tv Heritage Foundation Cato Institute Interns Debate CSPAN August 17, 2018 5:16am-7:00am EDT
they have come to the end of their time in washington and this debate makes the city capstone to the experiences that all of you have had this year. i want to thank everyone here their attendance their attenda those that are viewing on line. i understand that this is the first time perhaps even the first time ever that this event has been here at heritage so i want to welcome everyone to the heritage foundation.
i welcome all of you, all of you who have been involved in debates and all the interns who have done much hard work this year, much research and much thought and preparation had gone in to make this event a great event. libertarians and conservatives both advocate individual liberty, limited government, and free market. sometimes these shared values lead libertarians and conservatives to similar conclusions about public policies. i think these are significant and something we should all recognize. but also differences on how each apply the flol if i to the policy issues that are facing our nation. we are here to investigate and to debate these principles from different angles, different viewpoints, and from different frames of reference. there will be points scored, there will be arguments
defended and refutured and there certainly be a lively exchange. there will also be, of course, a discussion afterwards about ho won and who lost. the proposition is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy? but o our efforts here frankly are not all about policy or political philosophy or even differences of opinion or who wins or loses. as we look across the landscape of public discourse there is a sense that the lines around civil free speech are hardning. in the news, on college campuses and on social media. the debate now seems no longer a catalyst for individual intellectual growth but instead for group confrontation. i think we arer gathered here this evening to affirm our commitment from both hertage foundation and from cato to
debate freely and vigorously but also to be done in a spirit of civility and in good fellowship. that the free exchange and ideas and the right to express these opinions is the cornerstone of american public life. the great english poet said give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience and to have these above all liberty. a respectful exchange and debate provide both an opportunity to learn from others and also to sharpen one's own thinking which after all are the hallmarks of a free engaged and informed citizenry. i hope all of you enjoy tonight's' debate. 's something that will, i am sure, allow us to strengthen and defend all the commitments we have to free speech and to civil public discourse that i
hope all of you will take back to your workplaces to your schools and to all your friends and families that you have. the advocates of these principles wherever and discour you can know that these principles of free speech and freedom of thought will be on display here tonight not withstanding the differences they may have on how they interpret them. so i wish all of you up here to have the very best of luck. i would like to get started but i want to also say, as i said private, let the best philosophy win. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i do have a few notes. we will have a reception immediately following the conclusion. there will be ushers outside the auditorium who will guide
you. we ask that audience members remain quiet for the duryageo of the event except for alplause. we share your enthusiasm but hope you will be respectful to our panelist whose are not professional and have limited of time to express hundreds of years of philosophy and history. there will be time for questions. please wait to be called upon and for the microphone to reach you. if you are viewing in our overflow spaces or on line you may send your questions. importantly we encourage you to join the debate and share your thoughts on social media by sing the hashtag, and on twitter and instagram. we would appreciate your thoughts by participating in a quick survey. we'll give you a chance to contribute your thoughts on what questions or exchanges were most interested and who ou believe won the debate.
the debate will not represent or speak on behalf of either think tank so please bear this in mind. we would like to add my gratitude to my colleagues and r lectures and seminars, it, media and event planning. like to thank those at cato who have been invaluable. lastly i regret to tell you as you will probably like to thank those scheduled moderater was unable to make it this evening due to an emergency. our thoughts are certainly with already know
that our wish him all the best. but perhaps it's a testament to the popularity of this topic and importance of this debate wish him all the best. [applause] >> thank you for having me. excited to be here. a few of you may have noted that i'm not charlie cook. i can assure you that no one is excited to be here. ut
conservatives and libertarians share a love for liberty and made uzz partners on a number of issues. our support fror the free market, our opposition to the regulatory state and our support for the rights of all individuals. but where we disagree and where the crux of this debate lies is over the nature and extent of that freedom. the question of tonight's debate is not should we desire freedom but rather what kind of freedom should we desire. we conservatives think we have a few answers. concervix as a political philosophy is animated by the principles found in the programible to our constitution. the goal of government is to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our pross territory. this teaches us two important lessons. first, not all liberties lead o blessings. only ordered liberty does that.
nd second, we have a duty to preserve liberty for our descendents. but if we are to pass the torch of liberty from us to our children and from our children to their children, our society must promote things like personal responsibility, the value of faith and family, and positive duties to others in our communities. we can rob the future of their eedom by both overregulation and and excess. and it is this belief that separates us perhaps so distinctly from our libertarian colleagues. to max my to max my freedom and b government so far as it protects the freedom. let me do what i want and i will let you do what you want. it is deceptively simple and it is alluring self-indunlnt. but the art of politics is not that simple. french reformer was eventually
beheaded in the 18th century and went to the guillotine with the famous words o oh liberty what crimes have been committed in your name? in the name of liberty laws protecting the traditional family were torn down leading to poverty. in the name of liberty, abortion access was leading to the death of 16 million innocent children. and in the name of liberty drugs were spread from one corner of this country to the next destroying individuals and communities. leading to the death of 16 million innocent children. and in the this is the problem with the libertarian project. not that they desire social destruction but that their quest for liberty knows no moderation. order was the first need of the soul and therefore the first need of society. hers is the wisdom of the ages. in the end conserve this is the problem atism can
provide liberty. it is ordered liberty that was the foundation, the principle secured the last 250 years of american prosperity. and it is the principle that should be neither forgotten nor defaced. thank you. [applause] years of american prosperity. and it is the principle that should be >> at this time i would like to invite libertarians to give their opening remarks. >> we would like to thank the heritage foundation for hosting this debate. a firm belief in the necessity of individual rights and limited government anmates both the conservatives and the libertarians. accordingly in times of peril, a friendly cooperation has joined the two in common of freedom.
