tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN November 28, 2010 1:00pm-6:00pm EST
you recalled a time after watergate when there was a brief discussion of changing the name of the republican party. now there is discussion, i understand, on the other side of changing their name to republican light or republican left as the case may be. it's my pleasure to be here. the second session is appropriately called leading by example. good policy with good politics. these are leaders up here. my job is to introduce them, say a word about each and get out of the way. governors are the elected officials closest to the people. they implement policies today that showcase the difference that solid republican ideals can make. these gentlemen up here today and ladies and gentlemen who were elected have real jobs. they have real jobs. today we're going to hear from six governors who have been making a difference in their states, putting ideas into action. and as a result have experienced good politics because of their good policy. they will speak in this order
unless they decide to break through. it's up to them. join us on the panel is go haley barber who with his years of experience knows how important the nexus between policy and politics is at both the state and federal levels. we'll also hear from governor bobby jindal who i think both parties recognize as one of the sharpest policy minds in the nation and who is doing an unbelievable job turning louisiana around. bobby jindal in motioning. we all saw that during the b.p. crisis, the man on the spot in the middle of things. we'll also hear from tim pawlenty, a governor who has brought common sense conservatism to a very blue state. nservative ideas, sensible ideas in education to which i'm very partial and developed the idea of sam's club republicanism. we'll learn a lot from governor mitch daniels. he's a real example of the good ideas good policy makes. he was up for re-election in a very tough year, 2008.
he won re-election by a mere 17 points in a state that barack obama won. we can only wonder what 2008 would have been like for republicans if we governed at federal level like governor daniels did in indiana. our fifth panelist is governor mike mcdonald -- sorry bob mcdonald. bob mcdonald another very popular governor of the swing state. he's got virginia back where virginia was supposed to be. let me tell you the difference between a republican governor and a democrat governor. when tim kaine was leaving his office his budget would be balanced with a tax hike. thanks to governor mcdonald those tax hikes never happened. ..
>> i started something i shouldn't have. [laughter] >> ronald reagan stood for the good policy and good politics. if you do the right thing, it will succeed and they will reelect you. they will do what try it -- it will try to do what make people's happy -- they will try to do what makes people happy. today, the american people understand the country is going in the wrong direction. it understand that the policies of the obama administration are catastrophic. they understand that this election was a repudiation of those policies. i think we republicans need to be able to distinguish between disliking the president -- americans want our presidents to succeed, including this president. the american people know the policies of this administration
and the policy-read congress are terrible -- pelosi-reid congress are terrible. they know that the spending has hurt the economy, rather than helped the economy. the government cannot spend itself rich. these $1.30 trillion, $1.40 trillion, $1.50 trillion deficits in the last -- first year and this year and next year of the obama budget. that was the budget. they have deficits today as big as the budget was not so very long ago. the american people know who was going to pay back the debt created by those deficits. our children and grandchildren. how disgraceful is it for a generation to saddled our children and grandchildren -- saddle our children and
grandchildren with $40,000 or $45,000 per person in the united states. more importantly, the united states people know this did not work. this made it harder to create jobs. obamacare, the tax increase in january, the federal financial reform statute -- it has created uncertainty. how can a business person in milwaukee hire more people when they do not know what the effect of mandatory health care is going to be, when they do not know what their taxes are going to be, do not know what their tax rate is going to be, do not know what the finance rules are going to be about being able to borrow money? all of that uncertainty is making government that enemy of job creation. bill, i think we republicans need to understand something that the average american has already figured out. the other side wants big government.
that has made them a smaller economy. we need to be for a bigger economy. that means smaller government. that is the equation the american people have come to understand and come to grips with. now, what does that mean for the new republican governors? do what you said you're going to do. i promise that is good advice. do what you said you were going to do. when people saywhenoh, it's -- when people say, oh, it's too hard. this is going to hurt services. anybody that thinks there is one department in your state but can not save money does not know what the hell are talking about. there is no department -- highway patrol, the crime lab, economic development -- there is nobody in state government in the mississippi that cannot save money and they have had to
save money over the last three years. brie prepared to do that and i think he will be enormously successful -- be prepared to do that and i think you will be enormously successful. >> governor jindal. >> they made jokes about their size. he joked about a year ago that he would have to lose 40 pounds and he was going to run for president. they told me i had a gain 40 pounds if i wanted to run for governor of louisiana. [laughter] i want to echo everything he said about policies that governors have to implement. we do not print money or go to china to borrow money. most of our constitutions require us to balance the budget. it takes a supermajority vote bank of the legislature to actually raise taxes. i have made it clear we're not raising taxes. in louisiana, it takes a super majority vote to grow the but it faster -- the budget last year.
we have line-item vetoes to take out whistle spending. this is one of the most important things we could teach washington, d.c. we have a part-time legislature, like most states do. we used to pay farmers not to grow crops. maybe we can pay congress tuesday at washington, d.c., and not pass laws. is not an original thought. our laws are safest when they are at home. that is what mark twain said. we are facing some degree of fiscal challenge. in louisiana, we cut our spending. i'm not talking about freezing spending. this year's budget is 14% smaller than last year's. our overall spending is down 26%. we have eliminated over 6000 government positions, sold off 10% of our private services. the theme of this panel -- a good policy is good politics.
when i campaigned for governor, i was very up front with the people of louisiana, even before it became painfully oious that washington was out of control with taxing and borrowing and spending. i made it clear that everything we would do was centered around one priority. for 25 years, we were the only state in the south exporting -- our greatest asset -- our people. we had people moving out of this date in 10 -- the state instead of into it. we need to grow the private sector economy. done it by five key steps. it is important, when you cut spending and government, you can have a stronger private sector. there is a contest. they understand why we are making these decisions. we have a special session of ethics. that was the first thing i did, within my first 30 days as governor. you have a lot of momentum due
to campaign on specific policies. you're in your honeymoon period. for first initiatives should be your most important. it was important to start with ethics reform. you can fill in the blanks. half of our people were under water. the other half are under indictment. i am not making a bunch of jokes about louisiana politicians. we passed dozens of ethics laws. the center for public integrity said we went from 44th worst to second best on public disclosure. we went up to the top five of the integrity index. the reason this is important is because -- one of the most important things we can do to attract investment is to crack down on corruption. during the campaign, i talked about that. it was not just about symbolism or rankings, but about sending a strong message. they will say you cannot do it,
you cannot change spending, you cannot change your state, this is the way business has been done for decades. we said, it is a new day in louisiana. people expect change. the second thing -- we cut taxes -- the largest income tax in our states history. got rid of taxes on equipment, debt, utility. it was our second special session. about one week and a half to two weeks after, we made a commitment to not raise taxes. the uncertainty is keeping businesses across our country from investing their capital. they do not know what washington is going to do to taxes or regulations. it wanted descendant strong message, we welcome business investment -- we wanted to send a strong message, we welcome business investment in louisiana. i will give you one example, we have the top-ranked work force
training program in the country. steal ideas an example from other states. georgia has a great work force training program. we hired from there t have someone come and traine. we can learn from each other, where there is policies or ideas or even personnel. we also offer a day when guarantee. -- a day one guarantee. improve education. we have more students in charter schools than any other city in america. we have a scholarship program to give real, meaningful choice to many parents. we a put discipline back in the classrooms. one of the number one reasons we lose good teachers is a lack of discipline in this -- in the classroom. this is the number one reason we lose good teachers. we have strong accountability programs. we have signs that student
performance, at the end of the year, there will be a lot of -- a lot less bureaucracy and red tape. we invested in our infrastructure, even as we cut our overall spending. which invested in our roads and ports -- we invested in our roads and ports more than the last three administrations combined. we were able to show our people that these choices were made for reasons, make these cuts to create a stronger part -- private-sector economy. we put money. -- we put money out. the best job performance in the south. we're the second-best economic performance during the recession. good policy is good politics, as long as you explain to your voters were you're making tough
choices and cuts. " we call them parishes, not counties. by the third year, you expect people to come up to you and start complaining more and more. we do not like those cuts. we would prefer you to protect those programs. i've been amazed -- i will close with this point. the last time louisiana faced our recession the strong and powerful was back in the 1980's. it was painful. we were one of only three states in recession. the rest of the country was booming. they were wondering why louisiana was not. this time, it is different. as i travel the state, our people expect us to make the tough choices. they're making the tough choices in their families, their personal budgets, their businesses. we explain to people we are not want to raise their taxes. by making the tough choices, we
will create better-paying jobs in the private sector. i absolutely agree with the premise of the panel that the policy is good politics. it is important to remind people why do are making tough choices and why -- why you are making tough choices and why it is the sensible approach. nobody has ever spent their way into prosperity. some have tried, nobody succeeds. good policy is good politics. >> thank you, governor jindal. >> thank you for your leadership. we're honored that you are here to moderate the panel. i am glad that all of our guests are here to support the r.j. -- argie a -- rga. it has been an honor to serve as vice-chair as haley has been chair. this affirms t hahe wisdom and
common sense of the people. i think the country basically said to president obama and harry reid and nancy pelosi led congress that, we do not like what you're doing. you have taken us away from the common principles that made the country great. we're telling you to knock it off. we're putting it under new management. with that, all of us like to talk about freedom. some of our friends in the media who are cynical snicker at that and say, it is an old word that does not mean much anymore. i think it means as much or more than ever before for this reason -- when we talk about the scope and reach of government into the lives of america and allies of our economy -- lives of our economy, this issue of freedom, what the government can do tyrannical the camera and we can do to unleash the american spirit, a matters a lot. we're very worried about what might have been in iran or north korea, as we well should be.
we should be very diligent about those external threats, but every day, there are internal threats in the form of school board decisions, county decisions, state decisions, federal government decisions. as they push in and take over space that previously was reserved for the private market, they crowd out and discourage the american spirit and freedom. as they push into space that used to be reserved for families and neighborhoods and community in charity and places of worship, it pushed out and crowd out the american spirit. as they push into the private market, and they do things to discourage entrepreneurs, they crowd out and discourage the american spirit. this issue of defending freedom and raising it up and educating people about it and applying it to the policy challenges and opportunities of our time is important. i think the american people understand that. i think the american people responded to that with the results of this election.
as to some of this was of a policy applications of what that means under the hood, -- as to some of the specific policy applications of what that means under the good -- most politicians would never work in the private sector. one of the things we can do to stimulate private sector job growth in the country -- what are the things we can do to stimulate private sector job growth in the country? ask the people who deploy capital, take risks, create jobs, and jobs. when you ask them, what they tell you is, governor, make the load lighter, do not make it heavier. do things to encourage me, not to discourage me. do things to make it more enticing to invest and take risks and grow. there's a whole bunch of stuff under the hood of that. basically, they say, make our cost competitive when it comes to taxes, regulations, insurance, tort reform, energy
costs, permitting, regulatory burdens, time spent -- make all of that lighter. one last topic that is nearing dear to my heart is education, and the issue of accountability and reform. we have a situation where we cannot be a successful country without people being educated and skilled who can access the economy of today is tomorrow. we have 1/3 of our kids dropping out of high school. we have children who are not able to access the economy of today's tomorrow. minnesota is very fortunate. we have the highest a.c.t. scores in the country. our college and high-school attainments course are very high. there are areas of concentrated disadvantage. [laughter] >> there is someone with a low score here.
do we need to make an announcement? turn off your blackberries. maybe from there. >> sorry. >> in minnesota, we have challenges like all states do. make it more competitive. governors like him back -- governors like to brag about rankings. minnesota is now on the top 10. congratulations to bob mcdonnell for being no. 2. our costs need to be measured by current spending. we will not be successful as a country because we're the biggest. we will not be successful because we're the cheapest. we're not. we need to be more competitive. we also have to be the smartest country. we have to have a workforce as inventive, innovative, productive, collaborative, skilled -- we not have that
yet. hopefully, we can get into the education issue more broadly. we have raised their standard but we have actress schools. we require kids to get a -- we've raised our standard. we have charter schools. require kids to get out of the eighth grade. we came in 16th or 17th in the world in the 1990's as a state in testing. the food to a bat test a couple of years ago, we came in fifth or sixth -- if we took that as the couple of years ago, which came in fifth or sixth -- we came in fifth for six in the world. thank you for being here. [applause] >> that was some homespun wisdom. you would not give me any money at all when you were director of omb. [laughter]
mitch daniels, the man on a motorcycle. >> governor jindal brought this up. i forgot what a rich vein of humor louisiana politics has provided over the years. i remember that when you were running, i happened to be talking to a friend from your state, a very savvy person. as a doctor tell me about my friend, bobbie, can he win -- i said, tell me about my friend, bobby jindal, can he win? [laughter] it was a great encouragement to us. i am just struck by what a moment of enormous opportunity this is for all the principles that have been well expressed here to be expressed where it matters most, which is in intangible -- in tangible action and the results that come from
it. i am so excited for all of our new colleagues. anyone who has the chance to assert that this motion in -- this moment in the nation's history. there is clearly an appreciation for the need for a balancing between the sectors of economy and government. it does not always been there. it will be a pill for anybody -- uphill for anybody who challenges spending and challenges government intrusiveness. it is a time in which the skepticism about washington and, i would say, are reciprocal competence in the greater trustworthiness and effectiveness of state government has never been wider. people will be receptive, i think, and very supportive of actions taken by people in jobs like ours. i am so thrilled -- one of the
positive aspects of the last year is that -- i heard people talk about the 10th amendment for the first time since high school. certainly, a lot of americans -- they forgot. interestingly, the people have begun to speak, i think, pretty knowledgeably, about the importance to freedom, the fidelity of the original concept that the states ought to be more individual. there is a chance i have not seen in six years on this job to challenge credibly and maybe effectively, especially if we do it together, washington's dictates. i would say this -- on the basis of some experience -- i think our fellow citizens have never,
in a long time, at least, been so conscious of the need for government should be pursued on a limited basis. i would echo what haley barbour said to the new governors. you're going to have a field day, especially if you follow a democrat. the fruit hangs very low in state government. my military friends call it a target-rich environment, especially if you're coming in after people who have a different outlook about what it ought to do and what it ought to spend. go for it. you will find, at every corner, even if the state has been fairly well-run, even if they have been through the wringer the last few years, you will never be done finding ways to economize and stretch taxpayer dollars. i would urge you to remember
americans want government to be more limited. that does not mean in dirt or inaccurate -- in art -- inner door and accurate -- inert or inaccurate. people expect vigor and action. it will not be enough to say that you taxed less. you have to have action items. i would urge you to tilt your actions, not just your rhetoric, in the directions of the least fortunate people in your state, those who are only on the first rung of life's latter. there is a huge opportunity now. the failure to act effectively on that will be penalized. i do not think that is going to be fall any of the folks who
just got elected. it is the best crop -- going to fall any of the folks who just got elected. it is one of the best crops i have seen. >> bob mcdonnell. >> thank you. thank you to all of you for your great generosity. we're celebrating our success this week and because of the help we were given. you're one of the great ideas for the conservative cause in america. you're drafting policies that we can work on. we appreciate that. earlier in the campaign, we realized it was all about doubt in the economy. jobs."ted by "bob's for
i figured it ever be remembered that on election day, i had a pretty good chance of winning. there were a number of other bobs who could have adopted the same thing in tide that around their campaign. [laughter] what was evident was that you have to drive policies like to campaign. i called bobby jindal, mitch daniels, some of the other distinguished governors. it was very helpful.
it is pretty evident from this climate in this election cycle, congress in the lofty numbers of about 20% approval rating, people are tired of fighting. they want solutions, ideas, results. we saw governors and candidates running on ideas -- positive, idea-laden campaigns. democrats ran on attacking republicans on character and other things. it was a very much, trusted idea of it would permit contrast did. that is why we had such success with the 23 new ceos of the states that we got here at this meeting. james collins wrote a couple of books. one of them, he talked about the idea of having very audacious
goals. painted big mission. then he put the policy needs to it -- paint a big mission. but the policy needs to it. people will follow. virginia is going to be the most business-friendly place in america. we will be the best place for veterans. we will be the energy capital of the east coast. things like that. then we said about actually getting those things done. -- set about actually getting those things done. there is a limit to what you can actually do. the main thing is keeping your eye on making the main thing the main thing. so, i thought we could do three things well -- get the budget under control, create an economic development environment with new incentives, and try to reform our education.
