Remarks by the President in Conversation on Poverty at Georgetown University

Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

11:39 A.M. EDT

MR. DIONNE:  It's a real honor to be here today with my two Presidents -- President Obama and President DeGioia.  (Laughter.) And my friend, David Brooks, hurled the most vicious insult at me ever once when he said that I was the only person he ever met whose eyes lit up at the words, “panel discussion.”  (Laughter.) And I have to confess my eyes did light up when I was asked to do this particular panel discussion -- and not just for the obvious reason, to my left -- and, again, it's a real honor to be with you, Mr. President -- or Arthur or Bob.

Poverty is a subject we talk about mainly when tragic events, such as those we witnessed recently in Baltimore, grab our attention.  Then we push it aside; we bury it; we say it's not politically shrewd to talk about it.  So I salute Georgetown, my friend John Carr and Galen Carey, and all the other extraordinary people who are gathered here for the poverty summit from all religious traditions all over the country.

Our friend, Jim Wallis, once said that if you cut everything Jesus said about the poor out of the Gospel you have a book full of holes.  And these are evangelicals, Catholics and others who understand what the Scripture said. 

Just two quick organizing points on our discussion.  The first is that when it's time to go, please keep your seat so the President can be escorted out.  The other is that Bob and Arthur and I all agreed that we should direct somewhat more attention to President Obama than to the other members of the panel.  (Laughter.)  I just say that -- I say that in advance so that you know this was our call and not some exercise in executive power. (Laughter.)  This was our decision to do this.  (Applause.) 

And in any event, we hope this will be a back-and-forth kind of discussion.  Bob and Arthur, feel free to interrupt the President if you feel like it.  (Laughter.) 

My first question, Mr. President, is the obvious one.  A friend of mine said yesterday, when do Presidents do panels?  And what came to mind is the late Admiral Stockdale, “Who am I?  Why am I here?”  (Laughter.)  And I'd like to ask you why you decided -- this is a very unusual venue for a President to put himself in -- and I'd like to ask you where do you hope this discussion will lead beyond today? 

And I was struck with something you said in your speech last week.  You said, politicians talk about poverty and inequality, and then gut policies that help alleviate poverty and reverse inequality.  Why are you doing this, and how do you want us to come out of here?  
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I want to thank President DeGioia, the Georgetown community, all the groups -- nonprofits, faith-based groups and others -- who are hosting this today.  And I want to thank this terrific panel.

I think that we are at a moment -- in part because of what’s happened in Baltimore and Ferguson and other places, but in part because a growing awareness of inequality in our society -- where it may be possible not only to refocus attention on the issue of poverty, but also maybe to bridge some of the gaps that have existed and the ideological divides that have prevented us from making progress.

And there are a lot of folks here who I have worked with -- they disagree with me on some issues, but they have great sincerity when it comes to wanting to deal with helping the least of these.  And so this is a wonderful occasion for us to join together.

Part of the reason I thought this venue would be useful and I wanted to have a dialogue with Bob and Arthur is that we have been stuck, I think for a long time, in a debate that creates a couple of straw men.  The stereotype is that you’ve got folks on the left who just want to pour more money into social programs, and don't care anything about culture or parenting or family structures, and that's one stereotype.  And then you’ve got cold-hearted, free market, capitalist types who are reading Ayn Rand and -- (laughter) -- think everybody are moochers.  And I think the truth is more complicated. 

I think that there are those on the conservative spectrum who deeply care about the least of these, deeply care about the poor; exhibit that through their churches, through community groups, through philanthropic efforts, but are suspicious of what government can do.  And then there are those on the left who I think are in the trenches every day and see how important parenting is and how important family structures are, and the connective tissue that holds communities together and recognize that that contributes to poverty when those structures fray, but also believe that government and resources can make a difference in creating an environment in which young people can succeed despite great odds.

And it seems to me that if coming out of this conversation we can have a both/and conversation rather than either/or conversation, then we’ll be making some progress. 

And the last point I guess I want to make is I also want to emphasize we can do something about these issues.  I think it is a mistake for us to suggest that somehow every effort we make has failed and we are powerless to address poverty.  That’s just not true.  First of all, just in absolute terms, the poverty rate when you take into account tax and transfer programs, has been reduced about 40 percent since 1967. 

Now, that does not lessen our concern about communities where poverty remains chronic.  It does suggest, though, that we have been able to lessen poverty when we decide we want to do something about it.  In every low-income community around the country, there are programs that work to provide ladders of opportunity to young people; we just haven't figured out how to scale them up. 

And so one of the things I’m always concerned about is cynicism.  My Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough -- we take walks around the South Lawn, usually when the weather is good, and a lot of it is policy talk, sometimes it’s just talk about values. And one of our favorite sayings is, our job is to guard against cynicism, particularly in this town.  And I think it’s important when it comes to dealing with issues of poverty for us to guard against cynicism, and not buy the idea that the poor will always be with us and there’s nothing we can do -- because there’s a lot we can do.  The question is do we have the political will, the communal will to do something about it.

MR. DIONNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I feel as a journalist maybe I’m the one representative of cynicism up here
-- (laughter) -- so I’ll try to do my job.  I want to go through the panel and come back to you, Mr. President.  I want to invite Bob, and I’m going to encourage us to reach for solutions.  But before we get there, I think it’s important to say that your book, Bob, your book, “Our Kids,” is above all a moral call on the country to think about all the kids in the country who have been left out as our kids, in some deep way.  And you make the point that the better off and the poor are now so far apart that the fortunate don’t even see the lives of the unlucky and the left behind.  You wrote, “Before I began this research, I was like that.” 

And following on what the President said, you insist that the decline in social mobility, the blocking of the American Dream for so many is a purple problem.  And I may have some questions later on that, but I really would like you to lay out the red and blue components.  And also, how do we break through a politics in which food stamp recipients are still somehow cast as privileged or the poor are demonized.  But I’d like you to lay out sort of the moral call of your book.

MR. PUTNAM:  Thanks, E.J., and thanks to the President and to Arthur for joining me in this conversation.

I think in this domain there’s good news and bad news, and it’s important to begin with the bad news because we have to understand where we are.  The President is absolutely right that the War on Poverty did make a real difference, but it made a difference more for poverty among people of my age than it did for poverty among kids. 

And with respect to kids, I completely agree with the President that we know about some things that would work and things that would make a real difference in the lives of poor kids, but what the book that you’ve deferred to, “Our Kids,” what it presents is a lot of evidence of growing gaps between rich kids and poor kids; that over the last 30 or 40 years, things have gotten better and better for kids coming from well-off homes, and worse and worse for kids coming from less well-off homes. 

And I don’t mean Bill Gates and some homeless person.  I mean people coming from college-educated homes -- their kids are doing better and better, and people coming from high school-educated homes, they’re kids aren’t.  And it’s not just that there’s this class gap, but a class gap on our watch -- I don’t mean just the President’s watch, but I mean on my generation’s watch -- that gap has grown. 

And you can see it in measures of family stability.  You can see it in measures of the investments that parents are able to make in their kids, the investments of money and the investments of time.  You can see it in the quality of schools kids go to.  You can see it in the character of the social and community support that kids -- rich kids and poor kids are getting from their communities.  Church attendance is a good example of that, actually.  Churches are an important source of social support for kids outside their own family, but church attendance is down much more rapidly among kids coming from impoverished backgrounds than among kids coming from wealthy backgrounds. 

And so I think what all of that evidence suggests is that we do face, I think, actually a serious crisis in which, increasingly, the most important decision that anybody makes is choosing their parents.  And if -- like my grandchildren are really smart, they were -- the best decision they ever made was to choose college-educated parents and great grandparents.  But out there, someplace else, there is another bunch of kids who are just as talented and just as -- in principle -- just as hardworking, but who happened to choose parents who weren’t very well-educated or weren’t high-income, and those kids’ fate is being determined by things that they had no control over.  And that’s fundamentally unfair. 

It also is, by the way, bad for our economy, because when we have this large number of kids growing up in poverty, it’s not like that’s going to make things better for my grandchildren.  It’s going to make things worse for my grandchildren.  So this is, in principle, a solution that we -- a problem that we ought to find solutions to.

And historically, this is a kind of problem that Americans have faced before and have solved, and this is the basis for my optimism.  There have been previous periods in American history when we’ve had a great gap between rich and poor, when we’ve ignored the least of these, in which we’ve -- I’m thinking of the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century -- and both of you have written about that period, in which there was a great gap between rich and poor and we were ignoring lots of kids, especially lots of immigrant kids.  And America seemed to be going to hell in a hand basket.  And there was a dominant philosophy, social Darwinism, which said that it’s better for everybody if everybody is selfish, and the devil take the hindmost. 

But that, unlike some of the ideology of Ayn Rand that you referred to -- but that period was quickly -- not quickly -- but was overcome by a real awakening of the conscience of America across party lines, with the important contribution of religious leaders and religious people, to the fact that these are all our kids. 

And now is not the time to rehearse all of the lessons of that earlier period, but I think it does actually give me grounds for hope.  This is a kind of problem that we could solve as long as we all recognize that it’s in everybody’s interest to raise up these poor kids and not to leave them in the dust.

MR. DIONNE:  Thank you very much.  By the way, let the record show the President was not looking at Arthur when he referred to cold-hearted capitalists.  (Laughter.)  But it is nice to have somebody here from the AEI.

MR. BROOKS:  Well, D.J., when the President said that, I was just thinking -- what was going through my head was, please don’t look at me, please don’t look at me.  (Laughter.)  But you notice when Bob said this -- about the social Darwinism, he pointed at me.  (Laughter.)  So I'm more outnumbered than my Thanksgiving table in Seattle, let me tell you.  (Laughter.)  

