frailty. having a sense of human frailty is a very useful thing in confronting the world, and being honest about it in yourself can make you a far more understanding and decent person. he was not someone who was flawed and then judge everyone else by some other standard. i was struck about his own candor. >> let's talk about that in terms of biography, a political autobiography. 99% of people the right political autobiographies about himself are lies. this book is amazingly self revelatory. you would be surprised at the level of truth that he sees and

saw when he looked in the mirror. i think it will be amazed in reading the book that there are many moments in the book where you can hear his voice. here might be one of them, to your point. . . i am and enjoy your. i have enjoyed being a center. i have enjoyed my children and my close friends. i have enjoyed books, music, and well-prepared food, especially with a helping of cream sauce on top. i have enjoyed a stiff drink or to and relished the smooth taste of a good one. at times i have enjoyed these pleasures too much. >> early on, and we all look at the kennedy family from the outside in, what an extraordinary thing in must have been to be a kennedy. as the youngest member that family, he said he was a constant state of catching up,

and he was not as talented or handsome >> who were older than he and h a n s old to boarding school. right from the start, he is so difficult -- so honest about how difficult that was, you pull for him. because he is honest and you see the pain he is feeling from the time he is a little kid, he then becomes this overwhelmingly friendly person in order to make his way in each one of these

boarding schools. you pull for him from the beginning to end. >> it works wonderfully on that level. the other level is political history. this is a guy who knew the people around winston churchill, and he knew barack obama. that is a pretty large slice of american history. if you had to find one figure to cover the whole gamut, ted kennedy is just about the only one. in reading this, it is not only the story of a life that is expiring and tells us that to liberalize, but it is a history of that period. >> teddy's youth was lonely. that and baggage from this school to that school. i remember him once telling me he was very excited that on his 18th birthday he received a set of luggage from his parents,

with his initials embossed upon the luggage, emk. the luggage was placed on the second floor of the house in hyannis port. they came back after dinner and yet this had taken the luggage, because those are her initials. -- eunice had taken the luggage because those are her initials. [laughter] he is on an army base in europe, trying to fit in. his mother makes him go out for this very fancy dinner, which he does, and comes back. near the gate, his mother comes running out of the limousine yelling teddy, dear, you have left your dancing shoes behind.

after that, he says everyone referred to him as "teddy, dear ." >> history is replete with stories of both kennedy's, specifically the ambassador, joseph kennedy, and you would read stories about him and say oh, jesus. ted had a norris and lasting love for his parents. here is a story about teddy and his mother, rose kennedy. he was in virginia and had lost the iowa caucuses. he came on the phone to tell his mother, and she said that is all right, i am sure you work hard and it will get better. then she said, teddy, do you know that nice blue sweater i gave a christmas time? he said it was a turtle neck with a small pocket on the front

that had been made in france. >> have you wanted? >> i am not sure i have worn it. is there something special about it? i just got the bill for it and it is $220. if you have not worn it, send it back, because i have another one here that has not been warned. -- has not been worn. >> everybody has put rose kennedy on a pedestal, but what he does here, his dad was the one that he truly loved as well. i am sure everybody told him he had to talk about his father and what he did during world war ii. he says he was too young to comprehend his father's attitudes. in some region of my mind, he

remains internally and solely my dad. he shows that the father was the one who kissed him when he came home from school and made all his home games in football at harvard. you can imagine what it was like for him, knowing that he was the caboose in this family, as he often said. he had to become the engine of the family went bobby died. he had to become the father for that whole generation of kennedy children. he had to be at their weddings, and be with his own children when they suffered illnesses and difficulties. he wrote this book to put his

father in a different light, since most people do not see him that way. >> how many here are the youngest child in the family they were born into? more than a few. a lot of youngest children that i know, about the fact that they had to work really hard to be noticed and taken seriously, and even to be accepted into the family that already existed. one of the most interesting things in the book is when he talked about around 1961, he thought seriously about moving way beyond massachusetts, maybe to the southwest, and starting to work out there and may be running for office on his own. his father was not too wild for that.

you can read this on this level, that this is someone who was ambivalent about the legacy. >> there are two sentences that underscore about the youngest and the debt. he describes his dad and talks about the politics, but says in some region of my mind, joseph p. kennedy remains to be internally and solely my dad, just as i remained the ninth and youngest child of all the kennedys. he is also quite candid that his dad was a stern taskmaster. he said you can have an interesting life or not. you can. riding if you are downstairs --

can come riding debut or downstairs in 5 mins. he meant what he said. >> if we were just told that there was a father who was that intents and demanded so much from these children, you would think out of nine children at least one of them would rebel, and it would not be a happy story. because the combined with that kind of love and commitment, that is why it succeeded. >> that is a huge part of the books, the corps of ted kennedy, his love for his wife and his family, his complete joy in recollecting all sorts of things about his brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces. he was filled with stories. it was mystifying to meet in a sense that a man like this had

never once ceded to bitterness or resentment of events that had taken place over his lifetime. he loved telling stories, and the stories are all here in this book. one of the best is not in the book, but it gets to his joy of his family and his memories of his brother. he told me once again -- that in october 1963, president kennedy's last appearance in the state of massachusettsu he came to attend the fund- raiser at the old commonwealth armory. he was arriving as president of the united states, and the three statewide officeholders, as well as many other local minions and politicians who were indicted, to meet and greet the president. they had two choices, they could either meet the president at the

airport, shake hands and have their picture taken with him, or medium at the armory -- meet him at the armory, which was a black-tie event, and shake hands with him there. they could not do both. three statewide democratic officeholders were the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, and a young secretary of state by the name of kevin white. air force one comes in to logan airport. kevin white, and frank chose to greet the airport -- to greet the president at the airport. just as the plane is landing, the lieutenant governor shows up in black tie. [laughter] . .

>> for those that don't know it, they went on to the dinner and that was where j.f.k. had sa >> they went on and teddy said he was tired of running on the family name so he was going to change from teddy kennedy to teddy roosevelt. >> the one funny thing about the name, because he was born on

november 22nd, his brother wanted to call him george washington kennedy. >> amazing coincidence. >> let's -- before we closeout and we have a few questions, let's bring it right up to today. he said, you first met barack obama in 1997. and he was a young state senator from illinois. the only member of the legislature in the indicted up there. >> anyone from illinois? >> do you think that any part of senator kennedy's endorsement of barack obama for the president was rooted in the possibility that he heard his brothers voice in barack obama? >> that's really an interesting question. i -- you mow, he mentioned, i'm from massachusetts, we have had our problems and i always like it say thank god for louisiana.

and -- >> for both of us all. and the -- the -- i think that what i would -- was struck by was how many people i knew who as kids or young adults have worked for bobby kennedy's campaign and who ended up supporting barack obama. and heard this kind of a little bit of a sense of j.f.k. in the sort of somewhat, the 0 -- the cerebral and cool part of him. and -- some of the r.f.k. in the more sort of -- in the more passion fat part of him. and different people who are out of the kennedy tradition, some saw it more as j.f.k. and some saw him more as r.f.k. they gave an opening to do one thing i want to do before we close by chance i was looking up something in the great journals

if you looked at those. there's a lot of great gossip in them and a lot of absolutely political observations. and i happened upon this passage in 1963, it is actually taken in the first year after election. it is not about ted kennedy, what -- what, and this does go to your question, i promise. he was -- slingser was in the white house and he was talking about the problem that old new dealers and new frontier people just seem to come from a different tradition -- the new dealers, he said, of the new dealers, he said the heart was worn on the sleeve then. the deep frontier, has a distrust of the senment talt of the 30's. i sympathize with both sides and see all too clearly why each is baffled by the other. all the more baffled because the

substantial agreement on policy. those are the new dealers are still more aid dasheuous and less impressed by business wisdom and more willing to damn the torpedos and go ahead. the difference in rhetoric does signify a deeper difference had commitment and a change in way from evangelist to want to do something because it is just and right to techno crat who is want to do something because it is rational and necessary. the new front tier lacks the advantage cal impulse. i wish i could figure out the term, where the ideal lism and imagine neighbors of the new deal could be fused with the understated move of the new front tier. it occurred to me when i read that, that in some ways his life was working out those extremes of liberal thought. he was out of the new frontier

but also represented in so many ways that more audacious part of the new teal. i have a hunch he play have seen that -- very tension to work things out in obama. what's int >> what did you think, senator kennedy's -- what do you senator kennedy would think of obama's decision about afghanistan. >> it was as though, if her grandfather were alive, she's sure he would be a taft republican. >> you want to fake a stab at that?