weep are rid of governor kane's $2 billion tax increase. we balance the budget by cutting spending and ended the fiscal year with about $400 million surplus. the school principals really do work. -- fiscal principals really do work. there has not been such a time where people are willing to except more sacrifice and more pushing the envelope -- accept more sacrifice and more pushing the envelope then right now. you cannot spend more than you have. you go broke. running these campaigns and governing of this concern -- as a fiscal conservative has actually worked to create more prosperity for the state. everybody said there would be 37,000 teachers unemployed. it did not happen. people managed their resources
better. botha accused iran of fiscal accountability really worked for us -- of those ideas around this accountability really work for us. we said we needed to do a better job competing in the marketplace. bobby jindal and mitch daniels were very busy attracting business. i had to get in the ballgame. we passed a sweeping series of economic development incentives to be able to cash in on that promise that we were going to be all about jobs with just the 10% unemployment rate. we had 300,000 people in the state unemployed. it was not exceptional. getting people back to work -- all of the polls showed that was the key issue. focusing on all those things that him talk about, entrepreneurship and small business and reinvigorating the free enterprise system, talking about the lofty goals and rekindling the american dream -- it is all things that people
wanted hereabout. they want to be led by an approach. the third thing we did was have a long-term approach to getting education better. for people to have access to the american dream, they have to be well trained. you look at india, china, in a border, -- singapore, china -- they have more accountability, more focus on results. we got some ideas to put in place, ideas that add more charter schools. we had to work all over the country. we used innovation from the universities. we exchanged information across will districts. all those things past. we're trying to find other ways to push the envelope. we want to privatize certain agencies. we have all of the business
community behind us. we have the public behind it. you have to do a little work to find ways to improve the energy capacity. the promotion of big ideas is more timely now than ever. the focus on reducing spending and getting back to constitutional rights, discussing federalism and the 10th amendment, what that means to govern better at the state level. that is critically important. i am fortunate. i live in a state where the second governor was thomas jefferson. when he said things like government close to the people governs best, you should not take from the model labor, the bread. it's nice to the governors to gone before you who have the big ideas.
with that, i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you very much. in fairness to both of your states, james madison did lead to go to the college of new jersey. [laughter] >> when we talk about the intersection of politics and policy, which cannot be underestimated, we sit in rooms like this and we talk about big ideas. we talk about how republics -- the republic is more willing to accept payment difficulty than ever before. that is true. here is what is not -- the government that you inherit, and i do not care whether it was republican or democratic, the mindset was different. what that meant is one of the
biggest thrill of the governors have is to get under control the bureaucracy that you inherit and to turn around the culture of no -- the culture of do not do it that way. the culture of, it has never been done that way. you will also be surrounded by professional politicians, members of the legislature, members of your party, now the u.s. sees the governorship for your party and in their minds for them, they now believe that you should not take any risks. all these things you said on the campaign, that sounds really great. he ran a great campaign. great. now let's get down to what we really need to do. let's not kid anybody angry or take any chances. let's not kid anybody that we should not take -- let's not
kick anybody that we should not kick.-- tak you can injure way toward 2014- inch your way toward 2014 and be in the best positioned to win. am absolutely convinced that, if that is what you do, when we come back here in 2015, you will not be here. the public -- this exception to greater pain that you're talking about -- i exception-- this acceptance of greater pain that you're talking about also brings a greater expectation.
i voted for him or her and their address selected another gun. -- they are just like the other guy. do not take on the public sector. we have states like mine where public-sector unions are extraordinary strong -- extraordinarily strong. keep faith with your base. do not take on the fiat. -- the fight. we know, as governors, and i think they all understand this, that, if you do not take on the fight and solve the problem, you will never solve your budget problems.
you'll never solve the underlying problems that need to be sold as a state -- solved as a stake in as a country. -- state and as a country. in the new jersey, that has meant the teachers union. you will get no greater resistance to political movement then from your political advisers telling you how many teachers are in your teachers unions, how much money they collect, how much they spend on advertising, how much they spend on all of these issues and that everybody loves their teachers. it is true. most people do love their teachers. i love public school teachers of new jersey, but i cannot stand their union. [laughter] the reason i cannot is because the tell you is about the children. they tell you that they want to
do everything for the kids yet, in my state, the four years before it became governor, the average salary increase demanded by public hadrian's was% in a 0% inflation world -- public unions was 5% in a 0% inflation world. when i ask them this year during the unprecedented budget crisis -- and $11 billion budget deficit that i inherited from jon corzine -- when asked them to take a pay freeze for one year, not a cut, and contribute 1.5% of their salaries to their health benefits, maybe $750 for the average teacher for full family medical, dental, vision coverage -- and they called it
the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state of new jersey. now, this is what you have to believe to believe that. my wife and i have children. and this is in the second grade. you have to believe that she would come home with their first report card and she did in her grades were not so good pubescent, what happened? she said, i cannot concentrate -- her grades were not so good. i said, what happened? she said, i can concentrate. you made my teachers take a pay freeze this year. [laughter] now she has to -- part of her salary goes to health benefits. stop the madness.
[laughter] [applause] just give her that 5% pay increase and there are those free health benefits and a promise to get all a's. that is the crap i have to listen to in new jersey. you're going to hear that from of some of your visors. do not do that. you cannot take on those fights. allah would say to you is, if you care about good policy and good politics, the great freeze -- all i would say to you is, if you care about good policy and good politics, it is not easy. when you get home and the bureaucracy is pressuring you, when you get home and the special interest are crushing you, when you're political
advisers are telling you to take your foot off the gas, do the easier things first. i disagree. do the hard things first. you will never be more popular than you are right now. you'll never be more popular than you take -- then when you take your hand up the bible on the inauguration day. political capital is there to be spent. it will dissipate if you do not spend it. you have a choice, spend or put it in the top drawer of your desk. one day, you will open it to spend it and it will not be there. time will dissipate it. i think good policy and good politics, sure, of course, but it is when you do not get home -- you get, the tough was need to be made -- when you get home and the top note -- tough
choices need to be made. you need to do what you said you're going to do, not only for the people who supported use -- you financially and spiritually, but you could put yourself on the road to political ruin and your state on a road that will not lead to prosperi and job growth and all the things that we want, but on a path to the same old same old. they do not want that anymore. they deserve better. it is up to us to make sure that happens. thank you. [applause] >> the program says i am in charge. i am not really in charge. do we have time for questions? man at some questions. >> -- may i have some questions? >> i cannot tell you how
impressed they are with you. those are the real ys with the real jobs. we do a lot in washington, but they do the real job. let's think about something big -- one of the themes. i remember in 1996, the republican ideas about welfare reform are the republican governors -- we came to washington. it passed in washington over the objections of the administration. bill clinton signed that welfare reform bill. there was maybe no greater example then the federal welfare program. we need instruction in washington. we need to be talked -- taught. this was not a boat, this was a restraining order. -- a vote, this was a restraining order.
this was not stop. what is the big idea or a couple of big ideas -- things you've done or are percolating? >> i hope that all but you ran on something that would resemble or could be put together into an agenda. we had haley's plan. we had several different areas of government where we said we were going to do things. the best thing you could have, going forward, is something that you could say the people voted for. then do it. my first year, i campaigned very heavily on tort reform. the senate -- both houses are democrats. the senate voted for tax reform and the speaker would not let it come to the floor of the house. this session ends on sunday. on monday, i come back to special session on wednesday.
poor performer. the next 20 days, three more times. the speaker caves because he cannot hold ht -- the votes anymore. tort reform passed two-to-one. there is stuf fyou -- stuff you talked about. make it your agenda. c.aim you -- claim you have a mandate. do it. they want you to do somethin.g -- something. the difference between senators and governors is that senators talk about doing things and governors do things.
it can be grafted into an economic growth, job-creation plan, that is the thing. i would venture to say everyone in your campaigns has those elements. if you have not made it as simple and easy to understand, go figure it out and then implement or execute that plan. >> one of the things that is both good policy and good politics is essential if we're going to reform and shrink government in the country and make it more sustainable is to overhaul the government employee compensation and benefit package. chris touched on this. i will give you a couple of examples from minnesota. public employees used to be underpaid and over benefited compared to their private-sector counterparts. now, by any credible study, they're both over-benefited and overpaid. the compensation systems are not aligned to performance or
outcomes. they are aligned tammany years you up in a brown. if you look at the teacher unions -- they are aligned to how many years you are around. if you look at the teachers' unions, they are tied to seniority. it is not academic success. like everything else, we have to define the strategic mentioned an enterprise to align the money to the measurements of the enterprise and do a better job. we had bus drivers who could work 15 years, retire, be eligible for health care benefits for the rest of their life. i went around the state and said, how many of you, if you do not work in government, get to work 15 years, then have the government pay for your health insurance for the rest -- the rest of your life? that -- they agreed that should be ended. we take -- took a long-distance
bus strike for 44 days. the congestion in the twin ties, the 15 largest metropolitan area in the country, was better during the bus strike, not worse, for reasons we still not -- still do not understand. [laughter] the public is on our side in this issue. we said to our teachers, five years ago, we're going to go to performance pay. we were the first state in the nation to do so. other stes are catching up and now doing even older- bolder versions. i had to take them hostage. the teachers' unions rose up, just like chris said, and it was world war iii, just to get an early form of performance pay for teachers. we had major battles with state employees over how we pay for health care. you can go anywhere you want for
health care, but if you go somewhere really expensive with crappy results, you are paying more. if you go somewhere more efficient with less expense, we'll pay more. those of the kind of changes we need to make. it is important policy and good politics. the public is with that. they know it needs to be done. >> we have about five minutes. governor daniels? >> this is a piece of gratuitous advice. do not take any polls. [laughter] with my good -- with apologies to my good friends who do this for a living, do not take any polls. it will only depress you. you'll start declining in popularity. this is gravity.
more to the point, the essence of what he the talked about -- haley talked about, doing versus saying. it is hard to talk the public into a different point of view, but you can act in a way the public does not think it likes, but results can change their mind. it is hard to talk people out of an attitude, but you can -- if you act, perhaps in ways that are different -- the media will always count on how controversial things are. i was reminiscing when i was congratulating the governor who had just been elected. her predecessor, in the middle of my first term, was the chairman of the dga.
he was holding conferences. they kept asking him to forecast their reelection -- the results of the next election. he said, we will kill that guy in indiana. he cannot possibly make it. he has done all of these things that jarred people. it did not work that way. i cannot tell you what an opportunity awaits you. if you follow your best instinct and you do the things that you thought police conclude will make a material difference, that will -- that you thought would make a material difference, that will make a difference. it based the action and results -- if people see action and results, it will work out just fine. i know that is going to get you
ahead. >> you are right about results. telling the truth is a big deal. you guys are all truth tellers. it brings, it resonates. the best way to show a crooked stick is to hold a straight stick right next to it. >> i want to follow-up on what mitch said. this president may be the most gifted speaker we've seen in the white house since the president that you and haley worked for. but his initial response was he just did not do a good enough job communicating. you would ask the question, what can congress learned from the new governor's -- learn from the new governors? congress needs to focus on what voters care about. they wanted to use the economic
challenge to push the obamacare, cap and trade, all these things. boter -- voters wanted them to push for job creation. we need to create the conditions for private sector growth. get out of the way. do no more harm. i can tell you story after story of companies who are not invested capital because they are waiting to see what d.c. is going to do. every governor has to balance the budget. whenever kind of requirements, every governor operates under constraints -- whatever the kind of requirement, every governor coppr operates under restraints.
it iincredibly important to learn from the states about health care. everybody but washington realized if you incentivize people to go to work, they will go to work. if you incentivize people to stay home, they will not go to work. the experts said it would never go toe -- it would not work. it turned out to be a great success. mitch has done some great reforms. in response to obamacare, the new folks in congress should listen to the stes. 60 million new enrollees in medicaid. every governor will be confronted with the dramatically larger medicaid program. instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, they should give states flexibility so they can
lead the way with health care, as they did with welfare. >> these gentleman not only have good ideas themselves but have many good ideas around the country. we're desperately in need of them in washington. thank you very much. [applause] >> as you can tell, this is closing our second plenary session. the third session will start within the next five minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in january, 24 new governors will be sworn in. here's a brief look at a couple of them. in connecticut, democrats dan malloy defeated tom foley, former u.s. ambassador to ireland.
to succeed -- he is the mayor of stanford and the longest- serving mayor in city history. in florida, republican rick scott the competed democrat alex -- defeated democrat alex sink. governor elect scott has served as chairman for conservatives for patientsrights. -- patients' rights. for continuing coverage, check out our website c-span.org. now, a discussion on >> emory university hosts democratic strategist donna brazile, and people from academics and politics. this is about one hour and 50 minutes. >> hello, ladies and gentlemen.
i serve as the president of college council. i would like to welcome you to civil discourse in the politics of confrontation in america. it is sponsored by the office of the provost and the office of community in diversity. you have the opportunity to hear from a diverse and dynamic group of speakers who will shed light on the challenges facing important dialogue in our community today. in light of the national and university events that have taken place, this will look to the complex relationship between education, civility, media, and scholarship. the role of social media seems to impact students the most. the issues raised today affect all citizens, no matter age, race, or socio-economic status. it is my hope that all of you will share with your friends, families, and colleagues the lessons that you learn from today's event. although the dialogue and debate
will not in here, i am excited that the discussion is starting today at emory university. it speaks to the fact that our school continuously strive to get the forefront. this is a discussion that should be occurring across the country. what better place to start it than at and diversity -- at university who seeks to be creatively engaged. >> good afternoon and welcome to the panel on civil discourse here at emory university. we have an exciting panel. i would like to take a moment to reflect upon the meaning of civil discourse. every day, we communicate through our words and actions. do we truly understand each other? are we aware of our words true
meaning and intention? do we merely speak over one another in an effort to have our own point heard, understood, and is valued? as a society, perhaps we have forgotten the most important aspects of maintaining a civil discourse, the art of listening. perhaps listening today will help us to understand the context of our new and changing world, the changing politics. the need to understand the diverse and sometimes contradictory coulters to which we are exposed on a daily basis. today, we are fortunate enough to practice our art of listening with a panel of experts.
