..

willing to give up certain freedoms and returned for either security or prosperity. that is the question i've asked throughout the the choice of destination might seem arbitrary but there was method. in singapore, china, russia, the united, india, italy, the u.k. and the u.s. to. first of all freedom still don't forget tarincot regimes that ruled by the federal of the gun the families and parents to announce each other whether state is an unambiguous little blunt force and there is no

element consent there for this is not about for example zimbabwe or north korea or burma. in these countries there is no pact which between the government and the people but simply the instinct to survive nor to focus on countries where there are particularities such as israel and the conflict and with palestine or to but challenges venezuela or post-apartheid south africa. instead, in the course of the years truffle's i focused on countries that whatever the political few accepted the terms of globalization. the mobil site is singapore, the state which i was born and have long the senate words i'm constantly struck by the number of people i know, good friends who very eloquently defended the system that elevates individual restraint in return for the collective groups. this is what i called the pact or the trade-off. of course i developed the detail that even though others rifle at

it and are uncomfortable with the term it simply asks the question why do those people in that country, friends of mine in singapore who are extraordinarily well troubled high treasury degrees nevertheless had a quite normal or undesirable to put to one side one of the most elementary freedoms the freedom of speech. i had originally envisioned the book falling into the post 1989 genre as a particularly good by the likes of the french robert kagen, tom friedman i would note all of these things are american rhetoric and british. i saw it through the template of a new order and the east challenging the hashemi of the west. this would be called the new world order. i went on to think about the working title of the past. i final settlement freedom for sale realizing actually we all

do it. we all the trade off whatever system of government we live under. now i realize the universal nature of the pact. we are with the relief in democracies or military defeat, authoritarian regimes closer than we think. i have no score sheet. the pact is played out in different circumstances and cultures and the different speeds. we feature used different freedoms and our own countries which we are prepared to feed. so there for some countries it is freedom of expression and some of the rights to the government and in some it is impartial jury. and in others it is the ability to get on with your life without being spied upon. some countries it is a combination of these and more. in the day-to-day terms such restrictions of these affect only a small number of people. these people are among the term go out of their way to rock the

boat troublemakers, journalists who criticize the states or publish information that path the negative life and lawyers to defend them and people like them such as representatives of ngos opposition politicians and activists. the rest of the population 1990's carried on regardless. the injured one called the private freedoms. to live for our less as they wished and most importantly to make and spend money. so private freedoms are your freedom to leave your own itemized existence. freedom to choose schooling for your children, as i say freedom to travel, freedom to express yourself in whatever way you wish in your own circumstances. freedom to read your own private life in the way that you wish or even some freedoms that we are new and say post-communist china freedom to wear your own clothes and buy your own car.

these are private freedoms. to read these are public and private freedoms. the public ones are the ones that accept your behavior in the public realm. their freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to vote in the multi-party actions. and most of freedom to act vigorously in the public realm. freedom to cause trouble. how many members of the public going about their daily lives really wish to challenge those with power. ladies and gentlemen, one can accept the fact and quite comfortably with the fact that one is sufficiently free. in the global past decades the alliance of political leaders, business and the middle class is was the key to this pact. this arrangement is built on the clear and usually discreet set of understandings what matters

and all of these societies is the number of people who benefit from the pact as i describe to gradually increase and the state remains flexible enough to meet the various needs. these could be summarized as property rights, contract law and i mental protections, lifestyle choices and the right to travel. but the preeminent freedom in the past 20 years in this era of a globalized world has been financial. the right to earn money and to keep that. the context unchanged during 2008 as the steady growth in did spectacularly. the collapse of the banks not only economic crisis but called into question the future of the government that had arrived at legitimacy through securing sustained well-being for their people. yet far from unraveling the pact in my view the global financial collapse has enhanced it. western countries that have dismissed the idea of the state as an economic force have once again rehabilitated it. in conditions of insecurity and with the state once again

intervening wherever it sees fit the conditions are to assume even greater control over other aspects of people's daily lives. the security that was exploited after the terrorist attacks here in new york in 2001 can just as easily be adapted for any other kind of emergency such as economic emergency. so, after singapore, which i have already discussed i move on to china. the discussion ranges across many themes that it seeks specifically to identify the question of public and private freedoms. i was struck during my travels of a great candor of my accommodations not just once but even roundtable discussions as well. everyone has agreed to the progress has been remarkable in the past three decades the acceptance of the g20 is the true global forum is as many commentators have pointed out not just recognition of the relics states of the g8 but the

acceptance of the role of the g to america and china as the big power. but where does china go from here? or more to the point what kind of reforms of the sort to what extent will political and human rights reform ever take place? nobody seems to know out of bounds markets to use the gulf and phrase that increased become increasingly popular keep one shifting from day to day to region to region. free-speech circumscribed in china particularly on the internet is alive and well on the streets and semi private situations. the government is trying to manage and challenge for a combination of technology, modern d'aspin techniques and old fashioned group force. what i find most intriguing is the middle class seems to at least have a vested interest in political plurality and the vote of hundreds of millions of poor people with different political priorities. this is not purely a party driven phenomenon.

the lack of the constitutional democracy is for the moment at least a desired part of the deal driven by the middle class is. the government knows that the delivery of comfort to the private realm will determine its success and the longevity of the hegemony of the communist party. and russia which i've been visiting regularly for 30 years i focus on people i've known from a time when the expression to get ahold of something was more important than to buy when foreign trouble was allowed only through sanctioned groups. these friends solid the failure of the coup in '91 and the collapse of the system. the discover freedoms and reveled in them before boris yeltsin consolidated his power by manipulating the election of 96 with the approval of the west. dr. seat and associated with chaos. the ascent of vladimir putin in 2000 was in keeping with his ties the security clampdown coinciding with the search of

wealth things to the global price of oil and gas. as the country became rich and more assertive, my russian friends would decide a slogan that the only three seats in the english language that were important word and he may have to be british chelsea and [inaudible] [laughter] while journalists and human rights campaigns continue to ask questions the vast majority acquiesce in the pact. they've continued to fear their fortunes and properties could at any point be seized. that is why they took the money abroad with the enjoy the fruits of their private freedoms and left the politicians and those in the security elite to rule unimpeded. the next chapter looks of the pure symbol of the global pact, the united emirates specifically the city of dubai and the more discreet about be. that during the times on the floor is in new york and london went shanghai, mumbai or

goodbye. [laughter] from the young pitcher streeters to the russian mobsters to the b list celebrities the ruling sheikhs from property deals to the tax-free salaries in return for keeping out of trouble. that phrase comes back again and again. in dubai they were even more accommodating putting religious concerns to one side to allow westerners to lead their lives as they wish prosecuting six will join in this place only in extremists. monuments to conspicuous wealth sprung up around as the fight with each other for luxury. they believe the model was new to the western economic crisis. to buy in particular to a major hit. and now we know the consequence. the second part of the book is the most challenging part of the book. it looks up countries that profess adherence to the democracy. i began with india which prides itself on having the world's most popular of the party system. as china's economy salt and part of india's corporate elite wondered whether that form of

government was an impediment to prosperity. india's rich divide its own past. it would provide for itself the basic services the state failed to deliver. the would make fewer demands and return. it would require the government to leave it alone to make money and keep the poor away from its door. this arrangement was challenged less by the economic crash and more by the terrorist attacks and mumbai of late 2008. for the first time the affluent class is were caught up in the violence as it reflected in the a. they demanded protection. but all the countries in the world wide choose in the league might ask. it matters not because of any particular geostrategic relevant but because it serves as an example of a sham democracy. in terms of its institutions, it only feels almost every challenge. the checks on the exit to parliament the media and the judiciary seen their dependency road. corruption is rampant, and yet,

three times the voters freely and fairly have chosen narrative for the financial irregularities the affection for autocrats like putin and the general vulgarity. he has outwitted his opponents with constant appease seeking to expand his power. it is easy to dismiss his antics but his enduring popularity among a large swathe of the population highlights the extent to which the notional democracies can thrive and even depend on the same exercise of arbitrary power in authoritarian states are criticized for. in 1997, the accession of the center-left government in the u.k., they prided itself on deliveries should have been an inspiring moment. yet in a decade britain has gone a long way to dismantling civil liberties. it now possesses the fifth of the world's closed-circuit television cameras.

