>> that is a question that fascinated me. at the time -- i mean, there is some -- there's history that says they didn't. everything that i read definitely says they did. in fact come the day after the transistor since failing, the president of a labs, even after it had been buried in "the new york times" on page 46% came comments that have been not seem as if kind of huge breakthrough. [inaudible] >> i don't think were good at seeing breakthroughs when they happen. and in that case committee after the president of bell labs, buckley had written a note to his former boss, the first president of bell labs instead come of this book is very important to us. and if you look at the internal correspondence that was coming and to the researchers at bell labs at the time i really every

other major corporation was writing to them, baking for samples. rca, zenith, the big electronic companies at the time sending letters not just one guy, but thinking maybe if we send them to give us one of the so we can test it. ..

>> they did share the technology. that is an interesting part of this story to you. why is that? >> in later years, after the 1950s committed had to share. the consent decree of the united states government only allow them to use their technology for telephone applications which were military operations. it is true that they could have, theoretically, kept this to themselves. even though they have this monopoly status, there was some internal correspondence at the time. they felt it was too big and too significant, which almost enters the previous question, too, that i was so big that they had to share it. that the idea that this essentially public funded

laboratory to keep this technology to itself, it would not have been acceptable. >> let's ask you something and then we will talk about innovation and how you proceed there period it is worth noting that they had a few misses, right? described picturephone. >> yes, they had a lot of misses. the transistor team had a lot of misses leading up to the breakthrough. i think anybody who works in the innovative processes knows that failure is a huge part of that. it almost always precedes success. again, there were misses and failures that failed in the marketplace disastrously. the picturephone is just one of the incredibly expensive follies that did a big, huge belly flop. as usual, it was great engineers who are working on it, and it was a visual communications

device that is going to change the world. we would all be communicating by picturephone, within 10 or 20 years after it was ruled out. pretty soon after, within 12 months or 18 months, i think something like 40 people had signed up for it and the failure became pretty apparent. i interviewed some of the guys who worked on the picturephone. some of them would make the case that skype and google chat best we were right. i think it is true that the idea that you can be early and be wrong -- it proves that idea. that is part of innovation, to. >> and so what you take from that? as you think about what we learn on those misses, where did they go wrong? what was it that led them not path of the picturephone without some sort of self correction? do you rule things out to pursue those things?

where their strengths also their weakness, because you had time, you could also turn out something that could be a folly? >> i think so. i think there were different kinds of failures that occurred or different kinds of misses, for instance, the fiber optic breakthrough came through from corning and not the last. fls they were pursuing something called the waveguides which was going to carry signals through a hollow pipe that was specially designed. i talked about in the book whether these are mistakes of perception of what the future will be, or whether mistakes of judgment. i think the picturephone was a mistake of judgment in many ways. somebody who worked on it just talk to me and said to me, convincingly, that none of us who are working on it believed it could fail. >> isn't in part been, a place where there wasn't a consequence to failure?

someone you may know runs the parkinson's institute. he quoted something was that the process is going up an alley to see if they are blank. if they are listening to you, there are wonderful things that come from that. but also it allows for you to go down blind alleys. >> i think one of the characters in my book that i spent a lot of time writing about was john pierce who actually finished year his career at stanford and work at caltech and worked at bell labs for most of his career. i went through his papers, and i came across something he had written a few years before he died. he was considering writing a book about the last, and he tried to take apart what made it work. he had a four-part formula, and one of those was that a

researcher could terminate the research without damaging the researcher. there should be no consequences for failure, so to speak. again, that is probably that there are specific failures and systemic failures, which i think, the picturephone maybe closely represented by that. there were not -- there was enough money that the consequences were not ever going to be dire. >> let me ask you one more thing about the process of discovery. and then we will start getting to some of your questions as well. the right early in the book, jon, about the eureka moment. i want to read this one passage. it seems so applicable to what happened at bell labs. we usually imagine that an invention and kurds in a flash a eureka moment that leads to a startling epiphany. in truth, largely forward

technology rarely happens at a precise point of origin. the forces that proceed an invention online, often imperceptibly, as a group of people and ideas converge over the course of months or years or even decades to gain clarity and momentum. so much of what happened at bell labs was not a eureka moment. it really was this collection as a whole in the end, it was the product of the sum of the product, and even more so as the sum of the product. >> i think so. they were building on things, especially in the early days, out of breakthroughs in europe, for instance, at the time. that alignment of ideas that attrition of ideas and discovery leading up to something big was really just a matter of course

for science and engineering. >> you think that we are lacking that now? .ability to allow more than just for the eureka moment? to allow for that unfolding? >> i find myself having to take up the writer had been put on the pundit hat. it has been a difficult process. [laughter] i think that is a reality check, we still fund a terminus amount of research and development in this country to the tune of something like $150 billion a year. a lot of echoes to research in the military, a lot of it goes to nasa, a great chunk of it goes to medical research and smaller amounts go to basic research is a more disturbing amount now.