>> he served in washington school of law for six years. he joined the vanderbilt university law school in 1987. he was a fellow at the institute for public policy studies and was the acting dean from 1996 until 1997. he held positions in the australian government as senior legal officer where he was responsible for policy advice on the racial discrimination act and other related human-rights and racial discrimination legislation. he was later appointed to the australian law reform commission. from 1978 until 1987, he was a member of the faculty of the australian national university. he served as associate dean from 1982 until 1985. he is a member of the american
law institute, the american society of law and medicine. he currently teaches sports -- torts. has written books on torts, defamation, free speech, child health. he is a native of australia. he earned his law degree from the university school of law in 1970. he earned a degree from university of michigan in 1974 and denturist doctorate -- juris doctorate in 1984. welcome. [applause] --dean. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction. this is a marvelous occasion.
this is a very important conversation that will be engage this afternoon. we face a critically important matter in the republic. we just have an election campaign was marked with vitriol, unprecedented spending, and a sense of take no prisoners. if you read "the economist,", you will see on the cover recently this very effective cover with all of the american
populists surrounding president barack obama waving placards and say nasty and uncivil things to him. there are numbers of articles worth reading theire. perhaps today we can begin to find some antidote to our political situation. it is fitting that this conversation takes place at the law school. at the law school we daily discuss matters that face the nation and world in terms of public policy and how the law can help in these matters. we look at the matter of the rule of law it seems to me that this is at the center.
from the right, and left of politics, often the idea of the rule of law is ridiculed. it is seen as some kind of empty vessel in which raw politics can be carried out. at base, the rule of law is a debate around institutions that support liberty. it is a heritage supported and shared by many nations. it is not exclusive to just one nation. it is not the exclusive domain of just the united states. those nations are built around institutions of being molded by time and tide. they are tolerant in attitude and civil in debate. these are precious and delicate institutions. the founding fathers recognized
that delicate quality. the founding fathers appreciated the passions of the people. they saw that wisdom had to be ercised over sentiment. great burdens and careful alliance in the republic was put on the people, as it was in all emerging forms of responsible government. throughout the early debates, we find civil society appeared to be foundering in the early experimentation but was to be reinforced by eliminating prejudices and inculcating virtue through education. americans were to be taught to be virtuous. the term "commonwealth" gives us
a sense that the citizens were to look beyond the self- interest. political structures have to guard against the temptations of self interest. education was there to support the best angels. it is true that in every age and in every democracy, voices have been shrill and politics have been dirty. john adams despaired of it. sometimes democracies have failed as they did in the weimar republic. the application of those shrill voices now together with modern media along with a population educated about civil
obligation is particularly delicate. it is an irony when you think about it that our nation that is so mired throughout the world for its universities scientific acumen has failed in civic education. it has failed to have the kind of balanced conversations that we are going to have here today. they do not penetrate sufficiently to shore up and protect our institutions. the marketplace of ideas is the metaphor for the first amendment. it operates on the ideal of the town hall. unfortunately, the town hall has become a raucous bizarre -- ba zaar that can undermine the pillars of the republic. it is this conversation that addresses this critical issue
today. i wish you all well in it. i feel sure we will have a wonderful afternoon of opinion. i can assure you that it will be civil. thank you very much. [applause] coul>> we would like to >> will now introduce the panelists. the doctor is a professor of american history at emory university. he specializes in religious, intellectual, and environmental history. he was born and raised in england. he has an undergraduate degree from oxford and went on to a ph.d. in american history from the university of california at berkeley. is the author of six books in
the presenter of six lecture series with the teaching company. on british and american history. >> dr. monica crowley is a panelist on the mclaughlin group. she is a nationally syndicated radio host. she holds two master's degree and a ph.d. from columbia school of international affairs and worked as a foreign-policy analyst. >> dr. kathleen cleaver. she practices law in new york before joining the emory faculty. she dropped out of college to join -- and then became a leader in the early by panther party in california. she coedited "liberation, imagination, and supply party
-- and of the black panther party." dr. -- is a contemporary author and scholar of middle eastern affairs. he has served as a senior level adviser to leading policymakers and is a frequent contributor to cnn, npr, bbc, and nbc. he's the author of "the rise of muslim capitalism." dr. -- has a ph.d. from the university of chicago. she is the author, editor, and
translator of 8 books on indian religion. she is co container of the peace initiative at emory. she has served as the chair of religion from 2000 until 2007 and currently is the chair of development and excellence at emory. >> professor donald brazil is a prominent political analyst and a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist. she is also a contributor and commentator on cnn. finally, i would like to introduce our moderator today. he is the james m. cox professor of journalism at emory
university. he has worked in mississippi, boston, philadelphia, and the atlanta for 35 years with the bad. -- for 35 years. his book has won the pulitzer prize. >> popoand you. thank you for being here. we come together at a very emotional time. and by all external evidence, we are a deeply polarized nation in the middle of economic destruction, technological of people and cultural change. what we don't know is the
response to these forces. -- we are a deeply polarized nation in the middle of technological upheaval. i don't think that any would say that this is the most expressive or polar ice time and our history. we achieve this through personal attacks, unbridled diatribes that led to war which led to liberation and ultimately to the founding of this nation. in the years that followed, the argument that could not be worked out to debate that settled through pools. blood ran in the square.
demand from up the road drew large and cheering crowds across the nation, outside his house, as he delivered speeches which delivers speeches and the most in elegant imagery to hammer african americans and their culture. he spoke in a tone that sometimes appears over the airwaves today. he would say that he pitied people and that he had come to enlighten them. he will tell audiences before posting that he and his fellow southerners had to shoot blacks to "take the government from them. "this is the white man's
country and shall be governed by the white man." later, a procter -- proxy said that minorities control the government and he wanted to take back his government. "i will fight it to the last ditch." the academy amerced in the 1960's as ground zero for free speech. so much that in the same year that the dogs and hoses were released on civil-rights demonstrators in alabama and the same year that a bomb hit four girls, -- was able to do a tour of college campuses and speak with some but stirred little
interruption. after the turmoil of 1968, the resignation of president nixon, we went from the 1970's and into the 1980's when the tenor of our political discourse appeared to improve. at the same time, or cultural dialogue coarsened. "nbc today show," moved from the news division to the entertainment division. they employed p.t. barnum techniques to gain market share. provocations that many as you will remember the company shouting matches the shouting matches became the outrageousness of jerry springer. the low cut dresses of -- of the
1960's adult films became the pg-13 films which shows a young adults sniffing lines of cocaine off of the chest of women. a loosening of self restraint continued into the 2000's. we went through the time in the 1960's when much she small and sports was despair's for a while. gordon gecko became the symbol of the end justifying the means. people were perfecting the kind of motivational trash talk and they pounded their bodies into the skulls of other athletes. where we've surprised by the discovery of concussions? does that become a metaphor if we don't find a way to restrain
things seem to survive if they are meaner, stronger, if they become trash talk. there is some trash talk which some people clarifies the issues, this is in the mississippi legislator. many believe that it only provokes our worst instincts and the same way that this is a precursor of concussions. what if we decide that a speech is a precursor of hate crimes? what are we going to do about it? will we find some other way to elevate the discourse? what will it say when history judges? would say that we saved the american dream or we weakened it? these are questions we will discuss today. i will open up with a question to the panelists, based on their
own knowledge of history, on their own observations, whether or not they are alarmed today by the tone and tenor of discourse and by the reach of this discourse into everyday life. if they are, i would like to know why. if not, i would like to know why not. >> would you like to take that first, professor brazil? >> let me say what an honor it is to be on this panel was such distinguished scholars. some of the people of i admire. it is a great pleasure to be in the city of atlanta. a city that is so progressives that it arrived in the 21st century six months before the country. i like to say thank you for your
southern hospitality, especially those of you who reached out to bring in many of my relatives and other from the gulf coast during that horrible moment in our lives during hurricane katrina. let's talk about what happened last tuesday, what impact this would happen on the civil discourse. what happened was an electoral earthquake. the loss the democrats suffer has changed the balance of power. this is also the third major change that voters have made in washington in just the past four years. can the two parties work together for the common good? will 2011 be a repeat of 1995 when our differences caused a major government shutdown? what the election did not do, i'm sorry to tell you, is to change the way washington operates. if you have hope for stability
and cooperation, well, please to not hold your breath. unpopular opinion is that the voters rejected president obama's agenda. i don't think that that is even close to reality because they rejected how congress operates. they rejected the lack of civility in washington d.c. and they sent mixed signals on how to proceed on issues like tax cuts, climate change, and so on. public confidence in government has eroded. it has been going downhill since the 1980's. the recent downward trend began in the fall of 2008 when public satisfaction was at its lowest peak. republicans trust government
when they are in power. we are in a vicious circle of revenge, retribution, and of course, the partisan politics of a gridlock which keeps the partisan fires burning on both sides. washington is gridlock in 2010, washington will be gridlock for the foreseeable future unless members of congress learned the art of compromise. we're used to the inflammatory rhetoric which has defined our debate. we go on television and we argue our points from our perspective camps. of course, we try to settle our disagreements by outdoing each other. we have not resorted to fistfights.
unless we tone down his rhetoric, who knows will happen now that we have 84 members of the tea party ready to come to washington, d.c.. very hard to tell which traction the country will: and especially when everyone will continue to point fingers. one of the things that i found interesting in the run-up to this election was that there was a small group of lawmakers, about 130 former members of congress, from both political parties, who wrote a letter to their colleagues urging them to be a, urging them to tone down the rhetoric and of course focus on problem-solving. what struck me after they made
their announcement is that no one in the news media picked it up. this is a story that perhaps fell on deaf ears within 30 minutes of the press release. let me say that as an old capitol hill hand, i started when i was in my early 20's working as a staff member and later returning as a chief of staff. there is no question that they are not in the mood to get along or find common-sense solutions. i think that 2011 will bring a very different group both lawmakers to washington, d.c. i doubt very seriously that the republicans will move to the center for the democrats. what we have seen is the removal of those who are in the middle of the dialogue and now we are left with a healthy group of liberals and a healthy tea
party group of conservatives. good luck and let me say this as my closing point, a couple months ago i wrote a column and called on the networks to get rid of -- i called upon my network to remove us unless we have various that touch something very knowledgeable to say. one of the reasons why our networks are reliant on parsons is to keep us partisan. it is difficult to keep us together. >> thank you. [applause] they accept >> i would like to ask dr. crowley the same
question, are you alarmed by the discourse? >> i am alarmed of certain elements of it. overall, no, i am not. when you look at the course of american history, we have a great tradition of verbal brawls where we on other sides of the important issue, we argue our point of view passionately and relentlessly and sometimes it does cross the line and sometimes those passions to overtake us and we get a bit out of control. when you go through the history of the u.s., what we are seeing is something new. you do have a 24 hour news cycle, this is exhausting because you never get the full story, he can never just read
the new york times, "the washington post,", or other publications and just be done with the day. "the new york times just updated a story. when you look at the course of the united states and what we have experienced here and how far we have come in a very short amount of time, i think that this is due in large part to what we tend to bemoan here today which is a train wreck of ideas. now, we can out-we can have a conversation about how they will be done the train wreck of ideas and drove the u.s. to the point of pre-eminence in the world in a short 250 years.
think about the revolutionary times. if you go back and look at what the founding fathers called each other, your hair would stand on end. we are quite different today. they had such bitter policy rivalries, jefferson and adams, that they were both obsessed with outliving the other. jefferson died in virginia and unbeknownst to john adams, a couple of hours would dine -- would die. his famous last words were "jefferson lives." he did not know that jefferson had already died. we think about the world war ii era as a great time of unity but
there was some very bitter debates about whether the u.s. should intervene in europe and in asia. those debates were wild and brutal and vicious. of course,slashfort to the civil-rights era and we know what those debates were all about. many in this room lived through those very vicious times. in modern history, we have the vietnam era which gave rise to some very animated debates. watergate, of course. the new think of the modern presidency is, jimmy carter, ronald reagan, highly polarized figures. you think of the 2000 election and the passions that gave rise from that. then the george w. bush presidency which was highly polarizing.
that was called everything from hitler to a war criminal. then you have barack obama who was equally tarnished and maligned. this is not just on the right but also those on the left that make their displeasure known. i think the differences and the reason why we are here having this conversation is because of this news cycle that includes cable television. i work for fox news, so i am part of the beast. this is a beast that constantly needs to be fed with new visuals. i don't think that there's anything wrong with having passionate points of view on where you think the country is
going. i have a problem with people who use personal attacks to make those points. that is a serious line that is often clark -- crossed on both sides. when you have the media, not as cable news but the internet, facebook, the social media, twitter, which i do not do. you start getting into a cycle where it starts to feed on itself and it feels like you need to top yourself all of the time. i worked for president nixon during the last years of his life and one of the things that he said to me it is that presidents are so caught up in the accelerated cycle that they
don't build times into their schedules to think. that is true for all of us. we tend not to have the time or make the time to think. when you are immersed in this new cycle, exaggerated the differences and attracts the exaggeration of the differences. that is not necessarily a bad thing but this is up to the electorate, to all of us, to talk about what we would like to focus on. the market would then sort it out. in conclusion, i would just say that the train wreck of ideas is what drives this nation forward and the best ideas, they don't always win but eventually they do rise to the surface. we as news consumers need to pay close attention to where we give
our time, attention, and dollars, and then let the market sort it out. >> thank you. i would like to discuss this next with dr nasser. i will remind all the panelists that we want to try to keep our responses in the prescribed time frames. >> thank you and thank you for inviting me. it is very good to be here. the short answer is yes, i think that the lack of civility in public discourse is much higher in its intensity and town. this is perhaps a problem facing the united states that encourages this trend. i don't think that the quality of our public discourse helps us in dealing with them. for instance, having the name
calling and to the simplistic descriptions of health care reform or financial regulations, this makes dealing with things more difficult. there are three things which i think the while looking at it i find very problematic. one is the lack of civility which seems to be targeted at particular communities that are not covered by the rules of polity and correctness. this can be quite controversial in ways that previous episodes might not have. secondly, i think fell lack of
civility in our discourse has gone hand in hand with dumbing down the debate as much as possible and with a lack of sophistication. the most intense voices tend to be the most ignorant. this tends to be in areas such as terrorism, islam, capitalism, etc. it is like we care less about knowing and more about having strong opinions. we are pushing the population to have strong opinions rather than not. we live in a time of international connectivity. it used to be that only hollywood connected culture and images of the u.s. to the world and now it is also cable news, social networking. what we say and how we say it is not only limited to our own
environment. that is different from earlier episodes of intense and uncivil public debate in america. this does impact both the image of america and ultimately help people understand our power or standing or influence. for instance, the tea party movement was mentioned. most of us never thought that the language would begin to seep into europe and lead it to the creation of self-styled european two-party movements. on the other hand, the image of the president of the nine states president -- the president of the nine states as hitler is deeply shocking to those in europe. -- the president of the united states as hitler is deeply
shocking. >> would you like to discuss whether or not you have cause for alarm. if he would like to take it one step further, is to any particular thing that you attribute the current state of instability to? >> i am alarmed by the collapse of the rule of law and so much that it protects fundamental rights. that is what is very upsetting to me. i would like to speak not as a lawyer but from the perspective of someone who went to register voters in 1961. i was a high school student and i was working in my home town. this was the tuskegee civic association that had recorded us to go out and register people to
vote. i was about 14. it was discouraging because many people were intimidated and they did not want to register. two years later, girls like me were blown up in the baptist church for demonstrating against segregation in birmingham. the bomb was put there by the klan. by there, and -- by then, i had gone off to college. then president kennedy was assassinated. and by 1969, i was listed on the d f p i 8 key -- list. -- i was listed on the fbi list of instigators. tea party activists have today
and are similar to the well- dressed and middle-class members of the clues klan. we have had a democratic president it was once a member of the close clan. we have had supreme court justices who were members of the ku klux klan. they are not outside of the parameter. they go inside of the mainstream. my real question is whether we are dealing with civil discourse or are we dealing with the question of the distribution of power? we have had some very fundamental disagreements. there was a lot of hatred over the health-care debate. this is appalling. i cannot understand why people are so hateful, the about four people having health care.
those a protest in december new york against the attorney general. 200 people came and they were protesting the decision to try an al qaeda operative in new york. people were calling him a traitor, etc., but people were calling for his lynching as well. why is it ok for you to call for the lynching of the attorney-general? eric holder is trying to represent double of law. he says that we should try prisoners in our court as criminals and get guantanamo bay
closed down. there is the argument that this is a military necessity. the civil war had issues similar, how do you treat traders or prisoners? and civil war cases, this is pointed out by eugene rothschild is says that the same issue comes up. these were the sons of liberty whoere traitors and they were trying to bring the confederate army behind the lines in tennessee. they were tried by the military and sentenced to death. the supreme court said you cannot try this man under the circumstances when the courts are open. there is no martial law. this is the important case.
this idea that we can repudiate civil liberties and allow the courts not to handle this terrorism is at the core of this. i find the idea of a university could be ordered to hire professionals -- professors of a certain viewpoint, is reprehensible. this is reprehensible because he published a book of the kind of professors that he did not like. he would like to undermine people like me, so full rights workers who then came to the university and talked about civil liberties, etc. now we are being looked at dangerous professors.
i got a letter congratulate me from the general counsel. what will someone to, you are in georgia? >> you have made the enemies list. >> i think the university is where we can talk about fundamental ideas and that is what is missing. in the news cycles, you cannot even talk about half an idea. who is going to talk about what is war, what is fair because there is the whole issue of them claiming liberty. liberty is the claim of those people who were fighting for their independence with celebrity. when you hear them talking about a pretty, they're not talking about freedom. who was out demanding freedom, freedom, freedom?