it has followed the world's most primitive level laws which i'm happy to say we are in the process of changing, and recently as opposed the law under the guise of anti-terrorism that allow the rest of anyone taking photographs to the police are members of the armed forces. a government seeking one of the longest terms of the pre-trial custody of terrorist suspects brandishes its offer to grant credentials are doing they are generally well received by the public and in many cases they are particularly before their closely analyzed. i look at a government that abrogates the responsibility to produce a more equitable society instead in a demonstration of what psychologists might call this place that you read it exercises power it has to clamp down on public freedoms. i am keen to understand how british society seems so ready to acquiesce to the erosion of the freedoms until rather late in the day. my u.k. chapter has been seen by commentators have critical. i do not disagree.

my last is here the united states where the practice has been played out most physically. the chapter trees is the effect on society from the port of 9/11, the iraq war and the abuse that surrounds the world tour. george bush's near conservative mission had gone out of the mixture tubers and frustration. the removal of saddam hussein would be the catalyst to the overthrow of dictator is in the middle east and beyond. the detailed has been the result of not just double standards but of the deeper confusion about democracy promotion. world democracy of itself was unused to the end. shut multi-party elections the interest in states where the outcome might produce regime hostile to the west and to the concept of the democracy might concern may produce ethnic or political instability. domestically bush presided over a security clampdown that was really challenged by the mainstream politicians or public opinion. they were failing to hold power on many of the greatest

issuances. an entry in my book of late 2001 and reference to the call by the attorney general john ashcroft to confine missile to all patriotic foxberry almost no one is descending. it's hard to dissent from poor proposition of the perpetrators of crime as monstrous as 9/11 are were the targets of america's negative and diplomatic power, he wrote. but journalism has been replaced by an unprecedented flood of gush and much. john ashcroft can relax because people have been listening to their inner ashcroft. [laughter] to what extent with the arrival of barack obama reverse the democratic erosion at home and america's loss of democratic credibility abroad? certainly the nature of the election provided a much-needed boost to the credentials of america's constitutional democracy. it is too early to call the obama administration. there are enough instances that the glasses either half or half empty to reserve judgment.

however the new administration in which many around are paring their faith has been the work at the time of eroding american power. lease and a gentleman, in conclusion that even if the past decade would surely undermine the claim that the enrichment of the country or the growth of the middle class provides the impulse towards greater liberty. with the feces of the new democracy has surely been refuted by the past 20 years of materialist aspirations. during this period, people in all countries found a way to disengage from the political process while living in comfort. consumerism provided the alternate anesthetic to the brain. my discoveries debate could discoveries are discomforting to understand and to judge it has been the instinct of the politician to seek power and to hold on to by fair means or foul.

less understood are the reasons why so many of us an offer it. and yes space states elect us, and why so many of us ask why we do it. whatever system we happen to live under our priorities are more similar than we would ever want to admit. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for the alarming but fascinating presentation. i would like to open the floor to discussion and i ask that would wait until the microphone comes to you and please identify yourself. >> we had a speaker about six weeks ago -- the international peace institute. we have a speaker six weeks ago timothy ferris, wonderful science writer, and he was talking about some of the things

you're talking about and he had a theory about china i wanted to ask what you think of it because it sounds at odds with what you are saying. coming from his science background he thought the denial of the public freedoms that you mentioned what in the and undermine chinese progress because any sign of scientific conferences he went to war science is mixing freely and speaking freely with no restraint treat all kind of ideas and incentivized one another to strike progress and he basically said ten years from now if the chinese economy is still rolling forward while still denying its people public freedom his whole thesis would be undermined. what do you think of that vv and am i bulkeley we will have never before to ask a second question i think you will indulge me when i tell you why. during the years i lived and worked in the u.k. he was a superb political commentator for the bbc, and i the second question i love to ask you and i hope that you will be interested

in the answer is this selection of coming in the u.k.. is david cameron -- >> i know the answer. [laughter] is david cameron, gordon brown will he remain prime minister will you have a on the part of it. [laughter] >> i am but a journalist. [laughter] on the first point, you get right into the heart of the question and the challenge of the 20th century authoritarian regimes. in the policy-making terms such as to call decouples makers don't do that anymore but there has to be a new set of policies to understand where these offering authoritarian states are coming from and more important where they are going and as distinct from cold or

totalitarian regimes. they share many common frustrations that they are not the same and the reason in my opinion they are not the same is the no or they are beginning to try to work out how to switch the cap on and off again and the simplest thing is never to switch it on. that is quite a simple approach to rebut. the two main impulses for a certain relaxation in china and some other countries are one that you cite, the question of academic freedom that creates creativity, peer review, strong girl learning basis, stronger sense of challenge in business circles is absolutely discussed. what they are trying to work out is how you do it and it is a limited contact for how this

kind of constructive debate to take place without ever moving into the political arena and the other one is always cited the one about governments in other words you need an element of investigation and criticism to smoke out corruption and at a local level particularly regional level and if you don't have that you will have continuing corruption and bad government. i don't think they've worked it out. what i absolutely -- my next point is not directly related to your question but stems from it i am absolutely convinced this thinking that a lot of the chinese and russians and others continue to propagate namely just give us time we want to get to the same place and is actually not the case. there is a good argument to say where they are is roughly where they wish to be with improvement which is quite different.

on the u.k., i don't know the baseball equivalent is put in nassau eckert terms, the conservatives were fighting the halftime and had four goals against the batt team and in the second half and there are 5-for and their backs are against the wall. it is astonishing in brought democracy terms it is very discouraging you have a government that is pretty widely disparaged, gordon brown has been the butt of so many jokes and sympathy the last two years and get he is a campaigner. david cameron seems to have the worst manifestations of 20 blair

and other words -- i know you'll love him. [laughter] someone has to. in terms of being good on talk shows and he looks good and he talks well but actually been quite superficial about his, that is david camerons problem is to the republicans here the conservative vote and how much do you reach out so the real party to watch which is the party i have now gone to endorse is the liberal democrats who are now approaching 25% in the polls against labor in the 30's and it seems very likely that we are going to have as you know the expression of the hung parliament no party having an overall majority and european-style coalition but it's going to be on a --

unstable. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> international journal intelligence. we have run a number of articles over the years that have taken initio with the whole concept of the increased monitoring populations given that it hasn't achieved one should and has in fact restricted the personal freedom and unnecessarily and ineffectively. however, berman, the liberal writer probably expressed it best in his book terror and liberalism and the question remains and cells against individuals who are not an artist's who do have some connection to an international attempt to overthrow society and they are not wearing uniforms but they are waging combat against you say you kind of go unprotected. what do you do then? this is a real challenge we can

talk about the than the practical applications become something else. so ticket to the next step. >> as i hope you will find in reading the book the book is not challenging the basic premise secure society. i have kids. we were in london the day that the buses were bombed. you want to have a secure and safe society. the question is how far do you want to go and it has been asked all the time. just remove it from terrorism from a second. just look at ordinary criminality. somebody said to me coming back to the question of the dtv and the u.k.. i was saying to i really want [inaudible] the average person next time you were in london going about your