we look to universities and national laboratories where venture capital firms fund businesses like the shorter time horizon. it is as good or effective as what we have had? i don't know. there definitely gains or possibly some losses. sometimes i wonder if we should talk about it is a rich incompetent problem, and i have been to manufacturing conferences in washington. people in the white house talked about our losses in manufacturing, and how that was a vital part of bell labs and western electric too. but they have this ability to not just invent but to develop and bring these things to manufacturing that required require great expertise. >> you make the point also in your book, that one of the problems was outsourcing. you lose that connection.

the connection between creativity and product. and you lose the chance for the interdisciplinary, walking down the hallway, we bump into that leads to something else. >> andy grove made the case eloquently in business a couple of years ago. there is a great harvard business review article about the manufacturing echo system and these sort of feedbacks to innovation. i think it is true and arguable that ineffectual moves, but eventually, development and research can move along with it. i think that, for instance, we may have been talking about the battery industry and the lithium-ion industry, which is now really located abroad in asia. to some extent, that is true. certainly with the semiconductor and led lighting industry. there is that danger that he was manufacturing and that ability to manufacture, then you have to be concerned about better

aspects of your innovation economy, too. >> there's one more question i want to ask jon. but let's get to some of your question as well. if you haven't had time to ask your question, write it down and give it to the people who are going to collect them. how many nobel prize winners to see coming out of twitter, facebook and google? [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] >> do i have to answer that? [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] >> there are certainly great people there. i wonder, you know, i worked in a magazine company that covers a lot of the industry, and i use those products, and they are very cool. i certainly don't think every company or even any company we could talk about basic research -- should invest in that -- i don't think that facebook should

start hiring theoretical physicist read that doesn't make a lot of sense. but i don't know if they should be pursuing that, but there is that too. >> you to the end of the book towards a question of what would people in the lab think of these sorts of innovations today. what was your conclusion about that? conclusion about that hypothetical? >> in writing the book, i wrestled with this question a lot. i wrestled with it before i even started writing, of what is innovation. as a writer, we use the term now for almost anything. we have this big thing we call it innovation and we call it and he gets thrown around a lot. it is hard to understand what is innovation when it involves the definition that is widely used. you can never go to the store

and buy a bell labs innovation or product, it was the stuff inside of it. it was platform innovation on which the phone system was built and other industries were built, too. so these innovations were different. in some ways, i think the consumer innovations we think of now, it is not necessarily one being better than the other. they are both necessary, but they are different kinds of innovation, at least as i see it. >> thank you for answering the question. >> i hope i gave they give a good answer, anyway. [laughter] [laughter] >> what would these guns into facebook? >> i think that they would -- i imagine they would see it as an amazing beauticians platform that has swept the world. the groups of that success is a huge market and leadership -- and membership.

the question i pose in the book is, is that the kind of platform that you build industries or technologies or thousands of hundreds of thousands of millions of jobs that come out of that, and i think that is a more competent question. and i think that is a good question. i don't know if i have an answer to it yet, but i don't think -- it is something to think about. >> here's a question about with the monopoly, is there some sort of suggestion that will take the place of bell labs? >> i don't think that we want to go back in time. i don't know -- certainly from the point of my book was never to create another bell labs in that sense.

i think the ss, at least for me, is its value, in this ability to think long-term solving of problems. you could make it about ibm, you could make it about nasa, you could make it about the manhattan project, and i think from my point of view, at least, right now, the really big problems are an energy. are we solving those kinds of problems? i'm not sure that we are. but i think that we need to. >> here is a question. [inaudible question] it ended in 1944 when kelly began hiring the first jews of employees. you actually point out that bell labs did not struggle with

anti-semitism in the way that the larger society there. expand upon that point and to what degree that went on? >> no, it is a great question, and unfortunately, there is no anti-semitism file in the at&t archives to chart this thing. i found bits and pieces from interviews. sometimes off the record with people trying to piece it together. i think i can say fairly certainly that this strain of anti-semitism was stronger in the main parts of the phone company in bell labs than it ever was, especially at at&t. but starting in the war after -- there is some evidence of because of that, there is a memo in the archives about a blatant case of one of the labs preeminent engineers telling people that he doesn't like

jews. it is kind of a shocking memo to read nowadays. the war effort did sort of break down the barrier very much at the labs. honestly, a great thing. it also brought women into more roles as well. there were so many people involved in the war effort but by necessity it happened, and the management of the labs never looked back after that. it is certainly a laudable thing. >> the question is bell labs versus ibm research. why did one survived, and what was the difference? >> that is an interesting question. i wish i knew. i know some about ibm research. i wish i knew more. i think it is clear that bell labs didn't survive because he gained its energy and sustenance by being attached to the monopoly. i can answer that part of the question, that it could not