freedom from what? freedom from those people. there is the recycling of some of that element. we were able to challenge this and prevent that from going to a fascist state. when the rule of law is threatened, i am alarmed. >> thank you. >> i would like to thank you for raising the relationship between politics and culture. that is the way in which i will address the question. i would like to thank donna for raising this question of gridlock. one of the things i'm interested in is the cultural dynamic of gridlock. getting as talking would-be interesting. i would like to address monica
and -- we can think about what monica has argued for. good ideas and name-calling kind of go hand in hand. there are times when name- calling and dumbing down can go hand in hand. those are two fundamentally different points of view about the relationship between name- calling and the intellectual content. all of us agree that we would liked intellectual content as part of our old and we don't know how to get it back. one of the things i think a lot about is this question of say a buddhist like to see from ancient india or tibet where name-calling and intellectual content actually went hand-in- hand. the more intelligently to
consult your enemy, the more intellectual content you were proven to have. this is an interesting point of debate. i am fine with name-calling as long as it continues the democratic association of ideas, the democratic mix of ideas, a democratic context. when that name-calling stops the exchange, then we have a problem. this is not a foregone conclusion that they go hand-in- hand. the two are actually aiding and abetting each other. the way i see it in terms of history, i think a lot of what has happened today has its roots in the 90's in terms of multi- cultural interest groups.
i think that charles taylor did a beautiful job in talking about why groups need public recognition. what happened is that as a result, we expanded the public sphere and a very powerful way but we contracted the idea of a common good. we have an expanded public spirit and a contracted common good. that is where we run into trouble. special interest groups including religion ceased to think about themselves as parts of alliances and parts of the common good. one of the things that has emerged is another symptom of that which i think originated in this context in the 90's and the possibility of irony. we live in this age where we see ironic advertisements all the time, we see those that are
ironic about irony. we cannot talk about ourselves in a healing way, in a therapeutic way. the one place we cannot be ironic about ourselves is in public. i think what has happened is because we don't have an idea of the common good, we are stuck in the special interest groups without the rhetoric of irony about ourselves. in response to the danish cartoon controversy, the president of iran said that we are going to have a cartoon contest about holocaust and that will be our revenge. and that's really -- at an
israeli is percent that they would have a competition first. it was more about which crude could be more ironic about themselves. -- it was about which group could be more ironic about themselves. very rarely do we think about alliances in the way that some parliamentary systems do. in terms of what constitutes public self irony at a group level. i would like to throw those questions out there. >> i would like to discuss this in a few minutes. are you alarmed or worried, dr. alex? >> i am astonished by the incredible high level of good manners that americans show. i come from a country against
which the u.s. fought a revolutionary war and then i travel arounthe country and it is very kerberos -- very courteous. this is completely unexpected. when i was growing up, the television shows have a high level of violence. when i first came to america, it was surprising to me how peaceful everyone was. to some extent, i have not gone over this. the first american election campaign that i saw from inside of the u.s. was the campaign between president carter and ronald reagan. it is highly ritualized behavior. people going to politics are self selected.
they willingly entered the arena in which they know that there's a point to be disputes and they know that there will be bitter exchanges, etc. nearly everyone else watches this things thinking that it is just the politicians going at it. this is not seen as a threat to the core of our being. it is assumed that they will be petulant, childish, and irritating. if you are not a member, you don't have to be worried about the fact that this relentless a mutual 19 is going on. -- mutual nagging is going on. i teach american history here at emory university. i will ask them what religion they are. they will say, i'm a methodist. i will say, tell me why this is
right and all the others are wrong. they will absolutely not do this. i will not make any claims, i will not tell you mine is right. the moral principle that they share is an incredible appreciation for the importance of stability towards the others. they will not make exclusive claims on behalf of their own faith. they would do anything rather than say that they are right and therefore that one is wrong. freedom of speech is a great good and no wonder some people who have freedom of speech will use it rather aggressively. second, if you compare the nation according to its ideals, you will be disappointed about how far short of it comes. if you compare the nation against the other actual missions in the world, then once the pictures just looking some much better, it is incredible
house civil the american people are to one another. even the politicians, despite all the hard words, everyone agreed that the election would take place. >> this comes after the name calling. politicians know what they're getting into. they know what to expect. the technology allows a lot of people to hide and to throw stones from behind trees, from behind and anonymity. this has a corrosive effect. now we have a point where a young college student couldst i voted for his sexuality and he feels compelled to take his own life. -- where a young student gets outed for his sexuality.
the technology has allowed the anonymity. this has gone mainstream. you write a column and the comments that flooded into which are mean spirited and unbridled ineffective. i'm sure you probably get some of that yourself. that does to people's ethnicity, gender, gender preference, everything. that is a real change, isn't it? >> spa i have to tell this great story. back during the 2008 democratic primary, i would get e-mail from people who are saying, you like, you have to endorse obama. then, a few minutes later, you are a female, you must endorse hillary. i did not take a stand and that
at various incendiary e-mails from blacks and they got even worse e-mail from females. i finally began to address my friends saying that i am also grumpy and become an old, so perhaps i will endorse john mccain. [applause] [laughter] it is ok to have principles, a point of view, also it is ok to hold firm. when someone disagrees with you, it is mean-spirited come perhaps disrespectful to just part calling that person a name. . .
i have had to stay calm and rational in the face of accusations about the president. he is not a socialist. he is not that much of a liberal. i am a liberal. he is not a liberal. once you get into the name calling, the muslim attack, the attack on his religion and faith, i have heard them all. then again, i defended bill clinton. the point i am making is that it is ok to have vigorous debates, but they should be based on facts >> and they should be based on accountability. there is no accountability if you do not know who is doing it or saying it. the congressman from south carolina, we know who he is when he calls the president of wire.
right now, there is this unseen bubbling turmoil, anchor, and hostility that it's directed to anyone. does this explain why we do not have more of the people we consider to be giants? lee sandra day o'connor's, hamilton's, taking more of a central role in the public eye right now? why are they all seemingly off to the side? >> it is historical thly the cal say who a giant will be. there are all sorts of people who will later be regarded as giants. 20 years from now, people ask why they do not have such people now. >> the political process is so
brutal given the glare of the 24-hour news cycle. a lot of people do not want to subject themselves to that. the political process now attracts a lot of very good people and a lot of second string people. in terms of the giants in those that you have named, those that are arguing very good work behind the scenes, like george mitchell, sandra day o'connor doing very excellent work on alzheimer's, you have a lot of heavy weights who are operating behind the scenes. but would also argue that you have a lot of heavy weights that have taken the risk to enter public life.
and you do have a lot of intellectuals in serious thinkers entering the process. the problem is that the process so often distort perceptions and so on so that you do not always get the best. but i think we are doing ok. agree about the >> the question of who is a giant and who is not, is one we will know for now. it is based on trying to create the sense of who is an insider and an outsider. giant's board of this situation you are talking about, with a population that would follow a great figure that appeals to a broad group within the
community, right now the issue was us against them. those that promote these ideas or direction of the scores being disinterested in giants. second, i do not think apple the legislature stood up -- i do not think that the legislature stood up to accountability and sold the issue. they do not get to do that. with very little public or any other kind of consequence for the person a dozen, it diminishes the authority of the president and the congress. preventing people with authority from emerging in this debate. >> good point. dr. patton? >> i am glad that you raised the question. in my view the possibility for
giants as individuals that are models that we can follow, that time is done. what we have a responsibility to do instead is look at collective groups that operate differently. groups no need to be the giant'' intellectually in terms of how they deal with each other and talk to each other and how they intend to trust. we need to put out those models, the idea of collective genius in political life being far more important. i say that for another reason that is interesting around accountability. i just wrote a piece on a progressive website for public discourse about the book burning incident. one of the things that is important about accountability is the relationship between intent of political acts and via
fax -- there is no predictable outcome between action and its effect. a recent analysis of al qaeda in this regard -- the way that al qaeda operates is in terms of its effects, not its intent. you have this disconnect between what you think will happen and but actually happens. what you have to do is immediately act based on the effect and not the intent. we are dealing in a moral universe where the relationship is completely different. the threat of book burning created of islands halfway across the world. something that that pastor may not have thought about, but one of the things that universities absolutely must do is in the internet age rethink at the
ethical level the relationship between the intent and the effect. >> a very good point. if you look at the arc of history, many evil and terrible things are done in the name of what appears to be a good cause. in the south, while some politicians and leaders, like george wallace, certainly tried to invoke the rubric of states rights as an umbrella term, there were a number of violent actions taking place beneath that suggesting that it was a cover for white supremacy. in the current environment, my question would be -- do we have some concerns? are be alarmed that now people might take action because they think they have cover?
in the current environment where people say anything, getting on the radio, haranguing, someone might feel they are justified in taking some action that might be unspeakable. doctor? >> i think that they do. i do not think that you can blame glenn beck for timothy mcveigh. >> post dated him, but go ahead. >> the thing that concerns me is that timothy mcveigh said in his interview -- he did not say much, but that the government is the best teacher. and he is the one that is bombing the fbi. there is something there that is a very violent and hostile, anti-government, virulence element in the country.
one thing that alarms me is the rate of mass imprisonment. what kind of society imprisons 2 million people? largely on the basis of nonviolent offenses. looking at the past 30 years with the extreme expansion of who can vote and who can attend school, then you look at the expansion of the prison system, there is something going on. mostly it is drug laws and things that did not exist in the 1970's. it is not the age group that commits crime. to me we have a repressive environment with scandal. because of behavior that was done internationally. people have been trained to do that in the united states.
so, we have something very virulence going on in my opinion. >> we have certainly seen, having to do with doctors that perform abortions, we have seen their lives taken amid intense rhetoric. i am wondering if anyone feels like we are anywhere close to that kind of violence being taken out as a political act. >> have not arrested people that said they tried to shoot obama in tennessee? i mean, they work to keep. -- kooky. >> perhaps we are acting in a more civil way. >> no, the lack of civility has
been a part of our history. primarily between the tools and challenges. we saw this in the last electoral season. there have been some comments about whether or not i win, there could be some sort of amendment solution. there has been a rise in the militia. since the election of bill clinton we have seen an increase in gun sales, ammunition sales. rhetoric that is over the top that we try to check from time to time. i hope that we do not resort to the instability that we saw in the 19th century.
forced as a country to really grapple with a conclusion. sometimes it has led to fights. >> to reinforce the point, e conversation that we're having today is nothing new. in the recent history with the debate over the iraq war, tens of thousands of people have protested the iraq war. it was a volatile time to the point where the president of the united states was on in effigy. i am not excusing that behavior, but i am trying to set it in context. this idea that we should have civility is a good one, but it needs to come from the top. when you have the president of the united states calling
opponents of his agenda enemies, as he did a couple of weeks ago, that is not helpful. i know that he retracted that statement, meaning to say opponents of his agenda leaders in this country that we are decrying is not helpful. one final point about the concept of unity. politicians on one side, unity being overvalued concept. the only time the to get unity is when it is forced in a dictatorship. democracies, iat agree with thatcher. look at some of the world's great democracies and they are throwing chairs at each other in parliament.
throwing punches. but to pile on the united states as an example of instability is unfair. >> does anyone worried that it has reached the point that good ideas are not being offered? there are so worried that they will be shouted down and that the behavior is so boarish and prevalent that they do not want to proffers good ideas? >> actually i do not think it is simply a fear element, which is very real for folks in public life, but i do not think that it makes money. it is not profitable to have good ideas in this economy and culture. that is something the donald and i were talking about earlier before we started the conversation. when she gets her topic for the day it is the toughest part of
the day. asked if she could change the person that gives the topics. and she said absolutely not that is the interesting question, it is not prop -- possible to profit from that. this question of rhetorical, they did show rhetorical virtue. what we need to do for the future with good ideas being profitable in this society, three things for universities. they need to restate the rhetoric requirement that is completely different from any other requirement we have seen. including things like civil discourse breaking down. knowing exactly the moment you are talking about when those
ideas cease to be a part of the public sphere. a completely different requirement from what we have had in the 19th century. i also think that universities need to have conflict awareness requirements so that they can police themselves and think about exactly what they are contributing to the breakdown, which could lead to violence. i also think the universities need to train experts to translate themselves. we talked about the way that we should fire our pundit, canceling ourselves out. i think that professors need to train themselves to be experts in public intellectuals in ways that will make ideas more profitable. patrick, the reason why your student did not want to say that methodism is the best religion,
maybe it was because they were a pluralistic liberals or terrible was the liberals, i am not sure of what you would say. but my students do not have the rhetorical skills to defend it. >> picking up on that point about the democratization of the media, i think that is wrong. surely it is a good thing that more people from -- than ever before are able to participate. it is much more likely that reckless accusations will be made when you think about how narrow the media used to be. until the 1990's very few people had access to it at all. nearly everyone has access and most people do make fools of themselves when they use it, but it is a self correcting mechanism. only ideas with some kind of plausibility that can gather a
constituency around them persist for more than a few minutes. it seems like a benign idea rather than a frightening one. the plan to burn the koran, in the end it did not get burned because popular opinion was so fiercely against it. the prevailing american respect for different religions, he was shamed out of doing it. >> a good point. >> the karan did not get burned in part because an unprecedented way, the secretary of defense [unintelligible] two dozen people. [laughter] going to the fact that these debates are not without consequence. it is not simply hot air that will settle down. particularly in this age of
connectedness. the chinese will come under the radar. they are not equipped to take statements out of the united states. it is good to have many more voices out there. at the same time, there is a cacophony for which we have not come up with a mechanism. people are getting bombarded with these issues and there is no way in which students in classrooms like this can separate between ballot and
factually placed opinions with completely unbiased news out there. where i teach at emory, students with high scores coming from good families, they have the sense of respecting each other's religions whether they have the rhetorical skills or not. but when they go to their dorm room and turn on the television. with those that help dealing with the issues, the common folks out there, they are subject to unregulated
information. our sense comes from capitalism. that the market ultimately decides what wins, what is valid, what is right and valid during it is not really working out right now in the information arena. >> let me ask, would you agree that the official record, instead of using the word regulated when it comes to news media, that we talk about mediated? how about that? i worry very much about the wild west atmosphere right now. things have changed a lot when the managing editor of a newspaper, based on the wisdom of all of the people in the room, would make the judgment that this is on page one, going at the top, the bottom, metro -- it would be a very thoughtful
exercise. e -- many of them, many of them now black controls as to what goes on to the internet, trying to minute -- mint -- mediate that is not quite the democratizing tool that they thought. i think what you say is closer. our inkling of variety of things is competition straight up. we're not in a phase where we have to regulation. leading some to its own devices is dangerous. -- leaving at capitalism to its own devices is dangerous. if it is not working, ultimately as a people who respond to it the same with the we respond to it as a national crisis, and
there is a precedent. there was a time when it became wisdom unofficially to regulate speech. you could not insult people. you could not name call people based on race, agenda, etc.. there was no such thing as freedom of speech on campuses if you were going to make life difficult for your classmates. what happened to what the university is raising this issue again. i am not saying that it worked, but it was regulation, it was regulation in force by teachers in classrooms, and students themselves. but there were certain rules they were put into place. >> we're getting ready to move into another phase where we are going to be asking questions from the audience, am i correct? am i going to be reading them?
how are we going to do that? anyway, while we work that out, let me ask another question that goes to something dr. patton asked. any ideas on the proper role for the university and trying to influence the tone and tenor of the national discourse? to it the university is the place where you're supposed to be able to talk about fundamental ideas. what is important, what is significant, how you understand reality, how you express yourself well? martin luther king was pointing out that part of the reason he compel people to resist segregation and discrimination is because if you do not, you have to recognize that the week -- the salvation of the week in rich's the strong. -- the salvation of the weak
enriches the strong. he must spend a lot of time thinking to deal say that so clearly. i think the tone of discourse, interdisciplinary work is key. i like what edward said, the part of the reason that universities are divided into departments is so the people not talk to others about their ideas. you definitely would not do that outside. the university needs to be opened to outside. and when we ran activists on campus or crops or rattlers -- dropouts are radicals, but we all got run out and went to other movements. but there is a tremendous gap in
understanding ideas. you do not need a quarter-year college education to understand basic ideas of democracy. read it schools and other schools, there is a huge need for public education, public political education, public for dissipation for all sorts of benefits that could be done at little expense, using the resources of the university and linking them in the community. that goes against the closed ivory tower existence of the campus. we have to change the nature of the university to be able to enhance this. >> the tier with the university has to -- let's hear what the university has to ask today. >> i'm a volunteer. these questions were randomly selected from the audience members.