>> no. >> e.j. fp >> where fools fear to tread. >> there's no way to be wrong. >> i think there are three democratic camps on this. the hawks which he would not have been who were just horrified but what he did and there are others that are against what he did and then there's a group, i ran into several different democrats whose reaction is, god i hope he's right who are uneasy about this choice and think he play have had no better choice. and i think he play be suspended somewhere between the dove and the god, i hop he's right camp. >> i don't think so. >> i think -- i i think he would have driss agreed with him. >> he would have driven to the oval office and said do you think afghanistan is going to look different five years than this does right now?

and we have -- [applause] >> we have one last question that i don't think any of us can answer. and it is this. it is to vicky kennedy. senator kennedy's dogs splash and sunny, touching the relationship, we list them. and how are they doing? [inaudible] [applause] >> thank you to the panel

because it is now -- [applause] my pleasure to introduce ken fineburg. [applause] >> thank you all very much. just -- just before we conclude, i want to thank all of you for being here, i want to thank my friend leaf some. who is here this evening, representing the senate, kennedy senate institute. and i also want to acknowledge the absence but -- his shadow is all over this place -- and the man i replace, junior senator ball kirk who -- whose shoes as the new chairman of the foundation board i could never

fill. i'll just do the best that i can. and i also want to express what an honor it is for me to serve as the chairman of the foun foundation and have as my first public appearance being here today at this forum -- to discuss my former boss and my friend and my mentor. and senator kennedy. it is an extreme honor for me as chairman to spend my first official visit to the library as chairman. at a public event. honoring this great, great man. i also want to remind all of you as if you needed reminding, that this forum today is very, very memorable. and i don't know when we'll be able to get this group of panelists back together on the same stage. it play be that you will tell

your family and your grandchildren, that you were here that you were here this evening to hear from this extraordinary quartet that has been up here this evening. [applause] two final points, years from now there will be books written, histories written about senator kennedy. it won't be political science, it won't be current events, it'll be real history. as people will look back decades from now about his extraordinary impact. and i exprn tee you, that when those books are written, 10, 20, 30 more years from now, there will be a huge chapter, not yet

written about the impact on senator kennedy's personal and public life, the critical impact of vicky kennedy. i think we all ought to acknowledge that. finally i hope that you'll take advantage at the conclusion of this forum, down tears, and buy a book, and see vicky and buy -- let me tell you about buying this book. the library supply of this book is virtually inexhaustible. [laughter] >> don't worry, thank you for coming. ank [captions performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the economist magazine, what play shape 2010 and eric canter and former press secretary joe lockhart. this lasts about an hour. >> we'll go around the world starting i think in this country again. and let me introduce our -- our panelists, first of all. and congressman -- eric canter and of course very familiar to everyone not just in this town and in this country, republican whip and -- a busy ahead of him certainly. and joe, lockhart, and he was, he was -- chief spokesperson as you know for the clinton white house. and is -- is now a founding partner and managing director of the global parks group which is -- is, a large and --

flourishing specialist in -- in media relations. and -- and -- of course, se familiar around this town as well. and adam bolten is an extremely familiar face on british television but knows his way around washington, well as well. he was here in this town for the first first 100 days of the obama administration. and he is also one of the most experienced and -- and respected commenttators on -- not only british politician but politician around the world for -- for the news. and last but not least, david gregory, who is -- the host of meet the press, for nbc, and a chance here i think to thank you for -- for allowing us to be present as your program yesterday was mush appreciated. thank you so much. congressman, if i could start with you. imagine that we are sitting here a year from now and you're

looking back on 2 hundred -- 2010, apart presumably from the heroic republican victory in the mid term, what else would be your highlights of the mill year? >> you know, if we're referring a year from now, looking back, i think the story, obviously has to be -- the progress of lack there of made on the jobs front. clearly, this is -- this has been a year in 2009 and will be again about -- about whether washington will focus on getting americans back to work. if i go back and look at where we have been over the last 11 months, i remember the instance when i was at a meeting with the president at the white house in january. and it was said among both parties at the time, that we were going to do everything we could working together, to try and get this economy going again. and what has been so baffling i think to me personally and many americans at this point is -- is how is it that we continue to

say, we're putting jobs first but we see the kind of proposals that continue to be revealed that don't help people get back to work. and you know, this week and i know today in the news, very much is the issue of climate change and in particular the bill cap and trade. and -- and the continued promotion of that effort and now we see aned a straightive effort to try and declare a public endangerment of carbon emissions. that has sent i'm sure shock waves through the industry in this the -- this country and the job creators in this country. again, we have a situation where there's clearly a disconnect between the proposals being pushed by this administration and the last year and i'm fearful the same thing will occur in 2010. and i think long-term and certainly in 2010 we'll look

back and see what this town has done regarding the deficit we're facing. people in america understand the credit card is maxed out. and they're -- they're very limited options at this point. and you could go barrow from the chinese, or you could raise taxes. neither of which, helps the primary concern of americans right now which is getting back to work. and i gave a speech last week at the heritage foundation, rolling out proposals that we could take now to -- together, don't cost anything, and to try and help this economy along. and if we -- we hopefully move in that direction, maybe -- maybe november 2010 will turn out differently. i'm thinkinging very much that the outcome in 2010 will reflect what i heard at the thanksgiving dinner table last week and that is that people in this country have a real sense of pessimism right now because they're scared. they're scare add they don't see leadership in washington addressing their concerns. and you know, president obama

ways elected because he said that we needed change. i think what people in this country want now is some certainty. businesses and families alike. >> one of the things that as an outsider coming into america i'm struck by the is the fundamental optimism. what you're describing speaks to a grumpy gloomy mood next year. do you think that's right or are we going to see the optimistic -- up side of america on display as well. >> i think -- we saw last week, sort of a recognition part of the administration that hey, wait a minute, it is 11 months maybe we ought to get back and talk about jobs. we ought to talk about the issues that people face around the kitchen table, which which is essentially getting through the month and worrying about college u tuition and worrying about whether they could retire early or not. and if jobs is the key to that, maybe we should take some encouragement, but what i did not hear last week, was --

recognition on the part of this white house and the majority in congress, that we ought to do something to reduce the price of risk. because that's what small businesses and large, that we're counting on to create jobs need to hear. it is that certainty and until we see some focus on the number one issue, which is economic security for families in this country, i'm fearful yes, that we play see a very grumpy electorate. >> you said secretly want it. >> and -- >> listen, i don't think anybody wants to, to root against the american public. all of us want to see this country continue to lead the world. and -- in order to do that, we got to regain our economic footing. >> and alcott, your thanksgiving table next year going to be a more cheerful place. >> thank phi, i'm not running for anything. so -- i'll try to look at -- there's a lot i could disagree with there but we, we could turn this into cable television