survive in its form without that attachment and without that relationship. when the phone company was broken apart, in the early 1980s -- after that, the revenues declined dramatically in a stream of real-world problems and the ability to justify its investments in scientific research which became difficult as time went on. on ibm research, one thing that is interesting to me, one of the characters that i talk about went to work for ibm research right after you retired from bell labs. he was going around the country and going to europe to interview the researchers then write these confidential reports for the ceo, and try to deliver to him his conclusions about what ibm research should be continuing

and who the rising rising stars were. at least as he saw it. >> given that bell labs was generally good at innovation, how do they miss the first major innovation in the primary field, namely switching. >> that is a good question, too. how did they miss? i think they missed a bunch of things. i don't think that -- you know, i hope nobody comes away thinking that they are perfect. they miss the integrated circuit. they missed the fiber optic cables, too. they made decisions over what to pursue and what not pursue. in any highly competitive industry, you, you know, are eventually going to miss something big. >> how does a similar program work any non-monopoly environment where products must justify their existence and

their profits? >> i don't know if they can, to be honest. i don't know how you can capture the value of basic research when you are a public company for infants and come and you are investing in that kind of risky, so to speak, research. on such a large scale. which is, i think, why government steps in to that rule. >> talk about color buntin couple of other things and then we will talk more if you have more to say. a couple of other case studies that are interesting and indicative about what we are exploring about. one of them is the creation or the story of figuring out cell phone transmission. which seems like essentially science by driving around. describe what went on in order to figure out the concept of the cell phones.

>> i mean, the southern story, which actually was one of the parts of writing and researching the book, by that time, it wasn't just small teams of people working on the problems in the lab. it was dozens and hundreds of people working on a very, very big system project. there were different kinds of people working on different aspects of the cellular telephone problem. there were system home engineers working in new jersey on it. there were also those working at home dell as well. they would drive over new jersey and in the early 1970s, you know, can you hear me now? sort of stuff. [laughter] [applause] >> it was not completely understood what happened when you drive through a forest or into a tunnel. when you drive near a mountain

in the distance. it was not known how far your transmission to travel. these were very difficult questions. one of the most interesting aspects, i think, in the cell phone ever was some of the people who solve the problems actually came from bell labs military work. one guy in particular spent a lot of time with me talking, and he had done a lot of work on discriminatory radar in the south pacific where bell labs had a small facility working with western electric. at the time, he had come back from this tour of duty where he worked on this highly sophisticated system, came back to bell labs, and then the labs so they were going to discontinue the thing that he was doing. some and suggested that he talked to the people working on cellular. maybe we have something for them. again, it was part of the serendipity of bell labs. he was the guy with a kind of

knowledge that very few people in the world had at that one point in time. they adopted him into the project. soon enough, he had abandoned he was going down to philadelphia and had cleared out the van and the stuff that was done -- a lot of electronic equipment, and they would test all the signals to make the working cell phone system go. >> and the history of the creation of the satellite, because it is such a science simulation. you write that there were probably 16 different groups, i guess, and one was going back to 1937. again, it is not the eureka moment, but it is a collective enterprise. >> yes, i think so. and i think that that, perhaps is a misunderstanding. i would make the case that we can just look at our smartphones and have the same kind of, you know, understanding.

but truly it is not. it can't be. it is this incredible integration of so many -- so much work over the past 60 years. so many people working hard on these things, so many improvements on the breakthroughs and all integrated into one beautifully designed a phenomenal product. >> one of the things that is great about jon gertner is you get a sense of all these different characters. this is an individual by the name of claude elwood shannon. >> that's right. there was a statistician who suggested it. he's a very famous person as well. >> this is claude shannon, i just want to read this portion and then john can describe what makes them interesting.

>> when you're his wife gave him a unicycle is a gift. shannon quickly begin writing, and then he began building his own unicycle is to challenge himself to see how smart he could make one that could still be road. when he was in the office, shannon would take a break from his work and write his unicycle up and down the hallway of bell labs. he would not at the passerby. he would go up and down the hall to. he was a man who rarely showed up on time for work, who often played chess or fiddled with machines all day, complete who frequently went down the hall juggling her pogoing, he didn't care what anyone thought of him or period it seemed obvious that he had the flexibility of an artist even though he was categorized as a scientist. such a wonderful description.

for a guy that was pogoing down the hallway -- it's wonderful. >> yeah, it really was. he had earned that kind of ability, i think, to be eccentric. when i talk about the open door policy at bell labs, he was the only person who i ever heard of who actually close their door and nobody complained. in 1948, there were various traditions that became known as information theory, he was really treated were understood to be special. there were other people that had eccentricity, but shannon was more flamboyant about it. >> he sounds more like. [inaudible] >> yeah, i think that's right. i think that's right that he was ahead of his time in so many ways. and probably that way as well. >> and his fundamental contributions.