MR. DIONNE:  You just have to look into your heart, Arthur. And in fact, that’s kind of what I want to ask you to do here.  I mean, your views on these subjects have actually changed, and I think it's one of the reasons you wanted to join us today.

Back in 2010, you talked about makers and takers in society and a culture of redistribution.  But in February 2014, you wrote a very important article and commentary -- the open-handed toward your brothers -- and you said we have to declare peace on the safety net, which I think is a really important thing to say.

And as the President suggested, the safety net we have has actually cut poverty substantially.  So twin questions:  Could you talk about how and why your own views have changed -- if I’ve fairly characterized that.  And in the spirit we’re celebrating here of trans-ideological nonpartisanship -- now, there’s a mouthful for you -- in that spirit, where can Republicans cooperate with Democrats, conservatives with liberals, on safety net issues like making the earned income tax credit permanent or expanding the child tax credit?  I mean, where can we find not just verbal common ground, but actual common ground to get things done for the least among us?

MR. BROOKS:  Thank you, E.J.  And thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to be here and with all of you.  This is such an important exercise in bringing Catholics and evangelicals together, but having a public discussion.

One of the main things that I do as President of AEI is to talk publicly about issues and start a conversation with my colleagues in a way that I hope can stimulate the conversation and spread it around the country. 

At the American Enterprise Institute -- where we have a longstanding history of work on the nature of American capitalism -- when we’re focusing very deeply on poverty, it sends a signal to a lot of people that are deeply involved in the free enterprise movement.  My colleague, Robert Doar is here -- he came to AEI because poverty is the most important thing to him. And indeed, the reason I came into the free enterprise movement many years ago is because poverty is the thing I care about the most. 

And in point of fact, 2 billion people around the world have been lifted up out of poverty because of ideas revolving around free enterprise and free trade, and the globalization of ideas of sharing through property rights and rule of law, and all the things that the President is talking about in policy debates right now. 

That’s why I'm in this particular movement.  But we’ve gotten into a partisan moment where we substitute a moral consensus about how we serve the least of these, our brothers and sisters, where we pretend that that moral consensus is impossible,+++++++ and we blow up policy differences until they become a holy war.  That’s got to stop because it's completely unnecessary.  (Applause.)  And we can stop that, absolutely, with a couple of key principles. 

So how are we on the center right talking about poverty in the most effective way?  Number one is with a conceptual matter. We have a grave tendency on both the left and the right to talk about poor people as “the other.”  Remember in Matthew 25, these are our brothers and sisters.  Jim Olsen and I have this roadshow -- we go to campuses and everybody wants to set up something, right-left debates, and it never works out, because it turns out we both have a commitment to the teachings of the Savior when it comes to treating the least of these, our brothers and sisters. 

When you talk about people as your brothers and sisters you don’t talk about them as liabilities to manage.  They’re not liabilities to manage.  They’re assets to develop because every one of us made in God’s image is an asset to develop.  That’s a completely different approach to poverty alleviation.  That’s a human capital approach to poverty alleviation.  That’s what we can do to stimulate that conversation on the political right, just as it can be on the political left.

One concept that rides along with that is to point out -- and this is what I do to many of my friends on Capitol Hill -- I remind them that just because people are on public assistance doesn’t mean they want to be on public assistance.  And that’s the difference between people who factually are making a living and who are accepting public assistance.  It's an important matter to remember about the motivations of people and humanizing them.  And then the question is, how can we come together?  How can we come together?

I have, indeed, written that it's time to declare peace on the safety net.  And I say that as a political conservative.  Why?  Because Ronald Reagan said that; because Friedrich Hayek said that.  This is not a radical position.  In fact, the social safety net is one of the greatest achievements of free enterprise -- that we could have the wealth and largesse as a society, that we can help take care of people who are poor that we've never even met.  It's ahistoric; it's never happened before.  We should be proud of that.

But then when I talk to conservative policymakers, and say how should you distinguish yourself from the traditional positions in a marketplace of ideas from progressives, you should also talk about the fact that the safety net should be limited to people who are truly indigent, as opposed to being spread around in a way that metastasizes into middle-class entitlements and imperils our economy. 

And the third part is that help should always come with the dignifying power of work to the extent that we can.  Then we can have, with these three ideas -- declaring peace on the safety net, safety net only for the indigent, and always with work -- then we can have an interesting moral consensus and policy competition of ideas and maybe make some progress.

MR. DIONNE:  Thank you.  In fact, I'm hoping people will challenge each other about what that actually means in terms of policy.  And I want to invite the President to do that.

I'm tempted, Mr. President, to ask you to sort of go in a couple of directions at once.  One is, I am, again, hoping that you can enlist Arthur as your lobbyist on this.  One kind of question I want to ask is if John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were watching this and suddenly had a conversion -- and there are a lot of religious people in the audience, so miracles --

THE PRESIDENT:  I assure you they’re not watching this.  (Laughter.)  But it's a hypothetical.  (Laughter.) 

MR. DIONNE:  Well, it's a religious audience.  I believe in miracles.  (Laughter.)  So if they said we are so persuaded that it's time we do something about the poor, Mr. President, tell us a few things that we'll actually pass, we'll do this -- when you think about -- we can talk kind of abstractly about the family on this side, and what government can do.  What do you think would actually make a difference?  So that's one kind of question I'm tempted to ask. 

And maybe you could put that into the context of Bob’s mention of the Gilded Age.  As you know, I was much taken by that Osawatomie speech -- I even learned how to pronounce Osawatomie, thanks to you -- back in 20 -- help me.  (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  A couple years ago.

MR. DIONNE:  A couple years ago -- 2011.  And it really did put this conversation in context.  We do seem in certain ways to be having the problems we had back then.  So what would you tell Congress?  Please help me on this.  And how do we sort of move out of this Gilded Age feeling kind of period?

THE PRESIDENT:  Let me tease out a couple things that both Bob and Arthur said -- and maybe some of these will be challenging to a couple of them and they may want to respond.  But let me talk about big picture, and then we can talk about specifics. 

First of all, I think we can all stipulate that the best antipoverty program is a job, which confers not just income, but structure and dignity and a sense of connection to community.  Which means we have to spend time thinking about the macro-economy, the broader economy as a whole. 

Now, what has happened is, is that since, let’s say, 1973, over the last 40 years, the share of income going to the bottom 90 percent has shrunk from about 65 percent down to about 53 percent.  It's a big shift.  It's a big transfer.  And so we can't have a conversation about poverty without talking about what’s happened to the middle class and the ladders of opportunity into the middle class. 

And when I read Bob’s book, the first thing that strikes you is when he’s growing up in Ohio, he’s in a community where the banker is living in reasonable proximity to the janitor at the school.  The janitor’s daughter may be going out with the banker’s son.  There are a set of common institutions -- they may attend the same church; they may be members of the same rotary club; they may be active at the same parks -- and all the things that stitch them together.  And that is all contributing to social mobility and to a sense of possibility and opportunity for all kids in that community. 

Now, part of what’s happened is that -- and this is where Arthur and I would probably have some disagreements.  We don’t dispute that the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history -- it has lifted billions of people out of poverty.  We believe in property rights, rule of law, so forth.  But there has always been trends in the market in which concentrations of wealth can lead to some being left behind.  And what’s happened in our economy is that those who are doing better and better -- more skilled, more educated, luckier, having greater advantages
-- are withdrawing from sort of the commons -- kids start going to private schools; kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks.  An anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.  And that, in part, contributes to the fact that there’s less opportunity for our kids, all of our kids.

Now, that’s not inevitable.  A free market is perfectly compatible with also us making investment in good public schools, public universities; investments in public parks; investments in a whole bunch -- public infrastructure that grows our economy and spreads it around.  But that’s, in part, what’s been under attack for the last 30 years.  And so, in some ways, rather than soften the edges of the market, we’ve turbocharged it.  And we have not been willing, I think, to make some of those common investments so that everybody can play a part in getting opportunity.

Now, one other thing I’ve got to say about this is that even back in Bob’s day that was also happening.  It’s just it was happening to black people.  And so, in some ways, part of what’s changed is that those biases or those restrictions on who had access to resources that allowed them to climb out of poverty -- who had access to the firefighters job, who had access to the assembly line job, the blue-collar job that paid well enough to be in the middle class and then got you to the suburbs, and then the next generation was suddenly office workers -- all those things were foreclosed to a big chunk of the minority population in this country for decades. 

And that accumulated and built up.  And over time, people with less and less resources, more and more strains -- because it’s hard being poor.  People don’t like being poor.  It’s time-consuming’ it’s stressful.  It’s hard.  And so over time, families frayed.  Men who could not get jobs left.  Mothers who are single are not able to read as much to their kids.  So all that was happening 40 years ago to African Americans. And now what we’re seeing is that those same trends have accelerated and they’re spreading to the broader community. 

But the pattern that, Bob, you’re recording in some of your stories is no different than what William Julius Wilson was talking about when he talked about the truly disadvantaged.  So I say all this -- and I know that was not an answer to your question.  (Laughter.)  I will be willing to answer it, but I think it is important for us at the outset to acknowledge if, in fact, we are going to find common ground, then we also have to acknowledge that there are certain investments we are willing to make as a society, as a whole, in public schools and public universities; in, today, I believe early childhood education; in making sure that economic opportunity is available in communities that are isolated, and that somebody can get a job, and that there’s actually a train that takes folks to where the jobs are  -- that broadband lines are in rural communities and not just in cities.  And those things are not going to happen through market forces alone. 

