the passage from word to image in the miracle called reading. this man who's all of his art was the art of transition. he had found in the challenge the occasion to realize his art of transition. by producing works that we can't stop returning to. "the cat in the hat." other questions? >> one more. >> please. >> what do you perceive was for theodore seuss geisel that element of survival? i mean this he just kept persevering. >> the question is how did theodore geisel sustain that element of perseverance, that element of survival? when geisel was asked by

interviewers as he was many, many times, how do you create these things? he said, i stay at my desk eight hours a day, every day. whether it's coming or it's not coming. because i know that as long as i patiently stay with it, it'll come. he says, it's like a well. you don't know when you are going to hit the water. but once you hit it, it gushes. and doesn't stop. well theodore geisel stopped surviving, september 24th, 1991, he acknowledged that he was about to die. when he turned to his stepdaughter, lee grey, and gave to her the transitional object,

the dog that had been with him and been his ally as an artist. from the first day he produced a noodle on the wall, and then sometimes around 10:30 at night, he passed from sleep into his work that has changed how we dream forever. when theodore geisel died, dartmouth had 24 hour reader of all of his work. and obituaries appeared across the planet. and they celebrated dr. seuss for the mercy killing of dick and jane. and art imagined a scene in

heaven in which a man in a hat sees another man approaching. and the man in the hat turns to the man approaching and says, hello. i guess you are dr. seuss. welcome. and dr. seuss looks at that man in the hat and he says, miles davis died three days earlier. i guess you are the cat in the hat. [laughter] >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> donald pease is an english and african-american english literature. mr. pease was awarded the ted and helen geisel chair in 1990. for more information, visit

norwichbookstore.com. >> author claire berlinski discusses the importance of prime minister margaret thatcher in her latest book "there is no alternative." this is an hour-long event. >> should i sit? >> you can sit. you can stand if you want. you can correct it as i go. >> we'll do this together then. you know i will. >> yeah, i was afraid you might. good afternoon and welcome to the heritage foundation, i'm john hilboldt, director of seminars, it's my privilege to welcome you. we welcome those who join us on the heritage.org web site as well as those who will join us in the future on c-span book tv. we would ask everyone in house to make the courtesy check that cell phones had been turned off, and we will post the program within 24 hours on our heritage web site for everyone's future

reference. we are pleased to welcome today claire berlinski, he's a freelance investigator journalist, travel, biographer, and novelist who lives currently in istanbul, he's the author "why continents crisis is america's." and "there is no alternative: why margaret thatcher matters" which newt gingrich said every american should read and theodore has described as power defense of thatcher's record as ever to be written. her journalist has been written in the "new york times" "los angeles post," "first post," "the american," "new york sun," "national review," "radio free

europe," "travel and leisure" among others. she's the author of two spy novels and frequent guest on national and international radio and talk shows. she received her degree in modern history and international relations from oxford. she has lived around the world and worked in britain, thailand, laos, france, and turkey. please join me in welcomes claire berlinski to the heritage foundation. claire? [applause] [applause] >> my. thanks for coming. that sounded like a really impressive introduction, didn't it? i can't wait until my mother hears that. i'm here to talk about why margaret thatcher matters. i think some of you may also came to hear me talk about turkey. is there anybody that came to hear me talk about turkey? you did. anyone else? how would people feel?

i think you ought to hear me talk about turkey. i think it would be good for you. how would people feel about saving 15 to 25 minutes to talk about turkey? all right. okay. so the title of my book is "there's no alternative: why margaret thatcher matters." i think because i'm speaking at the heritage foundation, i may not need to convince you. am i right? okay. we're going to assume she matters. there's a basic understanding about why she matters. i'm going to talk about why she's relevant to the upcoming election, the people who put together the strategy for putting the conservatives and margaret thatcher in power in 1979, how they viewed the situation in britain at the time which i think was analogous to a spooky degree to what we're

seeing in the united states now, and what they thought needed to be done both to put her in power, and once she was in power, to reverse britain's seemingly terminal decline. okay? so first the points of analogy between britain in 1979 and the united states today. what really needs to be remembered that britain in 1979 was considered a hopeless case. the question within -- among conservatives was not can this be reversed, but how can we manage the terminal decline? socialism was pretty far advanced. it wasn't the ussr, but major industries were nationalized, the economy was a parless state, relations with labor were -- well, labor was in charge. the government wasn't.