business you will be filmed 200 times. you will probably say what's the problem? i'm not doing anything wrong. somebody once said to me there is no problem and it doesn't work. [laughter] but seriously somebody said to me what is your problem because you want your daughters to come home safe at night and i said yes of course i do that does that mean i need a camera on every street corner to deliver that? and basically after our small of version of 9/11, tony blair proclaimed the rules of the games have changed. and yes they had, but how far do you want to go? where is the balance if you wish to strike? is the perennial answer. and the only point that i think

philosophically of the government's need for the citizens that it's very hard for them to do it politically is the government, the state cannot provide absolute security and if you want the state to provide absolute security you have to go elsewhere. there are countries that do provide that. so as soon as you accept that you cannot have absolute security, as soon as you accept you can walk out of this building now and be shot than you are already in the same place that i am in which is where is the trade-off and that is the debate, how far and what in my opinion was troubling for me this country in 2001 and in the 2005 period but other countries it is at different times, too, was not the quite

legitimate and understandable response of the government. it was the lack of challenge that might have sought to elicit from the mainstream journalism and others in public life to say yes we are all traumatized by the security but there has to be carefully calibrated and not knee-jerk response. >> you seem to be analyzing the situation as a journalist, that is what is going on now. but in a place like the carnegie council, we often want greater depth in the sense that there are different historical traditions that explain tendencies in a country beginning with china for example

which has always been authoritarian with of the middle kingdom trying to control the rest of the country or russia and so forth. and there is the new pride of this growing importance in the world which encourages people to accept what is going on possibly as you are describing it. but on the other since if we go to the anglo-american tradition of debate and democracy and glorious revolution and possibilities could change in political systems and so forth one would imagine would be more of a debate on certain issues and others. it's just part of the political process. and what would you suggest for the future? at least having a long time

continuing? >> you make a very valid points. i make constant reference in the book to cultural specificities. however, what i conspicuously refrain from doing is using geographical or genetic justifications for the pattern of behavior. i personally think it's too easy. i take great issue with these values and i had great fun in the beating that and with others and of course there are specificities to all societies and as you elude to historical strain in anglo-saxon from

various manifestations of continental european but these strains can be used as justifications for certain patterns of behavior that might take a bill that too easy for every one singapore there is hong kong for every hong kong there is taiwan. and even within the cultural norms quite great variations in patterns of political behavior and the other point is rarely explored and perhaps could be explored by others in future times as if you look at globalization in terms of capital flow and in terms of the behavioral aspects of purchasing and branding over the past 20 years and this book is very much

about 1989 to 2009 and what has happened during societies what is fascinating is the interplay between the homogenization of the society's through globalization and it also the cultural specificities that you are talking about and those are still being played through now. but the illness that that i talk about is a cross-cultural one and it is one might think that has been under discussed except in a somewhat rhetorical sense and the effect that conspicuous consumption and the elevation of conspicuous consumption to being pretty much the primary driver of the society in just about every society and what that has done not just to the other priorities but also to the internal dynamics of those societies and i think it came

home to me when our own garden from said six months or so ago when the economy was at one of its lowest that citizens had a patriotic duty to shock. [laughter] >> the authoritarian regimes were a constant theme of the 1930's and the beginning of the second world war it appeared the authoritarian totalitarian regimes are far more successful than democracy and people cite the fact that ultimately the democracies one has basically the argument in favor of democracy was authoritarianism. other observers say the reason the democracies one is the extraordinarily capacity for the

united states to generate weapons and the soviet people and the nazis. if our democracies can't produce the kind of economic wealth people have been hoping for how much hope is there for democracy >> that is the issue the tree in the cold war was primarily -- the economic victory of the cold war was the driver, it was mikhail gorbachev a couple of days ago reflecting on strike --

stroika. we cannot go along the way we are going on the political reforms that happened. it was the lack of viability of the soviet centralized economy that produced the changes and now again the 21st century challenge of these authoritarian states russia is on a different level because its economy is both highly powerful but also highly based on oil and gas and diversifications exploitations has not happened and its both a frighteningly powerful in terms of the provision of energy. it has great potential to bully but it doesn't have a great deal of potential elsewhere. but obviously the challenge for

china and brazil and elsewhere is what is happening to western economic models which whose success provided to the political model as soon as that is being challenged as we are now seeing with america's continued spats with china than it is a much greater challenge to democracy. and with democracy and democracy promotion is to fold and festival attracted and the economic benefits to the recipient countries. and that is not the case in other -- it is not the case. and secondly the best form of democracy promotion is one where you have your house in order and starting at. and in the two bush

administration's the period that wasn't the case. your books history and democracy, treating liberalism is understandable but my understanding of the word democracy is a majority rules. your statement of support you said 99% of the people not just using a statement willingly exceeds to this loss of the private freedoms. and the sense is that is democracy it might not be liberalism and it's certainly not constitutional republicanism but it is democracy is the quarrel that the majority is happy with doing what it's doing or are you saying as you are saying with the cameras 99% of

the people like cameras you don't and i don't either by the way. so the question comes down to how do you use the word democracy as opposed to maybe the greater good as liberalism should triumph over the years but democracy is full force and effective? >> singapore has specifics. it does have a two-party elections and in fact it has i think in the last election the opposition gained between 30 or 40% of the vote although i think it only gained two or three out of 70 and that is because the particular electoral procedures taking place. china i was struck by the extent to which is a question that often comes with democratization

particular muslim states as well how the middle class's, the people with power and with aspirations saw a danger in the disbursement of political power to one person, one vote because it would produce unintended consequences and that has been in washington policy the great debate over the last 20 or 30 years to spread space values or do you spread democracy itself which are not necessarily the same thing and is a democracy with the behavior of a society more in the line with those of the space states conform to and if you give universal votes you do not necessarily produce the outcome and i say that new trial. i do not say that from advocating one or the other. i suppose i do use the terms

interchangeably at times because what i am questioning is not necessarily i suppose for me being a free expression advocate which to you guys you would say so what you have a first amendment we don't and at the kidding freedom of expression in the u.k. as you are regarded strange, somebody described expression as a fundamentalist desperation. and i suppose the issue for me is the desire for people to enter into the public realm. it is a vigorous body politics and a vigorous civil society manifested in whatever way suits the specificity of that country. it's multi-party democracies

produce that taha or through a secure democracy that's fine. if other mechanisms produce that that is fine, too. what has happened is the retreat from -- you can have democracy is just as you have in the world think it peaked in 2000 or 2001 the number of countries it categorized as democracies. the issue in my book is not so much the quantity of democracy but the quality of those autocracies. the most effective democracies are those where you have the most active body politic and the most active citizenry taking part in the debate and the construction of the society.

>> i've lived in this country for 40 years and i don't mind the cameras. and the fact that it's become safer living in manhattan than my time the police have been increasing in numbers and you can actually walked on the street and see police and manhattan used to be budget cuts. i wanted to change the perspective on this because you talked about security democracy. i wanted to focus on finance and public democracy because i have a fear but on this question i have the fear that when our society is taken away by the local gestapo or the taliban we will have better teeth, shoes on

our feet and our prosthetic devices will be [inaudible] but we will have declined because of we cannot stop -- we cannot control of public finances. when i can to this country the states would always bailout municipalities if the state got into trouble the federal government would bail out the state or help the state. everybody's broke now. my grandchildren go to school in wyoming which has a very small population. the school is excellent. they built new schools when it's necessary. they pay the teachers and equip the schools. the reason is the states have a lot of money from oil and gas royalties and they have abolished the will so what i am saying is maybe the socialist models of the big states like new york and california and the u.k. and europe are going to ruin us. would you say to that?