quickly and that's not good for anybody. i think there's some analogous circumstances to where we were in 1993 and 1994. and you have a -- a very difficult economic situation, much worse this time than when president clinton took over from the first president bush. and -- i think what you have seen this year is a lot of hard and tough decisions that have been made, you know, this is -- this president didn't want to save a bunch of banks and insurance companies. that's not why he ran for president. he had to. i don't think he wanted to run deficits away. the time he had to get going. the question will be timing. the question is how quickly do all of these things that were coordinated globally done very unpopular things, how quickly will they turn this economy. it is going to turn. and you know, i am optimistic about the economic future of the country and i don't think we have seen our best days. i don't think there's anybody in town that does is -- if it does

not turn quickly enough. employment was a good step. and if it doesn't turn quickly enough, it would be a tough environment for incumbents and there's a lot more democrats than republicans. >> and particularly one of the issues for that, for the democrats is motivating the base at a time when things might be -- a little bit rough and you don't have the excitement of a new presidency coming in, potentially and how do you see that? >> mid term elections are historically difficult for the incumbent party, particularly if they control all three branches. this is a country that is -- is grumpy and looking for an instant solution to very difficult problems that there are no instant solutions for. if there was an instant solution, i assume president bush 43 would have done it before he left. there isn't. and so i think -- i think the question is -- we were talking about before, that i am

interested in is -- democrats in 2008 made pretty significant advances on how to reach people and motivate them through technology, through social media. and whether that can be transplanted and built upon for 2010, if it can, that's a significant advantage. i am certain the republicans are sitting some place with their own plans and i'll be interested to see because we tend to leap frog each other, the party out of power is more -- >> you feel the democrats, very much in the last cycle. >> yeah,. >> i worked -- >> ahead of this thing. scry worked for john kerry for a couple of months in 2004 and -- i was surprised by how significantly -- how -- how it worked, how much smarter the republican campaign was as far as infrastructure and i think 2008 republicans were vifed by what democrats were able to do. and i think being out of power is a great motivator to innovate and think about new ways to engage voters.

i think democrats, on paper have an advantage right now. you know a couple of years in the wilderness is a motivator. i think if we don't have that advantage -- you know, that points to a tough year. >> and adam bolten, you're familiar with america but again coming with this somewhat outsider perspective and you come back having spent an intensive time here from the beginning of the obama administration. what do you see the dynamics going into next year. >> i'm not so sure that the rest of the world, the mid term elections will matter too much whatever the results are. and because -- because, i think the rest of the world already perceives that the president is having a great deal of trouble with the congress trying to get through, what he wants to get through. and also because i suspect that -- you know just as president obama gets the -- the nobel prize probably the assumption of

the rest of the world could be the wrong one is that -- he looks like a two-term president and indeed the mood of electorates across the world in stable democracies tends to be to go for two terms and make a decision and then turn away. and i think that -- there is still as far as obama is concerned certainly in europe, and not including israel in europe necessarily, a tremendous, a tremendous amount of goodwill and the feeling that the economic crisis has been handled well in the sense that the governments of -- of the and certainly in britain and america behave in a similar way. which makes it paradoxical, that i would agree with the official prescription that gordon brown is going to lose the election. and -- again, i think that is partly because of the sheer fact of getting tired with an incumbent government, they have

been here with 13 years and a sense of time for change and gordon brown is intensely uncharismatic. the economy which has been steered off consistently has been -- has been -- it is we're the only g-20 nation nout out of recession, but it depends what you mean according to gordon boun but also there's another factor which we perhaps haven't necessarily mentioned sufficiently. and that is that britain has -- has turned dramatically against the post9/11 conflict, that -- that for britain there are those this year that the highest number and notice it is a small compared to the united states and that has -- really poisoned politician for the incumbent, the government which took us to war. and tony blair for example viciously unpopular in britain. i can't think of any section where you mention his name and even though -- he was twice

reelected people don't necessarily. they almost spit at the mention of the name. he spent so much timed abroad, -- >> there are other reasons for that. >> and i mean, there's sort of, what do most people want for christmas? they love the iraqi inquiry to conflict tony blair. that's how the national mood is expressing itself and it is expressing itself as you were saying in going for a character like cameron, although -- >> it is curious in this globalized world, the world we live in describing a situation where i expect it is probably news to many people here that tony blair is so unpopular as you suggest in britain and gordon brown -- gordon brown they probably don't spend too much time. >> and obama was more popular aprod. president obama as you mentioned is still very -- very, much more popular i think abroad, he hasn't -- his popularity hasn't

rubbed off aprod to the extent that it has in this country. why is it that we're -- we're, so, so, the reputations don't travel as quickly as you play think other things travel. >> well -- partly because of the function of democracy, they keep it viable, a democracy with rival parties taking each other on. everybody knows about that at home. used to, where it is aprod certainly international politician and those kind of clobber leaders and leaders in office, it doesn't matter where idealogical they come from. one -- there's an example of tony blair moving from clinton blair to bush blair. and i think that -- that is how people see it. but the other plateau which, if you like, if we want to globalize this argument at the hometown is -- moment is that we are at the end of an era where people made political assumptions that the market was good and the market could sort out -- a lot of the problems

which the world faced. now i think following the banking collapse and the rest of it, there is a realization that what we call the state, let's not get confused where you probably would -- talk about the government has got a bigger role but precisely the time when the government can't actually find the money to did something -- do something to occupy that role and has to go pack to relying on individual responsibility. that's the question in all of these elections that we have been talking about that balance between the individual and between, private enterprise and between the role of -- of the central state. is -- it is what going to be argued now. >> i suspect that will be a key debating point in elections coming up. and to ask you a little bit about the quality of the discourse that you expect to see in the year ahead, you're going to have to moderate a bit. and -- first of all, how, how do you think it is -- it has been in the past? what is in the dynamic of -- of this discourse in washington and

for what -- what momentum are we approaching 2010 with, as -- as the political temperature heats up? >> i think new presidents run into the reality of washington that it is a tough place to change culturally, for a couple of reasons. there's limits to what presidents can do with their own coalition. and even within their party and then working outside the party and then they run up against the ambition of the other party. if congressman canter. and i think congressman canter does well in the way he sort of breaks down the major pressure points on the administration. and there are also rks what the republicans will take into battle into the mid term year which is essentially, a look at the status quo, do you like how things are going under-- under obama, if not what about change. they're not a party of ideas, they don't want to be. they'll move into a period of time where they want to get more aggressive in presenting contrast. right now they're happy to say

lieu how high unemployment is and the deficit and will act virtues about the need to control the deficit than when the republicans were in power in washington but they'll do this to say look at the status quo and isn't he taking on too much? i think the discourse got off to a bad start and the white house underestimated how difficult health care would be as a matter of public debate. now, they -- they could have taken a closer look at how quickly -- the debate can be -- sort of sidetracked as it was this, during the clinton administration both -- both the clinton administration's mistakes and the opposition chose to go about it. it is a tough subject. take one example of the president was irritated at response to his press conference early on in the health care debate when he really held forth and explained what was going on in the health care system and what the remedies would be and that question came up about professor gates and that had this huge reaction and the

president was irritated at that, it was a take away. not realizing that he just wasn't breaking through and holding fort r forth on health care was too difficult to understand. so i think the discourse will sort of continue, as it has been and what i think you have to focus on, is the presidents get unpopular when they get involved. and there's a reason why congress is never popular. they're involved in the thing that is the ugliest process in democracy which this was. and when presidents get more involved in that, it is an uglier process. presidents are evaluated by achievements. they don't want to be sen diagnose achieving. the president, and it is a matter of win and he gets health care reform passed and then as i think president clinton has suggested you'll see that become more popular as it goes along. le needs achievements under his belt. >> let's propose that health care does happen that the bill is passed -- sometime early next