and elections had been fought on this point and the government had lost the trade unions were making the country ungovernable. widespread sense of pessimism. britain was seen as no longer a major power of great significance. now when people ask whether america's decline can be reversed, that really needs to be kept in mind. because margaret thatcher did reverse it. it was further gone in the united states. and she did reverse it. point one: let's talk a little bit about the people that put together her campaign strategies. three people that i want to talk about today. keith joseph, and john hoskins, and nigel lawson who game her chancellor. i want to talk about one

document in particular, which is a stepping stones report. has anyone heard of the stepping stones report? anyone who hasn't read my book. okay. i've actually got it here. i really want to draw your attention to. written by john hoskins who was the head of her policy unit. hoskins was an extremely influential figure in her first government. he subsequently resigned on the grounds that she wasn't radical and conservative enough. he was government was famously divided into the wets and dries. he thought that thatcher herself was a little bit damp. that tells you a little bit about him. but for the first few years that she was in power, it was his blueprint that they were following. and i think it's a really neglected document because it really tells you how they were thinking, and it tells you how we should be thinking.

the points of analogy are relevant. before i talk about the points of analogy, i want to talk about the obvious points of disanalogy. they are not facing the massive problem with inflation. not now, not yet. and we are not -- the economic debate is not focused around our trade unions. our trade unions are not running the show. when i discuss the document, i want you to mentally substitute the analogous points on the stimulus for trade unions and benefit programs for nationalized industries. and the reason that i'm going to suggest these are points of analogy is because we are talking about ways that the government is controlling the economy. will everyone go along with me that far? will everyone agree to accept we can mentally substitute from the

document? okay? i want to read a few points from the stepping stones program. hmm. where did i put it? while i look for it, i'll just remind you of a few important things she said. because they are in my notes. one thing that i think is really important to think about is the moral case that margaret thatcher made against centralized economic planning. the thing that makes thatcher, thatcher itch as opposed to just free market economics she took a moral case to the electorate. she didn't just said a free market is efficient, it produces wealth better than a demand economy. she said the free market is moral. it produces better citizens, it

produces people who are able to stand up for themselves to innovate, to create, to take responsibility for themselves, and to make moral choices. she was saying something very important which is -- socialism wasn't just a bad idea economically, it wasn't a good idea that had been misapplied, it was an inherently wicked idea. that took away people -- adult moral capacity to choose to make the important daily choices that define a moral life. this is part of the message that really needs to be made. it's part of the case that really needs to be taken to the electorate right now. because we're looking at it on both sides. two technocratly. we are saying what we went wrong with all of the stimulus spending? maybe we need to fire into the

economy. maybe that will strap it up. things will go back to normal. no one is looking at what it does morally to a society. you are nodding like you agree with me. yeah. all right. this is the crucial part of satirism that people need to understand. this is why she matters. she doesn't just matter because she smashed the trade union, denationalized the british economy, she matters because she managed to convince the electorate over and over again that she was advancing a vision of a more just and moral society. right now in the united states there is an unspoken message that even if what the obama administration and his predecessors have done to redistribute income, the intention is good. it's the greedy bad people that want to stand in the way and

impoverish, and stand in the way of getting health care to people who need it, and helping poor people. they are bad. they are selfish. she is saying that's absolute nonsense. the moral case is with the people who want to have economic freedom because economic freedom is ethical. it is good. it makes good people. and it is what good people want. that message has to come out. so in her words, in the end, the real case against socialism is not it's economic inefficiency. though on all sides there is evidence of that. much more fundamental as it's basic morality. this is a point that was made by others and made before. we can all say what the intellectual origins are at this point. it comes from hayek and milton friedman. :

>> she was talking to a nation that had already gone very far down this path, and she is able to convince his skeptical nation we've got to go the other way. there's no alternative. so how did she do it?