[laughter] >> well, i'm not sure where to begin i mean, the book -- this is not a book about different economic models. this is not about more centralized european although some of these cliches are just that. so it is not comparing and contrasting economic models. it does reflect anxiety around the financial crash but more around the question of i have been surprised and disappointed both during the final stages of writing the book and subsequent to writing the book about the

lack of follow-through on any really serious questioning on the economic models, which ever economic model you subscribe to or otherwise. with the financial crisis. whether that is the independence of states or the couple of the financial-services sector or wherever else. there's a bit of discussion at the beginning of last year and now the only question is to be whether we will be emerging from the recession having continuing with certain improvements in regulation on derivatives and other areas. that is the only comment i make. i think that whatever economic construct you can come up with.

you can construct a healthy democracy around it as long as there is enough creativity. i'm not across the level of u.s. indebtedness in the u.k.. we're looking at 20 or 15 years of a century coming up. >> i would like to ask how do you think religion into country affects the culture and how we believe and so on so forth. >> i just did a book in a london so i would defer to others.

i would be entirely neutral in terms of these desires or otherwise of religion to play its part in the body politics. as long as the arguments were aired in a very healthy and robust way. what worries me in this country and what worries me and other countries, too is the increasing tendency to regard the other point of view as bonds. whether it is so in terms of religion by don't see it playing a significant either negative or positive role in the question of the public freedoms and private freedoms, the freedom to worship is a very significant private freedom and it was one of those that was denied many of

society's for very long. but beyond that whether it should become a public freedom and you turn it into a public review our definition almost turning it into a public requirement. internet and people's aspirations? >> the internet has for far too long been generally regarded as a great payments peter, as the great leveller indicator. it is all of those things. what it is not, however, in my opinion, is a great agitator. in many ways with the internet is doing, i mean, there are many

exceptions accept because such as the protest in iran last summer within a matter of minutes or hours on twitter the political dynamic changed albeit temporarily so it does have still the power for the social networking has a power of galvanizing. what i am not seeing is with the internet appears to be doing it inadvertently increasing the ionization of society you can find out what it is that you as an individual and you as a family need to find out for yourself is in many ways removing people from the public realm as much as placing them in the public realm and it's quite interesting the more sophisticated authoritarian regimes are getting increasingly

clever about switching on and switching off the task of the internet. you can give people sufficient enough information they're getting access doses of it and switch off again and he switched on again and allow people that is the function of the cattle. [inaudible] it keeps them off the street so what does interestingly work both ways and it's working in different parties and in russia it's very little internet censorship of any description and that is largely because of an aging population and about lack of internet and internet influence on public life where as many younger societies, demographically under society is the need to control but as far

greater. >> that concludes the program for today. i want to thank you for being with us. the book is available for you to purchase. [applause] >> john kampfner is the former editor of the new statesman. he was also a political correspondent and commentator for the financial times and the bbc. for more information, visit jkampfner.net. >> we are here at the cpac conference talking with tom.

can you tell us what was your favorite book to write? >> that is a good question. i would say probably the first 1i had success was god and ronald reagan because it was a shock. i started writing a book on ronald reagan and the cold war generally, and it never intended or talked about his faith and as i started going through the primary sources the letters, the hand written speeches, interviewing people who knew him i can to this deep face i didn't expect to find three people were suspicious as whether he was even religious including a lot of conservatives because astrologers, ronald reagan didn't go to church on a regular basis but as i read, as i went to the reagan library and i read speeches like the evil empire speech and looked at the actual documents i salles reagan's handle all over it. there is a big file at the

reagan library called the presidential hand writing file which is documents that has reagan's rating on just signature and that is an input and i saw the speech at least half of it was written by reagan including the very the logical person and i was dealing with somebody much more substantive than the character suggested when he was president. so i ended up with a couple of chapters on reagan and three or four chapters and have the books circulated the manuscript among my colleagues and the sydney to splinter this off and do the book on just reagan's face. so that became god and ronald reagan and then later about three years after that we released a crusader ronald reagan and the fall of communism which was more generally about reagan's role in the end of the cold war and that term the

crusader was also surprised because i found out in reading soviet archives and soviet media archives the soviets called them the crusader and the call them that because he knew he wanted to crusade for freedom. crusade in the sense how fdr used the word and eisenhower used the word so that was i guess one of my ronald reagan's closest adviser on the judge william p. clark ronald reagan's b5 top hand here's somebody still alive, he is 78-years-old, 79 this year, lives in california, has parkinson's disease and he was reagan's it sounds dramatic but he was the secret weapon so to speak. he was a man who for all of 1982 and '83 worked at reagan's national security council and

laid out the paper trail of this very explicit directives with intentioned of peacefully taking down the soviet union and bringing democracy where they put it in the documents political quarrelsome to eastern europe and soviet union. so that was the july because myself, my family, we spent a couple of summers across the ranch interviewing him daily, getting to know him and his family and that is a case where it wasn't just a matter of looking at documents and looking at books and other things people had written i actually got to know the figure and spend a lot of time with him. >> how did you come to write about hillary clinton? >> lagat and ronald reagan book started the trend i guess. my editor at harpercollins -- at time there hadn't been any

books. stephen's book david aiken's book, both on bush's state. those hadn't come out yet so i did that and then a couple of years not long after that came out she came back to me and said would you like to do another god and bouck? i said i don't want to spend my whole career with the god and books by and intrigued by the face of the clinton bill and i sit here are two democrats, religious democrats, religious left and i would like to try to remind people that the only christians out there are not conservative christians, there are liberal christians and it would be really good to look at somebody from that point of view plus i felt that hillary clinton would be president frankly i really did. so that cannot commit donner and hillary clinton in 2007 and that was fascinating. i really enjoyed studying the that as well.

>> what is your next project? >> i am working on a cold war look and it will be out this fall through isi books, intercollegiate studies. they were doing an amazing book. donahey was the new book and read up the offering. it's kind of 20th century history book books that look at the long roll of the communist movement in the united states and in particular how the communist movement tried to get noncommunist liberals to support communist causes. >> just remind us the latest book on the shoals of yours is? >> i just -- the last one would have been in 2007, the judge william p. clark and the hillary clinton, got and hillary clinton came out in 2007 which by the way it was too much at once and i've got to slow down. i've got five kids at home. enough is enough. >> what are you reading these days?

>> there is a book out by laurence three's called world war ii behind closed doors which i am reading and fascinated by that. clarence thomas's book very interesting. i'm always reading about half a dozen different books at once. i am going back to thomas's book the seven store remounted which i think was published in 48 or 49 so it is a little bit old but timeless, great spiritual autobiography. right now basically those are the three books i'm working through. >> thanks for a much for your time. ..