if libertarian fears he fights not beside an ally but a friend o of convenes, the libertarian must pass the suspicious eye over the conservative concern for freedom when it is so often forgotten in practice. individual liberty is not an heir loom of sentimental value to be paund. it is the guiding principle fundamental to america's progress which no libertarian will abandon. a simple observation provokes the distrust, conservatives forget the primary importance of liberties in their enthusiasm for the way of life that has arisen under its blessings. in a democracy the belief that the majority enjoy prominence so misled by traditionalism conservatives have been persuaded to elevate these values in competition with liberty. perhaps away that this to other principles is tyranny
conservatives endorse the fiction that secondary values like the moral rejection of drugs can receive political priority without danger to freedom. yet, if at the expense of our rights we bend too far toward a lesser principle we threaten all of our values. but we compromise and support guarantees them. thus the conservative who makes liberty but one goal among many introduces the tyranny he disavows. he oppresses civil liberties a t home and imposes his will abroad. libertarians like conservatives appreciate the values from which as a foundation americans have raised a great nation. the courage of our soldiers, the genius of our scholars, the quiet strength of our families. but we understand that these virtues which not survive under the specter of dess potism. born o of this understanding the philosophy begins with the
philosophy of individual rights. libertarianism holds that each determine the standard of her own happiness free of coercion. the libertarian society latches the door against tyranny. conservatives who believe that imposing certain values by force is a means of preserving liberty rather than its anythinggation should attend to the consequences of their policy. instead of peaceful foreign relations grounded in free exchange, national defense, conservatives add the glad torle specter of arms and build in the sacrifice of our dollars, our privacy and our lives. their wars are the practice of not everysoneions. they have learned only a few lessons from their previous lessons that they must now have perfected. they continue to endorse state interference with individual sects, identity, and end of
life decisions. tonight, we present an alternative to the inconsistency of the conservative attitude. that alternative is the free society, the libertarian society. in it, recognition of the equal rights of each citizen forms a rampart against tyranny. the individual undisturbed pursues his aspirations and forms his convictions in personal safe safety and rance. l tole in the open sted competition of ideas driven forward for the reward of property in the open competition of ideas driven forward for the reward of property rights threaten to distribute the fruit o through the medium exchange. we believe that this society in which each individual together citizens is ow citizens is
free to make up his life the most he can should appeal to conservatives as well. therefore, conservatives conser again to the cause of liberty. together, we can restore the free society. thank you. [applause] >> a two-minute rebuttal. >> our friends just accused of us being the ones foresaking the cause of liberty. but i think we would contend that it is actually conservatism to allow us to get the best. rather than engaging with the conservetive conception of ordered liberty i am afraid our libertarians have offered a caricature. the problem with libertarianism is that their quest for individualism is respectable and alternative composed largely of individual choice. what libertarians don't acknowledge is that what they
call personal choices often metastasize into political catastrophes. take for example the use of prescription drugs, opioids, a legal drug. that is not destroying individuals. it is destroying entire regions of the country. the second a conservative says we can do something about this, they say that is the government and that is going to turn into tyranny some day. and there is sternl a risk of power being abused. we are the first ones to say that when we wrote the constitution. but liberty -- liberty can be just as dangerous. it was james madison who said that freedom is threatened equally by abuses of power and abuses of lib. db liberty. remember we're not just talking about this generation. the licenses of this generation can be the fetter of the next, which is why the conservative
who doesn't dislike liberty we want to order it and direct it so that today's people and our descendents can enjoy the liberty that leads to rosperity rather than slavery. >> now a rebutle from the libertarians. >> i think our conservative friends categorize us as an arkists. morality, r, responsibility. we also believe in the rule of law albeit we think the country should have much fewer lies. libertarianism is the belief that people should live their lives however they want so long as they don't harm another human being. or infringe upon the rights of another. yourself have to ask
have conservatives helped prosperity? think about the long-term effects of conservative policies. do we protect posterity by expanding the size of got, military and the yourself nsa p our citizens and taking more of their rights? we are giving away our rights to the government that future generations won't be able to enjoy. i'm so thrilled they brought up the war on drugs and the harms of the opioid crisis. i can't think of a more bigger failure of a government policy that they stell apparently defend. because all the harms of opioid use are because the government made opioid illegal and created a black market. that is why you see 50% of opioid deaths are because of fentanyl contamination because the government mude it into the ack market and that is bad for posterity. what is also bad to prohibit for the government to tend to prohibit is also not good for posterity taking away more of
our rights and it is incredibly ineffective. it just creates more violence by creating disorder. libertarian actually protects liberty because we understand that it is a gift given to us by the founding fathers and conservatives have abandoned the founding principles by expanding the size of government to ridiculous means that have actually taken away our rights and made us more unsafe. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to start with the libertarians. you will have three minutes to answer the response and then three minutes one minute and one minute. the first topic that i would like to hear on is this. civil society must be protected with prohibits on individual
vices. >> liberty should be the primary principle when it comes to politics but we do believe that there is more to life than liberty. civil society rests on a sense of morality and responsibility. however, we are skeptical of government dictating to us what it believes correct moral values. libertarians and conservatives agree government gets many issues wrong. long stappeding interracial marriage should have taught us the government overreach. yet conservatives still want intervention. libertarians understand that personal responsibility and morality cannot be imposed by the government and trying to impose such things have cost. conservatives fail to realize that curbing these activities doesn't protect sil society at all but only harms it while taking away our rights as we. our personal belief may lead us to scorning activities but the people who disagree with have individual rights as well.
this is why using the government to prohibit peaceful activities is an unjust use of authority. this also sets up the precedent of taking away liberties that future generations won't enjoy. the only morally reprehensible are those that inupon the ights of others. you may agree that it should be punishable but the next bureaucrat should might agree that it is social ills that the government must curb. shifting. is always without a doubt the government should do justice to those who murder, and rape but not those who engage shifting. without a doubt the government activities. two swear words in a san francisco club in 1961 was arrested for obscenity. there was a time when the government instituted racial segregation and when sod my was
a felony. why would we trust the government to know what is proper moral conduct? vices is a vain effort. people who engage in these activities anyway creates a world more vile president and oppressive. violence harms civil society more than burning a flag does. dangerous to have what you consider vicious on the black market than to have it exist in an open legal market. in order to li in a free society, we must be dangerous t tolerate the activities that y not align with our moral values. we must remember that the got gets things wrong. by accepting this we will achieve a freer and just society for us and future values. generations. hank you
>> conservatives. george washington's fair well address you can find this statement. religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society. both libertarians and conservatives understand that government needs to prohibit conduct such as murder in order to protect civil society. the problem is that libertarians ignore how law shapes culture and how culture shapes beliefs and actions. it seems libertarianism assumes the virtues of character that sustain a free market are spontaneous and can be satisfied by mere self-inrest. we recognize the free market teaches certain values, among which are self-reliance, and politeness. however, the economy on its own cannot fulfill the goals of the political community. let me be clear.