the communication was only as good as the container it went through? >> you know, i guess the best way to explain the theory of the commission is to say that he looked at what you call the channel capacity of a system for sending messages. and he explained how you can measure capacity and how you could make sure you could overcome the noise in any system. and also, that work led to what would be called aircraft in code so you could essentially send any message with virtual perfection with these error correcting codes. shannon was a fierce individual that was not sit in developing these ideas practically. for instance, with the error correcting codes or digital

communications. bell labs was working on something called tcm, which shannon also wrote a long paper about. but he wasn't interested in developing them to be used in the system. he just was very interested in developing the idea. >> that is part of what is interesting about bell labs. in some sense, it was like an ivory tower, but it has been equivalent to a 10 year cycle, and the people. >> absolutely. a lot of the folks who are working in research would tell me that it is better than academia because for them, they didn't have to apply for grants. for one thing, they had the money they could use were expert for experimentation if they needed to. and you didn't have to teach practicum. so you have this freedom to work on your work. >> what is or was the

relationship between bell labs and princeton? >> bell labs in princeton? as far as i know there was very little. eventually, some of the bell labs people went to princeton, so i understood, after they did, -- at least as far as in that time period between 1945 in 1982, there is not really any significant arrangement that i'm aware of. >> also, the relationship to princeton, would be akin to things like sr, those connections? >> in those things i talk about bell labs executives. they were there with the vitality of california pretty early on. in 1960s, they hired someone who is the dean of stanford who helped with william shockley. the great about echo system of

entrepreneurs. they hired bill baker in new jersey, and said can we create some sort of analog here in new jersey. there were problems with new jersey, as i understand it, at least with princeton's science program was perhaps too theoretically oriented. geography wasn't necessarily suitable. it was to spread out between bell labs and other companies and pharmaceutical companies, there was this whole plan for something called summit university which was going to be modeled after caltech. it was going to be in northern new jersey. he remained a plan. it was expensive. bell labs decided they couldn't fund it and it was shelved? how and why is the government regulated monopoly at&t, more innovative than a government monopoly? >> that is a good question.

it is a beautiful question. >> how did they get the idea to. [inaudible] i don't remember how to pronounce that. >> in the days before that they were trying silicon and and types in pjs. they didn't use the word doping. it was before they use that phrase. he thought it would be the best thing they could use. he had a set of it but he could use. he took out the experiment. >> bell labs was funded by the monopoly revenue of at&t. the government regulators allowed the left to be added to every phone bill. an equivalent would be an explicit tax on telephone service and the proceeds going

to r&d would never pass congress today. >> can you read the first part of him? >> the government regulators love the cost of bell labs to be added to every phone bill. >> that's right. about one to one and a half percent of every person's phone bill went to bell labs. it was like a national laboratory, in that sense, it was funded by, not totally the taxpayers, but by phone subscribers. that is right. for better or worse. >> was that mandatory being subscribed? >> yes. >> we won't go there. [applause] >> worded the at&t marketing innovation come from? was that bell labs? this is an interesting thing. they didn't have to go out and sell. >> that is true. they were really good at selling the image as mother bell as a

benign entity. where did it come from? >> where did the marketing information come from for the phone company? was that from bell labs? >> no, there was no marketing there. >> as far as the human factor, it is possible -- i'm not aware of anything coming out of there that they used for marketing, but it is probably unlikely it. >> were there any patent disputes that came out of the invention of the transistor and who receive the royalties? >> there was a complicated patent story, especially with william shockley's device where he tried to patent it. i don't know if i should go into particulars. after it came out, as far as i know, in terms of challenges known, i don't remember there being any litigation or challenges to their patent.

and they went fairly smoothly through. >> is a former bell labs employee, remember that all new products require tariff approval, that could delay product rollout for a year. did you encounter that in her interviews? >> i'm not sure i fully understand the question. so if i am not reading it right, my apologies. so was there a tear for approval on a delay product rollout? >> i'm not sure which. that person is talking about. what when we need you read about in early history, they were local operating companies that wanted to raise rates. i don't know if that is what we are talking about in this particular question. but there was a constant kind of tension of at&t and the local operating companies, for

instance in california, i read 300 riveting pages of testimony from the 1950s where there -- they were explaining why they need to put a higher rate in place. >> most of the other questions are about the chief actors in innovation. it's been the remaining moments on that factor. if we could walk through those. is it starting with this idea of giving something time? and then bringing together a multidisciplinary approach to this environment? >> i think that those were -- at least with bell labs at that moment in time -- with different people working in different kinds of innovation, i think having practical problems, whether you are working on them or not -- i think it is incredibly vital.