>> monica langley, why did you name your book "tearing down the walls?" >> the subject of the book, sabbedy while, has spent his entire life in the financial industry tearing down walts. when he started on wall street, it was like a club. when he made his biggest acquisition of citicorp and created citigroup, he tour down the banking walls to put into effect this monster. >> tell us about him. >> he's a larger-than-life figure. he is -- he started from nowhere, and today, as you know, he's the most important financial ceo in the world. president bush calls him to ask what he sees in the economy. robert rubin, the former treasury secretary, works for him. but at the beginning, he was the person least likely to succeed, which is what's so fascinating. and you still see that insecurity and worry and fear

and loving accolades even today, now that he's a billionaire. c-span: here's a picture of him with some golfers, and one of those golfers is gerald ford. what's his role in all this? >> guest: gerald ford was his first trophy director. when sandy first made his first empire, called shearson, he got gerald ford, after he was out of the presidency, to be a director. and they have become friends for 20 years, and gerald ford has become rich by holding the stock in sandy's companies. and he's very appreciative to sandy for that. c-span: how did he get bob rubin to work for him? >> guest: you know, that was a major coup. as you know, everybody wanted bob rubin when he came out of the clinton administration. and sandy was sandy. he can be a salesman, from when he was selling little stocks as a young man on wall street, to today. he wooed rubin, calling him every day, meeting with him every day for 30 days, and finally got rubin to join on. c-span: here's a picture of three people. he's in the center -- james robinson, who used to head up american express, on the right. the one on the left is james robinson's second wife, as you

know. and she used to work for the republican national committee. >> guest: right. linda gosden robinson. c-span: yes. >> guest: it's a great story between jim robinson and sandy weill. jim robinson is a patrician, chairman of american express. he brought in sandy when he bought shearson, and they were the exact opposites, and they could not get along. and ultimately, jim robinson won out over sandy weill over who would control american express, and it was sandy's most public defeat in his career. but today they're friendly. c-span: you said that... >> guest: don't burn bridges. c-span: ... this man in this picture down here is the largest stockholder in citigroup. >> guest: that's right, prince... c-span: what's his name? >> guest: ... al waleed, prince al waleed of saudi arabia. he holds about 5 percent of citigroup. he's obviously one of the richest men in the world. and he bought citicorp stock originally in the '90s, when the company was on its knees and being practically run by the fed. and today it's, you know, skyrocketed. and when sandy went to visit him in the saudi desert, he was trying to win a spot over john reed to take over citigroup, once the men merged travelers

and citicorp. kind of drawn out, but he's an important figure. c-span: so here he is, dressed in arab garb. >> guest: exactly. c-span: you say he's jewish and grew up in brooklyn. >> guest: right. bensonhurst. c-span: with an arab in the desert. and you say -- i mean, one of the themes of your book is that being jewish was difficult on wall street. why would that be? >> guest: you know, it's really interesting to look back in the 1950s. it was a very waspy place, although there were some jewish firms, like goldman sachs and others, but believe it or not, those firms tended to look down upon eastern european jews and were more german jewish. so sandy is the son of polish immigrants, and so he was kind of the wrong kind of jew. but his whole life has been a lot of class struggle, not just jewish but coming from -- having no connections, no polish, you know, and he's kind of had to have these class struggles through his whole life. c-span: here he's pictured with former president clinton and jesse jackson. what's this about? >> guest: interesting.

jesse jackson and he are very close friends today. jesse jackson initially was going to opposone of sandy's acquisitions in the early '90s, and they met. and at that point, they bonded over their shared discrimination that they had felt growing up because sandy felt discriminated against, to some degree. jesse jackson did, and was a civil rights leader. and so the two of them bonded over several years and helped each other. it was a classic case of "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours." jesse jackson was able to start the wall street project to move his rainbow/push coalition to new york with sandy's help. so he wanted to try to push to get more minorities onto wall street. and then sandy, in return, got backing of a huge civil rights leader. when he wanted to get president clinton and congress to change the banking laws to allow his huge $83 billion merger in 1998, jesse jackson turned out to be an important ally. c-span: what degree of this was that they shared discrimination or that they shared money? >> guest: well, sandy has -- sandy and citigroup have backed jesse jackson's wall street

project. so you know, i mean, there's been -- i mean, sandy does have the ability to -- i mean, a billionaire's company is the most profitable one in the world, so he has helped jesse jackson with his causes financially. c-span: so why should someone who doesn't buy stock or pay any attention to the stock market care about your book? what's in there -- in this book that they can learn? >> guest: you know, i think that sandy's life tells the story of wall street and the financial industry for the last 50 years. and broader than that, though, it also tells the story of american society because, as you see the moves he's making in business, you also see american society changing. there's some things in there about how he tried to help carnegie hall, and he was using that also to break into the so-called "white glove society" in new york. you know, from -- he was new money versus old money. so you will see things about american history and just the pure power of a personality and how that person has changed

financial services and new york society. c-span: joe califano, former hew secretary under lyndon johnson -- what role did he play in this company? >> guest: he was a director, and he -- you know, he and sandy are not really close. however, he came on the board when sandy bought travelers, so they got to know each other then. and he is the one who advised sandy when sandy was taking over travelers, get out of the health care business. it's going to be full of politics. hillary clinton is coming on the scene. so he was instrumental in having sandy get out of what turned out to be a very troubled business. c-span: and he just fired him from the board, just like that. >> guest: yes. sandy, as you will see, he expects loyalty, but sometimes he's not always as loyal to the people, you know, who work for him or with him. and joe califano took it nicely, though, when he laid him off the board. you know, he said, ok, i've done well with this company. i understand. other directors who were long-time friends didn't like sandy shoving them aside as he

was moving up the ladder. c-span: frank zarb, former energy secretary. on the board or on -- played a role in one of these companies? >> guest: yes. yes. he -- you know what? he was the one who sandy first hired in the 1960s and the early '70s to set up a back office, which turned out to be sandy's ticket to success on wall street because sandy was never able to walk in the front door because wall street wouldn't let him in to schmooze with the brokers, and he had no contacts. so he had to go in the back door and work in the back office. he started as a runner at bear stearns in the 1950s, even though he had a college degree. and he learned the back office. and so then when he got control of a little firm, a two-office firm that he started with three others -- arthur levitt being one of them -- he knew he needed to set up a back office, and he brought in frank zarb. and they always joked that they were nobodies and they ended up doing very well financially. and frank zarb appears in and out through this book in several of sandy's companies. c-span: former cia director john deutsch. >> guest: he is -- was a loyalist to john reed. he was on the citicorp board.

and in 1998, sandy proposed to john reed in a hotel room here in d.c., when they were here for a business council meeting, let's merge our two companies, which was a totally audacious, unbelievable idea. john deutsch was on the board of citicorp, and when john reed and sandy weill ultimately fought with each other over who would control citigroup in the year 2000, john deutsch was a supporter of john reed. but sandy won. c-span: which person in this picture is john reed, the one right there? >> guest: yes, that one. c-span: and where is he today? >> guest: he's very happy out of the company. i mean, he lost a bruising battle to sandy. there was a boardroom showdown in 2000, and he lost. he thought that sandy had promised the two of them would merge their companies and leave together. john reed was ready to retire and sandy wasn't. sandy outmaneuvered him the entire time. john reed today has a house in the south of france, and he teaches some and speaks, and he's very happy. he sold citigroup stock when it was very high, and he's a happy

man not worrying with the latest stock gyrations and what the market expects citi to do. c-span: how old is sandy weill? >> guest: sandy just turned 70 march 16th. c-span: and his title today? >> guest: he's chairman and ceo of citigroup, and he has no intention of giving it up any time soon. when most men would be -- or women at the heads of corporations would be going to their golf course, he is committed to stay there until he basically salvages his reputation and citigroup after the bruising fall this past year they've had with the wall street scandals. c-span: how big a company is citigroup? >> guest: citigroup has a trillion dollars in assets. it's a market capitalization of nearly $200 billion. it is one of the top five largest companies -- u.s. companies and the biggest financial conglomerate in the world. c-span: where's it physically located? >> guest: it's based in new york city, on park avenue, and - but it is in 100 countries. i mean, it is truly -- it's -- and sandy wants to make it -- make it what a mcdonald's or

a coke is all over the world, so it stands for financial services. c-span: what does it own? >> guest: what does it own? a lot. apart from citibank, which you'll see on -- it's not everywhere, but you see it on every street corner in new york city. and also, it did own travelers, and recently divested travelers, which was a big insurance company. it also owns citicards. did you know that 20 percent or 25 percent of all credit cards are from citibank in this country? so a lot of people watching probably have a citicard. it owns citifinancial (ph), which makes consumer loans. they've obviously named everything "citi" these days. and then they have something called pfs, which are independent insurance agents that sell to the middle class. so what they -- what sandy's vision has been for a couple decades is to create a financial empire that hits every market and provides you every service -- his famous "cross selling." c-span: where does he personally live? >> guest: he has an apartment in manhattan on 5th avenue. he has a mansion in greenwich, connecticut. and then he has a weekend place in the adirondack mountains in