conservatism does not say that all vices should be prohibited. rather the question is at what point do individual vices reverberate on the political community. i apologize is this my three minutes? >> three minutes. >> i was a little confused by the time. my apologies. >> i asked the question just a second ago. we want to know at what point do individual vices reverberate just political community. for instance, if i decide that living is too great a burden and i take my own life, i think we could all agree that is a tremendous tragedy. however, that does not mean the government should step in and try to ban or regulate everything that could be used to commit suicide. medical community gets involved and the art of healing is transformed into the art of killing there is a clear imperative for the government to step in and prevent the
cheapning of human life on a societal scale. another example. f someone decides to go on a drug-fueled quest out in the desert there is a legitimate argument to be made the government need not get involved. but when you have hundreds of thousands of people particularly young people destroying their lives, families and communities through addiction drug-fueled quest out in the to heroin, how can it be anything but callus to continue that no level of government has any responsibility to its citizens to intervene? the philosopher once said, you get not freedom or rights but intolerable aloneness. and subjection to demon fears and passions. ociety is a partnership of the dead, the living, and the unborn. libertarianism pretends that
order erupts spontaneously but conservatism understands that the civilization was built painfully through much trial and error. it is because of this long memory that conservatism better protects liberty than libertarianism. the only m is philosophy that the only philosophy that can create a self-governing society. that is why our great american heritage is a conservative eritage. thank you. [applause] >> now we'll hear a one-minute rebuttal. >> liberty preserves our special society and preserves those institutions by the government. uch as the family, marriage, religion. when government interferes in
these realms, the consequences are often disastrous. take the laws that banned interracial marriage. this was an example of the government trying to curb a vice by saying that two people of different races couldn't marry. if we couldn't trust the government then why would we trust the government now? this is an example of many that infringes upon the rights of others. and that infringes upon the rights of others. and also, conservatives create more violence by attempting to rohibit things such a drugs. l. >> now one-minute rebuttal from the conservatives.
>> a main point of my libertarian colleagues' arguments is the government should prohibit individuals from not harming one another. i'm glad they brought that up. because if no level of overnment can create any positive duties on individuals, my question is do parents have the legal obligation to feed their chirp? because i know positive duties on the founder cato didn't think so even argued that in a libertarian society, parents are owners of children and therefore should be able to buy and sell them on the open market. these positions illustrate just how little true libertarianism actually cared about the moral character necessary for a free society. and they claim that conservatives are really big government leftists in isguise.
founders had the same view but also recognized a proper role for government in the regulation of vices. i don't think anyone here would call founders had the same view but also recognized the founder thank you. [applause] >> for the next topic we're going to switch things up. we'll start on my left. the prompt you'll be responding to is restraint should be the guiding principle of u.s. foreign policy. >> conservatives agree that restraint should be a guiding principle of foreign policy because conservatives are realists. recognizing and sharing libertarians' concern about the tendency of a robust national
defense to strengthen the national government. but we also recognize that we must have a balance between maximizing freedom at home and protecting citizens from threats beyond our borders. because in the age of globalized threats we require u.s. commitments abroad. a conservative foreign policy is one that emphasizes prudence over dog ma. because national stewart is not a singlele player game. while history can inform contemporary solutions it can never provide an exact roadmap. that is what prudence is required. we have to take other nation's actions into account. our libertarian colleagues would certainly agree that information is decentralized, while no longer public policy is that more true than in foreign policy? the question before us tonight then is what does restraint
look like in the real world? libertarianism is fond of saying the united states should reduce its role in the world but rarely can it tell you by how much. the constitution establishes guiding principles. it includes measures designed to prevent national security from becoming an instrument of tyranny. but also allows flexibility. the challenge for conservatives is how to maintain the flexibility required to make national security effective without hijacking it for partisan political ends. and we believe that the way to meet that challenge is through prudence, not through axe yms that cannot be expected to guide foreign policy in a globalized and constantly changing world. nato is a great example of such a prudent policy. it protected europe and by extension the united states during the cold war. today it serves as a bulwark against the resurging russia.
i would say that's well worth our investment. cato vice president like us to say that libertarian principles can be understand by kinder gardeners. foreign policy in the real more complicated than kindergarten. only a conservative policy is up to task of keeping america afe. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> three >> three minutes. >> thomas jefferson in his first inaugural >> three minutes. >> thomas jefferson in his first inaugural address was to create peace commerce and honest relations with all nations. as libertarians we share his vision and believe a restrained foreign policy is the best way to strengthen our country. the united states is not more powerful when we involve ourselves in unnecessary conflicts. a restrained foreign policy
will protect us. we save lives, money, and preserve our own freedom when we do so. passivists.aive intervention is justifiable when there is a compelling national security interest at stake, we know how to pay for it, we have a precise mission and public support, and sure that we've exhausted all other means. under these criteria the invasion of afghanistan, world war ii, are all justifiable. the iraq and vietnam wars are not. conservatives mistakenly assume strength and military strength are exclusive. the opposite is true. when the military is overextended without clear missions we are weaker. if russia and china do pose a threat to us, do we want our ilitary's reads in to be compromised by being spread thin and having resources depleted or do we want to have a strong military ready to defend ourselves? in addition we must consider
the cost of the current u.s. foreign policy. the defense budget costs $700 million a year. we spend more on our military than the next seven countries contributes this to the debt that makes us weaker, not stronger. soldiers st countless to avoidable wars. we owe it to our troops to not only give the mission better defined and winnable but they also deserve the right to though that the missions they serve in are necessary as well. we should never forget that people at home feel the acts of war. as a result, millions of americans have lost their privacy rights under big brothers' eye. the t.s.a., patriot act won't go back when the war ends. our children and grandchildren will never know the liberties that we gave away.
we are not a beacon of democracy when we impose our can fs and values that only emerge organically. the best way to show the strength of our country is only by yielding power when necessary. hn quincy adams, quoting, we should can be a well alert to t freedom of all and champ om of our own. we shall be a beacon of liberty by setting this example and having our exchange in foreign policy. thank you. [applause] rebuttal. >> while our libertarian colleagues seem to want two things. a smaller budget for rebuttal. our military such as china and russia. the reality is that -- the claim that we don't need a cold war sized military, the at the look
multiplicity of threats we face today. the idea that a weak military emace yated by obama-style sequestration can but also grea readiness to meet threats adequ defend americans is unrealistic and causes me to wonder whether libertarians when pushed to the edge would rather save money than lives. onservatism can provide a real solution. firmly rooted in the key iding principle of peace through strength. thank you. [applause] readiness military will be achieved by making the military smaller than it is. we are more powerful -- i repeat, we are more powerful when we are ready to respond to conflicts that immediately threaten us as opposed to that have dozen wars
no relevance to us whatsoever. this policy would save lives. the asa assertion that we want to save money instead of lives is absurd because that have no relevance to us whatsoever. this we're the ones advocating for restraint, we're the ones advocating that we should not be sending more men and women into battle if they truly do not need to be there. we will be a safer country if we have a truly restrained foreign policy. we do not need the size of the military in the united states it's beep. it's beep. the fact of the matter is that we are more powerful than all the other militaries and we would still do well to defend liberties by ur practicing more restraint. thank you. [applause] >> three minutes, please. physician assisted death should e legal.