And if that’s the case, then our government and our budgets have to reflect our willingness to make those investments.  If we don’t make those investments, then we could agree on the earned income tax credit -- which I know Arthur believes in.  We could agree on home visitation for low-income parents.  All those things will make a difference, but the broader trends in our society will make it harder and harder for us to deal with both inequality and poverty. 

And so I think it’s important for us to recognize there is a genuine debate here, and that is what portion of our collective wealth and budget are we willing to invest in those things that allow a poor kid, whether in a rural town, or in Appalachia, or in the inner city, to access what they need both in terms of mentors and social networks, as well as decent books and computers and so forth, in order for them to succeed along the terms that Arthur discussed.

And right now, they don’t have those things, and those things have been stripped away.  You look at state budgets, you look at city budgets, and you look at federal budgets, and we don’t make those same common investments that we used to.  And it’s had an impact.  And we shouldn’t pretend that somehow we have been making those same investments.  We haven’t been.  And there’s been a very specific ideological push not to make those investments.  That’s where the argument comes in.

MR. DIONNE:  And if I could follow up, which gets to the underlying problem where we talk, piously, sometimes, about let’s tear down these ideological red/blue barriers, yet when push comes to shove, these things get rejected.  How do you change the politics of that?  I mean, as you said, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner were unlikely to be watching us -- that actually has a kind of political significance.  Not to this event, but in general. 

THE PRESIDENT:  I was suggesting they’re busy right now.  They’ve got votes.  (Laughter.)

MR. DIONNE:  No, but I think you were saying something else. How do you tear down those barriers?  Because you laid out a fairly robust agenda there.  And I want to -- forgive me, Arthur and Bob -- but I’m curious, how do you get from here to there?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, part of what happened in our politics and part of what shifted from when Bob was young and he was seeing a genuine community -- there were still class divisions in your small town.

MR. PUTNAM:  True.

THE PRESIDENT:  There were probably certain clubs or certain activities that were still restricted to the banker’s son as opposed to the janitor’s son.  But it was more integrated.  Part of what’s happened is, is that elites in a very mobile, globalized world are able to live together, away from folks who are not as wealthy, and so they feel less of a commitment to making those investments.

In that sense -- and what used to be racial segregation now mirrors itself in class segregation and this great sorting that’s taking place.  Now, that creates its own politics.  Right?  I mean, there’s some communities where I don’t know -- not only do I not know poor people, I don’t even know people who have trouble paying the bills at the end of the month.  I just don’t know those people.   And so there’s a less sense of investment in those children.  So that’s part of what’s happened.

But part of it has also been -- there’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead.  And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom.  And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leaches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. 

And, look, it's still being propagated.  I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad.  I don’t know where they find them.  (Laughter.)  They’re like, I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone -- (laughter) -- or whatever.  And that becomes an entire narrative -- right? -- that gets worked up.  And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress -- which is much more typical -- who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people’s impressions of what it's like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that.  And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

MR. DIONNE:  I am tempted to welcome Arthur to defend his network.  But instead, I want to sort of maybe invite him to an alter call here.  (Laughter.)  I want to invite you to a kind of alter call, which is, the President talked about some basis public investments that are actually pretty old-fashioned public investments, along the lines of somebody like President Eisenhower supported a lot of those kinds of investments -- 

THE PRESIDENT:  Republican President Abraham Lincoln thought things like land-grant colleges and infrastructure, investments in basic research in science were important. 

I suspect, Arthur, you’d agree in theory about those investments.  And the question would be, how much? 

MR. BROOKS:  Look, no good economist, no self-respecting person who understands anything about economics denies that there are public goods.  There just are public goods.  We need public goods.  Markets fail sometimes -- there’s a role for the state. There are no radical libertarians up here, libertarians who believe that the state should not exist, for example.  Even the libertarians don’t think that.  So we shouldn’t caricature the views of others because, in point of fact, that impugns the motives. 

I think that what we’re talking about is, one, when are there public goods?  When can the government provide them?  And when are the benefits higher than the costs of the government proving these things?  Because, in point of fact, when we don’t make cost-benefit calculations at least at the macro level about public goods, the poor pay.  This is a fact.

If you look at what’s happening in the periphery countries of Europe today, as George W. Bush used to say, this is a true fact.  (Laughter.)  It’s more emphasis.  There’s nothing wrong.  (Laughter.)  If you don't pay attention to the macro economy and the fiscal stability, you will become insolvent.  And if you become insolvent, you will have austerity.  And if you have austerity, the poor always pay.  Jim Wallis taught me this.  The poor always pay when there’s austerity.  The rich never pay.  The rich never are left with the bill.  It’s the poor who are left with the bill. 

So if you join me in believing the safety net is a fundamental, moral right, and it’s a privilege of our society to provide, you must avoid austerity and you must avoid insolvency. And the only way that you can do that is with smart policies. 

And I’m 100 percent sure the President agrees with me about smart macro-economic public policies, so I’m not caricaturing these views either.  Although can you believe he said “Obama phone”?  (Laughter.)  And he’s against the Obama phone.  So let’s stipulate to that.  (Laughter.)  Just because they took away his phone.  (Laughter.) 

Now, since we believe that there should be public goods, then we're really talking about the system that provides them and provides them efficiently.  The President talked about the changing structure of the income distribution, and it’s unambiguously true.  What I would urge us to regret is this notion that it’s not a shift, but a transfer.  It’s not a transfer. 

Since the 1970s, it’s not that the rich have gotten richer; because the poor have gotten poorer.  The poor are not having their money taken away and given to the rich.  The rich have gotten richer faster than the poor have moved up.  And we might be concerned with that because that also reflects on opportunity. And as an opportunity society, as an equal opportunity society, we should all be really concerned with that.

But the extent that we can get away from this notion that the rich are stealing from the poor, then we can look at this in I think in a way that's constructive.  Why?  Because the rich are our neighbors and the poor are our neighbors, and everybody else should be our neighbors and they're all our kids.  And I think getting away from that rhetoric is really important.

And then the last point, actually, as we come to consensus is remembering that capitalism or socialism or social democracy or any system is just a system.  Look, it’s just a system.  It’s just a machine.  It’s like your car.  You can do great good with it, you can do great evil with it.  It can't go uninhibited.  So far it can't drive on its own.  It will soon enough.  The economy never will be able to. 

Capitalism is nothing more than a system, and it must be predicated on right morals.  It must be.  Adam Smith taught me that.  Adam Smith, the father of modern economics -- he wrote “The Wealth of Nations,” in 1776 -- 17 years before he wrote “The Theory of Moral sentiments,” which was a more important book because it talked about what it meant as a society to earn the right to have free enterprise, to have free economics.  And it was true then, and it’s still true today.

So this is why this conference is so important.  This conversation with the President of the United States is so important, from my point of view -- I say with appropriate humility -- is because we're talking about right morality toward our brothers and sisters, and built on that, that's when we can have an open discussion to get our capitalism right.  And then the distribution of resources is only a tertiary question.  (Applause.)

MR. DIONNE:  I still want to know how much infrastructure you're actually willing to vote for, but I’ll take --

MR. BROOKS:  $41 billion. 

MR. DIONNE:  All right, it’s a start.  We can negotiate. 

I want to -- this is in a way for both the President and Bob, because in this conversation about poverty, there’s kind of consensus on this stage that, yes, you need to care about family structure, it really matters, but if you don't worry about the economy, you're not sort of thinking about why the battering ram is against the family.

And yet, this family conversation can make a lot of people feel uneasy because it sounds like either you're not taking politics seriously, or you're not taking the real economic pressure seriously.  And I just want to share two things with the President and Bob, and have you respond.

One, as you can imagine, I asked a lot of smart people what they would ask about if they were in my position.  And one very smart economist said, look, what we know is when we have really tight labor markets, unemployment down below -- down to 4 or even lower -- Kennedy, Johnson years, World War II, at the end of the Clinton years -- all kinds of good things start happening to poor people.  So maybe, this person said, even though, he says, yes, family structure matters, let’s stop with the moral lectures and just run a really tight economic policy, and we could have some really good things happen to us. 

And then the other thing I wanted to share -- and I’m being pointed here, Mr. President, because you know and I’ve heard you talk about this, but not that often publicly, which is -- you know, I’ve heard you in those sessions you do with opinion reporters -- Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote something back in 2013 about your talk about what needs to happen inside the African American community -- I know you remember this:  “Taking full measure of the Obama presidency thus far, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this White House has one way of addressing the social ills that afflict black people and particularly black youth, and another way of addressing everyone else.  I would have a hard time imagining the President telling the women of Barnard that ‘there's no longer room for any excuses’ -- as though they were in the business of making them.”

I’d love you to address sort of the particular question about -- maybe it is primarily about economics because we can’t do much about the other things through government policy, and also answer Ta-Nehisi’s critique, because I know you hear that a lot.

THE PRESIDENT:  Why don’t we let Bob --

MR. DIONNE:  Let Bob --

MR. PUTNAM:  Well, I’m going to try to respond to that, and of course, I want to hear what the President has to say about that.  But I wanted to just comment briefly on that earlier conversation, first of all, about public goods. 

I agree very much with the President’s framing of this issue -- that is that we disinvested in collective assets, collective goods that would benefit everybody but are more important for poor people because they can’t do it on their own.  I want to just give one example of that that’s very vivid, and this is a case where we’ve clearly shot ourselves in the foot. 

For most of the 20th century, all Americans of all walks of life thought that part of getting a good education was getting soft skills -- not just reading, writing, arithmetic, but cooperation and teamwork, and so on.  And part of that was that everybody in the country got free access to extracurricular activities -- band and football, and music and so on.  But beginning about 20 years ago, the view developed -- which is really, really deeply evil -- that that’s just a frill. 