upstate new york. and he's just completing a -- like, a lavish yacht that -- he sold on yacht and he's getting a bigger yacht. c-span: how many children doe she have? >> guest: he has two children, a son, mark, and a daughter, jessica. they're both in their 40s, and they have both worked in and out of their father's companies to some controversy over the years. sandy used to say he was in favor of nepotism. today he'll tell you he's not. c-span: jessica, whose picture is right here, you say -- the moment -- there's a moment in the book that seems to be an important moment, when a man named jamie dimon would not promote her within one of sandy weill's companies. >> guest: yes. c-span: explain. >> guest: jamie dimon was sandy's heir apparent, and almost like a son to him. he was the alter ego, and he had started as an assistant straight out of harvard business school with sandy weill. they had -- they built citigroup together. sandy really wanted to promote jessica. she is the apple of his eye, and she's a very savvy marketer.

she wanted to head up all of the mutual funds and investment management, and jamie did not think she was ready for the job and didn't think she should do it. he thought she should go out in the field and get some experience. and when jamie refused to do that and jessica left the company, sandy and jamie's relationship was never the same. and jamie ultimately was gone. c-span: how much time have you personally spent with sandy weill? >> guest: i first met him three or four years ago, when i wrote a page-one article for "the wall street journal" on him. and then on this book, i spent about two-and-a-half years on it, and i would see sandy at least once a month. but this is not his authorized biography. it's an independent project. so i interviewed 500 people, but clearly, i wanted it to resonate with who sandy -- you know, resonate with sandy and so people would recognize him. so i tried to spend as much time as he would allow, although he went back and forth with me because he couldn't control the project. so sometimes he'd feel like cooperating and sometimes he wouldn't. but i stayed ahead and

ultimately got unprecedented access within citi. c-span: now, if you read your book, you can figure out often who talked to you. >> guest: i won't say. i mean, some people are acknowledged as sources, you know, but a lot of people didn't want to be acknowledged as sources, although everyone knew i would be describing it and writing it as a narrative, you know, to say what they were doing, thinking, talking. so you probably can see, and there's some people in the back i thank for being critical sources. c-span: let me just read a quote. this is one, and i want to ask you to talk about... >> guest: ok. c-span: ... the subject matter. "'you're not loyal'" -- this is in quotes. "'you're not loyal, you sob. '" he didn't say it. he said the full thing. >> guest: yes. c-span: "sandy reacted vociferously. 'you should show me blood loyalty, cut your wrists kind of loyalty. u di't support me. this is around -- this is page 81, and i think they're talking about cohen. >> guest: yes, peter cohen... c-span: peter cohen.

>> guest: ... who was his deputy in building his first empire. and that was when sandy was trying to get ahead and get some position at american express. he was the president without a portfolio, and jim robinson, the ceo, was basically running things and had the board locked up. so this really kind of shows you the behind-the-scenes stuff that you see. you think big business is decided by looking at the bottom line or a ledger, and they're sitting here having a fight, like brothers, about, you're not loyal to me, you sob. and you know, sandy really expected him to slit his wrists. at one point, in another scene in the book, the executives go off, and they're all fighting with each other. and some of them go in the kitchen and actually slice their fingers and, you know, have, like, a blood oath that they're going to be together. so sandy takes everything personally. that's one of his strengths and one of his weaknesses. c-span: on the page before that -- this is -- "before cohen could explain, sandy launched into a tirade, screaming, 'you don't know what the f you're talking about. you better not challenge me on this.'" >> guest: yes. c-span: there aren't many people who could have told you that. >> guest: yes. well... c-span: unless sandy told you that.

>> guest: well, if there were people in -- i mean, i acknowledge in the book that, you know, i talked to both sandy and peter cohen. and so i would obviously try to run anything by them and make sure that it's accurate. also, there were people who would have heard that in a meeting or at the bar. i don't remember exactly which one that was. but there could be other people who heard it at the time or were told it immediately after. and you know that i did reconstruct dialogue in the book to try to make it real, so you feel like you're there. and i did it in a painstaking fashion of trying to check it with the people who were there in the room, who were participants, or who were told immediately thereafter about it, to make it as -- as real as i possibly could. i mean, there's always chances there could be a word or two wrong or whatever, but i did reconstruct dialogue and tried to do it with a huge amount of accuracy. c-span: back to the lifestyle. at some point in the book, you talk about planes. >> guest: yes. c-span: how often... >> guest: he loves his planes! c-span: how often does he use a helicopter to get to work? >> guest: how often?

you know, he uses it whenever it's convenient. i mean, if he wants to bop down to washington, he'll take the helicopter. or if he wants to go -- when he was at travelers, and then he would want to go stop in greenwich or back to manhattan, he would use it. i mean, he uses whatever is convenient. he adores, however, his gulfstream -- it was a g-4, i guess now it's a g-5 -- his jet, the luxury jet. and you know, in one part, when he was trying to buy smith barney, he didn't like that the seller of smith barney had these golden parachutes. but if he was going to give up the golden parachutes, by god, he wanted that gulfstream that was on order you know? so you can see -- sandy loves his perks, and you see that throughout, that he can be -- i mean, he's like a -- slice you up, cut costs everywhere. you know, when he took over one company, he took out the coffee pots. he made them water their own plants. and then he goes to these elaborate dinners at night, where there's, you know, four different kinds of wine, six courses. you know, so he -- i mean, he would argue that his perks help

him do business and develop the camaraderie with the senior management or with the clients or the people he's doing deals with. c-span: four seasons restaurant. >> guest: that is almost a character in and of itself in the book. there's a couple places that are real characters. one is carnegie hall, and i think the other is the four seasons restaurant. it is the scene of the true power lunch. you know, the origination of the power lunch was with the four seasons restaurant. and sandy goes there because he loves to see and be seen. and when he was ousted from american express and was in corporate exile for a year-and-a-half, he took an office in the building that the four seasons restaurant is in so he wouldn't feel out of the action, so he could go down and have a big lunch and have his two martinis. and he would see the power players, and he would be one. c-span: he got a call -- i'm not sure that i remember for sure, but he -- this man right here... >> guest: isaac stern. c-span: ... gave him a call -- was it during the time that he didn't have a job? >> guest: you know, he had started -- when he was with american express, you know, that gave him an imprimatur of the establishment.