the first question that i have -- what a feisty you have when an intellectual debate becomes personal for ugly? what is your response to an civility -- incivility quarter margin we need to stop rewarding those who say the most of rages things. and to somehow or another try to tone down some of their ridiculous arguments that are not based in fact, but just personal demonizing attacks. when i get a call that they want me on against and coulter, i say absolutely. i know how to disarm a conservative. that's a start talking about sex. >> and as a conservative, i can tell you she is right. >> you can spend the room and shut them up. one of my best moments during
the 2010 election is in when christine o'donnell introduced us to masturbation and witchcraft. from louisiana, i love with scrap. and we can get quicker response from the devil. they do not really care. masturbation should be a bipartisan compromise. it would solve most of our sexual problems in this country. [laughter] racine increase in technology and a decrease of public participation and interaction with each other. that is the concern i have. i have to say this for up -- because we are the 10th anniversary, but he inspired the internet but he did not see the day when somebody could be tweaking from their porch, looking at russia. [laughter] controlling the news flow of
information throughout the rest of the day. but back and masturbation, i wish we did have more conversations like that. we could find ways to get along. >> up with point about social media? she just alluded to sarah palin who uses twitter very often. one of the remarkable things throughout the campaign in 2008, which the republicans really need to learn from and take lessons from, their extraordinary use of the social media. barack obama's campaign, very adroitly used facebook in twitter, and it worked to leading to the young kids and older kids. what you're standing there listening to a concert, you're from barackeet obama. john mccain was campaigning in smoke signals. it was like night and day.
it was something the republicans need to learn from. and talking about unregulated or unbridled speech, it does have an upside to the extent that it can do some good. here i am referring to the uprising in iran. but those college kids and other iranians did during the uprising, they use twitter and facebook before the regime could close them down. they were pleading and communicating with the outside world. this is what is going on. to that extent, democratizing free speech has a lot of very serious and consequential upsides. >> thank you. >> in a direct and pragmatic response, donna brazile just did a wonderful example of the abo's own group. a great example. >> and masturbation. [laughter]
>> it does not have our rhetoric requirement. but seriously, two things that have helped me in this conversations, and the religious ones tend to be very volatile. if you agree on the rules hand, so if it goes awry, you said remember the rules. in cultural conversation we assume we know what the world's are. but in other countries, the rules are really different. it is important to state those rules beforehand. in the second thing is, if it still goes to name calling without good ideas, then you simply call it and say, i am not one to call your name and i'm not want to continue this conversation unless we can move back to another space.
there is real power to saying this conversation is over. we need to be braver about saying that. [applause] >> we have another question from the audience. >> another volunteer. the question is, in order to move toward building alliances, it seemed that might be time to expand from two parties to an array of viable party. do you agree? how we spend the infrastructure? how do we expand infrastructure? to in any proportional representation system which is common in europe, but no one of them can take power is set by going into alliance with several others to greet the
parliamentary majority. they have the cost and headache of working out differences among the parties which are creating the coalition. you exchange one set of procedural difficulties for another said. in that sense, the questioners is opening for a solution which does not exist. [laughter] >> let's go the next question. >> cable news has a lot of pundits because that is what most people want. how can use all this from a top- down approach? -- how can you solve this from a ?op-down approach if yo >> it starts small of the university. is there any hope of a national solution? to four people ever come together and create a national
exhibit is a -- do four people ever come together and create a national group? maybe have the big bang solution to this poisoned atmosphere that we of the right now. >> i think the question is interesting. the assumption behind a question, if i understand it correctly, is that democracy and what do people want = popular discourse = cable news, = a putdown down discourse. i do not think that you necessarily need to assume that. a wonderful colleague here speaks about this idea of a micro public. when we speak for the public, yet the idea of a monolithic public, where is monica is quite right about the impact of social media.
what is the social media movement work as well as it has is that the deal with micro publics. as they grow, they create alliances. they do not think we're there yet, but i do think the social media has really interesting potentials for elevating public discourse by the virtue of recognizing micro public's in creating alliances between them but we do not even know what they would look like it. that is the metaphor of a coalition blocked, it should be replaced by the idea of a coalition web. the more that we think about networks, their ideas are one of the most politically powerful ideas that are out there. i don't see them nearly reflected a enough. >> the paradigm is always the first is right, rebars is blue,
conservative versus liberal, and most not aligned with either party. congress is a root canal. we spend all our time going through all the sauces macon, but you do not want to see it -- the sausage making. just eat it. we have to figure out in cable -- i love cnn. i love cnn when there is a crisis, the situation and haiti, hurricane katrina kumho within cover the issues, they go to the people, they are on the ground bringing us the news, the fax and the information's to weaken on rigid form our own opinion to help the situation. i like the night time crossfire, because most people are trying
to call down unless you watched thoughts, then you just roll. i often go right back to cnn so i can get my head together. >> i think we had equal time requirement. >> i love donna brazile, by the way. she is one of the smartest, most honest people on the other side. i really admire her and i respect her so much. and i know when she comes on, i am going to get this straight up truth from her point of view. and she is very intellectually honest and i respect an admirer that. the paradox of cable news is that they have 24 hours to fill. you would think they have all the time in the world, but in all honesty you have no time. they have 24 hours to fill, but when donna is booked on cnn, you
about 5 minute segment, your book was someone with an opposite point of view, you're anchor, sowith the tank you have maybe one minute to say your peace. you have to get it out. 50% of the country is counting on me and 50 percent is counting on donna. so this class without a lot of deep thought into it. a quick anecdote -- house on the fox news channel from day one, when it was in october 1996, when it consisted of one camera, one camera guy, and the entire set was a medal pullout chair for me. because they did not know what they were doing at the time and it was a brand new network, we were given 25 minute blocks of time. think about that. we're here for two hours on this panel and we have had awful
civil conversation. we had 25 minutes to kick around what was happening in russia or what was happening on capitol hill. that retrospect was a lot -- a luxury. but then the cycle that's faster and they do not want people to click off. so the segments gets shorter, they get 10 minutes. then they got seven minutes. then they got five minutes. done it in testified that you do not come even if you're sitting there on election night coverage you get one shot an hour to secure peace and that he is dead. -- to say your piece and that is it. >> two more questions of weekend. >> sometimes the media will not have an impact on this. sarah palin can use twitter, so
can president obama. now fox news on the other side and msnbc. the ratings are any indication, cnn in the middle with conservative and liberal shows is lagging in terms of ratings if of a different perspective on the. -- you have a different perspective on the. people are going to watch the shows that they want to shock. -- they want to watch. universities can provide something much more national direction that the other mediums in and of themselves are not able to provide. >> over here. >> you're talking about name- calling. how does the name calling affect the younger leaders of tomorrow?
>> how does it affect the young leaders of tomorrow? >> they thrive on it. is it the case that one of the things we do in education is teach people self restraint. think about kids with their four or five, they are horrible to each other. we find it in during the gradually we discipline this to prevent them from doing it. but the time they're 10 or 11 or 15, the only place they're ae to do name-calling is politics. is there anyone out there thinking, i would go in the congress if only for the name calling? in a lot of people are not, so it is an interesting question. some of the educational literature suggests that if you are used to name calling and
you're labeled in a particular way as a certain kind of lerner or you do not have the capacity and you have labeled slightly different, if you're going to of the bill that -- you are going to fill that in a certain way. there is some very detrimental fax which is another reason why i think helping people to understand the difference and being able to resist certain kinds of public labels and do so not only in terms of working on self-esteem, whatever that might mean, but also verbal skills, hence the new rhetoric requirement, we would have an entirely different capacity for political engagement on our hands. >> one person said to me -- my mother said to me, is not what you call -- what you are called, but would you answer to.
-- what you answer to. >> very good. >> i think it has to do with whether the name calling is ironic or if it is a threat. >> important distinction. >> i have at the mall. >> next question. to indian think there is of parallel -- >> absolutely. the tone that we are setting when we have these debates on contentious issues, on issues of equality and fairness, that often translates and transpire in our own communities.
a couple of weeks ago, when we were called upon to wear purple. i wore purple on campus and encourage my students. i try to educate people about the campaign and why was important that we teach tolerance and be able to have a conversation where kids do not feel afraid to come out and express themselves. i want to allude to what anderson cooper did that evening when he talked to the lawmaker down an oklahoma. i might get the state wrong. the lawmaker who said that i would not care if these kids died from aids and all the other vitriol. we need to teach tolerance is a way of understanding our differences and not just treat people, because they are different, or they want to express themselves and come out as they did -- is who they are. we should encourage us -- we should not encourage others to
pick on them. >> another question? we're coming to the end. i just wanted to ask one final idea. i get the sense that none of us is truly alarmed that we are the worst crisis ever, but we're taking note of the fact that things are spending a little out of control, but expanding -- spinning a little out of control. some of us worry about what it may provoke on other levels. we certainly feel from what i have heard that we might agree that there is an opportunity for an initiative on this, that teaches us once again something we should have known or that we did note and long since forgotten, which is how to talk to each other. and that is what we have done today. we're talking about talking to
each other. i think it's been very enlightening for me and i am sure for our audience. it has been wonderful to have such luminaries here. great wisdom, and that this point, i want to turn this over to the provost, and thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> which organized this event for one simple reason. i'm a historian as well, american history. while we may argue in there is evidence that there is always been contemplation of ideas in american society, and that those ideas led to deadly consequences, is also clear that with the sort news cycle, our ability to understand what
is real is constantly changing. the what is civil in discourse could actually disappear. as citizens we have responsibilities that confrontation should be about the ideas and not the individual and not who they are and what they are about. in that way, we wanted to bring six folks together to engage us in a conversation. you have done exactly what we hoped. you have reminded us that in no way, a democracy is always in the making. -- that in a way, a democracy is always in the way. we never quite get there. we are reminded that all actions day in and day out make for what is perfect and an ideal democracy, requiring people to do what was noted earlier, to not only speak but to listen.
the ability to be heard is one of the critical parts of being able to understand. as i looked and i said and i think, it is great role of the university. 25 minutes is too short and by this is impossible, either remember the first time i was on a news program and they said, how long do i have to speak? you have 30 seconds to make two or three points. make sure that you can handle them and about six words. that is all that you have. you want to make sure that you could say and in the way they will not be edited, in a way that will not contradict what you want to convey. the intellectual gymnastics that have to go on to be able to figure out how you will convey the simple points, in less than 30 seconds to an audience on the news cycle where you know that if something actually happens -- all living in michigan in the
was a crisis locally. you're thinking about the way when you're dealing with a range of electronic media that we have at our disposal. if you listen to this audience on this campus, and i think campuses around the nation, we are reminded that this particular point in time, we are connected globally, locally, nationally, regionally. we may be divided 50-50 on either side of the aisle but there are a great deal of people in the middle. we all have responsibilities. a university is a way to save time now, let's talk, let's understand. that is the role here. this will not be the first event or the only event that we engage in this year. we will sponsor several other events to remind us and to remind that the university
stores have to be open. civil discourse is about community. in a singular and plural form. somehow if we get that wrong, then we risk the broader fundamental issues of democracy. i say to those of you who participated this evening and came out, thank you. for those watching, come back again. we will find other ways to engage this issue from different perspectives. in to our visitors from out of town and our colleagues here, i do thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> today at 6:30, a speech from
mike huckabee. speaking to the evangelical ministers in iowa, the former republican presidential candidate talks about the midterm elections. [applause] >> it was a historic election. i will be very candid with you tonight, there was much anxiety that many of us had, as we watched the goings on, we knew that one of three things would happen. if the condit proved true and there was a push back against conservatives in the state of iowa and judges had been retained as a way of saying that they could do anything that they wanted, there would never be a penalty for ignoring the will of the people. it would have been a devastating blow.
it would have had disastrous consequences. the fact that that the election went together was so significant and it may have been singularly the most important election that happened in america. it set the stage in every other state. those that are governing will ultimately be accountable to the government. a message that every american needs to remember and be reminded of. i need to say thank you, on behalf of a grateful nation, to every pastor the stuff to take a stand. every layperson, every mom, dad, a person that walk the neighborhoods and made phone calls to make it happen. you are to be commended in you did a great work for america. thank you.
[applause] >> former arkansas governor, mike huckabee, on the midterm election. in october, case western missouri university held a series of forums on peace and war. in this discussion the speaker focuses on the why and how wars are waged and the impacts on victims. this is one hour and 50 minutes. >> welcome. my name is a shan in french. i am the director of the center. today i have the privilege of
being the moderator of the first panel. we have brought quite a collection of very distinguished scholars for you to listen to and engaged with. and we will have a conversation here for awhile. i will open the floor to questions from the audience taking your questions from their, i would like to introduce our panelists this morning. in the center seat we have a rear admiral carpenter. a naval aviator, she was
assigned as the navy's first selectively retain graduate instructor private. with five commands at the commander and capt. flag level. and having worked with concept generation, capability development with a unique war fighting perspective. including the defense superior service medal, the legion of merit, and the meritorious navy commendation medal. professor henry comes to us as the head of the center for ethics research at the military
academy in france. best known for his ground- breaking interdisciplinary work in ethics, metaphysics, political philosophy, political science, in world policy. a distinguished author of many books, many of which have been translated into multiple languages. he founded the ethical foundation and has headed it since 2004. in 2005 he was honored with a prize and in 2008 with the prize of the foundation. immediately to my right is professor casher, currently the laura schwartz kipf professor emeritus of the ethics of policy practice philosophy at televisa university in israel. having written more than 200
papers and several books in various areas of philosophy, including military ethics, which won a national plot -- national prize. the professor wrote the first code of ethics for the israeli defense force on the military ethics of fighting terror and a document on the ethics of this engagement. having served as the chair of numerous governmental bodies, and in 2000 he won the prize of israel, the highest national prize for his contributions in philosophy. immediately next to the professor's professor george lucas. class of 1984 distinguished chair in ethics of the vice admiral james stock sale center for ethical leadership at the u.s. naval academy, my former
home. the professor of ethics and public policy at the gradual school -- graduate school of public policy in monterey, california. he has taught at several universities and has three times served as the director for the national endowment of the humanities summer institute for summer faculty. the author of many books, including 40 journal articles, translations, book reviews, having edited eighth book length ethical reviews and code-editor of the texts used by an courses devoted to ethics and leadership at the united states naval academy and rotc units, over 57 colleges and universities throughout the united states. with at the bow tie we have
professor noel sharkey. the professor of artificial intelligence and robotics and a professor at the university of sheffield in england, although he himself is irish. previously he worked at yale, stamford, essex, and exeter. he is responsible for having authored more than 100 academic articles and books. he writes for national newspapers and magazines and has created thrilling robotic museum exhibits with mechanical art installation. his core research is in the ethical applications of robotics for the military, child care, medical care, and the policing. professor david wedam is a senior lecturer at the defense
studies department of king's college, london. based at the joint services command at the u.k. defence academy. he initially took a degree in philosophy at the london school of economics, going on to earn a ph.d. in a war studies. the professor also worked as a bbc researcher and with osce in kosovo. focused mainly on the ethical dimensions of warfare, he has been a visiting fellow at the australian defence college and has also taught at the baltic defense college and kuwaiti staff college, as well as teaching officers from over 50 countries that joined the british students at the u.k. staff college annually. as a side note, he also fences with a medieval long sword. [laughter]
hopefully not on the panel today. i would like to begin with an open question to our panelists. gentlemen and lady, have there been any 21st century game changers that have forced a significant re-evaluation or we imagining of the ethics of war? or are we able to apply all of the traditional rules of war to modern combat, despite changes in tactics and technology? >> if you think back to the invention of the catapult, every
new technological innovation or the mongolian horses sweeping out of asia, or is never going to be the same and we will become savage and brutal, oftentimes, these new technologies and new forms of warfare turn out to be things that can be assimilated within the familiar ways we have of arguing about this activity. on the other hand, there are some potential game changes, like cyber war. is it war at all? does it present us with new challenges with our conventional ideas of a cockfighting justifiable wars? some have argued that it does and we need to think more carefully about it.
we have been cautioned to take on the challenges of familiar warfare in society. >> there are different levels on which we see this related to warfare. you have troops who have command and the rules of engagement. obviously, you see doctrines, principles for a just war. you see fundamental moral principles. nbc the rock bottom pursuit of peace. -- and you see the rock bottom pursuit of peace.