>> a limited legal framework for physician-assisted death allows terminally ill individuals to end their life with dignity and according to their own wishes. to force these individuals to ndure unnecessary suffering is an exceptional power for the government to assume over the lives of its citizens and requires an exceptional justification, one which demonstrates that overwhelming harm to society would follow without the violation of individual rights. our country already guarantees patients rights to refuse life-sustaining treatment will struggle to justify according to this standard the way patients may end their lives. they onable law restricts
retain them unchanged for as many as 20 years. under these laws rather than a culture of abuse we have seen a small number of participants. a oregon less than 4/10 of percent die annually. the european style youth nashea remains a mirage. the a percent die alternative to a en life regime is as current experience proves not a regime of life but a regime of desperation. dangerous objects are in every home in america and those who annot end their lives will rashly avail themselves of these crude means of self-destruction to the distress of their family. far better to give them a structured method.
with s under a system them a safeguards require them to confront the gravity of their choice can be certain that thou decision. indeed a significant proportion of those under state laws choose not to end their lives. far better as well to protect doctors who today must choose between their duty to alleviate suffering of suffering of thei and the law. it merely allows doctors the option to advise patients who ask of all possible remedies to their distress including the they umane, least have made a ending their life. the libertarian position embraces the dignity of human life by insisting that we take seriously their suffering and desires. anything less is a a traumatic way of reduction to an object rather than a person deserving of empathy.
whichever path they choose. thank you. >> for centuries, one of the foundational principles of medicine was do no harm. libertarians were content to see this line erased from the favor ofic oath in their favorite substitute, a market system, free exchange of good and services. no such market should exist. a society that sanctions such conduct should not hope to long maintain its respect for human dignity. we conservatives believe in the value of life from conception to natural death and oppose assisted suicide.
there are two primary reasons why rejecting a respect for life is so dangerous. assisted suicide inevitably defaulted to death by coercion. the arguments presented for physician-assisted suicide inevitably break down. it libertarian position is -- is an interesting one because it is about consent. people should be allowed to end their life if it is agony. if it is just about consent, why can't anyone choose to die. a woman had tonight us and two and eventually the argument for consent starts to fade and people start to care about quality of life instead of consent. when it is quality of life, who
gets to make that call. in the netherlands, some studies estimate that up to 50% of physician-assisted suicide ,appen without consent including a dutch woman who was pinned to an operating table and lethally injected by her family. when life stops becoming meaningful, considerations like the cost of living and the quality of life become elevated. the reason that has not happened is becauseed states of the conservatives who have advocated for a right to life from birth to death and have not accepted this transformation of the community that is supposed to heal as a dispenser of death. inevitably, when society sanctions position assisted
suicide it invites a cost-benefit analysis into the work and dignity of the human person, especially when they are going through suffering. it is not a slippery slope before society starts to see the elderly and children as a burden. patients put their lives into the hands of doctors. society should not empower those same doctors to end them. [applause] >> one minute rebuttal. >> we are not the netherlands and we are not sliding toward the dutch. the laws in oregon for
physician-assisted death in 1997, year, 2018, hawaii passed a law allowing position assisting death. guess what? it looks a lot like oregon. and if the conservatives want to pat themselves on the back for insuring that hawaii passed a similar law, that's just fine with me. they can. americans have different values than europeans, and they don't seem to be changing. we're not going to be euthanizing anybody, we don't support euthanizing anybody and i don't think you do either. moreover, we are not suggesting this is some sort of cost benefit analysis that the family should do for other individuals. that is why we have safeguards, and that is why we advocate safeguards. even the faulty safeguards we have now are not doing a terribly poor job at protecting individuals. those who are surveyed that participate in physician-assisted death regimes far and away respond most often that they have made their decision because they have lost the ability to enjoy their lives. >> one minute response? reformers inarian
the netherlands did not pitch assisted suicide that we are going to kill your children without your consent. it started with an argument from consent. we want people who are suffering to be able to die if they wanted. it inevitably turns into a slippery slope. there is a difference between refusing treatment, which is currently allowed in the united states, and active killing, or allowing the person to participate in choosing to can till the -- choosing to kill themselves. gives medical practitioners and new ability and something new they can recommend. lastlgium we learned just week that children aged nine and 11 were given lethal injections. nine and 11. belgium did not adopt assisted suicide laws because they thought that would happen, that it was an inevitable consequence of laws which stopped protecting the right to life, which is why
conservatives insist we do not make the devil's bargain now. [applause] the fourth and final prompt and thisebate tonight, one will go to my left, you're .ight, the conservatives [laughter] your right. immigration reform should start with the implementation of current laws. speaking at the united nations, the president said our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values. conservatism agrees with this
understanding of government and consequently recognizes two goals with regards to u.s. immigration policy that has historically governed our nation. first is maintaining and enhancing the unique culture of the u.s.. the second is preserving the public safety of american citizens. ,o accomplish these goals conservatism demands we enforce our current immigration laws in order to stem illegal immigration. make no mistake. .onservatism is pro-immigration we recognize the work ethic of many immigrants, both past and present, but illegal immigration damages our prosperity by threatening the safety of our citizens and undermining american society by replacing the melting pot with the bowl.le -- with the salad in 2008 a man and his sons were brutally murdered by an ms 13
gang member with two prior felony commissions -- convictions. he had never been reported. -- never been deported. alienscriminal incarcerated between 2011 and 2018, 60 6% were in the country illegally. they were convicted of 600 , 30 300 30,000 assaults sexual assaults, 38,000 shargh crimes and 274 kidnapping. the constitutional duty to enforce our current immigration laws is essential to protecting american lives and american values. we continue to be the most generous country in the world when it comes to immigration, allowing more than one million immigrants per year out of a nation of 330 million. no one has the right to be an american. us, the sovereign
people, to decide who we want to accept. that is why the constitution explicitly grants the federal government the power over naturalization. we cannot overlook the damage is illegal immigrants has done to american culture. 100 years ago we assimilated illegal immigrants to a culture dedicated to american education. now assimilation is not practice but actively encouraged by a culture being torn apart by identity politics. conservatism understands that adjusting the problem of immigration is critical, otherwise we risk facing the same fate of europe. just like president reagan said, the nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. thank you. [applause] three minutes. a typical immigrant sets out