year. yeah. what do -- what does the agenda move on to. it is the climate change and energy bill. >> i think they'll talk about that and talk about immigration. i don't know how realistic that is. if congressman canter said, it is about jobs. last week was a really interesting juxtaposition. what are the two issue that is could define the presidency, a war he inherited and the jobs picture. i think the jobs are much more likely to define him. if you look at the recession in the early 80's and the high point of unemployment at some point, i think it was 10.4 or 10.8%, it dropped within seven months to single digits and within a year it was do you know three points. that was the perfect time for the election and it was morning again in america. you know, the democrats by the mid term if they could get it. they need morning again in america under their here. that's the issue. in 2004, for the reelect, that joe was part of karl rove would go to president bush and say if -- if the question is -- is

terrorism, and the answer is george bush. and that simple matrix ultimately worked and sort of in a way that confounded so many people. it turned a veteran, and a guy that was not tough enough to take on the terrorists, that was the work of a political operation and ultimately the democrats have to find a way to sort of turn this ocean liner in a better direction, by the mid term point if they're going to have tracks. >> congressman can i come pack to you and pick up something that jerry said about the tricks of the trade, if you like, going into an election that somehow in this -- in this constant my changing battle, the last cycle, the democrats nudged ahead in terms of their use of technology and use of the internet and mobilization and so on. what can we expect in the form of innovation from the republican party in the mid term. daniel, i think probably the best place to look is in virginia and new jersey. about a month ago, and that was

the governor elections. i know in my home state of virginia, we far surpassed the get out the vote effort, of the other side. this time. and -- it came from really the energy now, that has been focused on what is going on in washington, and -- coupled with a very disciplined and very good campaign, led by our governor elect bob mcdonald. i do think and i joke correct, the motivation of those out of party is necessarily going to trump the incumbent party. but -- i also think that it has to do with -- with, real challenges. it is not -- e perceived here. people have problems. and at home. and if you look at the official unemployment, and it says it is at 10% or a little higher, they said that the unofficial rate, those who are either working part-time jobs or simply given up is probably closer to 20%. and you know, that -- that's

extraordinary. everybody if they're not out of a job knows someone who is or is worried about losing a job. so when you see a -- a leader, a candidate, such as bob mcdonald put forth a vision, say look, i'm going to be the jobs governor. and -- go about translating that vision, and i'll take a little issue with david who says we don't talk about ideas. that's -- that's -- i'll turn it on him and i know he and i have said this pf, we don't think that necessarily it is as sexy a story for the mainstream media to cover our ideas right now because it is the incumbent party in power and the presidency is held by the democrats as well as both houses of congress. it is their agenda, which is now -- up -- >> and up for referendum. >> what is the big idea? >> the big idea is -- e >> jobs is not an idea. >> the big idea is to get -- to get to produce an environment we could have job creation again. and see that is where i think

that the obama administration agenda -- so clearly disadvantages the democrats in this upcoming election in 11 months and advantages us. and the same was true a month ago in virginia. >> and there are alternative ideas within the agenda that -- kind of like a defense lawyer arguing against the prosecution. i don't, i think there's a discussion within the republican party about whether there's a need for a second, you know, contract, with america, and so on and so forth and maybe we see by the mid term and maybe they wait until 2012. but right now, i think the republican party -- really wants to say that the prosecution, has it proven its case? look at the democrats and make a judgment based on that. there's something else, away from the substance of the polltics which is what is it republicans want to be. i don't think they worked that out yet in terms of what they want to be as a party. is it bob macdonald in virginia? is it the new jersey race or is it new york and sarah palin?

there's a process that has to be gone through where republicans decide and the voters decide what is the way back. i don't know that is inside it. >> let me respond to that. i know clearly for myself, do i very mch believe it is in the mode of bob mcdonald and i don't necessarily think it is so clear-cut that we can be one or the other because if you look at bob mcdonald and what he stood for and his record in our screnl assembly, he was extraordinarily conservative on all issues. and it wasn't that he shot -- shied away from any conservative principles he believed in. he focused the pins of lower government and he focused those on --ed kitchen table issues that were playinging virginia voters. and began to -- to represent a leader that could actually deliver results and get people back to work. >> i brought a problem which again i think is a trend not just in this country that there

is now -- a kind of, of a disgruntled, a businessed off if you like oppositionist right which in some countries that principle was one of the brirble national party and the independent party which is opposed to europe. they property a bigger chance than ever before. australia, we had the opposition conservative party this and just ousted leader to supporting climate change. and we got northern leaps before italy and here we have, you know glenn beck and rush limbaugh and an argument about what is the true republican party. it seems to me there is a very clear turmoil on the right, which is also, will be a problem. >> and adam i always said this. there radio a lot of voices in both parties and those are those in public office and those not. there's a different motive often in terms of those in the media, than perhaps those of us who owe it to our constituents to live up to the promises made. and -- i think you're right in

that -- people are angry in this country. because there's a lack of demonstrable results. and as people are out of work, they become more enraged at a hack of deliverable party government. >> if you wrant to talk about unemployment, you don't want to talk about barack obama and if he is racist? >> you want to talk about, people are looking for leadership now and they don't care about that issue. they care about getting back to work. >> when you have that raised and put on the agenda, that's a problem for you. >> and i wanted to -- >> i want to make this less partisan although it play come out as partisan and talk about history, because i am listening carefully to what you say and my history doesn't go back very long, i remember the 50e9's under a democratic president where we made a surplus and created 23 million jobs, we gave that to the republicans, we left the surplus and under the

president bush, we created jobs. the unemployment rate did not start at zero in january of this year and go to 10%. this is -- this was financial mismanagement that went on for a decade. and you know what? the president is doing his best to try to turn that around. and now, that is my partisan speech. elections are not about history. elections are about the moment. and owe -- e you know what? one of the reasons barack obama was elected was people thought, he seems to be young and prmsing but -- boy is he different than that bum we want to throw out and one of the the reasons why, bill clinton was elected and the same with jimmy carter. it is a bipartisan feeling that we do this. and i think you know, it is -- it is a tough year for the incumbents. to pick up on what i think david and adam were saying, one positive sign for the democrats, one positive sign is the election is a while from now. i don't think the president is

responsible for the problems but he owns them because he's the president. there's no getting around that. the second thing and it geese to democrats and republicans and where they are as far as figuring out what they want to do and what their o-their leadership is. democrats have an advantage, that they do have the presidency as far as message orientation. and they had, there's a lot of negatives there. and i think if you -- as to what is really interesting looking at democrats is the reaction to the afghanistan speech. fully 50% of the party in congress did not support that speech. but do you know what? they're swallowing it and moving forward they're going to be with the president of the party. if you look at the leches, the mid term elections with the republicans, there's more of a struggle. i completely agree with what was said about bob mcdonald and as a partisan democrat, to the the scariest thing in the world to me that people will use common sense and take a candidate and emphasize the strengths which is exactly what he did. he went -- you also had new york