i am by the way as disorganized as margaret thatcher is organized. i'll find it. talk first about keith joseph. keith joseph was a politician, conservatives, who was said to be factors intellectual. and was said to be prime minister in fact his place by many people but he was something of a political incompetent and he destroyed his political future by making their in temperate ill advised speech that appear to be on-call for eugenics, a call for poor people to stop producing already. did not go down well as it shouldn't have. he was very influential on margaret thatcher, and in 1974, you can find his whole speech online at the margaret thatcher foundation. he delivered a speech which i

think should be taken as the first full throated public expression of thatcherism. and the title of the speech, interesting, that title is this is not the time to be mealymouthed, intervention is destroying us. the signature of the conservative party at this time was being mealymouthed, an unwillingness to separate say what was true to the electorate. for fear of not wanting to alienate, not wanting to seem too radical, not being able to govern. he just came out and said it. look around you, intervention is destroying us. i believe this is obvious to most americans. i've only been on the ground of the united states for a few days living in turkey but i got off the plane and everyone i'm sticking to it saying something terrible is happening here. and people are not stupid. they are noticing that all this innovation does not seem to be doing any good, but they are not really understand the connection

between the intervention and things getting worse rather than better. they are not understanding the internet -- people on the right are not taking responsibility for it. they are not taking responsibility. the policy goes back before the obama administration that there's been a massive amount of intervention in the economy, progressively creating this crisis, and they need to take responsibility for that otherwise they are insulting the intelligence of the voters. so, that speech embodied what would come to be factors schematic signature as a politician. aggression, no time to be me mouth, a sense of emergency, because it was and it is. a contemptuous rejection of conciliatory language as insulting to the intelligence of the voter who can see perfectly well what's going on, and the association of government intervention in such words as

destroyed. we need to have that. we need of someone saying the intervention is destroying us. it is possible to destroy a superpower. it is. you count -- can count on everything because the intervention is fundamentally changing the nature of the american economy. it's very hard to get people to agree on a definition of how much of the economy is now under government control, but everyone knows it's a lot more than it used to be. there's a tipping point. you get enough of the economy under government control and it doesn't work anymore. so intervention in this landscape is not unhelpful. it's not doing more harm than good. it's not -- what are the things people say about intervention? maybe it's not enough, maybe too much, maybe we need to tinker with the. there was an article in the "new york times" yesterday,

economists tried everything and they still don't know what to do. enough of that. the intervention is destroying us. we need to come out and say that. and it is destroying something that should not be destroyed. it is destroying the united states, the greatest nation in the history of mankind. this is unacceptable. someone needs to say this. so teeth joseph -- how much time do i have? keith joseph deliver this speech. labor governments secretary, tony bennett, outright markets to extend public control over even more of the british economy. more profitable sector. and joseph said it's not enough to just stave off the preposterous proposal. the question we have to ask ourselves is how he was able to come within striking distance of the very heart of our economic life in the first place.

someone needs to be saying that, don't you think lex how did this happen that people with these ideas came within striking distance of the very heart of our economic life in the first place? are you nodding like your with me? okay. how could it come about that a suggestion could even be made a minister of the crown after generations experience state ownership of a fifth of our economy? how could anyone expect that more of the same which nearly brought us to our knees be seriously entertained? how could there be serious discussion of a second stimulus package in the newspapers? why is no one saying this is insane, we cannot firehose taxpayer money into government controlled spending projects, socialist -- there are socialist spending projects. i spoke to someone. he didn't speak to be on the record i spoke to some of the other night whose job is to take

stainless one and decide which housing projects to build. i'm looking at this, when in america do we have social housing is ours. he seemed like a nice man. i'm sure your well-intentioned but who are you to say how this taxpayer money should be invested and how can you possibly know? we don't believe that. we believe these decisions are best made by individual investors with their own money. we do. that's what americans believe. it's always been true. we must find a satisfactory answer to the question if we are concerned with our survival, and we need to. we need to find a satisfactory answer. if we're concerned with our survival as a free nation. of course he said there's more than one answer. an important part of the answer is it must be that our industry, our economic life of society is so debilitated by 30 years of socialistic fashions their very weakest teams to further interrupt.