the head did -- the idea that peace is the ultimate situation, that persists. there are certain assumptions that took into account the ordinary form of warfare, the international conflict. there is a state here and a state there. this state has armed forces and that one has armed forces and the class " -- and they clash with each other. then you have a stake here with armed forces and organizations, individuals, semi-military forces, militias, and all kinds of other types of things that are in gauging the other party. -- that are engaging the other party. all kinds of assumptions have
collapsed. for example, the assumptions of international law, the geneva convention related to states. politicians sign the conventions, not philosophers, right? politicians signee conventions because it is worthwhile because of rezareciprocity. it is fair. the reciprocity is crucial for those politicians to sign those conventions. they wear uniforms and bear the guns openly. with reciprocity gone and practicality gone, we need a
reinterpretation of the principles of just four, which means policies, doctrines' -- of just war, which means policies and doctrines. the pursuit of peace is there, but all the rest has to be reconsidered. >> i do not think we can have a military panel without mentioning the oppressions relatively early. the nature of war is in during. it does not change. the character of war has to change. has there been fundamental game changers? in the character of war, yes. it has changed enormously in many ways. the growing use of standoff with
burning and remote killing, the new environment makes it clear that the character of war is constantly evolving and constantly changing. does that mean that the rules will have to change? yes. but the rules are just how we apply the underlying ethical principles. i would say that those, along with the nature of war, do not actually change. the underlying ethical principles need to be reinterpreted for the new environment, but they're still very valid. >> just a point of clarification, the underlying principles to which you refer, do you mean, for example, the basics like proportionality, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, that does remain the same, but the application becomes challenged? >> absolutely. i think the application may be harder in many ways. but it is nothing new in the
sense that these have been fundamentally opposed throughout history and have had to be interpreted according to the context that is their. >> -- that is there. >> so you're saying a maybe and maybe. [laughter] i would say that it depends. if you're talking about state- on-state conflict, certainly, those kinds of things that we have always done apply. since we're not talking about different kinds of what i call regular challenges, not necessarily warfare, sometimes it is just short of warfare that some entity may be executing tactics designed to accomplish some goal in mind for them that it actually stops short of warfare. certainly, my own job, i try to envision what is the future and what our potential game -- and
what our potential game changers from an application of technique -- and what are potential game changes from an application of technique. maritime forces and joined forces -- technology-wise, there are certainly major changes that have come about. they may even be short of warfare. it may be in interaction the someone does, but is it a declared war as we have had in the past? certainly, we have to have that open dialogue from a policy perspective and a political perspective, with also non- government organizations that are prevalent in the dialogue in a way that we do things. when you think about the humanitarian interventions are
the kinds of things that we are now doing -- interventions or the kinds of things that we're now doing, haiti is a good example. from a maritime perspective, the u.s. navy has been active in humanitarian assistance for many many years. i am actually writing doctrine to codify what we have been detected for a long time. and even from a financial standpoint, in the last probably six years or seven years, we have actually moved to put money into the budget every year that allows us to go out and do those kinds of humanitarian assistance pieces with our forces, with our hospital ships, to actually go out and do those things. we look at them as security force assistance and help other entities to do self-defense for themselves. we do not have those non-state
actors that come in and create those regular challenge environment for us. >> severe is where humanitarian crises canada being a breeding ground for future conflict -- >> absolutely. we are active in the horn of africa and working on the piracy issues. the piracy issues have been there for a long time. the kinds of breeding ground that comes from -- that generate those environments and allow those types of operations to be going on have been going on for a long time. the solution to piracy is not more navy vessels out there. we will continue to do that. we do it in a coalition. we are injured-operable with a lot of other navies -- we are inter-operable with a lot of other navies.
pakistanis had command. the brits have had command. but we also have other ships out there operating independently. however, we also have the fifth fleet commander in the region actively working with ility.perable you have to translate them into some other area that is willing to prosecute them. the solution is not only a military one. it is across the diplomatic and information pieces as well and economics. >> would you care to comment on this? >> you have used up all the combinations. [laughter]
my biggest concern is technology. i am a technologist. i think there are massive changes. since the catapult, there have been complaints about the long lands and there are complaints from everyone. you have a very rapid pace of technological development, much greater than have ever seen before. it is very difficult to keep up with it. from what i know the international humanitarian law and international law, things are pretty much in place for protecting civilians. but you have mapping between each new technologies -- e.g. technology and those laws are problematic. -- each new technology and
those laws are problematic. there are ambiguities in the law, loopholes, and it might take 10 years for the united nations to argue about them and get them changed. i do not want to go on too long. but the cia use of drones for drum strikes and how that relates to article 51 and self- ty.ense, we need clarifie >> could you explain what the article 51 of the u.n. charter is? >> i wish you hadn't asked me that. it basically says that you have a right to self-defense. that would be the simple one- line summary. one thing is that this new weaponry gives you is a greater facility to do things that you could not have done before. actually, you talk about weapons be more accurate.
of course, drones are better than carpet bombing. but you could not go carpet bombing somalia or yemen. but you can because of this illusion of backers say. take a drone in there and kill individual -- this illusion of accuracy. take a drone in there and kill individual people. what everyone is pushing towards is that you don't put your soldiers at risk ever. i do not know if you saw that " star trek" one where captain kirk talks about the nature of war being boring and brutal because it stops it from happening again. i do not like to see body bags coming home. nobody wants to see our young soldiers being killed. but they are a great inhibitor, particularly with the public.
if the public does not see body bags come home, then you have wars all over the place. you can take your robots and do all sorts of things and no one will complain. there are worries about how that fits with the laws of war. and you just need discussion about it. i do not think we need to change the laws of war. >> basically, i agree. on one hand, there is nothing new under the sun. at the same time, it has been written that reality -- a process is continually emerging with a novelty. among these new aspects, it
seems to me that few of them, apart from technology, new aspects deeply back the character war. these are globalization and prosperity. among the traditional conditions for a just war, which are listed, we find legitimate authorities. >> yes. >> ok. so what is legitimate authority? i do not want to go into the un national power and alliances and gso on. but no but to call your attention to the growth of a non-constitutional power of the
media. it started during the first gulf war. it is clear that democracy needs free press. but free and responsible information -- >> uncensored press. >> yes, uncensored, but, at the same time, it is not only a business. i remember having read a book written by john lloyd about what the media does to our politics. it is a recent book, two years or three years ago. it seems to me that we should question how the reasonableness
of the public opinion at large and the policy makers is impacted by the way of information-making and information-giving which sometimes means more publicly appealing and business-making than exercising citizen responsibility. on the second point, this is a real problem of military affleck's -- military ethics at large. this is irresponsible delay of
the political leadership and society at large and of the elite -- this is the responsibility of the political leadership and society large and of the elite. we are aware right now of -- >> post-traumatic stress disorder. >> yes. veterans need to be welcomed when they come home. otherwise, most of them are drondrawn into despair. we have to address the problem of the gap between a society that is getting wealthier randy's here -- >> and your people are in the service -- is getting wealthier and each year --
>> and people are less in the service. >> yes. and discipline and forgetting one's self and so on. if the gap is too wide between the values of society and the values of democracy and the values of the military personnel, what does it mean? democracy is not able to defend itself. how will it survive? >> i have two brief comments. first of all, we seem to assume that the principles that we have known and steady to a certain extent until now are ok as they are and they should be kept as much as possible.
i beg to differ. take for example a distinction between combatants and non- combatants. speaking of the combatants, the attitude that is shown in the literature in tax -- in the literature, disposable instruments, they have the right to kill and they're bound to be killed. so who cares about them? non-combatants are sacred. they should not be touched. that kind of attitude, those are just instruments that are perfectly wrong. they are citizens of democracy
iies. they have the entitlement of dignity.on of human guine the moral situation of the combatant in war has to be changed, even if we had not had a single terrorist. we should not change the significance of the protection of the combatants. secondly, the idea of protecting those combatants, it sounds very simple, but it is very complicated. there are non-combatants on both sides, right? so a certain state tries to put its own combat since. in order to do that, it has to
attack the other side. the other side also has non- combatants. if the nature of the war -- not the nature, the character of the war is like that, their missiles are launched from potential areas. in order to protect your non- combatants, you have to put the missile launches with neighbors. you have to get very accurate and morally justified doctrines and principles that will tell you what to do under such circumstances. non-combatants should be protected is not enough. >> i want to articulate that this was actually the next question on my list, as it happens. we blended when naturally into it.
let me put it out there. i think it will affect the forthcoming comments. how much additional risk should regular combatants have to except in order to reduce the risk to non-combatants? is the answer dependent on the precise nature of the conflict? that is a question very much on my mind. i would like to hear some further comments on that. please start is off, george. >> sure. i suspect that members of the audience probably want to get into this very soon. there are things on the table the people have strong opinions about or have poor being -- or have probing questions. to keep the dynamic alive, flying quickly that noll mention of the technology and the way in which it applies with governance and ethics and how we have to keep up with are mapping existence of acceptable behavior and constraints of behavior under new technology,
the great fear is that they will lower the threshold for war. instead of making war less destructive and more discriminant or, in fact, by doing that, they will make it easier for governments to use war for conflict resolution, the public will not notice it so much and they will not see the cost to them. keep that one alive on the technology side. we might want to ask what the differences between a warrior, a soldier, and a domestic policemen or law enforcement. the navy helped haiti. navy officers wearing uniform and having weapons are providing aid.
are there legitimate targets because their military? the conventional way that will understand war is that combatants are entitled or given permission to kill each other or shoot at each other. they also sort of consent to what we call the moral equality of soldiers. that's is that, once you are in an armed conflict, the warriors on both sides are liable to attack. that is not in itself a crime to shoot at them. whereas the non-combatants or the civilians, they have not lost their rights not to be shot at. in these reeler challenges, -- in these irregular challenges, quite rightly, that is not a war. haiti is not a war. i would submit that, in many of
these instances, our soldiers and saviors are working as domestic and secretaries -- ies.stic constabular they could get shot at or killed. no one has permission or less is to shoot at them. the job is risky, but it does not include a legal entitlement for them to become targets of violence when they are engaged in those activities. i think the game changer or at least one important game changer is the complex and which we find involved.ry's they are fighting international criminal conspiracies. once our soldiers must subject themselves anyway to somewhat more risk by trying to be there use ofstrain the res
violence. had to figure that out in the context of our current conflict is really a challenge. >> first of all, back to the question, how much risk? i do not sure -- i am not sure we can answer that. i like to have answers to questions, but that is one of those areas where our policy makers or politicians, when they make a decision to insert forces for whatever reason, be it because we're trying to do humanitarian assistance, which haiti is clearly, and there have been other instances where we have done some not merely, there was a lot of policy discussion,
particularly in a tsunami where you ask if you will send forces in uniform who are also carrying weapons. the answer to that much of the time is no. you want to be able to have those people who are victims understand that we're there to help and to distribute food and care and not be there to occupy or do other things. the other distinction is very important. we do not insert forces and put anybody on the ground in very -- in various places because we were not invited in by the local authorities or by the end is the coordination. the military forces -- our political leadership, even though we have a joint task
commander, their turn to be an instrument of international power, but not the sole instrument. we are interacting all the time with the embassy and what the investor has told us to do, who is also conversely interacting with that host nation. we have doctrine and tactics and procedures as well as our rules of engagement that, should something transpire, our forces are trained to know what they are supposed to do. it is called standing roe. >> rules of engagement. >> right. in situations where we do insert forces, the chairman of the joint chiefs and the senate. defense and the combatant
commanders -- and the secretary of defense and the combat commanders make the decisions. certainly, there are those areas where forces are inserted that may be at risk and we may not even know. you are at risk walking down the street. the kinds of activities that we engage in, we have those conversations about rules of engagement before we begin to insert forces in specific areas. we did that those rules of engagement of the scenario looks like theit is changing. they always want to know what is a legal ramification.
there is a regular dialogue up the chain of command to talk to the policy makers in the white house about what would we do in certain circumstances. the same was true in afghanistan or other areas where we have coalition forces. we have reached coalition roe so that our forces have an understanding of what they can do. when you go into any situation, you know that you are under a certain amount of risk. but as a volunteer, you go in and you may give up your life in a certain situation. and human capital to do anything about it. >> we have had this disagreement before. i really agree with you about the dignity of soldiers and the right to protection, etc.
but where we violently disagree is in terms of protection of civilians. it should be set in stone and never touched. i think that all civilians, equally, should be protected. we send our soldiers into fight. we risk their lives in sending them to fight. but we do not risk civilians lives. it is wrong to kill people. there are problems with proportionality, but we can get into that later. you have this notion of reciprocity. you killed our civilians, so why should we not kill yours? that is wrong to start. it gets more problematic when it comes to insurgent warfare. who are the taliban civilians? if you fly into pakistan and kill a bunch of german citizens -- a bunch of insurgent citizens, those civilians are
not there civilians. there is no idea of reciprocity at all. it is completely wrong. we talk about -- i don't know the answer to this one, but i am throwing it out there -- we talk about insurgency and that is on the increase. it seems like all wars now will be insurgent warfare. why should that be? we are causing it. we are actually because. >> who is the "we" in that index >> in the western nations. we have all the military might. -- in that? >> in the western nations. we have all the military might. when you attack people, they do not roll over and say, oh, ok. the way the ira did against the british many years ago, they could not fight the british and
beat them on the battlefield. so they started using insurgency techniques, what we call terrorist techniques or un- uniformed techniques. it is possible that we will create more and more terrorism. what we do in this idea of risk-reward, is risk-free baby to our service men and women -- risk-free war, is a risk-free may be to our service men and women. you might find that, if you want to go broader you want to do your europe think, you have to take an armed guard with you. that could happen. >> you were waiting to comment. would you like to jump in? >> i have a comment on your specific question.
in the old times, or was basically among two political leaderships -- war was basically monday the real political leaderships. the people were basically -- fwar was basically between two political leaderships. the people were basically following orders. we have to address the question that democracy changes the bill completely. we, the people, in each country , are the ruler, as it were.
the old reason for leaving the people outside and respect them as non-combatants is more questionable than it was in non- democratic times. so we need additional statements in order to justify the fact that an adversary has no right -- very often, in our asymmetrical conflict, there's no possibility for having easily visible political leadership.
so the situation becomes very confused. very quick way, should we take additional risk, i would answer the question with another question. who has to say that these soldiers or these military personnel should interfere or take additional risk? is it the battalion later? is the commander? probably. it seems to me that this situation calls for a full- fledged exercise of more responsibility on the part of the political leadership, ok?