And so we disinvested, and we said if you want to take part in football here, or you want to take part in music, you’ve got to pay for it.  And of course, what that means is that poor people can’t pay for it.  It’s a big deal -- $1,600 on average for two kids in a family.  Well, $1,600 to play football, or play in the band, or French club or whatever -- it’s not a big deal if your income is $200,000; but if you income is $16,000, who in their right mind is going to be paying 10 percent of their family income?

So it seems to me that that’s a case where the allocation that the benefits of learning teamwork and hard skills -- I mean grit were only on the individual.  But that wasn’t true.  The whole country was benefitting from the fact that we had a very broad-based set of skills that people had.  So I’m trying to emphasize this -- how deep runs this antipathy in some quarters for the notion that these are all our kids and, therefore, we’ve got to invest in all of them. 

But I also want to then come back, if I can, to I think the thing we maybe haven’t spent enough time here, and that is this is a purple problem.  There are those of us who on the left can see most clearly the economic sources of this problem and want to do something about it.  But then there are people on the conservative side, especially religious people, who use a different lens and they can see most clearly the effects of family disruption among poor families of all races on the prospects of kids. 

And in the stories of the kids that we gathered across America -- I want to return a little bit not just to the abstract discussion of poverty, but to real kids.  Mary Sue from -- doesn’t have anything the like the same opportunities as my granddaughter.  But part of that is because Mary Sue’s parents behaved in very irresponsible ways.  We interviewed a kid from -- a young woman from Duluth who is now on drugs.  How did she get on drugs?  Because her dad was addicted to meth and wanted to get high, but didn’t want to get high alone, so her dad taught -- Molly is her name -- how to smoke -- how to do meth.  I don’t even know how you do meth myself.  I’ll have to check with him.  (Laughter.)

And it’s systematically -- the fact is we all know this, that it’s -- I’m not making an attack on single moms, who are often doing terrific jobs in the face of lots of obstacles, but I am saying it’s harder to do that.  And therefore, we need to think, all of us, including those of us -- and I know the President agrees with me about this -- even those of us on the more progressive side have to think, how did we get into a state in which two-thirds of American kids coming from what we used to call the working class have only a single parent, and what can we do to fix that?

I’m not sure this is government’s role.  But I do think that if we’re concerned about poverty, we also, all of us, have to think about this purple side of the problem -- I mean, this family side of the problem.  And we shouldn’t -- those of us -- I’m now speaking to my side of the choir -- we shouldn’t just assume that anybody who talks about family stability is somehow saying that the economics don’t matter.  Of course, the economics matter.  It’s both/and; it’s not either/or.  (Applause.)

MR. DIONNE:  Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  A couple of things I would say.  First of all, just going back to something Arthur said earlier about how we characterize the wealthy, and do they take this extra wealth from the poor, the middle class -- these are broad economic trends turbocharged by technology and globalization, a winner-take-all economy that allows those with even slightly better skills to massively expand their reach and their markets, and they make more money and it gets more concentrated, and that then reinforces itself.  But there are values and decisions that have aided and abetted that process. 

So, for example, in the era that Bob was talking about, if you had a company in that town, that company had a whole bunch of social restraints on it because the CEO felt it was a member of that community and the sense of obligation about paying a certain wage or contributing to the local high school or what have you was real.  And today the average Fortune 500 company -- some are great corporate citizens, some are great employers -- but they don’t have to be, and that’s certainly not how they’re judged. 

And that may account for the fact that where a previous CEO of a company might have made 50 times the average wage of the worker, they might now make a thousand times or two thousand times.  And that’s now accepted practice inside the corporate boardroom.  Now, that’s not because they’re bad people.  It's just that they have been freed from a certain set of social constraints. 

And those values have changed.  And sometimes tax policy has encouraged that, and government policy has encouraged that.  And there’s a whole literature that justifies that as, well, that's what you’d need to get the best CEO and they're bringing the most value, and then you do tip into a little bit of Ayn Rand.

Which, Arthur, I think you’d be the first to acknowledge because I’m in dinners with some of your buddies and I have conversations with them.  (Laughter.)  And if they're not on a panel, they’ll say, you know what, we created all this stuff and we made it, and we're creating value and we should be able to make decisions about where it goes. 

So there’s less commitment to those public goods -- even though a good economist who’s read Adam Smith’s “Moral Sentiments” would acknowledge that actually we're under-investing, or at least we have to have a certain investment.  So that's point number one.

Point number two, on this whole family-character values-structure issue.  It’s true that if I’m giving a commencement at Morehouse that I will have a conversation with young black men about taking responsibility as fathers that I probably will not have with the women of Barnard.  And I make no apologies for that.  And the reason is, is because I am a black man who grew up without a father and I know the cost that I paid for that.  And I also know that I have the capacity to break that cycle, and as a consequence, I think my daughters are better off.  (Applause.) 

And that is not something that -- for me to have that conversation does not negate my conversation about the need for early childhood education, or the need for job training, or the need for greater investment in infrastructure, or jobs in low-income communities. 

So I’ll talk till you're blue in the face about hard-nosed, economic macroeconomic policies, but in the meantime I’ve got a bunch of kids right now who are graduating, and I want to give them some sense that they can have an impact on their immediate circumstances, and the joys of fatherhood. 

And we did something with My Brother’s Keepers -- which emphasizes apprenticeships and emphasizes corporate responsibility, and we're gathering resources to give very concrete hooks for kids to be able to advance.  And I’m going very hard at issues of criminal justice reform and breaking this school-to-prison pipeline that exists for so many young African American men.  But when I’m sitting there talking to these kids, and I’ve got a boy who says, you know what, how did you get over being mad at your dad, because I’ve got a father who beat my mom and now has left, and has left the state, and I’ve never seen him because he’s trying to avoid $83,000 in child support payments, and I want to love my dad, but I don't know how to do that -- I’m not going to have a conversation with him about macroeconomics.  (Laughter and applause.) 

I’m going to have a conversation with him about how I tried to understand what it is that my father had gone through, and how issues that were very specific to him created his difficulties in his relationships and his children so that I might be able to forgive him, and that I might then be able to come to terms with that.

And I don't apologize for that conversation.  I think -- and so this is what I mean when -- or this is where I agree very much with Bob that this is not an either/or conversation.  It is a both-and.  The reason we get trapped in the either/or conversation is because all too often -- not Arthur, but those who have argued against a safety net, or argued against government programs, have used the rationale that character matters, family matters, values matter as a rationale for the disinvestment in public goods that took place over the course of 20 to 30 years. 

If, in fact, the most important thing is character and parents, then it’s okay if we don't have band and music at school -- that's the argument that you will hear.  It’s okay.  Look, there are immigrant kids who are learning in schools that are much worse, and we're spending huge amounts in the district and we still get poor outcomes, and so obviously money is not the issue.  And so what you hear is a logic that is used as an excuse to under-invest in those public goods.

And that's why I think a lot of people are resistant to it and are skeptical of that conversation.  And I guess what I’m saying is that, guarding against cynicism, what we should say is we are going to argue hard for those public investments.  We're going to argue hard for early childhood education because, by the way, if a young kid -- three, four years old -- is hearing a lot of words, the science tells us that they're going to be more likely to succeed at school.  And if they’ve got trained and decently paid teachers in that preschool, then they're actually going to get -- by the time they're in third grade, they’ll be reading at grade level. 

And those all very concrete policies.  But it requires some money.  We're going to argue hard for that stuff.  And lo and behold, if we do those things, the values and the character that those kids are learning in a loving environment where they can succeed in school, and they're being praised, and they can read at grade level, and they're less likely to drop out, and it turns out that when they're succeeding at school and they’ve got resources, they're less likely to get pregnant as teens, and less likely to engage in drugs, and less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system -- that is a reinforcement of the values and character that we want. 

And that's where we, as a society, have the capacity to make a real difference.  But it will cost us some money.  It will cost us some money.  It’s not free.

You look at a state like California that used to have, by far, the best public higher education system in the world, and there is a direct correlation between Proposition 13 and the slow disinvestment in the public university system so that it became very, very expensive.  And kids got priced out of the market, or they started taking on a whole bunch of debt.  Now, that was a public policy choice, based on folks not wanting to pay property taxes.  And that's true in cities and counties and states all across the country.  And that's really a big part of our political argument.

So I am all for values; I am all for character.  But I also know that that character and the values that our kids have that allow them to succeed, and delayed gratification and discipline and hard work -- that all those things in part are shaped by what they see, what they see really early on.  And some of those kids right now, because of no fault of those kids, and because of history and some tough going, generationally, some of those kids, they're not going to get help at home.  They're not going to get enough help at home.  And the question then becomes, are we committed to helping them instead?

MR. DIONNE:  Mr. President, I want to follow up on that and then invite Arthur and Bob to reply.  Arthur, you clearly got a plenary indulgence in this session on all kinds of positions.  (Laughter.) 

A lot of us, I think, feel that we made bargains with our friends on the conservative side that -- I agree with the idea that you've got to care about what happens in the family if you're going to care about social justice, and you got to care about social justice of you care about the family.  Yet when people like you start talking like this, there doesn’t seem to be much giveback on, “okay, we agree on these values; where’s the investment in these kids?” 

Similarly, when welfare reform was passed back in the ‘90s, there were a lot of people who said, okay, we’re not going to hear about welfare cheats anymore because all these people are going to have to work.  And yet we get the same thing back again. It’s as if the work requirement was never put in the welfare bill.  How do we change this conversation so that it becomes an actual bargain where the other half of the agenda that you talked about gets recognized and that we do something about it?