there is no reason, no good reason he said speaking about britain why this country should continue to fail. we have ample talent. the same kind of talent that made britain great and prosperous 100 days ago, the envy of the world. these words could be used today. they are totally applicable today. and someone should be saying them. now, let's talk about the steppingstone support and i'll try to make this quick because i also want to talk about turkey. you can when stepping stone support at the margaret thatcher foundation. it's an essential document and want everyone who is concerned about the coming election to read it and think it. it best expresses what i think

is a core precept of thatcherism that british decline was a punishment for socialism, not imperialism but socialism. and conservative policy was developed around a strategy that john hopkins set out in the paper which not only helped thatcher achieve victory but led directly to almost every key thatcher i perform. now, he wrote in steppingstones stepping stones, events continue to reveal the true morality of the true left but the real point, socialism is less moral than capitalism rather than as immoral, has not been made. and this is the point he thinks needs to go out to the electorate, that it is not we're proposing an immoral but technicality, a moral as well as superior solution. he proposed the electorate could be divided into three categories, doers, thinkers and

fielders. think about that for a minute. voters fall into three categories. doers, thinkers -- and the message has to be appealed to all three groups. to all of them, this is what he said, in his word i recognize it is a motive on but remember it works. the message should be shame on you. shame on you. what are you thinking? shame on you. he wrote we believe they should concert on people's place of work. this is the behavior we want to cause people to question. are people really not ashamed that they enter into strike action? he's talking of strike action but remember we agree to substitute what's going on here. are they not ashamed that they're entering into these political activities which they all know have no concern for their fellow humans, let alone

workers. they must be a shame but they do because they're frightened because no political party is identified to give hope for the future, and reason to behave as science tells they ought. reason to behave is economic science talk. they know -- we all know the stainless money leads to massive corruption. right? but no one has pointed out it would be far better if morality and integrity were reintroduced that could hold up their heads in public. thatcher he advised do not marry change the government but reject socialism. to achieve this he said necessary to instill into the emotional majority the feelers, a sense of shame and disgust of corrupting socialism. class war, dishonesty, intimidation, shoddy work. and he says the labor party must

be clearly i can -- clearly identified with the shame. here i think the democratic party must be identified by the republicans must own their own shame because this started well before the obama administration. so to regain the initiative we have to explain to the feelers that labor really does stand for cause of socialism. does anybody know what that is? clause for was in the labor party platform until about two years before blair came to power and that is the explicit commitment to taking control of the productive parts of the economy. now, i would like to point out that we have some roughly 80 or 85 actual members of a socialist party of america in congress and it is very easy to hold up their clause four were talks about exactly what the economic program is. this is the low-hanging fruit of the next election. if there's anyone in the districts who doesn't know what exactly they stand for in their

words, the opponent deserve to lose. this is easy. low-hanging fruit. okay? socialism, it must be going to the electorate that socialism leads to a sick society with material impoverish, dishonest, stupid, arbitrary, unfair, and finally frightened so that it is paid as childish and backwards rather than respected by other countries. spell out clause four. this is what they are determined to get in the end. in order to attack the adversary, one must first identify his weak points or his critical links, he writes. he writes the labor party this is that there are -- this is the relationship to the union. for the democratic party it's obviously the relationship with the health care bill.

the health care and stimulus spending. we all know that that's the weak part. but that case has not been made sufficiently, that it's not just, this is bad legislation. it's not that it's not going to work economically. is that it is immoral. it is immoral. you are taking money away from people who aren't in and giving to people who haven't and you are going to create a society of people who have no incentive to do anything with allies or are incapable of making economic choices. who are not self-sufficient, who are whining, week. that's what you're going to do. you are stealing from people and getting it to people who haven't earned it. there's nothing wrong with the impulse to want to take care of the week and a stick and the poor. but you have to of a wealthy productive free market to do it first. morality in the end council more than personalities. and appropriate value system

