he is asked by c-span what are we running at of money. the president said we are already out of money and now let me tell you about the $1.5 trillion i want to spend nationalizing health care because they're already on the bank. i already on a vast segments of this society that no president has ever owned before it. i spend more money and 5% of gdp on a stimulus bill that wasn't a new stimulus bill. nancy pelosi to a political bill. think about this. you want to talk about radicalism? fdr's new deal spent 2 percent of america's jude -- gdp. so what? barack obama stimulus bill spent 5 percent of america's gdp. 5%. the spending -- i wish i could come up with a word other than radical to describe the president obama has done

domestically. there is no other weren't. in his radical. >> host: are you more inclined to be support and then to proving that a new president's foreign-policy agenda? i know a lot of conservatives criticize him for going on an apology to offer air to been i don't know if it is dissident or holding back toward the world? in terms of foreign policy i think so far so good. i think it is a difficult world. the challenges are most extraordinary but i like him trying to put it on the foreign-policy just by showing up by now that in foreign policy things get started now and then somebody shows up in merced up a little bit. i am not against american foreign policy. >> guest: i'm not myself.

he is a realist so far. he is the opposite -- you want to talk about radical foreign policy, george w. bush promising to end tyranny across the globe using the united states army and marine corps naming to do that, that is radical. and i am not talking about afghanistan, not even talking about going into iraq, i'm talking about the mission inebriation that began in 2004 and 2005. i'm talking about ignoring colin powell is set in 2003 you need to be careful about going. >> but if you go you should send more troops and being swatted away. colin powell being told in 2004 -- a track what happens with bush? bush ran in 2007i want to take over the world, i don't want to go into countries . >> guest: i can do this very quickly and if i can get to the

chapter really quickly i want to redo -- i can more or less remember but listen to this quote by george w. bush. this is what george w. bush said that in 2000. >> host: you keep looking at it and i will cover with these words. it seems to me i have found the years 2001 and 2009 intensely painful politically because as a conservative because i saw a great coalition and a great movement director job like a pane of glass and splintered by keeping those that did not have that coalition in the '60s and '70s and '80s. i saw how hard it was to bring together. it broke my heart to see it

broken and it broke my heart to see that you're not allowed to say that it was breaking. it was a terrible lie. >> guest: this is george w. bush in 2000. we must be judicious in our use of the military. we will find only one is in the vital interest of the united states, when our mission is clear and when the eggs in strategy is obvious. that is what we said every day in the clinton appointees that and come up to the armed services committee in congress when house on the armed service committee in congress and the center of the '90s what is the and the strategy here. are we going to be able to get our troops on? is it going to be another vietnam and a rude? we forget all of our lessons about what a conservative was and wasn't but getting back to barack obama i don't agree with everything he has done on

foreign-policy but while his domestic agenda has been radical is one policy has been measured. in fact, you look at the bush administration and the clinton administration, and as commander in chief may end up being if he continues along this path the first realist that we have had in the white house susan george h. w. bush. and one other thing on that barack obama's approach on foreign-policy, it is similar to ronald reagan in another aspect. you talk about mucking things up. they have tried to blame reagan as their own despite the fact that neocons trashed reagan from his first days in 1981 until the time he left office in 1989. they said he loved to trade more than he loved human rights and that he dealt with the soviets too much. they were enraged u.s. trying to strike arms control deals, but

reagan's rhetoric was an option of of hamas, but reagan knew what we needed after jimmy carter showed weakness across the globe. reagan knew we needed to talk tough, but reagan was a realist. he only send our troops into battle to times. >> host: talk about the evil empire and the whole revolution of candor he was speaking truth as american president for the first time in a generation about who the soviets were etc. but let us remember he does not invade eastern europe. you know what i mean? the use diplomacy, honesty, the force of going forward and explaining the way to go. >> guest: in usa realistic despite the fact that his rhetoric was pretty heated for the time. the foreign-policy establishment was shocked, but you look at

everything and go over eight years, he wasn't a neocon, he wasn't a radical. he was down the middle. >> he came in the 1940's and 60's. >> guest: when you look and how he used diplomacy and barack obama on the other side who use rhetoric of the left while in all actuality his policies like reagan's are more realistic on foreign policy. we have are the established him as an unrepentant radical. >> host: let me cover everything is. what is the difference between the republican party and the conservative movement and to which you belong? >> guest: i don't know what the republican party is any more i done to.