for our country because he believes in the american experiment and his place in it. he is more educated than his former countrymen yet receives lower wages than his future countrymen. he also joins a community of other immigrants. he is also more likely to start a business the natives, more likely to innovate the natives and within a decade or so he will learn the wage of natives. ambition, community and entrepreneurship compel them to success. nevertheless our current laws are anti-immigrant, stifling free movement. waiting lists are millions long and visa eligibility's wedding -- would exclude most americans ancestors. restrictions punish law buying applicants and interject state control into the labor markets. some conservative support our inclusionary law for fear that immigrants endanger our culture. share concern for responsible citizenship but immigrants are not the threat conservatives
imagine. immigrants assimilate well. english ande learn more than 90% of their children do. intermarriage rates with natives are high, to. immigrants share similar views crime spending, and other issues with nonimmigrants. american culture has reached many immigrants. the relock -- the entrepreneurship of those who do emigrate -- do emigrate represents their assimilation into this culture. provideson also workers for domestic businesses, increasing production and demand. this is because immigrants do not simply replace natives. aboutkeptical research effects on wages, immigrants out of the economy because their
skills complement native ones. market is now economic consensus. --pite favorable economic libertarians except background checks, however data shows that immigrants commit less violent crimes the native and from 1975 to 2015 the chance of dying in a foreign-born terrorist attack was less than 300 thousandths of a percent. there is no reason to maintain exclusionary laws to maintain safety. arecriticism of immigration far too safe to support our century planned system of control. no good can come from perpetuating bad laws that only degrade our legal institutions. liberalized immigration is a step toward freedom and prosperity. [applause]
>> a one minute rebuttal. >> to be honest i think taylor made a lot of good points in terms of what immigration has been able to do for this country. i started by saying that we are pro-immigration. i have to question whether he answered the prompt, which is immigration reform should start with the enforcement and implementation of current laws. that was my focus. illegal immigrants clearly do not respect american values in breaking the law to come here. the question isn't whether illegals commit crimes at higher or lower rates than normal americans. rather that none of these crimes would have occurred at all if our laws were not -- were properly enforced. what conservatism advocates is the rule a lot of the.
what conservatism advocates is enforcing our current laws to encourage and reward legal immigrants, not to put them on the same level as those who skirt the system to come here illegally. we promote our economic development but also promoting and continuing american culture through assimilation. thank you. [applause] >> a final one minute rebuttal. >> indeed we believe we have answered the prompt. there is no way to say our current laws are pro-immigrant and conservatives who support them cannot be pro-immigrant. moreover to argue the enforcement of bad laws increase the enforcement of -- that is ridiculous. the conservatives suggest that we have a constitutional duty to enforce these laws. i would ask them to find in the constitution the words immigration and customs enforcement.
i can tell them they will not find it. it is true we have rules for naturalization and it is true we should limit citizenship to those who show they can join productively international life. i would ask them do they believe that illegal immigrants who risk everyday to be grabbed and thrown everyday from the life that they had chosen in this back to and to be taken the country they have voluntarily left do not value america. [applause] >> thank you both. for the fourth section of the debate, we will dial up the persuasion a little bit more. we'll start with the conservatives this time. i will ask someone from the conservative team to come up to the podium.
and answer the following question -- why should libertarians be conservative? >> my pitch is pretty simple. if you love liberty, be conservative. i understand the libertarian impulse. human freedom is a beautiful thing and big government is a threat to it. i cannot speak for every individual who calls himself a conservative but conservatism as a political philosophy certainly desires freedom. conservatives also understand something additional and essential. unfettered autonomy, when abused, can be just as harmful as authoritarianism. not just to the common good but to the liberty that would price -- that we prized in the first place. this is why we believe that the government has a limited but important role. just as we thwart abuses on the
power through checks and balances of the constitution, we thwart abuses of liberty through the rule of law. there are two implications to this reality. the first is that this is why social issues are political issues. many libertarians recoil from conservatism because they accuse us of legislating morality. forgetting that all laws legislate's morality from prohibitions on murder to protections of rights. those are laws based on moral claims and understandings. the question is never been will the lawler just right morality -- will the law but to state -- will the law legislate morality lawwhat rowley will a legislate. the only moral line that libertarians would impose on such liberty is the nonaggression principle.
the problem is that many choices may not directly threaten property but still affect others' freedom in more subtle but no less pernicious ways. those who are pro-choice deny freedom to the unborn. those who are addicted to drugs burden the freedom of their families. those who would cross the border to commit crimes have sometimes stolen the freedom of their victims forever. this is why freedom was called an art. he meant is that politics is a difficult and creative balance between limiting some choices so that freedom on the whole can prosper. secondly, politics is more than just economics. many of my libertarian friends are very excellent economists , including taylor over here. economics can only do so much. libertarians as economists fall prey to the hammer problem which is when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. wielding the hammer of free markets in the china shop of
civil society, they threaten the viability of the entire enterprise. economics can tell you how a market will act but cannot tell you if there should be a market in the first place. should there be a market for prostitution, for elective death, for child pornography? those are moral and political questions upon which the health of our republic depends. hayek once said that tradition and convention make liberty possible. he didn't mean any old tradition like no shave november or not changing your pants during the playoffs. he meant morality and stability. put simply, even the idea of libertarianism is a luxury made possible by generations of conservatism. those who hope to maximize freedom for ourselves and our descendents should join the conservative team. the conservative emphasis on ordered liberty and civil society is not meant to detract
from the value of liberty. libertycause we value that we insist on them. thank you. [applause] >> and now i would night -- now i would like to invite up the libertarians to answer the reverse prompt, which is why should conservatives be libertarians? >> in 1975, conservative hero ronald reagan said i believe the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. many american conservatives were drawn to conservatism because of its rhetoric about freedom and individualism. reagan began one of the most beloved presidents for his promises to defeat communism and make the government small, not
because of his support for gun control. few were attracted to william f buckley for his argument supporting segregation but because he was a fierce critic of leftist authoritarianism. both sides have claimed they represent small government free markets and individualism. at the end of the day, libertarianism is the only consistent political philosophy represented on the stage. take reagan's quote again. " i believe the very heart and soul is of conservatism is libertarianism." think about how much conservatism has changed since his era? would there still be a place for someone with reagan's principles and a conservative movement which is now dominated by president trump? what about the time when george and ronald reagan debated about which one supported mexican immigration more. in 2018, we have the heritage foundation's foremost conservative say that of all living politicians, his favorite is donald trump.