23 and you had an election where republicans had the election won, i think and then overplayed their hand because there's part of the party that believes that -- that being practical and common sense does not make sense, you have to over on the far right and that, that struggle is going to play out over the next year. and your group play win and they play lose too. it is an advantage to democrats. >> i want to escape for a moment fromee -- from an america and exclusively american perspective on this. we had the most extraordinary global recession, you play think that there would be -- a political trends that you could observe around the world in response -- in response to that. this would be either, this would be anti-income beans, all it brings to the left or to the right and do something totally unexpected. and it is hard to detect global trends out of this. and some incumbents got back in

and we seen the merkel government voted pack in in germany. and -- there isn't, if anything, there's a tendency to swing to the conservative and -- with -- in the, in the british traditional sense of the word not to board the right but to play it safe and adam, you, you -- and there's steps around the world. what do you see? >> there are other trnds and taxes and jep -- taxes have certainly gone up in both britain and the united states. and deficit for whoever wins the gem election in britain is going to be a massive problem and actually, a lot of european countries are not far behind. and -- but again, i -- my feeling is that -- that, there is, a certain kind of realization of -- of the limits of what government can do,

certainly this both countries where -- where the government has fueled a bigger role. i was at a public meeting with a member of cameron teen and they came out and said i was absolutely fantastic. as you notice, they asked me for money. and -- and what we're not hearing and we probably won't hear that much of in the general election but will happen afterward is undoubtedly going to be not just taxes, which i think, it is probably pretty much reached their limit but real cuts in spending. i think we're going to see that across -- across spectrum. >> i think -- i spoke to a prominent person in american finance yesterday that said, the real question around the world is what the hell is going on in america? and so -- in this -- in asia that's the case for a while. and china h-a sense of growing american weakness for a while and as america's creditor feels they have got, you know more leverage over the united states, and less inchiened to -- to be

supportive on -- eon other geopolitical areas where we need their help and iran and north korea and, et cetera and latin america, things look, europe is having a hard time and the united states is having a hard time but the question is, this, this person said, is -- you know, what happened to capitol hillism. the talk of regulation and -- capitalism, the talk of regulation and the bailouts and what not. there's a fear about where america is headed this this regard. and you see that reflected in some of our major companies too who don't like the uncertainty about health care, don't like the uncertainty about energy policy and about tax policy. and so i spoke to those who say, where is the impetus for economic growth? we don't see it. there's no impetus for investment. the administration is trying to get the private sector jump started to create jobs and get consumer spending again. so i think one of the trends and

i spoke to the politician and the policy side, there's a question about role government and effectiveness of government with regard to the economy, worldwide and a lot of that is looking a the the united states and wondering what is happening. >> i think it is certainly true that the outside world always looks to america and particular perhaps now, this time, and this america at all looks to the outside world. we heard from peter davis this on about elections in iraq and brazil and elsewhere. you're going to be taken up with your own campaigns. are there any lessons you think you could pick up from other campaigns that have just been fought around the world, and what trends you see anywhere else. >> if you look at south america, maybe there's a lesson there. i know we saw the bolivian elections. take a look at what happened in your guy last week and the election of -- of a traditionally leftist one-time terrorist gorilla individual who then remade himself committed to

the voters of that country, that he saw himself in the -- in the fashion of governing like in brazil, not like chavez in venezuela and i don't think anyone was surprised at the outcome of that election and contrary to maybe some of the trends in europe and elsewhere. . . economic standpoint that will recognize human rights and the defense of those rights, i do think those are some themes that perhaps can produce a somewhat different way. somewhat different way. again, very much grounded, we like to call in virginia the common-sense conservative outlook that

started way back with the founders of 18th century servants of jefferson, madison and the rest. i do think you may see a trend again, deliverables spawned by adherence to these market-based principles of a limited government, but taking care of folks. >> i think conversely, you've got to avoid elections more and more, which will be one of the fallouts from iran and elsewhere. i also think that for next year there's going to be this growing trend. it's boring, it's organizational, but it's nonetheless very significant, which is the fact -- the view that the g-20 is now in a sense, the global economic regulator. i think that's going to be inescapable. i mean, it's a major shift in what was effectively the poll lar world, but the united states was -- >> two g summits next year, one in canada and one in south korea in the autumn, that it

will be prominent. can i ask one final question? then we'll go to the floor. perhaps to you, joe lockhart. europe, not something that perhaps people spend too much time worrying about. but there was the famous kissinger question, who do you call for europe. the europeans are now agonized for, what was it, eight or nine years over a constitutional -- well, it was no longer called a constitutional treaty, over a treaty, which has given them a so-called president and a high representative, in effect, a foreign secretary. but they've chosen people in these roles which charity eable can be described as people nobody has ever heard of. does anybody care about europe as a weight in the world, as an entity? has anybody answered the kissinger question for america? >> i think it's an evolving question. >> can you name the presidents

of europe? >> eric can. [laughter] >> i know who wants to be the president of europe. >> well, he didn't get it. >> i know. >> i think it's not a pressing question as far as america goes, because i think europe is a trusted place in this country. they think -- you know, we didn't agonize very long about going in head-long into military conflicts in europe in the last decade, because it was europe. while we young our hands, while there were exponentially more devastating genocide being committed in africa. and not taking a position, it's just a way of highlighting the deep connections between. so i don't think we worry much about europe. i think as europe integrates and becomes more powerful, we

may over time, because i don't think the average american thinks of europe in the way that europeans want to. >> actually, one of the concerns about the obama administration in europe anyway has been that he tended to take his allies for granted in focusing on reaching out to some of the parts of the world where relations have been previously more complicated. and there could be a reaction by europeans. and he's going to need allies in places like afghanistan. >> it's funny, because i think that goes to the previous question, too. i think one of the reasons why there isn't a trend right now is that the u.s. -- at least around the world -- is not as polarizing as it has been in the past, among both democrats and republicans, depending on the time. and electrics are getting decided on the ground, by issues on the ground, and not being influenced by cold war issues or u.s. diplomacy. i mean. you could go through europe and even other parts of the world

and look at elections that turned on whether you were anti-american enough or whether you were pro-american enough. and right now we have a president who's deeply committed to multilateralism. no one thinks they get enough time or attention from the american president, but -- and it is in some ways a positive and in some ways troubling, because the world needs leadership, and we're very internally focused right now on putting our own house in order, and that is potentially a dangerous situation. >> i just think there's a huge divide between europe and the united states with regard to strategic issues. i mean, there's been a change in orientation here about the war on terrorism, which this administration doesn't use. and peter in "time" magazine wrote something provocative about obama sort of downsizing the war on terror, compartment liesing it a little bit more, rather than making it as sweeping and broad as the bush

administration did. but we covered our respective governments or p.m.'s at the time, an seeing tony blair, the british public wasn't there at all. certainly not on iraq and not even on afghanistan as much. so you're seeing that. the notion of the nato alliance and maybe it's going to pledge 7,000 additional troops, you know, it's nice to have a coalition of the willing, but this is america's war. we're going to have 100,000 troops there. we own this thing. and the british, frankly, they've been there, seen it and said, no, thanks. but i mean, there's a view -- i'm not saying that they haven't been in afghanistan, but you're seeing more what you described, which is we just don't want to have a sustained commitment there. >> and i think oddly enough americans don't see the british as european. you ask someone, are these -- they don't, they don't. [laughter] >> let's go to the questions from the audience, who would

like to ask? >> right here. >> yes. wait for the microphone to come. >> oh, there's people here. [laughter] >> yes, could you say who you are. >> first of all, my name is ezra matthias. gregory david raised the point about the c.e.o. he was speaking to that talked about what's happening to american capitalism. now, i'm very surprised that -- i think it's a man who wrote a book on rogue economics. i'm surprised she's not part of the conflicts and globalization has unleashed problems that drove economics to go rogue, which is per primary thesis, ambassador i'm surpriseed that we haven't examined that -- and i'm surprised that we haven't examined that at all. >> that was more of a statement. let me go to the back there. yes.

>> i'm mark with, the foundation for job creation. my question is, is america's problem of not being able to create jobs, where does the lobbyists fit in? and are they interfering with job creation? >> where are the lobbyists? >> where do the lobbyists fit into this business of job creation? do they interfere with the process of job creation? are they perhaps helping? >> well, you know, i think that's a tough question. i think in the broadest possible sense, you know, even the best ideas get altered, and generally not for the better, because there are powerful lobbying interests in this town. and the lobbyists are very -- you know, they do well and

their job is not to advocate for the public good, but to advocate for the narrow, for their interests. and we still, despite, you know, the president running on a platform of let's take the special interests out of politics and government, it's still very prevalent. i think again, most broadly, i agree with republicans when they talk about the -- you know, the private sector is going to create the bulk of the new jobs. we don't want to create 10 million new government jobs. that makes no sense. what the federal government can do, both congress and the executive branch, is create conditions where jobs will flourish. we've had periods, the mid 1980's, that most of the 1990's where conditions were good and the private sector and the public sector worked together and jobs were created. we haven't seen that in a while, and that's really what we need to do.