the multidisciplinary aspect is essential to their approach to it. their approach to problem solving. i think of freedom, for some researchers is incredibly useful. i don't want to -- sometimes innovations occur not because of what management is allowing people to do, but because the researchers decided they were going to defy management. there are at least a few instances of that occurring. and yet that was sometimes allowable as well. money is very important. money for the short-term, money to hire the best people. money to higher a good number of people who can work together. money that ventures you will be around for the next year and maybe the next five years or the next 10 years. as i see it, i think those are essential ingredients. >> what about the question of whether or not failure -- i

don't get a sense of there being tension. we hear so much about competition and tension and is that -- but that is what is pushes innovation forward. i don't get a great sense there was tension from reading the book. there is competition, but outside of that, was there a place where there was a lot of competitiveness and tension and, oh, my god, if i don't get this done, i'm going to lose my job? >> there is competition and sometimes in later years, competing groups that competed against each other internally, i think it really is that a larger question exists that i think is something which might be the competition meant that we sort of now equate innovation with market competition. which is true to some extent. certainly i think that we did

great consumer products out of that kind of competitive marketplace. but certainly, if you look at the history of bell labs as a company and an organization that wasn't really competing with anyone else, you start to wonder, how does that happen if we give these breakthroughs? we got those printers because there was a place where there is a rich exchange of ideas and problems to be solved and that needed to be solved. i think that to some extent, the big breakthroughs elsewhere certainly, the internet was not created because of market competition. there are big break on temperatures, for the most part, they arise out of a need to move ahead, a deep curiosity and willingness to fail and explore the unknown.

>> so what do you, as we come to the end of our conversation, what should we take from the bell labs story? what can we take from this that would be useful for us to think about what you think about the problems that we have not solved and the way in which that innovative spirit might be brought about? >> i think the most important take away for me is that notion of balancing the short-term high metabolism innovation that we admire quite a bit with a longer-term vision. and i think that can be very vital. i wonder if things have gotten out of balance a little bit. to me, that is crucial. i think the other thing, too, is basic research can pay off in ways that you can't imagine.

the other day it was on "the wall street journal" that we should double our national investment. in bell labs, the string of innovations proved that those investments, those endeavors into basic science can change the world and can change the economy. it can create millions of jobs. and they don't pay off quickly, but the payoff in ways otherwise. >> and what about problems like energy and something that is so much at the forefront right now. and also climate change. are there things that we can take away from bell labs but you could use in some of those subjects? >> i hope so. i mean, we have our energy secretary who is a bell labs

alum. is familiar with the process better than anybody. i think the reality is that the world is different. larger principles are the most valuable things to learn. as opposed to those specific kinds of ingredients for innovation. we are at the time and place, but tackling big problems is essential. i personally think that energy and biotechnology and maybe information technology at the moment. >> thank you so much for taking us back to that time and place in engaging us into the bell labs and the great age of american innovation. thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

on wednesday nights "book tv", the first experiences of troops in iraq and afghanistan. benjamin bush discusses his life from growing up in new york to fighting in iraq in his memoir dust to dust. also, and illustrated forces mission in afghanistan. and chris kyle is the author of the autobiography american center. "book tv" begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. on c-span 2 tonight, a discussion about political moderates in the republican party. from the bipartisan policy center. chairman martin dempsey talks about u.s. military strategy in iraq and afghanistan. and later, more "book tv" with a biography of physicist stephen hocking. spend the weekend in oklahoma

city with "book tv" and c-span. check in with the literary life on booktv on c-span 2. oklahoma university president and former senator david lawrence on his letter to america. also rare books from galileo, copernicus and others. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, oklahoma history on american history tv on c-span 3. to her the oklahoma city bombing memorial with codesigner. ask him a look into african-american life in 1920s oklahoma and native american artifacts from the special collections at the oklahoma history center. this weekend from oklahoma city on c-span 2 and 3. >> political analyst discussed the centrist wing of the republican party that they say is disappearing.

panelists also discussed how the loss of political moderates is affecting both parties, and leading to a more pronounced partisan divide in washington. from the bipartisan policy center, this is about one hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. my name is imo frankl. i am a visiting scholar at the bipartisan policy center. some of you know that i focus on transportation and infrastructure issue, but my rule this morning is to welcome all of you to this conversation about the vanishing republican

moderates. i do so on behalf of the president of the bipartisan policy center and her colleagues at the pc. i know there are lots of really important famous powerful people in this room. i do want to knowledge to people. congressman mickey edwards of oklahoma. also, and i'm sure that he will hopefully participate, a regular member here, senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center, secretary dan brinkman. i also want to acknowledge and hope that he will protect debate, ron brownstein. ron has written a great deal about the issues that were going to be talking about today or that i'm very pleased that he was able to be here during this period as you know, bipartisan policy center was established five years ago, building on the

work of the national commission on energy policy. it was founded by four former senate majority leaders, howard baker, george mitchell, bob dole, and tom daschle. they believed that while there is a critical place in the making of public policy and partisanship, and for different views and values, all of whom were certainly on the barricades fighting for the things they believed in and for their parties. but they also believe and practice that we have to be able to shape and negotiate solutions to tough in critical national issues across partisan ideological regional and economic lines. i may mention that some of you are aware, about a month ago we honored senators baker and dole for a combined century of service to america. as a result, and i think some of you will have -- or all for all