THE PRESIDENT:  I’ll ask Arthur for some advice on this -- because, look, the devil is in the details.  I think if you talk to any of my Republican friends, they will say, number one, they care about the poor -- and I believe them.  Number two, they’ll say that there are some public goods that have to be made -- and I’ll believe them.  But when it comes to actually establishing budgets, making choices, prioritizing, that’s when it starts breaking down.

And I actually think that there will come a time when political pressure leads to a shift, because more and more families -- not just inner-city African-American families, or Hispanic families in the barrio, but more and more middle-class or working-class folks are feeling pinched and squeezed -- that there will be a greater demand for some core public goods and we’ll have to find a way to pay for them.  But ultimately, there are going to have to be some choices made. 

When I, for example, make an argument about closing the carried interest loophole that exists whereby hedge fund managers are paying 15 percent on the fees and income that they collect, I’ve been called Hitler for doing this, or at least this is like Hitler going into Poland.  That’s an actual quote from a hedge fund manager when I made that recommendation.  The top 25 hedge fund managers made more than all the kindergarten teachers in the country. 

So when I say that, I’m not saying that because I dislike hedge fund managers or I think they’re evil.  I’m saying that you’re paying a lower rate than a lot of folks who are making $300,000 a year.  You pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use.  There’s a fairness issue involved here.  And, by the way, if we were able to close that loophole, I can now invest in early childhood education that will make a difference.  That’s where the rubber hits the road. 

That’s, Arthur, where the question of compassion and “I’m my brother’s keeper” comes into play.  And if we can’t ask from society’s lottery winners to just make that modest investment, then, really, this conversation is for show.  (Applause.) 

And by the way, I’m not asking to go back to 70 percent marginal rates, which existed back in the golden days that Bob is talking about when he was a kid.  I’m just saying maybe we can go up to like -- tax them like ordinary income, which means that they might have to pay a true rate of around 23, 25 percent which, by historical standards in postwar era, would still be really low.

So that’s the kind of issue where if we can’t bridge that gap, then I suspect we’re not going to make as much progress as we need to -- although we can find some areas of agreement like the earned income credit, which I give Arthur a lot of credit for extolling because it encourages work and it could help actually strengthen families.

MR. DIONNE:  Arthur raised capital gains taxes for us here.

MR. BROOKS:  Yes, sure.  Fine.  These are show issues.  Corporate jets are show issues.  Carried interest is a show issue.  The real issue?  Middle-class entitlements -- 70 percent of the federal budget.  That’s where the real money is.  And the truth of the matter is until we can take that on -- if we want to make progress, if the left and right want to make progress politically as they put together budgets, they’re going to have to make progress on that. 

Now, if we want to create -- if we want to increase taxes on carried interest, I mean, that’s fine for me -- not that I can speak for everybody, certainly not everybody on the Republican side. 

And by the way, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are watching, at least indirectly, and they’re paying attention to this -- 100 percent sure, because they care a lot about this.  And they care a lot about both culture and economics, and they care a lot about poverty.  And, again, we have to be really careful not to impugn their motives, and impugning motives on the other side is the number-one barrier against making progress.  Ad hominem is something we should declare war on and defeat because then we can take on issues on their face, I think.  It’s really important morally for us to be able to do that.

Who, by the way, were you having dinner with who was discussing Ayn Rand and why wasn’t I invited?  (Laughter.) 

So if we want to make progress, I think let’s decide that we have a preference -- I mean, let’s have a rumble over how much money we’re spending on public goods for poor people, for sure.  And Republicans should say, I want to spend money on programs for the poor, but I think these ones are counterproductive and I think these ones are ineffective, and Democrats should say, no they’re not, we’ve never done them right and they’ve always been underfunded.  I want to have that competition of ideas.  That’s really productive.

But we can’t even get to that when politicians on the left and the right are conspiring to not touch middle-class entitlements, because we’re looking at it in terms of the right saying all the money is gone on this, and the left saying all we need is a lot more money on top of these things -- when most people who are looking at it realize that this is an unsustainable path.  It’s an unsustainable path for lots of things, not just programs for the poor.  We can’t adequately fund our military. 

I think you and I would have a tremendous amount of agreement about the misguided notion of the sequester, for lots of reasons, because we can’t spend money on purpose.  And that’s what we need to do.  And when we’re on an automatic path to spend tons of money in entitlements that are leading us to fiscal unsustainability, we can’t get to these progressive conversations where conservatives and liberals really disagree and can work together, potentially, to help poor people and defend our nation.

MR. DIONNE:  I just want to say if the carried interest is a show issue, why can’t we just get it out of the way and move forward?  (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  It is real money.  It’s real money.

MR. DIONNE:  Here is what I’d like to do.  I think we have about three minutes left, so I’d like Bob to speak, and then I have one last question for the President. 

MR. PUTNAM:  All of us would agree about this -- we need to a little bit rise out of the Washington bubble and the debates about these things.  Of course, they’re important.  I understand why they’re important.  But, actually, we’re speaking here to an audience of people of faith.  We’re speaking, more largely, to America.  And I think we ought not to disempower ordinary Americans.  If they care about these problems, Americans can change the politics that would, over the next five to 10 years, make a huge difference.

And I’m not talking about changing Republican-Democrat.  I’m talking about making poverty and the opportunity to escape from poverty a higher issue on both parties’ agendas.  (Applause.)  I have some hope that that will happen.  I understand -- this may not be true, Mr. President -- I understand that there is going to be an election next year.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s a true fact.  (Laughter and applause.) 

MR. PUTNAM:  And I think American voters should insist that the highest domestic priority issue is this issue of the opportunity gap, the fact that we’re talking about.  This is not a third order issue, it's a really important issue.  And ask candidates, what are you going to do about it?  And then just use your own common sense.  Is that the right way to go forward? 

I think that we need, as a country, not just from the top down and from Washington, but from across the grassroots, to focus -- and in congregations and parishes all across this country, focus on what we can do to reduce this opportunity gap in America.

MR. DIONNE:  Mr. President, I wanted you to reflect on this religious question.  I mean, one of your first salaries was actually paid for by a group of Catholic churches, something -- Cardinal McCarrick knows that, but not a lot of Catholic bishops notice that -- (laughter) -- that you were organizing for a group of South Side churches.  You know what faith-based groups can do. And I’d like you to talk about sort of three things at the same time, which is the role of the religious community simply in calling attention to this problem; the issues of how government can cooperate with these groups; and sort of the prophetic role of these ideas for you, where your own reflections on your own faith have led you on these questions.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, it's true, my first job was funded through the Campaign for Human Development, which was the social justice arm of the Catholic Church.  (Applause.)  And I think that faith-based groups across the country and around the world understand the centrality and the importance of this issue in a intimate way -- in part because these faith-based organizations are interacting with folks who are struggling and know how good these people are, and know their stories, and it's not just theological, but it's very concrete.  They’re embedded in communities and they’re making a difference in all kinds of ways. 

So I think that what our administration has done is really a continuation of work that had been done previously by the Bush administration, the Clinton administration.  We’ve got our office of faith-based organizations that are working on an ongoing basis around a whole host of these issues.  My Brother’s Keeper is reaching out to churches and synagogues and mosques and other faith-based groups consistently to try to figure out, how do we reach young boys and young men in a serious way? 

But the one thing I guess I want to say, E.J., is that when I think about my own Christian faith and my obligations, it is important for me to do what I can myself -- individually mentoring young people, or making charitable donations, or in some ways impacting whatever circles and influence I have.  But I also think it's important to have a voice in the larger debate.  And I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on this in a more forceful fashion. 

This may sound self-interested because there have been -- these are areas where I agree with the evangelical community and faith-based groups, and then there are issues where we have had disagreements around reproductive issues, or same-sex marriage, or what have you.  And so maybe it appears advantageous for me to want to focus on these issues of poverty, and not as much on these other issues. 

But I want to insist, first of all, I will not be part of the election next year, so this is more just a broader reflection of somebody who has worked with churches and worked in communities.

There is great caring and great concern, but when it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you're talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, that this is oftentimes viewed as a “nice to have” relative to an issue like abortion.  That's not across the board, but there sometimes has been that view, and certainly that's how it’s perceived in our political circles.

And I think that there’s more power to be had there, a more transformative voice that's available around these issues that can move and touch people.  Because the one thing I know is that -- here’s an area where, again, Arthur and I agree -- I think fundamentally people want to do the right thing.  I think people don't set out wanting to be selfish.  I think people would like to see a society in which everybody has opportunity.  I think that's true up and down the line and across the board.  But they feel as if it’s not possible. 

And there’s noise out there, and there’s arguments, and there’s contention.  And so people withdraw and they restrict themselves to, what can I do in my church, or what can I do in my community?  And that's important.  But our faith-based groups I think have the capacity to frame this -- and nobody has shown that better than Pope Francis, who I think has been transformative just through the sincerity and insistence that he’s had that this is vital to who we are.  This is vital to following what Jesus Christ, our Savior, talked about. 

And that emphasis I think is why he’s had such incredible appeal, including to young people, all around the world.  And I hope that that is a message that everybody receives when he comes to visit here.  I can't wait to host him because I think it will help to spark an even broader conversation of the sort that we're having today.

MR. DIONNE:  All events are better with a reference to Pope Francis.  Thank you so much, Mr. President.  (Applause.)

I really want to thank Arthur and Bob.  And thank you, Bob, for writing this book that's moved us all.  And thank you, Mr. President, for being here.  And John and Galen and then so many others for creating this. 

If I may close by simultaneously quoting Amos and Dr. King, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.  Bless you all.”