council more than correct economic policy. you can derive and correct. and the key theme of the election campaign that brought thatcher to power in 1979 was this, the decline in humiliation that have been read up on britain with socialism. you see this in every document, every public announcement in this campaign. you see the very deliberate association of socialism with sin indicate. -- sin and decay. i'm not very familiar with -- glenn beck. i've been watching. he is groping as something that he's groping at from the wrong direction. i say this not as a glenn beck fan. he think i'm not illegal but there needs to be something about our values that have gone wrong. these have nothing to do with an

appeal to god. you don't need to have any -- will ultimately be duty to have some grounding to judeo-christian values to make this case i think. but you don't need to make it especially at all. you consider such a thing as emeralds aside and healthy society and a sick society. and free markets are part of immoral healthy society. it's really interesting to me, you will find a very few americans who will not say i believe in freedom of expression. i believe in freedom of assembly. i believe in the freedom of religion. but you'll find so many who will not as passionate come out and say i believe in economic freedom. where has the idea that economic freedom is not a fundamental freedom? how did that become part of a political discussion that we talk about economic freedom. i don't know.

all right, the conservative manifesto of 1979, this was the one of which margaret thatcher man, is about the future of britain. at great country which seems to have lost its way. the country rich in natural resources in coal, oil, gas, fertile farmland. it's rich in human resource. professional individual skills on the highest caliber with great industries and firms whose workers can be the equals of any in the world. or the inheritance of a long tradition of parliamentary democracy and a rule of law. yesterday this country is faced with this most serious problems since the second world war. what has happened to our country to the value we used to share? does that sound familiar? our countries relative decline is not inevitable. we in the conservative party

think we can reverse not because we think we have all the answers, but because we think we have the one answer that matters most. we want to work with the grain of human nature. helping people to help themselves and others. this is the way to restore that self reliance and self confidence which is the basis of personal responsibility and national success. socialism, again and again in language that is absolutely clear unequivocal and completely understandable, was against the grain of man's god-given nature. from the stepping stones report, we need to paint the true nature of jim's britain. the very of those aside and we

believe the following words characterize, selfish, irresponsible, evil, unjust, unfair, dishonest, secret, cowardly, stupid, illogical, unthinking, confused, shortsighted, blind, apathetic, pessimistic, unfulfilled. in other words, we have and a mature society where individuals deny responsibility to each other. both say and the country seem to have lost faith in themselves. there's no appearance for personal growth, no fulfillment of satisfaction for self, children or the whole family. no sense of pride. no sense of patriotism. in the upcoming election it will contest the jim's britain that tories values will created by contrast the society would have concern for others, law and order, justice, fairness, honesty, integrity, openness, courage, preparedness to take risk for fair rewards, enterprise come intervention,

thoughtfulness, freedom, good sense, concern, knowledge, underlying convictions, self-confidence, loyalty, responsible for others, self-respect, pride, vision, patriotism, inspiration and interest. above all of them is to support one's country, the best for oneself and one's family. the sense of fulfillment comes a desire to reach maturity so one is at peace with oneself in the world an and a natural state of grace. this party was not holding back. this party was not about compromise. this party was not about narrow electoral victory. this party was about saying we stand for something, and they stand for something else. and it is time for you to choose because otherwise, this can't be reversed. there is no alternative. okay, i'm going to switch to turkey in a moment or so let me see if there are any questions.

i didn't get to keith joe this -- keith joseph. >> hi. i work on tax policy in the senate. so i want to ask, the moral argument which i agree is certainly valid. i had a meeting with a practitioner where they were talking about given the study show that lots of students think it's perfectly okay to cheat or plagiarize on papers and such. the practitioners make a point when these people go up, what other going to do on their taxes? do you think there's a difference between the british in 1979 and 80 americans now that there may be more argument that it's effective because maybe we are not a moral society anymore speak up know. i think britain was way further gone in that sense. i think it was further gone. now, what evidence can i do you for that?