and so he went on the carnegie hall board at the time. and then when he was out of american express, he was afraid that carnegie hall wouldn't want him any more. he didn't have a position. he so identified with his company that he never thought he was worthy in and of himself. so he was -- he got a phone call from isaac stern, and he thought, oh, my god. he's getting ready to ask me to leave the board. so he volunteered, i'll leave the board. and isaac stern said, no, i'm calling -- you know, he's the famed violinist. and isaac stern said, no, i'm calling to tell you we want you more than ever. and actually, carnegie hall turned out to be sandy's salvation when he was in corporate exile in the mid-'80s because it allowed him -- he was raising funds for carnegie hall, but he got to go out and see people and talk to the powers that be to try to get their money, and it gave him something to do because he literally was sitting there, watching a quotron for a year-and-a-half, trying to do deals, and nothing was happening. c-span: now, it seems to me that if he sat there and watched that quotron every day, he had to tell you that. or either that or his assistant. >> guest: yes. c-span: was his assistant alison falls? was that her... >> guest: yes, alison falls was

his assistant, and jamie dimon was his -- they were both assistants but different capacities. c-span: jamie dimon today is where? >> guest: jamie dimon today is the chairman and ceo of bank one in chicago, the nation's fifth or sixth largest bank. and he got that job after being in corporate exile himself, when sandy fired him in 1998. after finally making the big deal and buying citicorp, sandy fired jamie in what was a very gut-wrenching incident within the company because everybody viewed them so together. and then jamie -- it took him a year or so to pick a job and get the right job, and he's now in chicago. and people today think he wants to make a wall street play so badly, you know, to compete against citi or -- and sandy, or they -- some people are quietly hoping that one day he'll come back and run citi when sandy finally exits. c-span: go back to the loyalty thing. how many people that he expected loyalty to him from did he fire over the years? >> guest: oh... c-span: start naming the ones that you can think of. >> guest: there's a stream of

names. for one thing, frank zarb you talked about. at one point, he kicked frank zarb out to bring in bob greenhill, who didn't work out, a big star investment banker. he basically pushed aside peter cohen, didn't technically fire him, but basically pushed him aside. then you can go, you know, john reed, who he's promised a, you know, great marriage at citigroup. ultimately, he pushed him out -- jamie dimon. those were the most obvious names, but it's happened a lot, whether it's a director or someone who worked for him. i mean, people realize, suddenly, they say, you know, you're not getting phone calls from sandy. he's not returned your call. you realize you're on your way out, and some people just decide to go. or sometimes he fires them. c-span: why does he think, then, people ought to be loyal to him? i mean, it seems to me, in reading your book, that no one that worked for him have ever felt at any time that they couldn't be next. >> guest: yes, i think that's true. and i think that that -- sandy uses that to his advantage because he wants them to feel on their toes and feel like they've

got to perform for him. he pushes people in the most dramatic fashion. i mean, they are -- i was calling people in reporting this book, they were in their office at 5:00 o'clock in the morning. these are people that are multi-millionaires at -- or at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, multi-millionaires running huge empires within citigroup. and he uses that to advantage to make them want to perform the best as they possibly can. and there is a thing about sandy. even though he can be a big bully and can be vicious, he also can be charming and have a really sweet side to him, believe it or not. and as a writer working on this book, i felt both sides of his personality myself. c-span: there's a quoton page 71, "'not bad for a kid from brooklyn,' he confided to a friend. 'the jews are going to take over american express, and they'll never know what hit them.'" who said that? >> guest: sandy said that. c-span: why would he say something like that? >> guest: you know, american express -- i called the chapter in the book "in the wasp nest."

it truly was a white anglo-saxon protestant empire, and the board was very much the palm beach, you know, private club set. and so you could -- the defense were so stark between sandy and his team -- you know, like franz zarb and peter cohen all started with nothing versus the button-down guys who came from privilege. you know, jim robinson was the third or four-line banker from atlanta. his family was very well known. so i don't know what provoked sandy to say that, but he used class struggle to his advantage all the time. you know, if it weren't -- if it weren't jew versus wasp in -- not that he was doing it overtly -- you know, it would be things like the rich versus poor or entrepreneur versus establishment. he felt very entrepreneurial going into american express, and they were very establishment. and they wanted to send memos, and he -- he doesn't read memos, and so he wasn't performing the american express way. you know, so a lot of these things he uses to his advantage, and they've been powerful motivators to him. c-span: above that -- "with thousands of his employees

listening, sandy sobbed openly" -- and you -- you often cite that he breaks down and cries. >> guest: yes. that is the -- that's one of the endearing qualities. he can be a really tough guy that you don't want to cross, and then he has so much emotion that, you know, when he sold shearson and he wanted to -- he announced to his company that he had built from nothing, he broke down and cried. there are a few times, as you say, in the book where he does break down and cry. he told me when he read the last chapter of this book, he broke down and cried. so he's -- he is an emotional guy. you know if he's mad, and you know if he's happy. c-span: so what's his reaction to your book. >> guest: mixed. his first reaction was -- he had it -- he wanted to -- you know, he's a control freak. all these people in powerful positions are. and he first wanted to -- when he couldn't control the book, then he wanted the galleys when it was written. i wouldn't give him the galleys.

then he wanted, like, the first copy. he kept calling me right before it came out, and i said no. finally, i said, i will give you one of the first copies that i get off the presses. you know, you are the subject of the book. i'll do that. so he was at a senior management retreat. you know, he likes to go on these retreats. he was down in the bahamas. he had a car, a driver come to my house at 7:00 o'clock on friday morning -- on a friday morning in february two weeks before the book came out -- i had just gotten my copies -- to pick it up and put it on the gulfstream jet -- they were flying down spouses and a couple other executives -- so he and a couple of his key people could read it over the weekend. i -- they came back after the weekend. i heard it was more popular than a golf game. people were canceling their golf matches. and i talked to him and several others, and his reaction -- he said, it'd be a great read if it weren't about me. but there's a lot of things he doesn't like in it, and... c-span: can you tell us some of those things he doesn't like? >> guest: ok. he doesn't like some of the points that i make about the class struggle. you know, i mean, he really

doesn't like seeing that all laid out, or some of the personal idiosyncracies of his, of, like, you know, that when he was in exile and i have him sleeping on the couch at the -- in his office above the four seasons, and he was drinking and eating a lot. and i have him sleeping on the couch with the tufted leather couch on his cheek and, you know, saliva running out his mouth. he went, why do you have to put that? you know, he doesn't like some of those things, and i told him, i had to bring you to life. i felt my mission in writing this book was to -- even though this is the world's largest financial empire, is to show what one man does. like him or hate him, you'll see what he does, and i wanted to bring him to life. and i had to bring out his humanness, to me, to make it readable to my family in tennessee or to, you know, the canyons of wall street. c-span: i wrote down some things that you said about him -- "a voracious social climber." >> guest: he loves to be seen, see each -- see the people,

johnson draws a couple defenders, and then, back of the net it goes. man city, 2-1 lead, into the half. he collects and fires, goal. fifth place. >> helping you stay current, guess what arrived in miami, florida. that's the world cup trophy. kicks off 40 days from now. south africa-mexico. still to come, johnny damon, gets a face full of shaving cream after providing ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] degree men responds to increases in adrenaline. from the new adrenaline series, comes degree men adventure.

it's on. can't you feel it? [ aretha ] can you feel that? [ man ] whoa! jeff -- eat a snickers... please. why? every time you get hungry, you turn into a diva. just eat it so we can all coexist in here. ooh, i turn into a diva. get it into your system, cranky pants. okay. thank you. better? better. will you get your knees out of the back of my seat! whoa! [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry. snickers satisfies. soak our yards in color. get our hands a little busier. our dollars a little stronger. and our thinking a little greener. let's grab all the bags and all the plants and all the latest tools out there. so we can turn all these savings into more colorful shades of doing. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. we've made a special buy on perennials. 5 for just $10.

enenen

he is contagious. can't help but laugh. heavy, brought you by your national ford dealers. not getting a lot of base hits. but they are certain he doubt ever counting for runs. you ask anyone, they like to á more ere more hit. the home run ball, and the guys that hit home runs, that proceeds a big thing, but i think better than any other time, this offense is

opportunistic. >> we have come up a couple of plays. >> last weight games, hittingover 800, with sick home runs. slider going away from him, but me had great exthey think, didn't pulmooff the ball. that's great. another detyping moment. scott olson. he was got. slide was was food. criminalled it right there. scoreless innings, and he has just answered the call. >> number three.

