Now let me go back to the National Intel, Intelligence Council study that we started the course with. If you remember the GT 2030 study had one really startling conclusion, and it was this. Virtually every country they surveyed, totalitarian, communist, democratic, the National Intelligence Council found that a majority of citizens, majority of citizens worldwide, believed that existing governance structures are inadequate to the tasks ahead, the policy challenges of the 21st century. Think about that. The majority of global citizens think we've got inadequate structures to deal with the problems ahead. Now when we polled you guys in this classroom last week, 120 UVA students, you gave our US system what we used to call a gentleman's C. A barely passing grade of C. I don't think you get into the honors program, doesn't count towards your major, but you can get by. So I think it's safe to say there's room for improvement, both here at home and abroad. Now our guest speakers this semester agreed, and we heard from people of all ideological stripes. The one thing I heard them all argue for is that we're going to have to try some new reforms. As leaders, you'll routinely pursue what we call unorthodox legislation, and I also think you'll encourage state experimentation. I suspect you'll be pushing to empower bi-partisan commissions, locally, state, and nationally. You may even push for a constitutional convention to address some of the corruption in our election finance system. So as with our national energy production policies, you'll likely need to adopt an all of the above approach to government reform if you're going to get stuff done and promote your vision of the national interest. That is why we've emphasized throughout this course the importance of policy history and why we've emphasized that when we encounter major problems as a country, citizen action alters both policy and process. In this regard, I want to stress something I've said in this classroom many times. The founding fathers were not strict constructionists. They were bold experimenters. And I would hold for those who consider changing other countries, that's true of most major transitional figures, whether its Deng Xiaoping in the PRC or Mikhail Gorbachev in the former Soviet Union. Our American founders ditched the weak Articles of Confederation in just more than a decade. They amended the constitution ten times before the ink was dry. Now there's a wonderful book out now by Doris Kerns-Goodwin about Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and some of the muckrakers, and it talks about a previous flirtation in American history with plutocracy, and the role played by citizen groups and by the media to educate the public. Think about how many changes they wrought in just ten years under a Republican president and then one of our own Woodrow Wilson, from the UVA Law School. They adopted popular referenda, they amended and updated the Constitution, they granted women the right to vote, they gave citizens direct election power over the Senate, and promoted open primaries, thereby reducing the power of party bosses. It's a good example to call up, because our current crises of confidence in Washington may require some similarly new and bold policy approaches from Republicans and Democrats, ones I expect your generation's going to be designing. One other factoid, Americans have amended the Constitution 27 times, but only once in the last 43 years. Things really haven't changed that much? I would argue that to be tied to the exact wording from the Constitution of 1787, to never evolve, to never amend the document and grow as a nation would be as dumb, as Mr. Jefferson wrote, as insisting a full grown man be forced to wear the same size suit he wore as a child. So confronted by the policy challenges ahead, please pursue what our wonderful high school guidance counselors used to call big, hairy, ambitious goals.