what would be a good indicator, a good marker of a degree to which people have become dishonest? i think the image of the work shy shop steward, i still think americans by and large would not accept that as a cultural hero. there's still a general belief in the american dream that she should be able to work hard and have it be translated into honest success but i think that is flagging, it is failing, but it's certain not as far gone as britain in 1979. is that what you're getting at? okay. >> one of the problems that labor seems to totally abandoned, praise for thatcher. it's sort of a compassionate labour party in the big statist labour party seems to be

predominant. even though fatuous dramatically successful, have all her efforts really been squandered by the new party? is that inevitable? >> the main thing to understand here is even when they deplore thatcher, even when they say they're not all thatcherite now, they have it reversed her policy. known as doctor dean naturalizing current. no one is talking about taking the council houses back into public and. you have to look at the policy. they are using her as a political symbol whether she's supposed to stand for british strength or british greed, it is immaterial because -- it's not a matter to me but if you look at the policies they are not doing what they did. you know what would happen. all right, i don't want to -- one more question and then we will talk about turkey.

>> my question is, do you have any idea who -- margaret thatcher? [inaudible] >> everyone keeps asking me that, and i remind them that at this point in britain in 1970, no one had any it is who's going to be the next margaret thatcher. they did think margaret thatcher would be. so something to keep in mind is how quickly in a situation like this new political figures can come out from nowhere and how surprising old political figures can be. the answer in short is no, i'm not endorsing a candidate right there. i will as soon as i hear someone say what i think needs to be said. i won't be hesitant. >> what was the counterattack by the opposition? >> meaning in the election? >> in the campaign, just. >> they didn't take her serious enough. it the same as had always been

suggested that the argument has always, was always that conservatives are not on the side of the working people. they are not on the side of the poor. they will steal your health care. this is a class war issue. they are bleeding people who just want to make money for themselves, and you need to stick with us or things are going to get even worse. it's very familiar, and it didn't work. it didn't work because people were seeing through it. okay, i don't want to keep anyone -- afterwards, why do we talk informally. do we have time afterwards to choose, with the autistic rep and ask questions? okay. turkey, been there for five years, and what i am really worried about is i don't think that people in america are paying enough attention, and i don't think you know what's going on.

i think you don't know what's going on because right now the united states is incredibly focused on its own problems, understandably. these problems are going to do a lot worse if we're not paying attention to what's going on overseas. america is not able to retreat into isolationism. it's just not the way the world is anymore. i understand that u.s. troops are not dying in large numbers in turkey, and that they are elsewhere. i understand that turkey is a really difficult country to understand with very difficult language with a political system that make sense to know when. and i understand there's not a lot of coverage in the newspaper. but americans are aware that there is a very, very important issue being played out around the globe come a very important question is being discussed which is, if islam compatible with secular governance, that got your attention, is there

anyone in the islamic world who is really our friend? can we believe what they are saying when they tell us they are honest. turkey is the laboratory, this long experiment, secular government is right now hanging in the balance. there's a real case to be made that eating profoundly undermined, and no one is paying attention and the turks, the muslims in turkey who genuinely moderate muslims, and i know many of them, who are waiting for the united states to say hey, we notice and we care. they are going insane. because it doesn't look like anyone is noticing. it doesn't look like anyone cares. the newspapers kiddie porn stuff that simply isn't true. and stuff that is irrelevant, its willingness to ignore reality. you probably all know about the failing of the humanitarian aid ship, which was not fully

committed during a but rather with some very fractious members of an islamist charity organization that exists to work in alliance with european leftist idiots, to break the brigade of gaza and thus undermine israeli legitimacy. and we all know, allow iranian weapons to just pour into that region. that was the intention. nearly started and out right naval war with israel. do you realize how serious this is in this region? up to the eye teeth with weapons including nuclear weapons, and they took this risk knowing this. they knew this was a possible outcome. the israelis were absolutely clear that they were not going to let that shipped through. members of turkey's akp government at the last minute decided not to be on the boat. but think about. into the last minute they were seriously considering it. the turkish media, which has

become almost monolithic which is now mostly enhance of the government or its cronies, is not reporting what turkish people need to know to understand this. turkish people believe their noble gesture of humanitarian aid to the starving out stadiums -- starting palestinians, i don't know if there are more than 10 people alive. i don't think they understood it at all. las..