for being a courageous hero for free-speech principles. president trump, a man who once advocated for throwing flag burners in jail and invoking their citizenship and who calls the press the enemy of the people. would rightly a identify this as pure applesauce. libertarianism, on the other hand, is guided by the simple principle that individuals have the liberty to live their lives however they want as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. conservativism is riddled with inconsistencies. conservatives will rush to the defense of property rights when when it comes to the religious baker, but many will not when it comes to social media platforms. takervatives interventionist approaches with the goal of conserving liberty and protecting prosperity, but what has that look like? the implementation of the patriot act which has violated privacy rights and will continue to violate those of our children and their children. it looks like countless unnecessary wars launched in the name of freedom and protecting strategic interest but end up
training our treasury and making new enemies. it looks like spending more than $1 trillion on the war on drugs which compounds the the inherent risk of drug use and contributes to the debt that no generation may be able to pay off. conservatives like to paint libertarianism as a radical philosophy that seeks to uproot attempting to lump all libertarians with --, and accusing us of thinking child pornography is fine, none of which is true, not realizing that their intellectual forefathers all had much more respect for libertarianism than they do, and when one looks critically, libertarians have been right all along. the war on drugs has been a failure, countless unnecessary and harmful military interventions have failed, moral panics about homosexuality and rock music were unfounded, and capitalism in individual rights have succeeded. to the conservatives in the audience who value liberty most, ask yourself seriously if you are more inclined to
libertarianism than you may have thought previously. there may be a difference between what you thought conservatism represented and what it actually represents. , "a wisefferson said government shall restrain men from injuring one another and leave them otherwise free to -- regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." if you are truly and consistently devoted to the principles of small government and individualism, know that you are free to join a movement that fights to secure your rights, your neighbor's rights, and your children's rights from a tyrannical government whether it leans right or left. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to both teams for that, that was great. this is the part of the night when we open up the florida questions. is at least there one microphone that will be coming around. if i call on you please wait for
the microphone. i also have a couple of questions that have come in through you mail. the important thing is to remember that for ascendance to be a question it has to have a? at the end of this and i know that because i am an editor. if you say more than about one and a half -- 1.5 sentences without getting to the question mark you're not following the rules. do we have any questions? >> the war on terror started 17 years ago. how would you grade it? i will start with the conservatives. the war on terror and how would you grade the past 17 years? >> do you want a letter grade, do you want a thumbs-up or thumbs down? to be honest with you, the united states, remarkably well.
since 9/11 there been no comparable size terror attacks. we look at europe where they have a considerably less stringent foreign policy. they value their national security a lot less. the number of terror attacks seems to be endless. conservatism and conservative foreign-policy -- we will not argue with every point of history and argued that every decision made by a president with an r next to his name is absolutely right and should be taken in line with the entire tradition of conservatism. but we argue that a conservative foreign-policy and an active role in the world has resulted in, under this administration, the complete destruction of isis. a foreign-policy that keeps america strong helps preserve peace. thank you. [applause] can each of you address the
question of unfettered corporate cronyism and whether it amounts to social welfare for the rich and whether it constitutes true -- whether it jeopardizes a true free market economy? >> let's start with the libertarians. >> any sort of government support or craft legislation of business is something libertarians would not support. it is something we have done a lot to combat since the gilded age. we have seen a lot of improvement since then because our work against it. it is something we continue to fight against. >> cronyism is a problem. i would point out that from the perspective of the general public, especially when it comes to large corporations, we have a tendency to demonize them and think they have monopolies a lot quicker than they do and that through cronyism people have
cornered the market when they have not. the best example of that is apple and the iphone. people were saying there's no legitimate competitor to the iphone. there were worries about that until samsung made arguably a better phone and now they have about equal market share. of market can work a lot these problems out and conservatives believe that just as much as libertarians do. >> to the libertarians, the conservatives mentioned the quote that the law may not properly compel a parent to feed a child or keep it alive. do you hold that cato's founder was speaking on behalf of the libertarian ethic. >> i want to publicly disavow him. >> cato was founded by three people and they cut ties with
him very early on. also, we do not represent the cato institute, we represent libertarianism. i'm not a rothbard supporter, taylor is not, i cannot think of anyone at the cato institute who is, so no, we think that parents should feed their children. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you very much for being here. , you'velibertarian side been critical of american governmental policy, social -- can you name another country that better exemplifies these libertarian ideals, one that does not live under the american military umbrella? >> the american military umbrella is everywhere you would like to go in the world. from your list of countries i cannot pick one. [laughter]
i would like to suggest that we're not arguing against america. a country founded by libertarians who read their constitution. we think it is an excellent country that thrives on libertarian principles which is falling away from them in various areas and like to improve on those because we think america can be better with libertarian policies. >> any questions for the conservatives? two for the libertarians in a row. >> the libertarians sometimes are critical of the federal reserve, thinking it plans the economy by artificially lowering interest rates, making the rich richer and distorting the free market. what is the conservative view about the federal reserve and its central plant economy that
they basically control? >> of course. i am glad you asked that. the federal reserve has drastically expanded its powers since its creation in 1913. like other agencies which conservatism opposes, it the limits accountability and hinders the market. we believe in doing three things and reforming the federal reserve. first decrease the regulatory and supervisory powers because it burdens the small community and regional banks. second we want to ensure it does not serve as a lender of last resort. third, we need to move away from the discretion at the hand of bureaucrats. no economist can centrally plan a nation's monetary economy effectively. we agree that the fed has burdened our economy far more than it has helped it.