>> host: is it going to respond to itself? >> guest: i know now. i think it's got maybe five years, may be 10 years to do that. >> host: why not one year? >> guest: i am just saying that there is a time limit of the republican party these conservative movement a helluva lot more than the conservative movement needs a republican party. look at the money barack obama raised on-line, look at the money that ron paul raised on-line. here you have ron paul a libertarian conservative who raised more money than all of these mainstream canada's route the final quarter of 2007, a conservative leader can rise, a real conservative over the past quarter century that can raise millions and millions of dollars and made the republican party your element so the republican party needs to reform itself or die and i'm not sure what it is

going to do. >> host: you talk in the book, striking pieces of advice with this party ought to do and the republicans to do over the next few years. you want to tell us domestically and in foreign affairs? >> guest: it has got to show restraint, first of all, piven that is how we got to where we are right now. and, yes, we have to spend some money at this stage we're in an economically but we have to understand and again that this single issue that is unified conservatives to the years moderates republicans, conservative republicans and even liberal republicans most have believed in less government. again as i've heard you say in this book that is the essential relationship that buckweed understood between man and state, individual and state that

has a stake expands the rights of the power of the state the rights of the individuals contract. >> host: blasted reagan republicanism, in an era in which almost all agree that americans have come to light in government. >> host: but that is just not true that is not true -- americans have not been given the alternative. i hear even the most conservatives say they want big government, we are all fdr's children now. and that is just not the case. iran in a district that had not elected republican since 1872 and i think the hon last republican that sat up there. iran to abolish the federal education bureaucracy, to get the money back at the state. iran to cut taxes, to cut spending, it was a libertarian

message. i got elected in. not only did i get elected 74 republicans talking about the same thing got elected. we were as small government conservatives as i think there have been in washington may be in 50 years, 75 years. >> host: still in 2009 a resident message taken realistically and seriously? >> guest: we got elected in '94 and '96 after shutting down the government to balance the budget. we got elected in 1910 and 2000 and 2004, again what we were being called radicals, being called a right-wing lunatics by the mainstream media. that is a message that can win again and again i go back, ronald reagan and understanding that americans are going to follow not because of my ideology but because of my

temperament, because they know that i believe what i am saying when i get before him and that they trust me. do you think or does anybody else really believe that america has started far left in this age of obama? look at the pupils. in 200030 percent of americans said they were conservative, 19 percent said they were of liberal. in 2009 in know how radically those numbers have shifted? what percentage point within the margin of error. 37 percent now american say there are conservative, 19 percent, only 19 percent still tell that they are liberals. this is not about ideology. a small government conservatives who believe like reagan and broccoli that the greatness of america is with individuals and not with us ever expanding

centralized state. that is a message that can win and will win but again republicans are conservatives, they have got to figure out how to deliver that message in a way that is not quite so threatening to middle america. >> host: and gave a speech to the reagan library and i said he is building his coalition and could never punch anybody was so busy holding out his hand. that is what you are talking about. he literally send in 84 come walk with me so i granted that. >> guest: we want more people in. there is discussion with every want colin powell in the republican party or not? it is insanity. we want a guy with 72, 73 percent approval rating that was looking awful lot like republican senators in connecticut's, in maine and massachusetts? do we want him in our party were just seven white guys?

i say we want everybody in our party. >> host: you talk about that in your book. i want to get away from the book because i have just about four minutes left. let me do a lightning round. i am going to give you some names of 20 and 21st century political figures, and give me a brief sentence of your thoughts on them. richard nixon. >> guest: he was brilliant and our foreign policy is still shaped by him and my dad is still things he was framed. >> host: ronald reagan. we have done him. george w. bush we have done. bill clinton, let me throw you this -- you are part of newt gingrich's class of 1994. you were part of the impeachment process with clinton. looking back 10 years later, to the republicans go too far? did the republicans be smirch themselves out of? >> guest: i am reminded of