of you, hopefully, have some material about a fellowship program that has been established in honor of senators baker and dole and their service honoring their commitment to public service, to their leadership, to their integrity, and we have established here a bigger dole leadership fellowship program that will enable talented individuals to work with experienced policy makers at bpc. happy to share more information with you anytime. bpc has been dedicated to the decibels that were so effectively carried out by these for extraordinary american leaders. we have done so in energy, building on the work, as i said, the national commissioner of energy policy. security, transportation, health, homeland security, housing, institutional reform in the democracy project, which is sponsoring this event. and of course, i'm sure all of you are aware of the extraordinary work done by and

led by pete domenici and doctor alice rivlin on fiscal and economic policy. our soap called debt reduction task force. our conversation this morning part of our democracy project. i would like to introduce my colleague, john fortier who directs the project and he will introduce our panelists. and he will moderate. as the invitation notes, and as john will describe, this event will be followed, i'm not sure we have a date for this yet, but june 20. june 20, on the vanishing moderate democrat here. [applause] [applause] honestly, secretary glickman has the same passionate interest in not -- do that.

we are talking about the last five decades. my role and my crew promised 255 years now has been largely devoted to transportation policy and management. many of you know that i have a personal interest in the subject. several of her colleagues are in this room this point. i welcome you and i am glad that you are is good to see the 50 year anniversary. if that is the right word. our purpose in founding the society was provide vision, intellectual rigor, and stimulus to reform an agenda within the republican party. the bow group, it was modeled

for. it is fair to say we share a taste for moderation and pragmatism and a deep commitment to the principles of equal rights for all americans on which the republican party have been founded. over the last four or five decades, in and particularly, in the last 20 years or so, things have not exactly developed within the republican party as we would have imagined. there were many tactical organizational and personal reasons that would have explained the dominant dynamics of republicanism over this period of time. i believe as well, and i'm sure we will talk about it, but there were broad, social, demographic and political trends that developed in the last half of the 20th century and in the first years of the century that we neither anticipated nor foresaw in 1962. all of this makes for a story with obviously very deep

personal resonance, to me, but also a fundamental historic significance to all americans. i know it is a story that this panel will explore. with that, john. to thank you very much. thank you for being here. we are blessed with a wonderful panel today on moderate republicans. as our hosts mentioned, we will do a similar event on june 20 about the disappearing moderate democrats. as i introduce the panel, let me say a few quick things. a preview every report that we are putting out. we are putting out a route and trend reports about the redistricting in the cycle, a lot of it has to do with looking at the district and who holds them. whether republicans can hold democratic districts or vice versa. the simple headline of this is that the fewer and fewer people on both sides of the aisle. just to give you background, at the beginning of the decade,

there were seven republicans who held democratic districts, and they happen to be those who have great voting records. by the end of the decades, there was one. on june 20, we will have more statistics on democrats as well. i think the story of a slight lag behind, certainly moving in the same direction was just a handful after this election. districts are different at the presidential level. it is very different from a democrat representing a republican state and it is out of sorts with their political political philosophy. let me introduce the panel. we will have some introductory questions for each of the panelists. allowing them to say something as opening remarks. we will have some conversation, then we will go to the audience. i will start, actually, at the end with jeff.

jeff has a book recently this year. the -- "rule and ruin: the downfall of moderation and the destruction of the republican party from eisenhower to the tea party." i believe we have some books being sold out front, and certainly for you viewing would make a good christmas present. it would also make a good fourth of july present or any holiday coming up. memorial day, yes. [applause] [applause] the author of this book is a historian and also the author of a very interesting book on kingman brewster, the guardian of yell. he has taught at yale and rights in the popular press as well. we heebner is a founding member

of the. [inaudible] society. and he was a former publisher of the international herald tribune, as well as the former director of the gw school of media and public affairs. and i'm going to turn to steve hayward, who is my colleague at the american enterprise institute. he is an expert on many issues, environmental issues included. he is also a historian and put a scientist with a background in ronald reagan. he has written several books on the presidency of ronald reagan. he has provided a skeptical -- somewhat more skeptical viewpoint of moderate republicans. finally, dan balz. chief correspondent for the "washington post." he is the author of the battle for america, 2008. he is working on the title, but the idea is the same. he has covered campaigns for

many years. also, the white house and congress. he is a veteran washington. he has won many awards in various places. and he appears regularly on shows like washington week in the daily rundown. let me begin. i'm going to come down the road this way. again, as i introduce them, let's start with geoffrey kabaservice. it's not fair for me to ask you to summarize your book in five sentences, but that is basically what i'm going to do. my question is, what was the impetus behind the moderate republican movement? why did it decline in what he think that decline was a bad thing for america? >> i'm going to go with the monty python summarizing 100 words or less idea. [laughter] [laughter] >> the impetus is the same for the republican party generally.