>> and they believe it's a little bit nuts, but i understand how they get to this, they believe that the united states actually wants turkey to become an islamist country so that they can control it more readily, so they can have access to its natural resources, you know, it's crazy. it's the typical turkish conspiracy theory, but i can see from their point of view they're saying, it doesn't make sense. why isn't anyone in the u.s. helping us? we can't go in there and influence the turkish elections, we don't have that power. but we could certainly have a media that reports more accurately on it, a government that comments more accurately about it. when western leaders like david cameron show up in ankara and say turkey is really on the path to e.u. membership, this is great, these reforms are

becoming so democratic, it's an important partner for peace and doesn't mention anything like the editor of the biggest secular daily languishing in jail without trial because he criticized the government, doesn't mention the government's control over almost all of the media, it doesn't mention all the journalists in jail, doesn't mention all the opposition figures in jail, doesn't mention how many women now feel obliged to wear head scarf because if they don't, their husbands have no political futures, doesn't mention that when i go out to lunch with people who feel they have reasons to criticize the government to take the battery out of their cell phone because they're afraid people are going to listen to them. i'm not saying that turkey's a disaster, and i'm not saying it's irreversible, and i'm not saying it's a basket case, and i'm not saying it's somalia, but this is part of the story, and people need to be aware of it.

they need to be thinking about what happens if this continues down this path? why aren't they? why doesn't anyone care about turkey? i think some of them do, but what's going on? why aren't people grasping this? what's the stumbling point? huh? tell me what, tell me what you mean. >> [inaudible] >> what do you mean by that? >> become secretary of state because of -- she's more interested in government -- [inaudible] than she is in turkey. >> i think, i think the prop antidates here, but i'm curious if you think the problem is really her world view. at some level someone has got to be telling her this, and you think she just doesn't want to hear it. yeah, go ahead. >> i have a hypothesis. i don't think it has to do with turkey per se, but i don't think it -- i don't think it has to do

with turkey per se, i think it's the institutional leftist mindset that sees the growing islamization of turkey as authentic. i think, you know, you couldn't, you know, you can put this, this world view, you know, throughout the muslim world and, you know, you take your pick of state department or, or executive branch, you know, white house folks who, i mean, look, turkey was the first place that obama stopped on his tour that ended up in cairo. and he made a big deal to go there to a mosque. >> that's fine. >> that's fine. >> that's fine. >> but i think, i think he is, i mean, lee smith had a great column in tablet where he spoke

about obama's background as, you know, as a leftist and just that, you know, maybe he reflects on anti-americanism is maybe too strong a word, but just that third worldism that comes reflexively from him, and sees that as a, you know, legitimating movement, you know? in constant distinction to, you know, a secular turkish democracy. >> i think, yeah, it's as plausible a theory as i've heard. what puzzles me is i could understand the policy decision to say, well, this is the way it's going in turkey, so we might as well be on the right side of the people in power. what i don't understand is when turkey voted against -- not just abstained, voted against the sanctions package on iran -- why didn't that set off five-alarm

fires in the united states? this isn't working, this policy of trying to get along with whoever's in power. this country is now actively working against what should be the united states' chief foreign policy aim which is to prevent iran from going nuclear. that's not what an ally does ever. and it's not what's in turkey's interests either. if anyone's thinkses in in turkey's interest to have a nuclear iran next door, they're insane. it's even less in turkey's interests than the united states' interests. so why isn't this on the front page of the newspapers, five-alarm fire, something bad has happened here, something really worrying is happening. >> as one whose ancestors emigrated to the united states fleeing the ottomans, i would suggest to you that at least mommallally -- nominally turkey remains as a member of nato the united states' closest islamic

ally. and the united states cannot afford to alienate this islamic ally. because if it does, then it would be setting itself or appear to be setting itself against the islamic world. and that so long as turkey remains a u.s. ally even if just nominally, it's much harder for the islamists to make stick the notion they would like to make stick which is that the united states is irretrievably anti-islamic. so after all, turkey sets in a strategic location. look at the neighbors it has, and it wants to be on good terms with it neighbors.