it has grown beyond its original charter and we think it needs to be reformed and audited. [applause] >> i would appreciate if both of you could give perspective on trade issues, especially on the current trade war with china. thank you. not only has the heritage foundation probably been most critical of trump in this area, so have we privately, he would not know us. [laughter] free trade and the free market system has done more to lift people out of poverty in the last 50 years than any other system devised by man. numbersook at the u.s. and private numbers people living in crippling poverty around the world has decreased
exponentially since the collapse of the soviet union. tariffs are taxes on american consumers. they are harmful to our economy and everyone's economy, we believe in free trade. >> i don't think we can add too much to that. the idea that there are national security concerns being addressed by our present tariffs are laughable. if i were a laughing personality i would be laughing right now. [laughter] [applause] >> second to the last row. [laughter] this question is for the conservatives. given that between 1930 and 2005, one million of the 2 million people deported from the united states were american
citizens, how would you see immigration policy enforced where it did not affect u.s. citizens? i have to apologize. i do take issue with your numbers. the fact of the matter is that we believe in deporting illegal immigrants, we believe in controlling immigration to this country because we want to reward legal immigrants who are part of our process and go through that time. we are not saying current immigration laws need to be entirely reformed. we are saying the first step is to enforce our current laws. the rule of law is critical. our opponents brought up -- how does enforcing bad laws generate respect for the rule of law? under that, the federal government should just choose -- cities and states should choose
which laws are good and bad and enforce based on this ethic. or, as a society rooted in the rule of law and the constitution we believe that we should have , an immigration policy that is followed. if appropriate revisions need to be made it should be done through a legislative ross s. one last a legislative process. one last thing. the idea that immigration policy is not in accordance with the will of the american people is simply false. gallup polls shows that less than 30% of americans support increased immigration. our legislators and our administrator should listen to the will of the people on this issue. they should begin enforcing immigration laws so even i have more incidents like kate steinle's murder. thank you. [applause] i want to take a couple of our internets -- our internet-based questions.
first for the libertarians what , is the basis for libertarians respecting other human beings? wire human beings worthy of dignity, in your view? i wish i could take credit for that question. of --ertarian libertarianism is based on a natural rights tradition and the belief that -- not all believe this -- that the founding fathers who were libertarians believed your rights were given by a deity. is the question why we should respect human beings? >> wire human beings worthy of dignity? >> i would suggest, if that principle is not self-evident to you, you not shake my hand afterwards, i would like to avoid meeting you. >> humanity is a beautiful thing. there are lots of things that go bad in the world, but the amount of progress we have achieved,
the good in people, i am sure conservatives think the same thing. i do not think this is a libertarian versus conservative issue. >> the question for the conservatives -- if the word naturalization is in the constitution, but not immigration, how does the government have the right to control who crosses the borders? >> two things. one i would like to see quote from a conservative -- from a supposedly rotarian founder saying we should have open borders. i would like to think through the implications that the government should control naturalization but not have any say in immigration. of all people, i know they have been disavowed by our --ertarian opponents, no though not all libertarians have , even he washbard against open borders. that allowing people into a community without the community's consent was unjust.
i would like to point to a final thing in terms of the founding, one of the first acts passed by congress was the naturalization act of 1790. it regulated immigration. you can look this up. the reality is america has always had immigration policy. we have always understood that to have a nation, we need to have federal government control over that. that is why the constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate immigration. [applause] >> we have a hand up here. >> thanks. i have a question for the conservatives. you said earlier that expanded access to opioids led to deaths, i would like to know what you response would be to the fact that since 2011, the government
has made it harder to get opioids and opioid prescribing has decreased per capita and yet opioid overdose's have increased by 84%. >> is a complex crisis. there are lessons for us as we are dealing with drug policy. the first is the fact that there was a black market for illicit opioids even while there was still a legal market, the problem with opioids is how addicting they are. people were hooked on opioids and are hooked on opioids so they can get them legally, they can get them illegally, the point is this cultural phenomenon and individual addiction drives the desire to get opioids more than the legal status does. the point of this is that analogies to the past are often times misleading because when individuals may not show a propensity to get addicted to something, and then an entire community can get addicted, and even making it legal makes it worse.
sometimes making it legal does not have much affect. her a portute wrote that said legalizing marijuana in colorado has not changed usage rates. with opioids, there is far greater rate of addiction. increasing availability actually does correlate with increased addiction. the problem with the libertarian position is that it is committed fundamentally the people being able to choose these things. being able to purchase them without restriction. in the libertarian world, there little they can say philosophically to prevent heroin from being sold on amazon. i struggled to imagine how that wouldn't increase use. -- if you think the heroin crisis is bad now, think of what this country could do with free two day shipping. [applause]
>> question for conservatives. conservatives are not willing to accept several hundred thousand undocumented migrants coming across the border from countries with the most truck tony and antiabortion laws on earth, what makes you think you'll be able to accommodate the 50 million additional americans born instead of aborted under roe v. wade? i think josh's point was not that the country demographically cannot handle that many people, as if this was a chart where we are running out of space. rather the because our current culture is so inundated with identity politics and segregated people based on cultural and ethnic lines rather than assimilating them, it will be harder to assimilate groups who do not share our culture than it was in 1900. this is as opposed if we were to stop abortions, which i believe is the greatest tragedy of the
20th century, those children would be brought up in homes and families. society as a whole should do their best to make sure that happens, which is a completely different situation than bringing in massive amounts of people over the border legally and illegally. >> can i add one thing? i think chris it's a very important point. it is not a numbers thing. here is the thing. a people, as the declaration of a distincts, is group. in america what defines us as a people is that we are people with diverse backgrounds but what makes us an american people is our shared language, history, and reverence for the political principles found in our founding documents. self-government is a virtue. it has to be taught and cultivated. we are not just radical individuals floating around, we
are a people. if we lose that idea of a people , of being bound together by shared political heritage and virtues, we no longer have a nation. do we have a last question for the libertarians? why would libertarians be against child pornography if it were generated by a machine. it makes a market, it does not seem to harm anyone, i just want to hear a principled argument against it? child you arguing that orthography does not harm a person? >> not if it is made by a computer. a lot of our child pornography nga from japan and i want to hear a principled argument against this if it does not harm children. thank you.