that lineage continued to last in the for the next hundred years of the party's development. by 1960, which is the moment when i opened my book, you can actually argue that the moderates held a dominant and within the republican party. what was known as the conservative faction which we think of is the smallest in the republican party. the others being the dominant party in midwest, which we associate with robert taft. and those from the larger cities of the northeast and west coast, and in the progressives was rockefeller, and those who were largely liberal on civil rights and civil liberties issues and who are mostly found in the northeast. the balance of power had been held during the dwight eisenhower years by that moderates. eisenhower had very little use for the conservatives. he said that number is negligible and the they are

stupid. other colorful marks to the effect. richard nixon, had he won the election in the 60s, at that point, the conservatives around bill buckley were not sure whether the republican party or democratic party would make it a better vehicle for their cause. maybe even a third party could have been a realistic possibility. as it turned out, the party machinery was captured in 1964 for the nomination of barry goldwater. this did not limit them by any means. after that, there was a fight by the moderates to retake control of the party to retain some influence of the party. that continued throughout the 1960s and 1970s. in many ways, richard nixon actually prefilled many of the longest held goals of the moderate movement. moderation was actually, which in the 1960s witnessed and

preferences. people like lee would were not inheriting it, they were making a movement that they battled first at harvard, with young americans for freedom of the right and sts on their luck. eventually to make this moderation into a philosophy and operational opportunity of government. there's more that we remember. the thing that tends to dominate is the defeat. and the disappearance. and the fact that maybe they might even be forced into breeding programs to keep some of them alive. [laughter] [laughter] as the onion has suggested on occasion. [laughter] [laughter] but i think that we actually do a disservice to understanding the current politics as well as political history if we don't remember what the moderates contributed and what they could contribute again. ..

.. [laughter] he wanted me to say that speaking about all this because he asked me, so is john price uic year, pack pat goldman and dean kurtzman at the same time and i want to introduce my wife who i met through the rivlin

society -- ripon society. a finger for things that i think of those early days to be really quick and brief. one of the questions was tamari going was tamari going to be active in politics? and if so, in? and i think i came from a kind of independent background was very checked to by the fact he was a group of young people wanted to say interesting things. the republican party seem to need people saying interesting things. we had the sense that as is often said the republican party had an image in our lifetime up to that point of being the party. not that it was so, but it didn't project dynamism and interests and ideas. joe mccarthy kind of dominated a lot of those impressions about the republican party was all

about. eisenhower come in much different kind of figure didn't seem a party person and was the whole kennedy eisenhower contrast was one of energy and aj supposed. so i think i was one element. conservatives also picked up on not an begin in begin nominating young dynamic people who are interested in ideas instead of arab think tanks and so on they really picked up on the same impulse. so that was one element. the second one i think was moderates, real excitement going in they be disciplined and is passionate as people with a clear ideological identity. and we said yes we can, we can be fiery moderates. the word fiery is our first declaration. what was there to be fiery

about? there were two things actually, the most important was the whole civil rights matter and i think it was absolutely at the center of the group's identity and sense of purpose. and it did seem as though conservative republicans were pulling away from the party is like an identity they made a lot of the party of lincoln amused lincoln as our logo and stationary inside continuing republican tradition is to get deeply into the history and you can cite the progressive republican impulse right through the garfield example, believe it or not. teddy roosevelt of course, the baldness movement. if you read the new literature on warren harding he had progressive ideas, especially international policy. coolidge came up in the republican party as a moderate. he did not vote the party when theodore roosevelt to, but he was one of the few that progressives didn't want to ask

because it is a practical moderate guy. both of his successors as republican candidates, who for an land and as republican progressives nonetheless came back to nominees. loki and tom julian eisenhower and nixon. so there is a tradition to resist and not hurt to move sharply to the raid. that tradition was strongest probably a civil rights. republicans back the rates of 64 and 65 and stronger percentages than democrats to. >> they don't know that half the time. >> this is true story. >> and often took the leadership in those bills. not people from big-city days. people from small towns in the

midwest. it's one very strong example. that was one example and another impetus to the act gives group and that was one of our more pronounced policy positions. the democrats were encumbered by the fact they had this huge southern wing, which was segregationist and hamper the democratic party even though they were many very ardent civil rights supporters in the democratic party from being as aggressive in addressing these issues early on. the third cutting-edge issue unmentioned quickly was internationalist imposed against the isolationist or highly nationalist tendencies within the more conservative parts of the party that had been eisenhower's central reason for wanting to come back for president. and the fourth was found and that we debated a lot.

it was to what extent on domestic policy do you want to repeal the new deal? that drove a lot of traditional republicans, or conservative republicans if you're going to try to do that the democrats will win every election and republicans will whenever election. nixon's version was do we trust coming in now,, really conservatives and you don't want one-party replacing the other for bringing about radical change. this institution sees that the long time. you live with them a while longer to reform them, but you don't suddenly tear the car from unsigned as the roach at the opposite side without creating some thing. we try to outline may be a third way in terms of your message policy and any number of proposals. inevitably the fourth element becomes very pragmatic and very

involved and you can't people like president reagan's saying, let's stop painting and pastels and start putting in a, clear colors and people like shots they say and it's a choice, not mac. and it is hard. it was and remains inaccurate to get excited about this sort of pragmatic centrist positions. that's just a quick outline of some of the things. >> steve, i'm going to ask you, him is it a good thing that there is the demise of moderate republicans are maybe so i don't make you the rockefeller garden party, is there something good to be said about a conservative republican party? and then a second question, your biographer, scholar ronald reagan and the relationship to the monitor wing of the republican party. >> put me in the middle seat. i'm in the middle on anything.