he's -- this ball, look at him. just 16 yards, makes the catch. extended. you got to feel good about yourself. if it's not made. i'm in the sure this isn't in the park home run. that's a routine catch the look at the standings. 10-0. new york is 13 and a. marlins are 11 will be 12. >> makes everything better. your golf game is better. easy. >> i catched you play

yesterday. >> with a guy that had a several samples whisk good. >> he did fabulous knob. after he game out of the game. he did few minutes no, ma'am no. minuscule .055. really revamp the bull pen and other as well. just continues to pick up as last year. what's been the key for your season? >> being comfortable and being a role in my leader: i've been comfortable and being able to come in and make my itches and

so good so good. >> he made -- he won the gym with that play. the whole game would have changed. that's what he brings. we love him out there. he's been huge. he was huge last night. you've passenger a nice bring. fell us what he mean to have that. >> it's hog. to have that stability in the bag of the bull pen, he brings the better presence that he's done is denver. sportsnet stepped up big time. it say i a lot.

he helps me and everybody else. >> not to take anything away, new to have a future hall of famer, how much of a calmer effect does that have on you on a day-to-day basis? >> he -- it's kind of weird thinking about him being a catcher. i grew up watching him and too hip being a part of our team is a blessing and we're trying it take it in, because he's out there you feel confident and knowing what he calls and comfortable what he's throwing. terrorist comfort to be comfortable every pitch. that is what he brings. >> back to you.

that is top right now. >> certain he is. congratulations. to our stoplight brought to you just for men. that's his number, 3-08 pitches missed. # walks, 6 holes. just as he gives the nationals # edge, you can keep it just for mustache and beard. when we continue after this. [ male announcer ] looking for a price that starts low

and stays low? look no further than fios. now pay just $99.99 a month for verizon fios tv, america's top-rated internet, and phone guaranteed for 2 years. that's fios price protection, and it saves you hundreds of dollars. fios delivers the best channel lineup and the peace of mind that comes with paying the same low price every month. call 1.888.get.fios now to lock in $99.99 with a 2-year agreement.

a price guaranteed for 2 years. we'll even include a free dvr for 6 months. call the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 800-974-6006 tty/v. [ male announcer ] achievement has its own patch of grass. ♪ achievement unleashes hidden potential. ♪ all right! achievement looks forward to dinner at home. achievement enjoys newfound freedom. i love you. [ male announcer ] mortgages, home equity loans, and lines of credit from pnc. helping achievers borrow with an eye towards the future. pnc. for the achiever in us all. welcome back. brought to you by the national ford dealers. experience ford like never

before. save money, visit commuterconnections.org to see how. >> god hard breaking ball. got into the dirt. he's going to ring him up. on a fast ball up and in. looks like a swing. sways. last two starts both starts. he gets the win of the >> got his own run average. only gave up 5 runnings, but he has a good fast ball. that's making the breaking ball effective. just a lot of balls and a

slider. hasn't gotten to much this year. >> for the marlins chris will start. >> he's off it a rough start. he's 7-13 in his career. he hasn't learned to pitch yet. 23 year ago old. 6-foot 8. first round. >> 6-foot 8, this will be a spit start. 48 year, 1-2 his record. has no decisions no wins or losses. how important is it for him to get off to a good start? >> i don't know if it's important to him. certainly don't don't give up runs, but if he starts off slowly, he can find it.

he can go give 6 innings. has a best strike ratio. >> stake a break. mr. phil woods going to be heres a we continue before game 2 marlins and gnarls when we return of the vo: playing professional baseball isn't easy... vo: but saving money with geico is. vo: geico, 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

taken a peek at the starting lineup. ten multihit games, tied for the ball clubs gain. 11 of 13 starts as catcher. center fielder at spend base, zimmerman at third after two home runs last night. josh at that spot.

buzz will be catching, roger fetes the call in right field and craig at the mound for the nationals. rodriquez against the marlin. for the mar learns hitting as a team, .3 ere .310. leads the fish and the national league in rbis. tied with dan each has 5. cameron heeds off in 7. he's in third and dan the second baseman followed by john, george bush bee at first base and there you see he leads the league with 23 rbi. welcome back up to the first

pitch tonight. when the marlins take on the nationals. they have some significance to each win ever them. that's why phil is here. i think ray has a philly cap. >> this would be the washington centers. one thing about major league baseball when you take the field you're not competely dressed unless you're wearing the cap. it's worn by baseball players since the game befreshman. simply as plan as this one. the cap the wraths wear is very much the same. it's yeah blue and the "w with

the robbed over. but the most interesting is back in the 60s. which is a cap only when they played the kansas city athletics. they bent to a green and gold color scheme and they added a www.cap. this is one of nose in the middle 1960s and they came up with one of their orphan. they also didn't play their spirit steaks. it didn't make them play better. they weren't available to the public they were passed out wi the equipment packager and picked up at the end of that series. after 1967 they moved to

oakland and they subpoenaed playing the cops. they took all the caps and took them away epp today only a couple wendy ryan known to exes. this was worn by starting pitcher back in the middle 19 of 0s. caps are available in stores. if you wanted a real cap you had to steal one or hope a player would give you one. you couldn't buy them in sores. except they with respect really voling in stores. >> there are you have it. there were available back in the 60s and 70s. know we know they'll pay $30 a at. that's interesting. >> of course it was two games

bad team the. >>hill inside fashion. we appreciate that. >> please. i have socks on. >> we have put together great plays. there's a lot of yet plays back at you we'll show crow the april plays of the month when we continue in i'm. on demand per month. ah, standard. gotcha. en"t our cast weather conditions

tonight, 81 degrees. humidity east southeast at 15. game time clear. 3.0 is all you need to know. marlins getting ready. that's extra before and after. but it's a 1 so start.

m, sn game. atlanta braves tuesday night an thursday night rein the marlins come to town next weekend. catch them here and the first time we've sixteen atlanta in tun in washington this year. going to be fun. mets come back here early on we go through the east quite a bit. >> record of 13 and 10. one-half game out of the's. nationals on a 3-game waning trek. let's have durasite back and relax and enjoy with us april flash backs. >> morgan is running it. in it, first. that's untruer of. there he goes. that ball is driven.

straight away center. gone. with a pick. got to throw pick. that's a line drive. game over. catch. miracle in left. by willie harris. caught. he gets it. he gets it. scores two runs. should score two. all the rbis. gonzalez.

throws up one. big slow breaking ball. by gop stall ez. what a catch. major league debut. his first major league strikeout. fast ball up. can't catch him. two outs. clifford throwing hard today. wow. 21 pitches. 17 strike. swing and a miss. 5 for 5. he's out. right on the corner.

he's gone. he taking him up and in. 8th career out. pitch and throws him out. accidentallerman, looks at that. zimmerman dodgers are back, butt not for long. see you later. anderson again. how far in the night is this going? >> pop up. maxwell. two outs. what a catch. 10 out of 10. out into center. morgan, he's got it. amazing play. amazing stuff. i think sometimes the people we

don't give them much credit. fabulous fabulous work with steve to put that together. >> that make our job so easy. we have to have the support of video. mt. you our produce, it's fun. can i go open? >> sure. when you look at zimmerman, leading the ball club, last eight games mitting .4 00. loves to play against the marlins. >> that's average for him. he's now hitting against the rogue. he's one of the best of all time. he's going to end up with 3,000 hits and av i've watched him he's city the best catcher of all time, but he doesn't take a

back seat receiving. hmm you look at him who leads the major looks in save, run erg until the scoring position against him -- >> that's goodbye you always waiting for that a stat to correct themselves, he's thrown 2 inside, least been a good hitter every fightmented one outing that can even be questioned. they are woking off of each other. >> sky high, you know, some people night mighten say craig, some people might be say it's early in the season, one month is phone. defense isn't going to hold up. they are a bold ball club, they

are going to give a lot of teams a tough time. >> lest sew physical they can keep it going. ray night, bob and rob coming up next.