jesus christ superstar. mary matalin saying i don't know how to love him, i still can't get my arms around bill clinton. i do know this that i was given to ron by anger, rage and bill clinton. i thought to bill clinton represented everything that was wrong with america. i am loath to emma. i had no use for hillary clinton. and i think it goes back to being a kid raised in the atlanta suburbs looking at the '60s radicals and looking at the world from my parents died in. of course, 10 years later i read about this in the book -- i'm embarrassed by some of the things i said about bill clinton that my goal and i think i have gone there in 46 now as opposed to being 30 when i started campaigning to understand

everybody has something to bring to the table and understanding while they couldn't understand bill clinton and they couldn't stand us anymore he hit it is, he thought those young right-wingers are from another planet, trying to undo all the great things that we achieved in the 1960's and beyond. we now look at each other and i really like hillary clinton and so much because we have taken this and she too is not the same hillary clinton that came to washington in 1993. we understand that we paint each other's heads but we balanced the budget. we reformed welfare. we paid down the debt. we saved medicare. bill clinton, joe scarborough and the rabid right to gather soda the genius of james madison this is what washington is supposed to be. this is how we are supposed to work and i found out that when

the president and congress hated each other it actually works better because all of his garbage projects, struck out of the bills all of our pork barrel projects, he struck out of the bill and is this creating friction that madison and our founding fathers understood would make good. >> host: barack obama is a fortunate man and but if he were more fortunate he would have a republican congress to work with. it would temper him domestically, it would be reasonable and foreign-policy and good things would follow. >> guest: george w. bush would have been a much better present with a democratic congress over eight years bouncing him to as mackey was i would say. the that is a great interview, thanks very much. >> is a book talks about the

dalai lama's philosophy and status as an iconic figure throughout the world. this is an hour in 10 minutes. >> when i was told that would be introducing pico iyer this evening i was excited, but also to be perfectly honest scared. how could i and a few short minutes do justice to the work of a writer who i have long admired? a writer whose work spanned and least six continents and possibly seven and some 30 years, but i will try. hear the facts. pico iyer is author of nine books including many well-known titles such as the lady in the long, the global sow, video night in kathmandu and the novel cuba and the night. a former correspondent and columnist for time magazine his essays and articles appear pretty much everywhere the, "the new york times" in new york review of books and national geographic and cetera.

if you google pico iyer as i did the term travel writer pops up quite often and in one sense it is true. the does travel, that is for sure and he does write but to call a pico iyer a travel writer is a bit like calling him a ballplayer. the description falls well short of the green and i think it is the first and only goldman or i have news not going any further because i don't play golf but you get the idea. he has been two god knows how many countries when he always as far as i can tell travels with a similar objective to get at the essence of a place and in the process and eliminate many universal truths. his father you may not know was one of the great scholars ghandi in-line ghandi it seems to me that he is engaged in his own experiments with truth, only was a bit more clothing and a touch

more here. in his books and essays pico iyer ins is a question that most journalists i think failed to answer and is a very simple question, what is it like there? what is it really like their? and a journalist travel to afghanistan and iraq and to their stories and get home and their friends ask i have heard your story from iraq, what is it like there? pico iyer tells us what it is really like there. he gets to the essence of a place and he does that by reading and talking to people, always the right people it seems by doing research. most of all he does it by listening and observing. all of us listened and observe a course but pico iyer does a better than most of us. for some writers to see their objective is to know something, to know something new and to uncover and to share it with us. for pico iyer in his objective is to see something coming to look to the same places that perhaps we have all travel to and if you haven't to see them

in a fresher and more nuanced way. pico iyer could see something new on the more ravaged streets of it, or a minister in disney world and in and he's done exactly that for both. his latest book appears to represent something of a departure, it is not about a place but a man. a very special man, of course,, better known as the 14th dalai lama. i say appears to represent a departure because the more i read from the open road the more i realize that it isn't time to travel book but like the best of the shawnda it is really about an inner journey that i think he would agree are always in complaint, but this book is about and i am quoting from him itself seemed the world through different eyes. in "the new york times" calls and i quote a trenchant and passion to look at is in your life, the washington post and