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

END  
12:55 P.M. EDT

Remarks by the First Lady at Tuskegee University Commencement Address

Tuskegee University

Tuskegee, Alabama

12:30 P.M. CDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Thank you all.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much. (Applause.)  Let’s let our graduates rest themselves.  You’ve worked hard for those seats!  (Applause.) 

Let me start by thanking President Johnson for that very gracious introduction, and for awarding me with this honorary degree from an extraordinary institution.  I am proud to have this degree -- very proud.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  (Applause.) 

I want to recognize Major General Williams; Congresswoman Sewell; Zachary; Kalauna; to all of the trustees, the faculty, the staff here at Tuskegee University.  Thank you -- thank you so much for this warm welcome, this tremendous hospitality.  And I'm so glad to be here.  (Applause.)   

Before I begin, I just want to say that my heart goes out to everyone who knew and loved Eric Marks, Jr.  I understand he was such a talented young man, a promising aerospace engineer who was well on his way to achieving his dream of following in the footsteps of the Tuskegee Airmen.  And Eric was taken from us far too soon.  And our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with his family, his friends, and this entire community.  (Applause.)   

I also have to recognize the Concert Choir.  Wow, you guys are good!  Well done!  (Applause.)  Beautiful song.  (Applause.) And I have to join in recognizing all the folks up in the stands -- the parents, siblings, friends -- (applause) -- so many others who have poured their love and support into these graduates every step of the way.  Yeah, this is your day.  (Applause.)  Your day. (Applause.)   

Now, on this day before Mother’s Day, I’ve got to give a special shout-out to all the moms here.  (Applause.)  Yay, moms! And I want you to consider this as a public service announcement for anyone who hasn’t bought the flowers or the cards or the gifts yet -- all right?  I’m trying to cover you.  (Laughter.)  But remember that one rule is “keep mom happy.”  (Laughter.)  All right?  (Applause.)   

And finally, most of all, I want to congratulate the men and women of the Tuskegee University Class of 2015!  (Applause.)    T-U!

AUDIENCE:  You know!

MRS. OBAMA:  I love that.  (Applause.)  We can do that all day.  (Laughter.)  I'm so proud of you all.  And you look good.  (Applause.)  Well done!     

You all have come here from all across the country to study, to learn, maybe have a little fun along the way -- from freshman year in Adams or Younge Hall -- (applause) -- to those late night food runs to The Coop.  (Applause.)  I did my research.  (Applause.)  To those mornings you woke up early to get a spot under The Shed to watch the Golden Tigers play.  (Applause.)  Yeah!  I've been watching!  (Laughter.)  At the White House we have all kinds of ways.  (Laughter.)    

And whether you played sports yourself, or sang in the choir, or played in the band, or joined a fraternity or sorority -- after today, all of you will take your spot in the long line of men and women who have come here and distinguished themselves and this university.

You will follow alums like many of your parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles -- leaders like Robert Robinson Taylor, a groundbreaking architect and administrator here who was recently honored on a postage stamp.  (Applause.)  You will follow heroes like Dr. Boynton Robinson -- (applause) -- who survived the billy clubs and the tear gas of Bloody Sunday in Selma.  The story of Tuskegee is full of stories like theirs -- men and women who came to this city, seized their own futures, and wound up shaping the arc of history for African Americans and all Americans.

And I’d like to begin today by reflecting on that history -- starting back at the time when the Army chose Tuskegee as the site of its airfield and flight school for black pilots.  (Applause.)   

Back then, black soldiers faced all kinds of obstacles.  There were the so-called scientific studies that said that black men’s brains were smaller than white men’s.  Official Army reports stated that black soldiers were “childlike,” “shiftless,” “unmoral and untruthful,” and as one quote stated, “if fed, loyal and compliant.” 

So while the Airmen selected for this program were actually highly educated -- many already had college degrees and pilots licenses -- they were presumed to be inferior.  During training, they were often assigned to menial tasks like housekeeping or landscaping.  Many suffered verbal abuse at the hands of their instructors.  When they ventured off base, the white sheriff here in town called them “boy” and ticketed them for the most minor offenses.  And when they finally deployed overseas, white soldiers often wouldn’t even return their salutes.

Just think about what that must have been like for those young men.  Here they were, trained to operate some of the most complicated, high-tech machines of their day -- flying at hundreds of miles an hour, with the tips of their wings just six inches apart.  Yet when they hit the ground, folks treated them like they were nobody -- as if their very existence meant nothing.

Now, those Airmen could easily have let that experience clip their wings.  But as you all know, instead of being defined by the discrimination and the doubts of those around them, they became one of the most successful pursuit squadrons in our military.  (Applause.)  They went on to show the world that if black folks and white folks could fight together, and fly together, then surely -- surely -- they could eat at a lunch counter together.  Surely their kids could go to school together. (Applause.)

You see, those Airmen always understood that they had a “double duty” -- one to their country and another to all the black folks who were counting on them to pave the way forward.  (Applause.)  So for those Airmen, the act of flying itself was a symbol of liberation for themselves and for all African Americans. 

One of those first pilots, a man named Charles DeBow, put it this way.  He said that a takeoff was -- in his words -- “a never-failing miracle” where all “the bumps would smooth off… [you’re] in the air… out of this world… free.” 

And when he was up in the sky, Charles sometimes looked down to see black folks out in the cotton fields not far from here -- the same fields where decades before, their ancestors as slaves. And he knew that he was taking to the skies for them -- to give them and their children something more to hope for, something to aspire to.

And in so many ways, that never-failing miracle -- the constant work to rise above the bumps in our path to greater freedom for our brothers and sisters -- that has always been the story of African Americans here at Tuskegee.  (Applause.)   

Just think about the arc of this university’s history.  Back in the late 1800s, the school needed a new dormitory, but there was no money to pay for it.  So Booker T. Washington pawned his pocket watch to buy a kiln, and students used their bare hands to make bricks to build that dorm -- and a few other buildings along the way.  (Applause.)  

A few years later, when George Washington Carver first came here for his research, there was no laboratory.  So he dug through trash piles and collected old bottles, and tea cups, and fruit jars to use in his first experiments. 

Generation after generation, students here have shown that same grit, that same resilience to soar past obstacles and outrages -- past the threat of countryside lynchings; past the humiliation of Jim Crow; past the turmoil of the Civil Rights era.  And then they went on to become scientists, engineers, nurses and teachers in communities all across the country -- and continued to lift others up along the way.  (Applause.)

And while the history of this campus isn’t perfect, the defining story of Tuskegee is the story of rising hopes and fortunes for all African Americans.  

And now, graduates, it’s your turn to take up that cause.  And let me tell you, you should feel so proud of making it to this day.  And I hope that you’re excited to get started on that next chapter.  But I also imagine that you might think about all that history, all those heroes who came before you -- you might also feel a little pressure, you know -- pressure to live up to the legacy of those who came before you; pressure to meet the expectations of others. 

And believe me, I understand that kind of pressure.  (Applause.)  I’ve experienced a little bit of it myself.  You see, graduates, I didn’t start out as the fully-formed First Lady who stands before you today.  No, no, I had my share of bumps along the way.

Back when my husband first started campaigning for President, folks had all sorts of questions of me:  What kind of First Lady would I be?  What kinds of issues would I take on?  Would I be more like Laura Bush, or Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Reagan?  And the truth is, those same questions would have been posed to any candidate’s spouse.  That’s just the way the process works.  But, as potentially the first African American First Lady, I was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations; conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others.  Was I too loud, or too angry, or too emasculating?  (Applause.) Or was I too soft, too much of a mom, not enough of a career woman? 

Then there was the first time I was on a magazine cover -- it was a cartoon drawing of me with a huge afro and machine gun. Now, yeah, it was satire, but if I’m really being honest, it knocked me back a bit.  It made me wonder, just how are people seeing me.

Or you might remember the on-stage celebratory fist bump between me and my husband after a primary win that was referred to as a “terrorist fist jab.”  And over the years, folks have used plenty of interesting words to describe me.  One said I exhibited “a little bit of uppity-ism.“  Another noted that I was one of my husband’s “cronies of color.”  Cable news once charmingly referred to me as “Obama’s Baby Mama.”

And of course, Barack has endured his fair share of insults and slights.  Even today, there are still folks questioning his citizenship. 

And all of this used to really get to me.  Back in those days, I had a lot of sleepless nights, worrying about what people thought of me, wondering if I might be hurting my husband’s chances of winning his election, fearing how my girls would feel if they found out what some people were saying about their mom.

But eventually, I realized that if I wanted to keep my sanity and not let others define me, there was only one thing I could do, and that was to have faith in God’s plan for me.  (Applause.)  I had to ignore all of the noise and be true to myself -- and the rest would work itself out.  (Applause.)   

So throughout this journey, I have learned to block everything out and focus on my truth.  I had to answer some basic questions for myself:  Who am I?  No, really, who am I?  What do I care about? 

And the answers to those questions have resulted in the woman who stands before you today.  (Applause.)  A woman who is, first and foremost, a mom.  (Applause.)  Look, I love our daughters more than anything in the world, more than life itself. And while that may not be the first thing that some folks want to hear from an Ivy-league educated lawyer, it is truly who I am.  (Applause.)  So for me, being Mom-in-Chief is, and always will be, job number one. 

Next, I’ve always felt a deep sense of obligation to make the biggest impact possible with this incredible platform.  So I took on issues that were personal to me -- issues like helping families raise healthier kids, honoring the incredible military families I’d met on the campaign trail, inspiring our young people to value their education and finish college.  (Applause.) 

Now, some folks criticized my choices for not being bold enough.  But these were my choices, my issues.  And I decided to tackle them in the way that felt most authentic to me -- in a way that was both substantive and strategic, but also fun and, hopefully, inspiring. 