perhaps more so than to curry favor with the united states half a global away. half a globe away. and given that the russians and the chinese and even some of the europeans, even some of the europeans who voted with us, they know what they really think which may not be the way they vote, and the egyptians and so forth may have had more influence on the way turkey voted on the, on the iranian sanctions. >> may i, may i interrupt? that's the akp's line, that's their official line. we just want peace our neighbors, and we live close to them, and you're far away. let's look at the reality. the good relations they've cultivated with hamas and iran. they've nearly come to the brink of war with israel. syria, they've exchanged a few rare birds, there's a rare bird exchange. the arab countries in between israel and iran are going nuts.

there's a lot of enthusiasm aboutered wanna among the most radical members of these populations, but at the leadership level they're thinking, what are we going to do? maybe iranians -- am ambassador saying, please, would someone do something about this iranian problem? you've got good financial relationships with the saudis in the long term. if you have a nuclear iran, you are reduced to a persian satellite state which is a position the turks have been trying to avoid or the ottoman empire's been trying to avoid for nearly a thousand years. it's not in turkey's strategic interests. it doesn't make sense. that's the way the akp is selling it. but any long-term, ration algae yo political analysis, not in turkey's interests. it's not. it's in turkey's interest to become part of the e.u., and right now everyone in the e.u. except for david cameron who's lying is looking at turkey and

thinking, right, you're nuts. no, it's not going to ever happen. they're looking at this and thinking, you're banning youtube, you're setting off this insane conflict with israel at the time the world least needs it, and you're just not sounding very, very european. you're really not. it's not in turkey's interest. i'm sorry, i cut you off because i get really incensed. i'm used to hearing it. >> i looked at all the europeans that were on the turkish aid ships -- >> yeah, i met them. >> one, one wonders if they are not really a cat's paw -- >> yeah, they are. >> -- for the industry in europe. >> for mainstream europe? >> yeah, mainstream europe which has been, except for the dutch and a few others, quite critical of the israelis. >> i certainly do think they

reflect, they're an extreme version of points of view that are very common in europe, yeah. i think they're a cat's paw for radical islam. >> no, not for radical islam, but for a mainstream europe that is very uncomfortable with the israelis and with the israelis' tactics and would very much like to impose upon the israelis some final settlement with the palestinians even if it's one that's more on the palestinians' terms. >> wait a second -- >> after all, europe, europe needs oil. >> uh-huh. >> and guess where a lot of the oil that -- [inaudible] europe has an incentive to tilt toward the arabs, at least on the surface. >> you're a peasant incentive to wish to see a settlement to the arab/israeli conflict. they certainly have no, no reason whatsoever to want to see

hamas in power. and this employee till la was directed toward hamas, not the pa. >> [inaudible] >> that point is important to note. i don't think they know the difference, but -- yeah. >> i'm not huge advocate of turkey, but from what i understand turkey have security military forces, yeah? and we have a government which can -- and if i'm not mistaken, there's always can be a coup, military coup -- >> no. >> which can stop -- >> no, i don't think there's going to be a military coup. that's a question people have been asking for a long time, but i think the age is almost certainly over in turkey unless there is -- unless someone does -- unless they come up with something outrageous like not holding an election, no, i don't

think there'll be a military coup. >> and i don't hope for one either. anytime someone criticizes the akp, you just want a military coup. no, i don't, i want full democracy in turkey. >> one more comment. >> i wonder, what percentage of turks are secular, what percentage are religious, observant, and does the akp speak for a majority of the turkish people? >> good questions. 99 percent of turks would describe themselves as muslim, 90 percent or so would describe themselves as committed to secularism. i say that based on polling figures from various different parties. there's only one party that really explicitly rejects secularism, and can their numbers are tiny. the akp describes itself as a secular party, whether or not it

is. the akp is now polling below the main opposition, chp, and will probably at this rate be forced into a coalition or out of government at the next election. it is not the majority party, it doesn't have everyone behind it. this is really important to understand. >> do you want to say anything more about margaretsome. >> the issues are fairly similar. democracy's good everywhere and economic freedom here leads to a strong country which can defend itself vigorously in the world not only through its military, but through its example. you want people to look at the american economy and say our way of life does seem to produce an admirable, ethical, moral, rich, happy society. no point going out there trying to defend america with its military if you can't look at a sterling example of a