWING FROM THE

EXPERIENCE AND INTELLECTUAL

POWER OF PEOPLE OF ALL BACK

GROINDZ AND IDEOLOGIES.

I AM HOPEFUL YOUR WORK CAN

MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY

ENCOURAGING GREATER TURNOUT IN

THIS NOVEMBER'S ELECTION.

MICHIGAN STUDENTS WILL HAVE

THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON THE

KNOWLEDGE AND PERSPECTIVES YOU

AND OUR SPEAKERS HAVE SHARED

TODAY AND OVER THE PAST

SEVERAL MONTHS.

IN THE LAST MID-TERM ELECTION

ONLY 19 PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE

COLLEGE STUDENTS VOTED.

THAT NUMBER WAS EVEN LOWER ON

OUR OWN CAMPUS.

I KNOW THAT THE FORD SCHOOL,

OUR COLLEGE OF LITERATURE

SCIENCE AND ARTS AND MANY OF

THE STUDENTS HERE TODAY HAVE

WORKED WITH OUR GUINSBERG

CENTER TO HELP WIN THE BIG 10

VOTER CHALLENGE.

THE CHALLENGE IS A NONPARTISAN

INITIATIVE TO ENCOURAGE

STUDENTS TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT

TO VOTE, AND TO CHANGE THE

TREND THAT HAS LEAD TO VOTER

TURNOUT FOR PEOPLE UNDERAGE 30

BEING HISTORICALLY LOW

COMPARED WITH OLDER SEGMENTS

OF THE POPULATION.

ALREADY HUNDREDS OF MICHIGAN

STUDENTS HAVE GOTTEN

REGISTERED THIS CYCLE.

OCTOBER 9th IS THE LAST

DAY TO REGISTER FOR THE

NOVEMBER ELECTIONS HERE IN

MICHIGAN.

I WAS REMINDED AGAIN OF THE

IMPORTANCE OF YOUR WORK ON MY

WAY INTO THE AUDITORIUM.

RIGHT OUTSIDE HERE IS A

PORTRAIT OF THE NAME SAKE OF

OUR SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY,

GERALD FORD.

DURING HIS FINAL STATE OF THE

UNION IN 1977, FORD SPOKE OF A

COUNTRY THAT TWO AND A HALF

YEARS EARLIER WAS DEEPLY

DIVIDED AND TORMENTED.

THAT WAS THE STATE OF OUR

UNION WHEN I WAS A COLLEGE

STUDENT.

HE EXPRESSED HOPE AND

CONFIDENCE IN THE FUTURE OF

THE THEN 200-YEAR-OLD NATION

AND REMINDED US THAT THE

FUTURE OF OUR UNION IN FACT

RELIED ON US EMBRACING UNITY.

THE STATE OF THE UNION IS A

MEASUREMENT OF THE MANY

ELEMENTS OF WHICH IT IS

COMPOSED, HE SAID.

IT IS A POLITICAL UNION OF

DIVERSE STATES AND ECONOMIC

UNION OF VARYING INTERESTS AND

INTELLECTUAL OF COMMON

CONVICTIONS AND A MORAL UNION

OF UH MEANABLE IDEALS.

I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR

ACCEPTING THE CHALLENGE

ENGAGED ACROSS DIFFERENCE.

BY JOINING TOGETHER TO LISTEN

AND TO LEARN YOU ALSO INSPIRE

AND YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT NO

DIVIDE IS INSUR MOUNTABLE WHEN

WE SHARE THE IMPORTANT

ASPIRATION OF A MORE PERFECT

UNION.

THANK YOU ALL VERY, VERY

MUCH.

[APPLAUSE].

I INVITE YOU ALL TO JOIN US

FOR A RECEPTION OUTSIDE.

THANK YOU.