So I immersed myself in the policy details.  I worked with Congress on legislation, gave speeches to CEOs, military generals and Hollywood executives.  But I also worked to ensure that my efforts would resonate with kids and families -- and that meant doing things in a creative and unconventional way.  So, yeah, I planted a garden, and hula-hooped on the White House Lawn with kids.  I did some Mom Dancing on TV.  I celebrated military kids with Kermit the Frog.  I asked folks across the country to wear their alma mater’s T-shirts for College Signing Day. 

And at the end of the day, by staying true to the me I’ve always known, I found that this journey has been incredibly freeing.  Because no matter what happened, I had the peace of mind of knowing that all of the chatter, the name calling, the doubting -- all of it was just noise.  (Applause.)  It did not define me.  It didn’t change who I was.  And most importantly, it couldn’t hold me back.  I have learned that as long as I hold fast to my beliefs and values -- and follow my own moral compass -- then the only expectations I need to live up to are my own. 

So, graduates, that’s what I want for all of you.  I want you all to stay true to the most real, most sincere, most authentic parts of yourselves.  I want you to ask those basic questions:  Who do you want to be?  What inspires you?  How do you want to give back?  And then I want you to take a deep breath and trust yourselves to chart your own course and make your mark on the world. 

Maybe it feels like you’re supposed to go to law school -- but what you really want to do is to teach little kids.  Maybe your parents are expecting you to come back home after you graduate -- but you’re feeling a pull to travel the world.  I want you to listen to those thoughts.  I want you to act with both your mind, but also your heart.  And no matter what path you choose, I want you to make sure it’s you choosing it, and not someone else.  (Applause.)   

Because here’s the thing -- the road ahead is not going to be easy.  It never is, especially for folks like you and me.  Because while we’ve come so far, the truth is that those age-old problems are stubborn and they haven’t fully gone away.  So there will be times, just like for those Airmen, when you feel like folks look right past you, or they see just a fraction of who you really are. 

The world won’t always see you in those caps and gowns.  They won’t know how hard you worked and how much you sacrificed to make it to this day -- the countless hours you spent studying to get this diploma, the multiple jobs you worked to pay for school, the times you had to drive home and take care of your grandma, the evenings you gave up to volunteer at a food bank or organize a campus fundraiser.  They don't know that part of you.

Instead they will make assumptions about who they think you are based on their limited notion of the world.  And my husband and I know how frustrating that experience can be.  We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives -- the folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety; the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores; the people at formal events who assumed we were the “help” -- and those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country. 

And I know that these little indignities are obviously nothing compared to what folks across the country are dealing with every single day -- those nagging worries that you’re going to get stopped or pulled over for absolutely no reason; the fear that your job application will be overlooked because of the way your name sounds; the agony of sending your kids to schools that may no longer be separate, but are far from equal; the realization that no matter how far you rise in life, how hard you work to be a good person, a good parent, a good citizen -- for some folks, it will never be enough.  (Applause.) 

And all of that is going to be a heavy burden to carry.  It can feel isolating.  It can make you feel like your life somehow doesn’t matter -- that you’re like the invisible man that Tuskegee grad Ralph Ellison wrote about all those years ago.  And as we’ve seen over the past few years, those feelings are real.  They’re rooted in decades of structural challenges that have made too many folks feel frustrated and invisible.  And those feelings are playing out in communities like Baltimore and Ferguson and so many others across this country.  (Applause.)  

But, graduates, today, I want to be very clear that those feelings are not an excuse to just throw up our hands and give up.  (Applause.)  Not an excuse.  They are not an excuse to lose hope.  To succumb to feelings of despair and anger only means that in the end, we lose. 

But here’s the thing -- our history provides us with a better story, a better blueprint for how we can win.  It teaches us that when we pull ourselves out of those lowest emotional depths, and we channel our frustrations into studying and organizing and banding together -- then we can build ourselves and our communities up.  We can take on those deep-rooted problems, and together -- together -- we can overcome anything that stands in our way.

And the first thing we have to do is vote.  (Applause.)    Hey, no, not just once in a while.  Not just when my husband or somebody you like is on the ballot.  But in every election at every level, all of the time.  (Applause.)  Because here is the truth -- if you want to have a say in your community, if you truly want the power to control your own destiny, then you’ve got to be involved.  You got to be at the table.  You’ve got to vote, vote, vote, vote.  That’s it; that's the way we move forward. That’s how we make progress for ourselves and for our country.   

That’s what’s always happened here at Tuskegee.  Think about those students who made bricks with their bare hands.  They did it so that others could follow them and learn on this campus, too.  Think about that brilliant scientist who made his lab from a trash pile.  He did it because he ultimately wanted to help sharecroppers feed their families.  Those Airmen who rose above brutal discrimination -- they did it so the whole world could see just how high black folks could soar.  That’s the spirit we’ve got to summon to take on the challenges we face today.  (Applause.)   

And you don’t have to be President of the United States to start addressing things like poverty, and education, and lack of opportunity.  Graduates, today -- today, you can mentor a young person and make sure he or she takes the right path.  Today, you can volunteer at an after-school program or food pantry.  Today, you can help your younger cousin fill out her college financial aid form so that she could be sitting in those chairs one day.  (Applause.)  But just like all those folks who came before us, you’ve got to do something to lay the groundwork for future generations.

That pilot I mentioned earlier -- Charles DeBow -- he didn’t rest on his laurels after making history.  Instead, after he left the Army, he finished his education.  He became a high school English teacher and a college lecturer.  He kept lifting other folks up through education.  He kept fulfilling his “double duty” long after he hung up his uniform. 

And, graduates, that’s what we need from all of you.  We need you to channel the magic of Tuskegee toward the challenges of today.  And here’s what I really want you to know -- you have got everything you need to do this.  You’ve got it in you. Because even if you’re nervous or unsure about what path to take in the years ahead, I want you to realize that you’ve got everything you need right now to succeed.  You’ve got it. 

You’ve got the knowledge and the skills honed here on this hallowed campus.  You’ve got families up in the stands who will support you every step of the way.  And most of all, you’ve got yourselves -- and all of the heart, and grit, and smarts that got you to this day.

And if you rise above the noise and the pressures that surround you, if you stay true to who you are and where you come from, if you have faith in God’s plan for you, then you will keep fulfilling your duty to people all across this country.  And as the years pass, you’ll feel the same freedom that Charles DeBow did when he was taking off in that airplane.  You will feel the bumps smooth off.  You’ll take part in that “never-failing miracle” of progress.  And you’ll be flying through the air, out of this world -- free.

God bless you, graduates.  (Applause.)  I can’t wait to see how high you soar.  Love you all.  Very proud.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  

END              12:56 P.M. CDT

Remarks by the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden at Mother's Day Tea for Military Spouses

State Dining Room

3:50 P.M. EDT

DR. BIDEN:  So good afternoon, everyone.  It’s wonderful to welcome you here to the White House.  Many of you know that I’m a proud Blue Star mom, and I’m always honored to be in the presence of military families.

My son Beau is a major in the Delaware Army National Guard.  And when he deployed to Iraq for a year, it was pretty tough on our family, like I’m sure many of you know.  And as a grandmother of military-connected children, I know firsthand that no matter how resilient our military families are, they confront challenges that most Americans never have to face.  They send loved ones into harm’s way; endure countless separations during training.  They start over on different bases, in different towns, again and again.  And it can really be hard.

I know many of you in this room have faced similar challenges.  And I want you to know just how much we appreciate everything your families do in serving our country.  We ask a lot of our military families, and I believe that each of us -- no matter where we live, no matter whether we’re connected to military ourselves -- all of us should make our best efforts to show our military spouses, kids, siblings and parents how much we appreciate their service and their sacrifice.

That is why First Lady Michelle Obama and I started Joining Forces four years ago -- to unite non-profits, schools, foundations, businesses, associations, and Americans of every stripe around this initiative to support these families.  And we’re working with Americans all across the country, in every sector of society, to show our support. 

And Mother’s Day gives us a special opportunity to say thanks to the mothers who have shaped and supported us.  So for Mother’s Day we wanted to simply say thank you to all the mothers who have loved and supported us.  Thank you for all that you do for your selflessness and for your sacrifice on behalf of this country. 

And now it is my honor to introduce our country’s great supporter of military moms and families, my friend and partner, First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama.  (Applause.) 

MRS. OBAMA:  I thought that was a “yay!”  (Laughter.)  but it was a “no!”  (Laughter.)  No more.  Give her back the phone.  (Laughter.)  Why did you take the phone from her?  (Laughter.) 

Well, Happy Mother’s Day.  Wow!  First of all, you all look so beautiful.  You really did it up for us today.  (Laughter.)  Looking good!  I hope you all get a shot of all these beautiful colors and all the young people here.  You guys look so beautiful and mature -- and handsome.  Because we have some proud young men here, too, who are holding it down.  (Laughter.)   

So I want to start by thanking Jill for that very kind introduction, but she’s just an amazing partner and she’s somebody that I look up to, because she handles a lot.  She is a mom, a grandma.  She’s teaching every day, and then she does these duties.  Nobody knows, really, how much you're -- we're on the plane, she’s grading papers.  (Laughter.)  We're in a hold, she’s grading papers.  (Laughter.)  We cheer when grading paper time is over because she’s done!  (Laughter.)  And then when she’s through grading papers, then she travels.  And she does it with grace and beauty, and she is an example of the kind of moms that you all are.