[laughter] pornography would not be compatible with the return is him because it involves infringing upon the rights of another human being who cannot consent to the activities. i have no idea about what the machine is, so i cannot comment on that. thing? an artistic i will wait to see when that becomes a problem in the future and let the supreme court decide. what would you say? i did not think this would be the relevant experience i would need from the debate. they should have chosen a different debate or if it was. >> thank you all for your questions.
i am sorry we cannot take more. [applause] >> we do have one last section, so if we could bring the volume down a bit. the last thing we are going to do is your closing remarks from both side. we'll start with the libertarians. we will have four minutes and then the conservatives will close it out with their four minutes. >> now you face a choice, consider your freedom, your material well-being, ask yourself what the you with those were dedicated to each or those web promised both and deliver neither. if you would choose the former all that remains is to honestly , assess whether conservative policies have failed to make us more free or more prosperous. a broad conservative policy has been a circus of gratuitous
force. spendthrift showmanship promising security by military parade. theatrical deterrence conceived in forgetfulness of the founders admonition has swelled a standing army and raised a worldwide archipelago of military bases. engorgervatives national defense to needlessly overwhelming superiority, the rights of our citizens become prey to its expanding scopes. we should not impugn have vieweds, who an extensive foreign policy as a tool and a noble attempt to protect the rights of others. if conservatives could create liberal democracies from ashes, there might be reason to reconsider their message. experience suggests their magic wand is nothing more than a stick.
conservatives denounce free markets not in the name, but in the language of immigration control. why do they set aside liberty when they proclaim it so loudly elsewhere? why do conservatives reject the aspiration and entrepreneurship of immigrants, not to mention the freedom of the businesses that would hire them. it cannot be security. immigrants commit less crimes the natives. it cannot be prosperity. immigrants increase our pool of human capital and allow us to produce more. perhaps it is fear for the fate of american values. american culture is not monolithic. it is defined by its dynamism. immigrants participate in that great shared american tradition enshrined in wagon trains and frontier towns, road trips and new lives in new fates. the quest for freedom and opportunity. home, conservatives, miss by nostalgia for an idealized past, buried there fists in the ambition to suppress individual liberty and
voluntary exchange. rights does others' not dissuade them from futile compulsion. instead they dictate to neighbors how they should live and how they should die. they take grenades and rifles to the streets to attempt prohibition. orconservative has stumbled be traded sellthrough inconsistencies, conservatives should not despair. their attitude and practice to give in to custom and coercion contains a kernel of political wisdom, and appreciation of liberty. as long as conservatives fail to resolve their own priorities, their policies will continue to be erratic and ineffectual. freedom, theyo will find a better achieve their own goals through consistency, their wealth in exchange, and their beliefs protected by law. tonight, you have been offered to competing visions. the solace of familiarity and the opportunity of freedom. do not settle for the warm
familiarity of conservatism. behind tranquility it hides the trust of force. choose as an american, choose liberty. choose command of your own life and reject the paternalism of the state, however it might best be described. our freedom as humans rests not in the limitations of the past or the wisdom of the few but in the striving of each of us together in community to claim for ourselves the lives of our aspirations. choose libertarianism. thank you. [applause] joshua: republican self-government is a rare and fragile thing.
,t is, as ronald reagan said never more than one generation away from extinction. to the question before us tonight, how do we, as a civil cultivate self-governing citizens capable of passing the torch of liberty the next generation? thisrvativism argues that is the most important issue facing americans today, even more important than the question of how to restore limited government. you can only have limited government when individual citizens are capable of self-government. libertarianism is a contradiction in terms. it desires the most mental government possible while also demanding the maximum degree of license for individuals to destroy themselves. it is so concerned with the freedom of the present generation that it does not bother to concern itself with building a political community capable of passing freedom on to
future generations. what will happen, we should ask, if the radical individualism champ and by libertarianism create citizen so obsessed with indulging in their private lives they no longer prove capable of defending liberty from internal or external threats. -- libertarians will tell you about the importance of liberty but they have nothing to say about the importance of using it well. in the long run, this problem of neglecting to think about the future is what makes libertarianism fundamentally unsustainable. this is why libertarianism has never governed in a political immunity and it never well. -- it never will. [laughter] tonight, we have demonstrated how a conservative foreign-policy believes in prudential restraint. our libertarian friends talk about restraint, but it is interesting that they do not
care about the concept of restraint when it comes to shooting heroin, but they're all about restraint when it comes to cutting the budget of our men and women in uniform. rather than be inflexibly conservative embraces a foreign policy dedicated to securing american independence through any means. demonstrated how the legalization of physician-assisted suicide actually fatally undermines individual but tommy. -- individual autonomy. theconservative belief in worth of every human being places upon us a duty to protect the right to life at every stage, from conception to natural death. the right to life must never become a duty to die. killing must never become cheaper than caring. we have demonstrated how immigration policy which ignores the importance of americanization eats away at our natural foundations, rather than turning the flood of illegal
immigration into a synonymy cash we must begin enforcing our current laws to protect american lives and american values. conservatism recognizes that the americans of today have no right to squander the blessings of liberty to the americans of the future. conservatism is the only political philosophy capable of protecting liberty because it creates the type of society where sustainable liberty can thrive. wasonsible self-governance the guiding principle of the american founding. and the foundation of american greatness. we should not abandon it for the ol's's gold -- for the fo gold that is libertarianism. thank you, and good night. [applause]
>> i want to be the first to congratulate all four of our debaters on a fantastic job well done tonight. i thought it was really interesting. i remember the first libertarianism versus conservative debate i watched almost a decade ago, and i remember being so impressed by the debaters back then. i am even more impressed now that you all look so young to me now that i'm in my 30's. it was great. thank you to heritage for hosting us, thank you to my friends at cato for thinking of me for this opportunity. if you're interested in this event, you may be interested in our next magazine which is then intra--- witches and intra- libertarian issue. we have people on both sides arguing and have a bunch of point/counterpoint's that will be in that issue. at this time i want to remind everybody there is a reception
afterwards. feel free to stick around in the foyer or on the roof. congratulate our debaters and say hello. thank you on -- thank you all so much for being here. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> saturday morning at 10:30 attern comic book tv is live the mississippi book festival for their fourth annual literary lawn party at the state capitol in jackson with discussions on race and identity, southern history, u.s. politics, and presidential leadership. authors include the author of --ing -- international interracial intimacy in america, jack davis with his book the making of an american sea.
an author speaks with former mississippi governor haley barbour. her book is the great revolt. an author frank williams with lincoln as hero. bookus for the mississippi festival on book tv on c-span two. today on c-span, "washington journal" is next live with your phone calls. kidnapping of the american pastor in turkey. a palestinian minister talks about the role of relief in gaza. then this afternoon, the former editor-in-chief of arab news talks about u.s. relations with saudi arabia. we will take you to the center of pluralism live at 2:00 eastern right here on c-span. coming up in about an hour, we wiak