there is a public choice to be made between what is justice, what is self-interest, what is french ship, what is love -- which friendship -- what is friendship, what is love. these principles, the way they're connected to each other, we will make a different public choices. it seems to me that is so deep and so serious, that there will always be room for some kind of legitimate and serious conscientious objection. nevertheless, it is not possible to see it as a matter
of technical tactics. ethical responsibility. >> i would like to have and then make comments. jump in and then i will open it to the floor. hopefully, your questions are well formed in your mind. >> i am sure he will disagree with me as well. [laughter] >> we enjoyed disagreements. >> i want to draw a couple of
the threads together. you can say a statement of fact. if you have military personnel who were trained and equipped for the environment of conflict and you have civilians who are not. -- or not, it is likely who will survive or other factors being equal. should the combatants be prepared to accept the risk, it is evident. the degree of risk, to me, comes down to the character of the impairment that you are actually in. the burden of risk transfer that you are prepared to except is completely dependent upon them are meant. if you are in the or of
natural survival, then you are what -- in the war of national survival, then you are willing to accept a higher threshold of risk that if you are in a humanitarian operation for a peacekeeping operation. if you're there to protect the people, the idea of transferring any risk to the civilian population to protect yourself is ludicrous. the police, if you are expected to carry out a policing role, the ad did to take on the role of shoot first and ask questions later is -- the attitude to take on the role of shoot first and ask questions later is
ludicrous. what is difficult to say is how much risk combatants should be prepared to accept. if you remove the risk altogether to those combatants, if there is no risk, if you are using completely robotic or remote cruise missiles, if you're not actually placing your forces at risk at all, this appears to lower the threshold for willingness to commit to going to war in the first place. if there is no risk to you, is a very easy policy decision for a politician. there is no physicalost to having military action. it is the illusion of precision for the paradox of precision which means you can use that
force far more freely than you would otherwise be prepared to do. you are not risking your own personnel at all. why should you not? it becomes a policy-free -- it become a risk-free policy. what this demonstrates a willingness to kill, but not to die for a cause. if you are prepared to kill, but not to die for a cause, what does that do to how you resolve the conflict? where is the overpowering? you demonstrate that you're willing to kill, but not to die, but you are interested -- if you're investing nothing morally. there is no moral clash. you're not demonstrating resolve. in fact, your demonstrating a lack of resolve, which means deterrence work. you are not willing to die for
something and you're not willing to spend blood or treasure of your own, you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of resolve. on the one hand, a new generation of weapons systems is lowering the use of military force, but it makes it harder to use that military force successfully. it makes victory in any meaningful sense more remote while making the use of that force easier. >> i would like to give our guest another moment. if some of you would like to begin to make a line at the microphone, please do so. we'll take your questions in just a moment. >> one should understand the role played by reciprocity. when politicians sign and rectify the geneva convention, they did it for reasons of
reciprocity. they gained and they get something in return. -- the gained and they give something in return. reciprocity plays a role. you get and you give the same kind of force. what happens when reciprocity is gone? this does not mean that, if you kill my citizens, i will kill your citizens. we need other considerations. it is a very distinct share in the world -- in the way the democratic world -- it is a very distinct shift in the with the democratic world looks at this. we would like to see a beautiful face in the mirror, as beautiful as possible.
have writeies constitutions. -- democracies have right constitutions. state's function on what is their own views of what is right. they are all for protection of human dignity. but there are differences among them. we hope there's a convergence and you get a doctrine for fighting terrorism and that every democracy will endorse and
that each will work according to. to her question about risk, i fully agree with george and the others when they say, under some circumstances of military activity, in essence of war fears, but -- in essence of warfare, you have firefighters who risk their lives for citizens and that is broke and commendable. when troops are -- and that is heroic and commendable. -- whenops are engaged
it is real warfare, there are circumstances under which my answer to the question -- how much additional risk should a soldier or whatever takes -- the answer is none. i will give you a simple example. it is a real example. there are buildings full of terrorists and magazines. the non-combatants are there. what should we do? if we cannot attack a building where there are non-combatants
because of all kinds of considerations, proportionality , then what really emerges is that we have lost our ability to defend ourselves. no set of rules that are morley justifiable -- that are morally justifiable help. what we actually did is one the arn thers -- is wo neighbors of the terrorists. secondly, distributing leaflets, we made phone calls. we made hundreds of thousands of phone calls, made your personal cellphone or your apartment, telling you that this apartment and this building will be
attacked because of your neighbors. please move to somewhere else. and move to a neighboring place because they are smart. the risk to yourself, if you move a little bit, it is diminished. by using the drones, whether they have evacuated the building and the neighbors or not, they are effective. the warnings are effective. we use a non-lethal type of weaponry. it is precise. and it is a very noisy. it is a very strong hint. it tells you that we are about
to rescue. they do not want to -- about to risk you. they do not want to jeopardize them. in our kids, in israel, most of the combatants are conscript, which means you serve in the military because you were told to. >> they were drafted. >> yes. now i am i of -- now i am a conscript. why do you jeopardize my life is my question, being a citizen of a democracy? why do you put on a uniform and require me to have service for three ars? why do you send me?
you are sending me into the building where there are terrorist and you risk my life, just to see whether someone is there because they worry that their carpets will be stolen. is the blood of a person who voluntarily renders himself a human shield rather than my blood being a conscript and defending the citizens? the answer is no. the state does not have a compelling answer. the combatants are not just combatants. as a representative for the soldiers, they are not
convincing at all. the answer to the additional amount of risk is none. >> i think we have a lot thought-provoking ideas in this room already. as proof of that, we have a long line. there is the microphone for questions. what i would like to say to our questioners and to our distinguished panelists, in the interest of time, let's keep those are questions and our answers as concise as possible. we will go until 11:00. in order to fit in as many of these questions, we will try to keep moving at a steady clip. sir, you can ask your first question. thank you. please, just stick your name. >> i beg your pardon? >> could you say your name? >> walter nichols, a world war
ii veteran. >> and can you speak into the microphone as well? >> i find it ironic that we can talk at such lengths and with such knowledge and detailed about war, about the process of killing each other, members of our own species. i think it is remarkable that we can discuss this at such length as though we were discussing angels on the head of a pen and not choke on our words. [applause] once a person has seen were close-up, i would ask how many in the panel have been in combat situations where you had to kill another person or they were trying to kill you. once a person has been in that situation and have seen
destruction that close, war is no longer an attraction for discussion. it is an emotional issue that drives you to simplicity. i think the persons that we come to respect most when we talk about war are those who can speak in the fewest words simply about ending morwar. so my question is can any of you speak in the fewest number of words about means whereby humans can and the killing and destruction of each other. -- each other? >> thank you. >> the fewest number of words, "stop fighting each other." >> would anyone else like to
comment? >> with all due respect, i do not expect the notion that only people who have been there may comment on it. judges, presumably, have never been in any murder or rape situation. this does not mean that they cannot use their views on what is right and what is wrong. i have been under combat situations where i was a target. but this does not give me any privilege or any right -- the issue is what are the justifications for a surge in command, a certain rule of engagement, a certain.com, a certain policy, and justification must be outlined in abstraction? indeed, they involve people. they involve casualties. they involve the wounded. they involve the killed and the fallen and their families.
those are strongly emotional component of the situation. there should be taken into account, not ignored. but is there room for a justification for what should be done and which not should be done -- and what not to be done? >> thank you. >> with all due respect to the gentleman and to his question, i think that what is important is not the fewest number of boards, but the reality for why we have to fight wars. i own father was a veteran of world war ii, korea, and vietnam. i serve because i believe that, wewe have strong military isie, have a lesser chance of going to war.
because the human species and because individuals who will drive situations to the point where, if someone wants to preserve the peace, one has to be willing to go to war, you have to understand the nature of warfare, the way you must fight it. that way, you can deter better those who might drive as to that point. >> thank you very much. the next question. >> hello. i have a question. i read a statistic that the afghanistan war that the u.s. is involved in is the longest war the united states has been involved in. i do not know if that statistic is true or not. but it started in 2001 after 9/11. i was wondering if the reason it had gone for such a long time was in fact these new methods of war where we are using robots.
it is not a personal combat. it is more of a remote thing. i was wondering if that was why this war has been going on for so long. >> the simple answer is no, that is not why the war is going on for so long. those are attributes and things that we are employing now. in many cases, the robotics that we are using on the ground are actually giving our soldiers and our folks -- you may not >> it allows us to have additional surveillance and reconnaissance. whether or not those are weapon
is in some cases, we can use those for surveillance and reconnaissance to give us better information that would help us in non-combat situations to understand where the noncombatants are and be able to protect civilian lives better. >> it is a complicated question, and certainly your right that this is but one of the long as complex we have been involved in. vietnam is the only other one that comes to mind as of similar length. it is possible for these nasty counterinsurgency war to drag on for much longer. i don't think it has anything to do with the particular tactics or weapons that are used, but the nature of the intractable conflicts that you are trying to resolve to some satisfactory level, and i think we will see
more and more of these kinds of ugly, dirty little wars, as opposed to huge conventional conflicts between nations states that people are wailing the heck out of one another and grow weary or exhausted or there will is broken to fight. that does not happen in these kinds of things. and what to do about that and how to respond, how to prepare our troops for those, indeed in the very way in which the first gentleman suggested, why should we be talking about ending in these conflicts, if we could get people to either end conflict our resolve conflicts according to legal procedures, the same way that you argue with domestic criminals, that would be much better to use the law to adjudicate disputes and to take the law into your own hands, but until we get there, we do need the ability to resort to force
sometimes to enforce the law and protect vulnerable people who otherwise would be victimized. you are asking to change the human situation if you pursue too far that line of thought. know anyone starting in uniform who would not like that to occur. >> i would have to about to your superior wisdom on the cause of the links of the war in iraq. >> afghanistan. >> sorry, afghanistan. i don't think it has been caused by the robots. i don't think that has created the situation either, but i notice that as the allies pull out of iraq, there is the greater use of drones. one of the big projects is
called project folder. project vulture has just been awarded to boeing for developing a vehicle with a 5,000 pound payload. whether you recall that war are not, you fight the war, or you pull out all your troops, but you leave them floating overhead constantly. whether you are prepared to call that still being at war or not, i don't know. >> i think ironically, one should look at the weaker party in the conflict in order to see what takes so long. improvised explosive devices, which everyone can produce.
suicide bombings, which almost everyone can produce. as long as everyone can use types of tactics which do not involve sophisticated weaponry, but just involve the primitive way -- in-line >> you have alluded several times to the threshold of war, and i would like to ask you to discuss when, if ever, preemptive war is justified. in this country we have had our nose bloodied with preemptive war in iraq where it turned out that the major premise, weapons of mass destruction, was false, and that there was a lot of media that led to that
democratic support. i see as having that same situation now with respect to iran were even there thinking about getting a capability, a lot of words like that, in some minds is justification for an attack now. my question is, what should be the true justification for preemptive war, knowing full well, as many of you certain acknowledge, the great death and destruction that it will bring about. >> that is a really good question. there is nothing new about preemption and there is nothing about the dangers of not acting.
it was written in the 12th century, trying to work at which was justified to use lethal force. to use the example of an ambush, they have not done it yet, but if you attack them, you are the aggressor. if you are about to be ambushed but you take the first action because you manage to discover the ambush, you are still acting in self-defense. that is the key. it is not a new idea, but that is the key. are you acting in self-defense, or are you imagining are predicting a distant threat without any hard intention, without any capability? are you saying this might at some point be a threat to us, therefore we are going to eliminate it? getting the balance right between that, which is offensive, aggressive war, and
preemption, which can be legitimate, which is when you are facing a threat and you act before that threat manifests itself in a way that is going to hurt you or other parties or other innocent actors. as long as you can get that balance right, you are at self- defense rather than act of war. there is no simple formula or you can say which one it is. but getting the balance right is absolutely essential. you may have a good reason to use force but you meant have
the authorization or jurisdiction to do so. there were good reasons for being concerned about leadership. there are other places in the world where these kinds of concerns, iran building nuclear weapons and a country rich with oil is an example, and certainly the israeli attack on the iraqi nuclear reactor. there was nothing but mischief to come from allowing that to go online. the question is always one of jurisdiction. article 51 grants nations who are signatories to the un charter, nothing in that charter will abrogate their individual right of self-defense. i think that would be the justification for the israeli strike in 1981. the problem we faced in iraq
was, we had moved from a case of something like an ambush to something like suspicion that an ambush was under way without as much certainty. one would have wished for something like the analogue of an arrest warrant procedure where you to cure it evidence to the judge, and some reasonably impartial party looked at it and said yes, you have a case, or no you don't have a case. that is what was missing in that instance. if you are going to talk about not a preemptive but preventive work. we need a better way of the international community coping with that in deciding not only that there is a cause, but who will be delegated and deputized and whether or not the cause has risen to a level of a fair and reasonable procedure, which we just do not have in the un yet,
could be developed that would authorize the use of force for the protection of citizens living under the rule of law in those cases. >> i liked add two considerations. it should be applied in a new way to those administrators of iran that you mentioned. first of all, there is a consideration of personality. what you gain should justify the harm you cause to innocent parties. you can try to draw the picture of what you gain on the one end and what is going to be lost on the other end, were you count the damage to your own people.
the first difficult consideration is the other side. is it the last resort? that is the most difficult question to answer, because you have to convince yourself in more than a justified way that you have exhausted all other means to solve these problems. in the reach the conclusion that of them failed? it is very difficult. so if you think about iran, i
think some elements are there, but last resort is in the dark. >> thank you. next question, please. >> hello. my name is karen. my question relates -- my name is karen. my question relates to -- my name is darin. my question relates to the conflict between the cost base. -- two states. we have all these situations that arise, insurgencies or counterinsurgencies where we are justified in using civilian casualties' or dropping bombs on a bonkers. damages in afghanistan are now judged to be incidental. or -- civil warfare where is ok for us to use chemical weapons and also the treatment of, you know, combatants, enemy combatants that goes against the geneva convention and the rights of human dignity. we've created a situation where
the ethics of war no longer apply. is it time that we imagine the definition of warfare to include all these different circumstances so at the least, even if we do not know, even if we advocate that killing is ok and killing civilians is ok, that we have expanded our definition of warfare to describe these other situations said the ethical criteria applied. insurgencies, civil wars, a counter-terrorism efforts, things like that. >> interesting. david? >> war applies to armed conflict, not just recognize the legal definition of war, which is two states. but you have got it right.
two sovereignty's do not declare war on each other. why? because it is a legal. declaring war would be illegal. that would be a crime of aggression. honestly. >> ok. >> armed conflict is war in the narrow, legal sense. it is war. it is war in the commonly- understood sense. it is armed conflict. i know the people are waiting to come in. you will find the martins' clause in all 20 -- 20th- century armed conflict. just because it is not written down in all lawbook does not mean you can do it.
in a nut shell, it says covering everything that applies to war. if we have not, rely on the ethical principles. if it is a violent assault on the conscience of humankind, just because the law does not say it is a legal doesn't mean you can do it. it is wrong. the martins claus, you'll find that in the geneva convention. it just a paragraph. and it says just because it is not written down does not mean it is ok. >> if there is a vacuum in the law, that does not mean you can fill it with anything you like. you still have to appear to ethical principles. would anyone else to jump in with a question? >> he said everything. you hear about policing operations nowadays.
somehow i never get this thing about policing operations, but -- because policing has separate rules to warfare. if someone is holding the hostages, you cannot bomb the building. police are much more careful about collateral damage. i do not think they are allowed collateral damage at all. there should be different sets of rules for policing operations then you have a war. >> i would have a very short answer to your question. regarding pre-emption -- you do not know what is your adversaries and tension. -- adversary's intention. even perfidy is always possible in human relations.
so, which do you presume when you're in responsibility and you are the political leadership, you know? there is a mortal risk at stake. so, we come back to one of your first questions. what additional risk should we take? not only ourselves, but in all life at large? it is obvious that if the answer is we would never take any kind of such a risk, then, well, it is a concept of political community which emerges and we are driven to this particular spot.
ok. so. it seems to me that when we still corner on the problems of war, we should think that before being cornered, we should have thought more about peace when it was possible, and maybe a was always possible -- and maybe it was always possible. >> so you would say we mustn't give up on last resort? or jump too quickly to last resorts? >> yes. in order to build trust, probably, we would have to acknowledge some kind of good faith.
i mean, probably your adversary would want to harm you, ok? i presume some kind of good faith means the understanding that your adversary is not always necessarily supremely on just -- unjust to people or leadership and it has some kind of idea -- you can disagree with that, ok. and yet, your adversary is not acting only on bad intentions as a gangster or an evildoer. this happen sometimes, but not always. and so, we have this tragic truism.
it is the ideas of justice, which are many, and so we are getting out of the problem with the story of justice, i you know? so, the problem is diplomacy. can we figure out some kind of road where it is perfectly we can make, sitting together, very imperfectly, this idea of justice, or is that compromise by its self unjust? this is the choice to be made. compromise or not compromising -- not only in domestic policy, but also in world policy. >> there are a lot of elements in that, and the point about the potential need to compromise in some cases, but also your
point about respecting different views of justice and not going into a conflict with the assumption that your enemy does not have a concept of justice, even if it differs. >> it could be dehumanizing for everybody, not assuming that we all refer to some same ideal of justice. the all-embracing ideal of justice. but the fact is, we see this quite well in domestic policy. we are sensitive, more sensitive to some dimension of justice. i will talk about dimensions of justice, dimensions of time, the dimensions of space, you know? when i listen to your debates, you talk so particularly.