>> congressman? >> i'm not sure how to answer the question of whether lobbyists as a whole are helpful or harmful to job creation. i mean, there are a slew of lobbyists, obviously, in this town, some representing big corporations, some representing small businesses, some representing labor, some representing consumer groups, and the list goes on. i think, again, the jobs for the party in power as well as the minority is to work together to produce an environment that can foster some job creation, as joe said in, the private sector, because i think deep down americans understand what's made this country prosperous, and that is the entrepreneurialism, risk-based investment that's characterized by the american dream. so if you talk to big businesses right now, i think what they say is too much uncertainty. as david said, we've got to do something. we can't have the uncertainty

of card check, the uncertainty of cap and trade, the uncertainty of health care, the uncertainty of the tax hikes that are embeded in the code that businesses don't know how that will play out. that is inhibiting investment. if you talk to main-street concerns, small ises across this country, what they're saying is we don't have access to capital. we need credit. if we're going to create jobs, we have to be able to grow and we can't do that without credit. all of this, i think, will play out over the year. how lobbyists intermingle with that, i think lobbyists are much more in tune with their specific client's interest, and right now i think what we're talking about is an environment that has been grossly unfavorable towards risk-based job creation. >> yes. don't know where to start. lot of questions. here first, and then -- >> hello. i'm roland. "the economist" predicted that nato might lose in afghanistan

in 2010. however, representative cantor did not mention afghanistan in his initial speech here today. does that suggest that the republicans are generally happy with the president's plan in afghanistan? one. and two, is there a prediction that there will be success this year in the campaign? military campaign? .

>> how do you see this debate to? >> i think there is every reason to be skeptical. i question everything, every statement, every position, every note of optimism about this war. i think all americans should. i think your partners around the world should. somehow, that the karzai government will create a standard security force that has enough space to break the momentum of the taliban, if that is brought to bear in a reasonable time frame, but the other big issue is whether it

becomes another country. the real bad guys are in pakistan. that is the problem. what is pakistan prepared to do? the challenge for this president is that [unintelligible] they will argue a but articulating an exit strategy or some sort of timeline. i think the secretary of defense was clear yesterday in that there is a time horizon. that is just the goal of a handoff to karzai in five years. that assumes that everything works. all of that is in place -- you all of that is in place -- you have to see what the conditions -- rouble see what the plan is

down the line. we are basically not winning. but it is time to come home. >> this is a very live issue for british politics. british troops have been dying in afghanistan in disturbingly large numbers. as you mentioned, the war has become increasingly unpopular. how does this decision by president obama play into the debate of britain over -- how does it play out publicly? >> gordon brown is talking about drawing down troops. gordon brown is talking about taking it down next year, which is an election year. you can see the rhetoric and the political calculation. i think that the reality of the situation is that possible strategy but is supported by all of mainstream.

next year is going to be an intense time of pressure. we're the main driver for reform for pakistan and afghanistan. if you do not establish ourselves known as a potential government, we are going to withdraw and you will be get -- and you will get killed. the problem is that that will be borne and paid for by the troops on the ground. that is a sober moment. that is before you get into the issue on how stable in iraq is. >> next question. >> my question is for the panel at large. given the opening of copenhagen today, what is the panel's view

on president obama's strategy going to copenhagen, and emissions target that has not been drafted by domestic legislation? i am interestininterested to hee republican view is what the american responsibility will be if there is a definitive agreement at copenhagen when the president comes back? >> we spent about 50 minutes talking about politics and we have not talk yet about the environment. >> from the larger sense, the question of climate change comes down to, if there has been in constant in human history, it has been climate change. the real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all that. that is from the larger sense. i think our party will approach it as such, with the the notion

that all of us wants to make sure that we leave this planet a cleaner place. how we strike that balance, given the priority of getting this economy back on track, i think that will be central to any republican response. there is much reticence right now, obviously, from the capt. trade finance. -- from the cap and trade finance. it is an ill-conceived plan that will kill jobs. it is a huge detriment to the number one priority, which is getting americans back to work. >> would you like to comment on that? >> is hard to believe. i think it is going to be a test of american leadership because the rest of the world is going. if we educate our role as a leader in the world, as an economic leader, while we are

fighting about the politics of our congress and the u.s., then it will be a step back for our country. we have been out of this debate for too long. i do not hear from the party opposite any good ideas on how to solve this. cap and trade came from industry. it is supported by lots of american corporations. there are certainly losers here and they do not support it, but, more importantly, this is an international issue, a global issue. if we want to continue our slide from influence in world leadership, this would be a way to do it.

>> you talked a lot about jobs. we have seen the unemployment rate drop. then you talk about the set -- your thanksgiving table. i was just wondering if it was representative of the whole country. i feel like maybe it is not giving thank you. maybe the republican party, are we going to be able to see the republican party come together with the democratic party in 2010 and worked together on soe issues? >> any bipartisanship in 2010? >> first of all, i think all of us wants to get this economy back on track. going back to the stimulus discussion, we continue to profit are alternatives. there are discussions surrounding the health care bill

right now. it is taking place behind closed doors. there needs to be a mutual cooperation. it is in the minorities interest, especially when you have the majority holding power in the house and the senate and in the white house. it is certainly in our interest to work together to produce results. it is about jobs. it really is. there has been a constant drumbeat away from the priority of trying to say, look, we want to provide to small businesses access to credit. we want to promote investment again. it is the private sector that will be which brings the economy back. >> i believe it is going to be the private sector. but can you imagine?

no one can predict how much worse it would be if the government did not take the strong actions it did. in the great depression, unemployment was at 25%. 10% is way too high. people are suffering. it is very real. people who have jobs are afraid of losing them. but very bold steps were taken. people want to ignore that right now. they want to score points and that is what politics is about. some of those very real steps were taken by a republican president. >> the follow-up to that is that the steps that were taken in 2008 under the bush administration and those of us who supported that effort and tarp, that tried to arrest what was believed to be a potential collapse in the market, that was meant to be an emergency

temporary step. are we going to live up to the initial promise, saying that it was tempered, that they were taxpayer dollars and need to be paid back, or are you going to allow that to be some kind of permanent slush fund in this town to go where the political whim is? i would take the position that we need to go ahead and deliver the promise that it was a temporary emergency steps. >> we will have to break that particular conversation. let's go to our final predictions. allowed each of you to give a particular production -- i want each of you to give a particular prediction for 2010. >> i think we face a very real question about the overall direction of the economy, whether recovery is more

stagnant and there's always the potential of a double-dip recession. it is primarily a jobless recovery. that will be the big trend in politics next year. the question will be to say whether this is a zero suming game -- a zero sum game. right now, the big prediction is anti-incumbency. >> i think there will be a watershed. we're clearly going in a different direction next year than where we are now. for the first time, we will have leaders' debate during the election. >> i think 2010 will be the year

that the politics of the middle will be empowered. if not, yes to the extremes -- >> tell me what that means. >> that means moderate republicans and conservative democrats having a stronger voice in the debate, which i think you saw in the 1990's. the corollary is that, if that is not true, you will see that a third party will be sown and we will see it as early as the next election. >> the elections in 2010 will bring about the fact that the democrats will lose their majority in the u.s. house. i think that will happen because americans like a check and a balance on federal power. that is what we got right now. it is administered it through an agenda that is far out of mainstream from where people see this country. >> we will be here in a year's

time to see how that came about. in the meantime, thank all of our panelists. [applause] next, the successes and failures of the u.s. government. then, the house subcommittee discovers how terrorism is being used to recruit members. later on, author richard burr kaiser on the life of william f. buckley. >> beginning monday, a rare

glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices about the court, their work, and the history of the iconic building. starting monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and get your own copy of the documentary on dvd. it is part of the american icons collection. this is one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. ç>> next, an author discusses e successes and failures of the u.s. government over the last 75 years. this is hosted by the commonwealth club in san francisco. it is just over an hour. >> i love the weather. i am pleased to be hereç tonigt

with my friends and colleagues and many relatives are here. my brother and his wife are in the back and a lot of my cousins. this really means a lot. >> if we can put a man on the moon, how many times have you heard that phrase? if you put a man on the moon, why can't we cure homelessness? it did not start off as a cliche. it started off as a challenge issued by president john f. kennedy. >> i believe that this nation should commit its silo to land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth. no single space project in this time will be more impressive to

mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of space. >> i usually give the presentation and a co-author does a wicked kennedy impression that usually gets a big ovation. it is an impossibleçç challen, but america pulled together. in july of 1969, neil armstrong planted a flag on the moon. the trip to the moon inspired a generation. no one who was alive at that time, and i know that a lot of you were a live band can forget that feeling of pride. most of you probably remember exactly where you were a time. it made an impact on every american, particularly the young, including our president, barack obama. he said that as a young boy, he

remembered growing up in hawaii, sitting on his grandfather's shoulders, and his grandfather explain how we can accomplish anything that we set our minds to do. who could argue that we could put a man on the moon. we had won world war ii and we built a national highway system. we were justifiably proud of our accomplishments. but is our government capable of executing our most important challenge. the brutal economic breakdown, and we're concerned about the ability to execute. political observers believe that we have a crisis. part of the book tour that i have been doing, as people mad

at wall street and also at our government. those who run our government's programs, our most senior executives, believe that we have a crisis. resurveyed individuals and 60% said that government is less capable of executing the it was 30 years ago. most people would ask who is to blame for the state of affairs. the answer depends on whose side you're on. it is a natural question to ask. but is it the right question to ask?

go to a local bookstore and a concurrent events section. i wanted us to appear -- and wanted ann coulter to appear on our book in a black mini dress. there is always the paperback version instead of who is to blame, we ask a different question. we ask why some big initiatives fail and why do some succeed? to answer that question, we studied more than 75 major undertaking since world war two to look for both great success and monumental failures. we looked at everything from the success of the marshall plan to the struggles of immigration reform. willett of the wars on poverty and inflation to the real wars in vietnam. when we look to these initiatives, we realized that to

do it right would require a small army of intelligent, thoughtful individuals who understood that and were willing to work for free. so, the answer was clear. we did grad students. with the help of more than 70 grad students, we decided to understand the factors between success and failure. the difference between a government that is mired in failure and a government that can succeed. we were looking for a path to success. michael walter and i bring a distinct perspective to this issue. john is an engineer by training. he develops process maps for making toast in the morning. like any good engineer, what john did was say that we needed to break this down into its discrete processes. we found that while they were all very different, these initiatives all day path.

a series of steps that we call the jury to success. there are a lot of ways that the initiative can win -- ken lynde -- can in the disaster. -- ended in disaster. this is when it goes through the legislature and recall that start date. that is because like the science fiction series, when you walk through the political star gate, a u.s. central travel forms -- from one universe to another universe which is a democratic universe there must be competent implementation and the initiative must generate its desired result. we used to this map and discovered that by simply visualizing it, helped

visualize the problems. consultants are often called in when an initiative is in the ditch and the need to get it out of it. i am also a bit of a pessimist. this map, while technically correct, it really does not reflect the real world that i see every day. i tend to look at all the possible problems to success. the potential for failure lurks everywhere. any time you do a major government initiative. we identified seven hidden pitfalls which are the seven deadly traps on this journey to success. we're not going to go through all seven of the traps today, but to learn about them, we have to read the book and which means you have to buy the book which is available afterwards.

if you take the process map, and you take the traps, and you put those together, then you have the actual matt that is a more realistic map of how to get things done in government. it was a little bit like that. there are actually copies of a man behind you. -- of the map behind you. this pogo-copter was a bad idea. new coke was a bad idea. a really bad idea was gerald ford's whip inflation now buttons. these buttonsçó were designed to actually be how we with double digit inflation. have the ideas like this come

into play? well, ideas are the first phase in the process. you cannot have a successful initiative if you have a bad idea. bad ideas generally become reality when they are not exposed to criticism. this phenomenon is called poe's story syndrome. it is the biggest trap. it occurs when people shut themselves off from those that think differently than they do. eight years ago, a professor at the university of georgia study how the brain works. he wanted to conduct an experiment. he had art of republicans and ardent democrats-ardent republicans and ardent democrats watched the debate. while they watched the debate, he had their heads wired so that he could monitor their brains.

they were wired up to an mri machine. çweston found that republicans thought that bush had won and democrats thought had -- thought that carey had one and both sides ignored it when their guy was consistent -- inconsistent. what's the private -- what was surprising was that the part of the brain that was activated during the debate was not the thinking part, but the emotional part those few in the debate were not thinking at all. they were just pulling for their guy. now, this phenomenon is called confirmation bias. it is when we are not open to new thinking. it causes a lot of problems. just think about the world that we are living in today. i]it confirms our views rather

than informs them. if you look at the root of all our problems today, this is one of the things that we found, time and time again. how do you fix this? >> the answer is to expose these ideas to new ways of thinking. it is kind of like having an engineer and a consultant look at the same problem. that is the approach that was used. my family grew up in a suburb of lake michigan. we were about 1 mile from the beach. my family was crazy about the beach. we absolutely love going to the beach, but throughout most of my childhood, we never actually got to go to the beach because it was covered in dead fish. why was it covered in dead fish? because of something called acid rain. acid rain occurs when coal burning plants send a solution

into the atmosphere, it goes up into the clouds where it gets absorbed and then goes hundreds of miles and lands somewhere else. it kills lakes and rivers and the animals and wildlife within it. it was the biggest environmental issue of the 1980's, so you think something would be done about it. unfortunately, the debate had fallen into two camps. you had environmentalists who wanted to eliminate all pollution. you had a business interest on the other side that believed that regulation would actually killed jobs and put them out of business. each of them was locked into their world view. they did not disagree. they despise each other. 70 bills were offered in congress to address acid rain. not a single one made it out of congress into this quagmire came to seven -- two senators.

here is how they broke through. they brought in economists to look at the problem. the economists were actually from a think tank out here in san francisco. it is the environmental defense fund. they took this out of the new round of the absolutist on each side. they looked at like economics problem. other economists in the room? you know what they say about economies, don't you? economists are really good with numbers, but the lack of personality to become engineers. [applause] [laughter] >> the cap the level and then

they left it up to the market to decide how to me that pollution level, not the epa or the california department of environmental quality. energy producers could then use any means they wanted to get under that cap. it was workable. it was acceptable to both sides. it was one of the biggest environmental successes of recent decades. it resulted in a 40% reduction of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions and most importantly, by the time my little brother tim along, our home town beach was free of dead fish. overcoming the syndrome is all about listening. we think that we know the answer and we close off all of these avenues of exploration.

in the 1990's, california had a problem the economy was in a slump. it was in part, due to an energy crisis. gov. wilson had an idea. what if we replaced government monopolies with a competitive market the goal was a energy cost savings. competition -- deregulation was largely successful in the 1970's. it be a result would depend on how was designed. the design of the new electricity market was really quite simple. power generators had toi] -- not

many people understood how word. but do you know who figured out how this whole system would work? who figured it out? in run -- enron. they and a few other firms felt they knew better than the regulators. they used schemes with cute names such as ricochet, fat boy, and death star. the could take electricity out of california and into nevada and in making huge profits for doing nothing at all.