elegantly and intensely personal book and an intimate and insightful times in the los angeles times. all of this is true but they don't mention is when the open road is also a darn good reading, in russia biography, history, more and yes travels here it is one heck of a travel book so that it is my great pleasure to introduce pico iyer. [applause] >> thank you so much, i think that is really one of the most awful it eloquent flattering introductions ever had. i am going to cherish been likened the ghandi and tiger was in the same paragraph, this is a first and last. i'm also grateful for sanguine tone has said but is what i feel which is most of my previous books are travel books in this

one is so you as a traveler can see that. thank you so much. i thank you can all understand how honored and thrilled i am to be introduced by eric. we have many places in common, iceland among them, japan, india, i travel books pages and i think like most of you i have been listening to him and also reading him four more years than i can count. and these days i think it about happiness or about travel the first thing we think about is the dalai lama but the second is probably eric and so it is a great honor to have him here and also very gracious of him to give up his free time to come and be here so i'm appreciative of that. as you can tell i'm so thrilled to be in a school with his celebrated history of peace i think, of silence and global

mission and deep concern about china and tibet and as terry nano was saying the small evening has been more than a decade in the evening so i appreciate all their colleagues for making it happen. left to my own devices all i want to talk about over there with air act and to get at the essence of essential questions like whether better indian food in japan or india. i want to see if eric can tutor me in here and become an e this to say he speaks good he knee and i speak none at all. just to travel the world with him, but i have been asked to talk to you for 35 minutes before hand. eric and i were sitting over here that as soon as something as of today put him like this and start speaking everybody falls asleep including the person doing the speaking, but if you fall asleep you'll soon wake up as a continued our

conversation. thank you very much for coming out on in a rainy non spring evening. now is thinking as i was coming from the hotel past all the formidable institutions and embassies that when i was two years old probably still of size i didn't care much about world events, but amazingly it was one event that really stuck inside my mind even in my infancy and there was a story of a young king fleeing over the highest mountains in the world to try to get to safety in the new life in exile and these were the last days before television. my parents from having an offering england and we just had this scratchy radio on the shelf and every day and 7:00 p.m. my father would turn it on and at what crackle in this report not from eric and npr but the bbc and one day we heard that the young king was closer to freedom

and one day we heard that his pursuers were gaining on him and one day we heard there was a mysterious plane circling overhead and nobody knew it was friend or foe. finally after 14 days of tune in at 7:00 p.m. we heard that the young king had made his way across the border into a new life in exile. and my father who was a professional philosopher and was deeply interested in doing it -- buddhism and other religions uele all the way back from england to india in order to meet the newly arrived delhi,. and the dalai lama and then as now was very keen to open his door to everyone and realize in exile he could engage in much more various conversations then he had in this before so he invited my father to see him in the foothills in the himalayas and my father as you heard was deep in research on ghandi at the time and, of course, the dalai lama newly arrived in

exile was thinking with new intensity about how to leave nonviolent resistance to an occupying power, just the kind, of course, of the school represents so had the a suitable conversation and at the end of it like any proud dad and my father said about this three-year-old. dave: and oxford in england and he took office unusual interest in the story of your flight. the dalai lama with his perfect gift even then with a perfect gesture found a picture of himself when he was five years old already on the lines drawn in lhasa and sent it to me to my father. so i'm in that connection very early on and, of course, is a typical three-year-old i didn't know who or what a dalai lama was but i only have to look at the picture to feel that this was somebody the so different and i think this be to give to has been two ever use he finds common ground so you see a reflection of your better self.

and i remember vividly to the states that every now and then i think i feel sorry for myself and life is difficult for her little boy in a foreign country by himself and i only had to look at the photo of a five-year old boy already ruler of 6 million people and things were put into a useful perspective so i put the picture on my desk and we moved to california shortly thereafter and stayed on my desk and then as a way of the world a forest fire struck up half a mile from our house and reduce everything including the photographs to ash. in some ways i think it really brought home the meaning of the photograph which is the first law of buddhism and permanente so you can call the photograph, so if you keep incited the value of the possibilities of the fun of pointed to then that could withstand the a earthquake with a forest fire and can only add

best be appointed. so the second part of this process was when i was 17, but the professional philosopher as something of a colleague to my father's was not high on my list but i was 17 so i have no choice and we went as travelers due to this day to the station in new delhi, took the overnight train to this little town, got out there into a taxi for the winding for our trip in the foothills of the himalayas down in 1974 and just on