And I tell you all, thank you so much, because -- you thank us, but we are just a reflection of you.  We just happen to be on TV.  But you all are the ones on the ground.  So, most of all, I want to thank everybody who’s here.  We've got active duty servicemembers here.  We’ve got Gold Star and Blue Star moms here with us today.  We have caregivers of our wounded warriors, a community that often gets overlooked, but that is a community that needs our support and needs to be lifted up as much, if not more, than all of us.  And we’ve got our veterans and our military spouses here, too. 

And today is National Military Spouse Appreciation Day.  (Applause.)  Yes, high fives all around.  (Laughter.)  We couldn't have picked a better day to show you how much we care and how grateful we are for the service that you provide for our country.  

Wonderful folks here like Mary Winnefeld.  I didn’t see Mary.  There you are.  You weren't in the receiving line.  Okay. That's Mary.  Mary has been such a tremendous friend and an ally to me and Jill and Joining Forces.  And for so long, she’s been a forceful advocate for her fellow military spouses and Blue Star moms, especially the caregivers of our wounded warriors.  And she’s a hoot, too.  (Laughter.)  She’s a lot of fun.  So I want to make sure we recognize Mary.   

I think we also have Deanie -- did I miss Deanie?  Deanie was going to be here.  We wanted to recognize Deanie Dempsey, who’s been a leader and a supporter to Jill and I as well.

And you might not know that later this year, Admiral Winnefeld and General Dempsey are going to be retiring from active duty.  High fives.  Transitioning.  Transitioning.  (Laughter.)  That's right, not retiring, because there’s always work.  But before they go, we wanted to thank Mary and Deanie for their many years of tireless work on behalf of military families. We know they’re not done.  Mary doesn’t stop.  This is a transition.  We're grateful to you and we just want to -- (applause.)

You're not done with us yet.  (Laughter.)  

But Mary and Deanie, they are perfect examples of the kind of folks that we have here today -- women who are juggling your own families and careers.  As Jill said, you all are moving from state to state every couple of years, starting new jobs and putting the kids in a new school, and trying to adjust to all that, and figure out -- build a new community for yourselves over and over again.  You’ve been separated from your loved ones, whether you’ve been deployed yourself or you’ve had someone overseas.  

Yet through it all, you all somehow find time to reach out to others in your neighborhood.  This is the thing that we always want to -- that we always notice about the military community.  In the midst of everything you have to do, you're the ones, the first ones to raise your hands to volunteer at your kids’ school, in your community, at your church.  You're always stepping up, always trying to figure out how you can help.  And that's inspiring.  It's inspiring for me.  It's inspiring for Jill -- which is why we thank you, because you give us energy.  You give us strength.  You give us focus and purpose. 

And it is very easy to be your advocates, because you guys are awesome.  And this is just a small token, a small way that we can say thank you.  To open up this house and your beautiful, beautiful kids, and to just enjoy a day where you can look good, feel grand, have tea -- and whatever else we're giving you.  (Laughter.)  Some crumpets -- I saw some old sandwiches.  (Laughter.)  It’s so ladylike.  And a few good men here, too.  (Laughter.)  I tell the men, you're lucky to be hanging out with us today.  (Laughter.)  So act right.  Act right.  (Laughter and applause.)

But we are celebrating this year the fourth anniversary of Joining Forces.  Four years we've been at this work, and it feels like we've been doing it a lot longer because we've made so much progress.  We've been highlighting our local veteran centers, which a lot of folks don't know exist

… And a few good men here, too.  (Laughter.)  I tell the men you're lucky to be hanging out with us today.  (Laughter.)  So act right.  Act right.  (Laughter and applause.)

But we are celebrating this year the fourth anniversary of Joining Forces.  Four years we’ve been at this work, and it feels like we’ve been doing it a lot longer because we’ve so much progress.  We’ve been highlighting our local veterans centers, which a lot of folks don't know exist.  And those are out there for our veterans.  They're modernizing.  They're different.  They're accommodating the needs of the modern day veteran in ways that many people wouldn’t imagine.

We’ve been highlighting the efforts across the country to end veteran homelessness.  Cities like New Orleans have actually ended veteran homelessness.  And we’ve got many cities on the way to reaching that goal, as well.  We’ve been able to celebrate the new commitments to reach -- to hire and train our veterans, our transitioning servicemembers and our military spouses.

We’ve got commitments on top of the 850,000 veterans and spouses who have been hired to date over the past four years.  We were able to announce 10,000 more new commitments in the transportation and tech industries.  So we’re moving the needle step by step, lowering the unemployment rate among our veterans, and making sure that employers know the value that you all add by hiring the quality of folks that you represent.

And today I also want to highlight a wonderful program called Blue Star Museums, which gives active-duty military family member free access to the more than 2,000 museums across the country.  It’s a joint effort with Blue Star Families, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Department of Defense, and it starts up again on Memorial Day and runs all summer long.

So we want to encourage military families out there, all across the country to take advantage of this opportunity.  Summer is coming, and we're looking for things to do with the kids.  (Laughter.)   You know that drill, take them to the museum.  We have some wonderful resources here.  And the fact that admission is going to be free is a real plus.

And that's just one of the many ways that organizations from across this country are teaming up to thank all of you for the service that you do for us.  That’s what Joining Forces is all about.  That was the vision that we had.  And along the way, we’ve tried to have a little fun -- that’s why we wanted you to bring your children here so that they could make you Mother’s Day gifts.  And they could -- they're very good.  Did you get your gifts yet?  Yes, pretty nice, huh?  Don't put the potpourri in the drawer yet.  (Laughter.)  You got to let it air out.  (Laughter.) 

But your kids are amazing.  They are smart.  They're delightful.  They're poised.  They're engaging.  They're courteous.  They're kind.  And you all should be proud.

Isn’t that best gift on Mother’s Day?  (Applause.)  Yes, yes.  So we’ve got one more special treat.  (Laughter.)  It’s just her face.  She’s a hoot.  (Laughter.)  But we have one more special treat.  We have a very special guest with us today who is going to grace us with a little music, which is why we have all this up here.  He’s an amazing, talented singer and songwriter.  And we are the “luckiest” to have him here at the White House.  Would you please join me in welcoming the one and only Ben Folds? (Applause.)

END           4:08 P.M. EDT

Remarks by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice at the V-E Day Commemoration - As Prepared for Delivery

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice
Remarks at the 70^th Anniversary of V-E Day Commemoration
As Prepared
World War II Memorial
Washington, D.C.

Friday, May 8, 2015

The message, when it came at last, was simple:  “The mission of this Allied Force was fulfilled at 0241, local time, May 7^th, 1945.”  Signed, Eisenhower.  

There was no paean to victory.  No exultation.  Too much had been lost for that.  Too much remained to be done. 

When President Truman addressed the nation, even as he proclaimed that “the flags of freedom fly all over Europe,” he reminded all Americans of those priceless lives that were “rendered as a sacrifice to redeem our liberty.” 

As the news spread and people poured into the streets to celebrate—in New York, London, Paris—cheers and laughter mixed freely with tears. 

And, even in the midst of one triumph, we vowed to fight on and finish the war in the Pacific. 

Ladies and gentlemen, 70 years after that great turning point in the history of our world, we remember the sacrifice that was made to preserve freedom—those who laid down their lives for a better future.  The Americans who won the beachhead at Normandy, inch by bloody inch. 

From Britain, “The Few,” who defied the Luftwaffe.  The Free French, who never accepted Nazi occupation.  The brave Poles, who fought “for our freedom and yours.”  The Canadian regiments, who pushed across France into Northern Germany.  The resistance movements in every European country.  And, in the East, the people of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and all the former Soviet states, who endured many of the heaviest losses of the war. 

But, today, we can also celebrate without reserve the legacy of their accomplishments—a legacy that could not yet be imagined in 1945, with the trauma of war so fresh.  Not just a Europe that has known seven decades of peace and growing prosperity.  But the way the seed of democracy has flourished around the world.  The lasting bonds that unite Europe and the United States.  The international institutions that have underwritten peaceful development. 

The continual reaffirmation of those basic principles which formed our Alliance—that all men and women of all lands should be able to live free from fear and want. 

When American and Soviet troops met in Torgau, Germany in April of 1945, they met not only as victors in war, but as witnesses to some of history’s most unconscionable crimes. 

Hardened soldiers were sickened by the horrors of Dachau and Auschwitz.  As one world, we proclaimed “never again,” and that legacy continues to drive us to stand against atrocities and acts of mass inhumanity. 

On the homefront, the war helped unleash movements toward greater equality for all people as women stepped into factories to keep America’s industries pumping and joined auxiliary services. 

Platoons of white and black GIs fought side by side on the fields of Europe, and then black servicemen, like my late father’s Tuskegee airmen, came back here to demand justice in their own land. 

We honor all those brave men and women.  Those who fell, and those who survived—including the proud veterans who are here with us today. 

We owe each of you an unpayable debt.  And, on behalf of President Obama, let me reaffirm the enduring gratitude of the American people. 

The story of your generation will never be forgotten.  We will continue to tell it to children blessedly untouched by war, so that they understand, as this memorial reminds us, “the price of freedom.” 

We will continue to mark the passing of anniversaries like this one, so that memory never fades into complacency toward the evils of our world.  We will carry on the march toward a world of greater rights and opportunities, so that all men and women can live their lives with the basic human dignity that your generation fought for. 

Because, while one mission was fulfilled in 1945, the cause of defending freedom is never finished.  As President Truman put it, “We must work to bind up the wounds of a suffering world—to build an abiding peace, a peace rooted in justice and in law.” 

That is the pledge we make today and every day.  And, no matter how difficult the challenges that lie ahead or what obstacles arise, we will never abandon this struggle.  Because, for all that has changed during the past 70 years, one thing never will:  the United States of America will always stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of the world on the side of liberty and justice for all.    

Thank you so very much.