you're republic is working. it is not bad, you know? [laughter] it says to me that, well, everything is true, you know? this is some kind of tragedy, you know? in life. i do not want to be too blunt. >> no, thank you for your thoughts. next, roger. >> yes. my name is roger. i teach courses about the -- disadvantages of new technology. i do not know whether this story is true or not, but six weeks ago on national public radio, the former cia agent was
interviewed who was still active with the state department. he said that two months ago, and armored drone aircraft was taken over from signals coming up from televisa, -- from tel aviv, and the aircraft was going out for miles to -- believe it or not -- a topless beach. where the aircraft circled for hours, at any the cameras at the women. it was later found that it was a 17-year-old and 19-year-old hacker who had done this. true or not, when we fire weapons by remote signals, especially if they are armed, what is the likelihood of advanced hackers being able to
take over these weapons systems? correct i feel like this is a question for you, noel. >> george has already mentioned the cyber warfare. a remote controlled machine is particularly susceptible -- i do not know about that particular instance. i do not know about it. i do know the taliban were finding film footage from the drones on their laptops. they bought the program for $10. that was all its debt. one of the big drives at the moment, not discussed here, in all the united states military plans have been too good to autonomous systems which are not able to be attacked in the same way. and they are not able to be jammed either. to me, that is worse, because you have machines that do not
discriminate between combatants and civilians at all and you use those. there was talk about having a human on the loop that would be an executive in control of many machines. but that is a kind of fantasy because it takes away the issue of them being autonomous. you need them to be autonomous for things like dogfighting. if you go into deep missions and you're fighting a nation like china or russia, a nation that is technologically sophisticated, they will be able to jam the satellite signals, the radio signals. to me this is a much worse scenario been having people take over the drone and lookit women on topless beaches. >> and if they take over the drones, they can send our own weapons against them. >> stop using them. >> i just want to mention -- a
number of scholars at other institutions and this one are involved in a research consortium to look at some of these issues. it is called setmon -- cetmoms. it is for scholars interested in this subject. i directed to the website. yes, ma'am. >> hello. my name is and zoe. i am 13. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. actually, my view of peace -- i have never known war before in my life. my view of peace is completely void of war. so, when you tell -- when people tell us that war is simply a way to manufacture
peace, i would ask you why? >> yes? >> i do not think it is a way to manufacture peace. i think it is a way to return to peace. it is fortunate you have never know war. that is a good thing. there are many people and many -- many people in many nations at your age who have known nothing but violence. i would ask what is the definition of peace. we've talked about the definition of war. there are times that you can say in the avoidance of warfare, because it nations do not resort to conflict, that there are citizens of different nations who are subjected to a lack of peace all the time, physically and in their spirits, the oppression that they go
through. that lack of warfare, peace for them, do you automatically transcend if you are at war or at peace? those are things to think about. in my own thought about it, i think about the women and children, and there is a u.n. security council resolution passed 10 years ago called 1325. i would invite you to go and read it. it talks about how the brunt of warfare -- and i would say the brunt of the lack of peace globally -- impacts women and children in a way that it does not impact men. in many cases, that is because women could not even stand in a microphone situation like you are doing right now to be able to address the kind of question.
moving forward, much of the research that has been done in the last 10 or 15 years, there is a really fine article written about five years ago by a bunch of researchers at harvard talking about the course of hundreds of years, the impact on women and children of warfare. and if we increase the education of women, and we provide opportunity for them, that by nature, we therefore secure more peaceful circumstances and warfare is something that is not resorted to as often. there are many instances, where there are crimes of humanity perpetrated against women particularly in the form of rape. there are situations like that that sum would define as short of warfare, but certainly could not be in any way construed as
a way for them to have a peaceful and abundant life. so, i am happy that you have had the absence of warfare in your life and that you have had peace. i have a daughter who is 20 who i hope never knows those kinds of circumstances that other women are subject to in other nations. i would tell you that i think one of the things that i think is very important is, as we look to secure peace, that we do it on a basis that is not only across the lines of countries so that we are not at war, but the kind of existence that people have is one of opportunity and liberty and education and peace that they have an ability to feel secure, no matter where they are. >> another comment, asa? >> i wish i could speak like
yourself, saying i have never experienced anything but peace. i have never experienced anything but war and troops between war. i think you have the picture somewhat wrong. the picture is not there is peace and someone comes along with thedea of having more to have peace. you have something that is unacceptable, which could be war, which could be genocide, and other circumstances. then you went to war in order to stop the activity, which is horrendous. but when you wage war, and you have to constantly think about what is going to happen after the war has ended, and you have to think about peace. so, waging a war is not just getting rid of your enemies. waging a war is to gain at
victory over your enemy, but in a way that enables all the involved parties to enjoy peace among themselves when the war ends. >> i know george you have written extensively about a just peace. do you want to comment? >> i gss the addendum would be even if we could envision that dream in the folk song of all the people from all the nations coming together and signing a document in which they renounce war -- we essentially have that in the united nations convention for 1948. that was what it was intended to do. what do we do with a convention like that that grants the member parties, the signatories to the document, the unlimited right to do unlimited wrong within their own borders? what about the holocaust? what about the people of rwanda?
so, what we need and do not have yet is a way of protecting peace-loving individuals who were going about their own business and minding the rahm business, whether as a collective entity or as individuals within their nation from being harassed and abused and threatened with violence or death. i think it is right not to call that concern a " war." id is instead law enforcement. we do not have any reasonable mechanisms other than the ad hoc way we do now for protecting the rights of vulnerable people. in rwanda, dark fur -- darfur, wherever they may be. we do not have no method of doing that. so we rely on what our customs of war insofar as they can be
made to fit this to accomplish this. this is why afghanistan ling persson. -- lingers on. it is not because anyone wishes to make war on the afghan people. it is because what kind of the state can be established so these people will not be living in a threat and terror of continued activity that threatens their security. we do not have a good answer to that. the way we are doing it now is a particularly good. but it is all we have. so we look to people like yourselves to come up with better instruments than the ones we currently have, instruments that would guard the rights and security of vulnerable people. >> the fact that you are here listening to this conversation and you care gives us all a bit of hope. we appreciate your presence. thank you. [applause]
>> i will try to be brief. thank you out for your work. i will recommend the book "the code of war." your book and other works make clear how utterly important is to have a guiding moral and ethical principles at every level, from protecting civilians and the ecology infrastructure, to our troops and all the way up to legist ship -- leadership. i've worked with veterans from all over the world and from many of the wars in living memory 3. -- for over 31 years. there is no compelling justification to a soldier who has been in common for taking a
civilian life. there is no compelling justification when a combatants decides, before, during, or after the conflict that the causes or the kaine sport illegitimate. and there is no compelling justification for the combatant when they determined that their war was not truly and exclusively a last resort. the only justification i have ever encountered i am working with combatants all over the world is when they absolutely, unquestionably determine that they fought and had to kill in order to protect the immediate and absolute threat to their families, their children, their homes. in every other case, except those who have cytopathic -- psychopathic tendencies, breakdown in posttraumatic stress disorder. how do we apply the standard to
all represent so well as such a high level that the conscience of our combatants and civilians are absolutely and unconditionally protected? >> excellent question. [applause] who would like to take this first? i think when the and then -- wendy and then asa? >> that is an outstanding point. i've had people who work for me and come back and on through posttraumatic stress. my father went to that from vietnam. no one at that point in time, although the categorize it as ptsd, no one offered assistance. i would tell you that i believe fundamentally if someone is going to -- we have a volunteer force in the united states.
yes, the volunteers will come back with the same issues. there are a number of fine books written -- actually, there was one girl, a psychologist in iraq who came back. there was a psychologist their who was minister into our troops on the ground, and yet no one was asking her how she was doing. ok? and these are parallels -- there are friends of mine who are doctors in emergency rooms in places like los angeles to go through that same kind of trauma and stress -- who go through that same kind of trauma and stressed. windward dispatching troops to haiti, one of the first things i did -- because i am a psychology major.
i am not an engineer. when the first things i did was e-mail the four-star who was sending our forces and asked, sir, please consider dispatching now people who will be trained to minister to the troops, spiritually, emotionally, medically, because what they are going to see -- the onslaught on their consciences of doing relief efforts, where we are not even in warfare, ok? and the fact that they could not intercede, especially for the children, to save the children, was so traumatic for many of them. this is something we have to grapple with in the united states, and i think, globally. any relief effort, at any wartime scenario, we have people who are traumatized by these things. this happens to police officers and firefighters. certainly the ones who responded after 9/11. this is something we have to do.
i believe is not just a psychology peace, but a whole person peace, and much of that has to come from the spiritual aspect of how is that individual deal with it from a spiritual perspective, particularly knowing that they had volunteered to go into that situation, and then not fully understood what it is that they were going to get into? i think one of the problems for many, many years, through movies, through books, it is that there is almost a glamour to war or to these kinds of things and people are attracted to do careers for the wrong reasons when they may not be well prepared to handle the aftermath of what their choices are. >> i would like to let a few more of our panelists respond.
i am very apologetic to those of you who've been waiting patiently in line. we will run out of time. however, i will impose on our gracious panelists to hang around a little bit after the panel, and perhaps those of you who have not gotten a chance, i do apologize. you could speak to them and ask your questions. now since we're so close to running at a time, i would like any of them to make comments in response to our keynote speakers final questionnaire. what we just go down the line or skip around. henri? >> thank you, shannon. war is tragedy. we should take tragedy in a very precise meaning, which is
something you sometimes cannot avoid, i cannot prevent from happening without allowing something else happening, which is maybe even worse. i remember a story of two people -- not fighting, but trying to grasp the same would come offloading would reject -- same floating wood. maybe they are siblings, friends, enemies?
we come to moments in time were one life could be exchanged for one of their life, and which one should we take? when we come to such situations, either in war or elsewhere, it seems to me that selfishness and utilitarianism ways of thinking are quite inappropriate. dignity, human dignity in tragedy needs higher ground.
it is not possible to reach these grounds without studying the concept of sacrifice and a self sacrifice. kierkegaard made this point quite clear, that ethics is reasonably easy to deal with until we come to the point where sacrifice has to be made. then there is the consequence that the universe crumbles. that is what i do not have the answers to all questions. i would like that, but really i do not. i can bear witness. when i was appointed to the literary academy, i suppose i knew. [laughter]
quickly i realize that in fact, talking about war made the necessary complete reworking of moral philosophy. this is when we come to war and peace. it is necessary to deepen, deepen, deepen in fact all the questions. i can tell you, the first time i talk to my colleague. i was taking a drink with him. he said, i was in serbia. and at such things happen to me. should i pulled the trigger or should i not? >> oh, my. >> so, i think we should address all the questions which
emerged from all the genuine wish to eradicate war, not to be satisfied with shallow answers, you know? because war is rooted in everybody and everyone and there is all lost for power -- a lust for power with which we much of surf and analyze. -- observe and analyze. >> now, i realize if you had your hand up earlier i do not want you to forget your point, but -- >> i have forgotten that. >> the last person who opposed the question. i think the issue is much larger and deeper. it does not have anything to do
with the unjust way. i am perfectly justified in what i am doing. what i am doing is killing at terrorist to jeopardize the life of my family on one hand, and i might damage three of his neighbors. i am perfectly justified. still, i come home and i have mixed feelings. i am delighted to have been able to protect my family. i am delighted. truly delighted. on the other hand, i am very sorry extremely sorry to taken the life of three people who are innocent in the sense of not jeopardize the life of anybody. so i have those mixed feelings. so psychology enters the picture not only when we commit atrocities.
when we carry out the perfect action that is perfectly justified, we still have those mixed feelings. now assume there is no collateral damage. assume i am a helicopter pilot. i killed the terrorists to save the life of the veterans. i return home. i hate that i have to kill. i am perfectly justified when i do it. but thperson i killed was not innocent at all. he was a terrorist. he was an arch terrorists. so, moral psychology should be applied to people who find themselves in this tragedy. what ever you do, there are two
aspects. there is one about which you are happy and one about which you are sad. and so, it is not just posttraumatic stress cases which is much too late. in training, briefings, at every stage when you carry out your command, people who carry out such activities. you have to cultivate those two emotions. be very proud. be courageous. protector force. and all your compatriots. but never forget that human and civility -- if he is a terrorist, he is still a person. i have to kill them. i will do it again tomorrow.
i have to do it. i am doing it. i find those mixed feelings, and that should be a regular reaction for combatants. when i speak to pilots and people in other branches of the israeli defense force, it is a regular, ordinary, mixed feelings that people have. >> david? >> you talk very eloquently about the moral trauma of the hearts. if people are better prepared, you can minimize, but you can never eliminate. if you could, then we're in the robotic world of automatons, which i do not think anybody really wants to go to completely. we do not want that.
there should be a cost. a human cost. when we put people into this situation, we send men and women to war, we have to look after them afterwards as well. is what you are doing -- and this is part of your proportionate calculation -- the cost to your people, to your society, to the marriages, to the children -- is what you're going to war, is a proportional tax is the end justified? does the end justify what you have got to do? the calculation is very important. the falklands conflict in the early 1980's. more falklands veterans have died at their own hands since the conflict then died in the conflict.
the care after the conflict is just as profound as the care before. i live in a town -- which there is no reason anybody would have heard of it. it was the first town that repatriated casualty's from afghanistan. they came out to pay their respects every time. it is always national news. regrettably, it is national news about once or twice a week at the moment. it always makes headlines, as it should. my fear is that 10 years from now, after the suppose a drawdown, those veterans will become forgotten once more and we may see a repeat of what happened after the falklands. i really hope we do not do that again. >> thank you. >> like wendi, i was a psych major as well.
i have worked in psychiatric hospitals. i've seen posttraumatic stress. you have to be very careful as a therapist. sometimes, their best -- therapists caused the posttraumatic stress because they get in there and ask the questions. ofangely, we've made a lot progress. at one point, it might have been called shell shock. at other times, it might have been called cowardice and you would have been shot for it. on the other hand, it gives me the idea that soldiers suffering posttraumatic stress gives me great hope for humanity in fact, because you probably know there are a lot of historians going right back to brigadier-general marshall who was considered to be suspect we talked about soldiers from world
war ii. the majority of them shot over the heads of the enemy. at the battle of gettysburg, they found that muskets were multiply loaded so people were not even shooting. soldiers never retreated, and it is much easier to kill people in the back -- so that is one of the very strange things of war. i think that this whole thing of "killology." you do not get this shooting over the heads. people are immerse trained in telling. -- in killing. so, they will kill. the idea -- it sounds protest
of me to say this. the idea is so many are -- the i dia is so many are suffering from post-traumatic stress is giving me a great deal of hope for the human beings. >> to you have anything else to add? >> i think those are great point. there is a great deal of compassion. we do train people in the art of warfare. fundamentally the military is about warfare. i am charged to fight and win the nation's wars. but i would tell you that our military strategy is that it is just important to preserve the peace, as it is to go to war. we do all of those things. when you subject someone to those combat situations and they have to make a decision, based on the things that are expected of them, people die as
a result. that is what we have to do. we come back and develop those kinds of programs. many years ago, we did not deal with that. it is very frequent now that you will actually hear senior commanders talking about experiencing that. there is a level of caring and compassion. i'll also tell you that our political leadership is very taken aback by every single person that is a casualty or dies. if the truth were known, i think there were some of them who have not been in combat who were feeling a great deal and probably would even need, you know, some types of counseling themselves, depending on the
situation they are actually in. i did a download of every casualty that is going on, even though i am not in command of those individuals. i care about where they are and what they are going through. and what the repercussions are for the society. in many cases, we spoke to the young lady earlier, the 13-year- old -- thank you for asking your question. in the aftermath of war, people who are not being dealt with adequately in many other nations, in the wars in their own regions may be so filled with issues an anchor that they -- and anger that they carry out catastrophic events against their own populations.
we need to not only look into this for the united states, but certainly globally. what do we do so we equip our people to go back into society? >> i'm going to give you the last comment, dr. lucas. >> i wonder if many of you sitting up there have found the last few hours disturbing, confusing, and perhaps an unsatisfying? you should. the present state of conflict is disturbing, confusing, and quite unsatisfying. my concern, personally is our men and women can be put in uniform and placed in harm's way, maintain a sense of their role, purpose, and vision in the midst of this disturbing and unsatisfying situation in which we have placed them. they are tough, good people