in the summer of 2000, the crisis hit. you all know how the story goes from here. you all lived through it. there is a heat wave. they got up to about 109 degrees in san jose and they recorded the highest temperatures you had ever seen an energy demand shot up and the lights went out. the weird phenomenon of rolling blackouts become a feature of life in california and in silicon valley, the global center of high technology had their electricity supply -- had the electricity supply of a third world nation. electricity prices skyrocketed. just two years into the law, after the law had been passed, a total meltdown resulted in billions of dollars lost by consumers and billions of dollars were lost by the state. gov. gray davis was kicked out

of office. how did such a bill -- bless you. çhow did a bill become law? >> that is where the process gets really scary. why? because it was an exemplary process. they had hearings and meetings and they visited other jurisdictions. there was bipartisan cooperation. they worked until late at night and they did such a good job of the law passed unanimously, 98- 0. as you know, nothing passes legislature unanimously. nobody voted against it. what was the problem? they did not designed to work in the real-world. they saw themselves as crafting a bill that would pass and wanted to see that they got as many votes as they could get and put an awful stuff to make everyone happy. the different parts did not work

together as a system. the design would not hold up to the likes of enron. california electricity deregulation points to a big factor behind many large government failures. at the root of many implementation failures that you read about actually lies at the design phase. we surveyed members of the national academy of public ministration and this is what they told us. only 16% said that federal government designs policies that can be implemented. we see very similar results elsewhere. it turns out that if you want to get a senior executive really animated, all you need to do is ask them about the policy design process. this is what they told us. they said it is pathetic. there is a gap between communication and understanding. it is dictated part -- -- top down.

there is a big problem here. what is the cause of this? >> civil servants will say it is the politicians. politicians will say it is the bureaucrats. what we found was that neither one is the case. the problem is the gap between the two. that is a gap that has gotten bigger in recent years. this wall of separation has a lot of problems. one of them is that if you are in the policy side of the process, success for you equating getting a bill passed. that is success. but the real goal is way down . nowhere is this more apparent that our for decades quest for independence. president ford signed a laww3. the goal was energy

independence. the results, by 1980, net imports were 400,000 barrels per day higher than the were in 1973. in 1978, president carter signed the national energy act. we did not quite get to 20%. by 2000, the sun provided 0.007% of all the energy in the u.s.. in 2005, president bush signed the energy policy act. the results was the energy independence act of 2007. getting through the legislature is a milestone, but you do not get the ticker tape parade until the results actually roll in. if you forget this, you will end up drowning in a river of

failure. that is not a place that you want to be. our next phase is the implementation phase. the biggest trap in this phase is overconfidence. this often occurs when really smart, capable people become overconfident in their abilities and they failed to prepare for all the rest. -- prepare for all the rest -- prepare for all the rest this is a lot tougher than it looks. the key to avoiding failure is to take failure seriously. anyone who has ever done every have on your house knows that you should take out a loan for $40,000 and moved in with your in-laws.

that is how to be successful. let me give you a quick story. if you are like me, few things get you more frustrated than sitting in traffic. there is one proven way to increase -- reduce traffic congestion and that is to charge people for using the road at rush hour. economists have been talking about for decades. no one wants to actually pay for the roads that they feel like they have already paid for. the result is that member is qq(÷çcities talkedç about a cn charge for decades butw3 no one had actually done it because they could not get past the star gate. ççby the 1990's, traffic was o bad in london that it was moving at the same speed -- at lower speeds and when they had carriages in the victorian age. then the convergence of events occurred, the most important,

the election of a new mayor. he is unapologetically a man of the left. he counts fidel castro and hugo java's as amongç his closest friends. çóhe made a sport of antagonizig margaret thatcher while she was prime minister. he had the most unlikely profile you could imagine of a candidate of someone who would adopt a market where pricing project. embrace it he did because it conform with his environmental use. so, there are many of ways to do this. think of the times that it has been proposed in san francisco. it would impact a lot of people's lives and had to be done all at once, not street by street. it had never been done on this scale before.

his political advisers told him not to do it. if it did not work, he could kiss his next term goodbye. the media said it would be an unmitigated disaster. there was a " form a rabbi that said bet my synagogue was bombed during the war, but livingston will do more damage than the germans. but he did not panic. he took failure seriously. he and his team took a lot of extraordinary steps to make sure that this went well. they tested and a planned and they tested again. there were fanatical about looking at every possible risk. two weeks before the launch, they had a dry run. it was kind of like one to put

the control room to the test. it was kind of like a preseason game, but with pads on. they would get calls to respond to potential crises. the day of war games started at 7 atm. the team had just sat down for coffee and suddenly a call comes them. a major traffic accident caused a backup. the team is ready for it. vehicles entering the zone are electronically flag and will not be if charged. then another call. again, they were ready and they had a backup computer system. it went like that all along. but they were ready for it and there were able to handle everything that was thrown at them. justin case, before the launch, they sent a womanç to walk the

entire route, 26 miles armed with a pin and a piece of paper and her assignment was to make sure that nothing was going to happen without them knowing about it. it was 5:30 a.m., the day of the launch. mayor livingston steps out of his flat and he is mobbed by photographers. they all want a picture of the mayor on the day that they believe will be his waterloo. but the day did not end in disaster. it ended in triumph. everything went smoothly. there was not a single glitch. the streets were eerily quiet that day. remember those gloom and doom headlines, will here are the headlines the day after the launch. >> he told me that those

headlines for the best days of his life. in livingston milliken had a tragic ending. as the mayor put it, nothing in public life has turned out better that he hoped for until now. this brings us to the last phase of the journey. that is the results face. that means we're near the end of the speech. recall the greek myth about sisyphus pushing a rock uphill. those who work in government know that the public sector hill is tough. the hillç is steeper in the private sector. okyou have culture, politics, incentives, it justsmakes a uniquely challenging. ççthe sisyphus meth --xçç mys

that it ist( -- to succeed requiresç havingçç people whe deeply skilled at navigating the public sector terrain. ççi like the thick of theseç people as the indiana jonesi] of government because when they see the goldenççóççç idolçççd to be. çthe people likeç this,çóç to not look very much like indiana jones. xddwight was a guy that was an unsung hero. he was the guy behind all the ;çó;çw3attention. he worked at a senior level for

seven consecutive american presidents. he isçç now in his 80s and the pictures that you see on his wall of the pictures of the great people in history. çhe helped eisenhower ride the nuclear test ban treaty and he was there when kennedy signed it. he was the guy that lbj turned to to lead the alaska earthquake recovery. if all of you remember, it was the biggest earthquake in north american history. the white toldç mexd that he ws watching theñr newsç and he sad that he felt sorry for the personçxdqt( who was 4 1/2 to s thing back togetherç again. two days later, he got a call from lbjkt(ççççççzvw3is ñrqhe was inç chargew3çççt(w

reform for jimmy carter. çdçi]çw3çççronald reagant him in charge ofk shutting down the first federal agency to be shut down in 50 years. it was not aç pleasantç task a civil servant, but he got the job done. okxdhe was even kidnap once by colombian drugçóokçóçççç loe leading the war on drugs. the suit after he retired -- one story i love aboutç white is tt was first elected and they did not have the nationalxd security council completely done, so what wasçko sitting in on a treaty. i]w3ççóççw3w3in (1qq meetinr schlesinger wasç there and he s the president's historian and was close to theç kennedy fami. white was arguing forçç the tt

ban treaty and sausage or was arguing against it and they got into a heated argument and why whençq back and tender his resignation. he figured thatç the kennedys are one to want him around anymore. this hold over the has been arguing with someone so close to the family. the funniest thing was, during this meeting, who was looking -- bobby kennedy looked over and he was watching this and sodalite said that he wasn't so much trouble and he thought he would have to have another career. . . ;