i'm here to defend extremism and hate and intolerance. [laughter] >> you're the best guy. >> i'm reminded. i'm reminded of however one said barry goldwater was extremists. until 20 years later from rebels that actually he's an older statements kind of. ronald reagan said he killed paul conrad depicting reagan in the munich that the quote from a book of civil rights leader singer scampering back not just ku klux klan but the american party. people actually said that this quoted in the "washington post." shocking. and people say that about democrats, too. republicans say obama is a socialist and all this stuff. so that's a normal trove of political discourse that's unhelpful, often can be. however, i'm reminded also of

eugene mccarthy's great comments. the chief purpose is to shoot the wounded when the battle is over. [laughter] have a typically paradoxical view about this problem and it is a problem in practical terms that the people of the middle, moderates of both parties who get the gang of 14 and the people who get veggie tales back in the 80s under reagan and in the 90s as clinton and gingrich and so forth. when those people disappear and you have the empowerment of interest groups that coalesced from the parties, that makes it more difficult to achieve. no doubt that is true. among the five or six parts, aldus mentioned two. one problem is if you like the old bell model of a missile book in the future of american politics for 50 some years ago in the party dynamic as no one a favor with most political scientists and may be wrong, but you do some of them in party and one is the dominant party in the

moon party in its orbit has to adapt if it's going to survive and live to have another day. they describe the world of the nuclear era will republicans as checkpoints and in his book, often will support the civil rights act act of certain modifications to improve them in certain ways, limit and other waste and so forth. so what happens is conservative republicans, the fully conservative now finally said a ratcheting up of the government. i happen to agree with most of those positions. on the other hand we have this a lot trip that we've seen like the last two week just had with the swings. and now you might say we now have to phone the parties. and so we can -- what happened right now is we have congress with 7% approval ratings. this ought thing that people vote for their own program.

so there's disjunction somewhere. people hate congress to let their own congressperson. but republicans are doing the houses that deeply unpopular don't get caught by the voters. on the other hand, maybe not. hopefully voters have to decide this and ultimately want to blame independence. maybe that's right. but i wish independents would pick a side and stick for a while because the new disablement governing on one side or the other and that would restore little of the old dynamic of people who want to get things done. i can say more but i'll stop there. >> say something about reagan and maybe how he governed in california before he governed in washington. >> yeah, i think one of the many great lessons of reagan is he really was a prop to pull, prudent, even the statesman's and here's why. he obviously had deep ideological views. he also understood you cannot govern as an executive without having all wings of the party

represented in your administration. i think i counted 17 or 18 senators elected in 1981. when he became governor of california, the first thing he did was bring in most of christopher's people to his campaign, including the rockefeller republican named kat weinberger who supported christopher against reagan. so during the 80s you had the ideological and game going on and there is an interesting mutual attraction going on between the heart or conservatives and people in the media. people played this up and get the leaks and various sides. the conservatives love to talk about the split, too. those conflicts were real. there were differences in factions then people wouldn't sit next to the diamond people and so forth. on the other hand, reagan replicated exactly what he did in california, understanding you can't govern the country with only one faction of your party.

but he hadn't talked about that. one of the many things he never talked about openly. and in stinky habit was unperceived. he liked to have people disagree and he would put down stock when they say tax increase at meetings. but i think there's a deeper pretense that work there. so this is an interesting problem of arthur moderate conservative democrats? either moderate liberal republicans available for administrations now? i think that's the problem is seen in the current administration and the previous one. i'll stop there. >> so dan, maybe you can take our story a little more up to the president. you've been covering washington campaigns in congress. can you tell us about your view of how the republican party has changed since you started covering it just two or three years ago? >> i feel it would've been covering the story of the demise of the moderate republicans since i came in the mid-70s

and the only thing that has changed is the side of the moderate wing gets smaller and smaller but we keep talking about its demise. i feel as the mainstream media person which is in the age of walkers and sharpish allah sundays going to be a panel at some point, whatever happened with the mainstream media view of how to cover washington. so we're still trying to do to look at all sides. you know inside was thinking about the arc of what's happened, you can go through -- there's no singular moment in which you can say this tip that, but there were a series of things that happened over the last couple of decades. ron brownstein and i did a book back in the mid-90s about the republican takeover of congress in 1994 and if you think back into that period, there is one irony, which jeff talks about in his book, which is that newt gingrich was put into the

leadership largely because of the help of moderate republicans and yet it was during the gingrich. but i think there was in many ways a decisive turn in this evolution we continue to look at today. a couple of points. one was the budget deal in 1990, when gingrich bolted from the rest of the republican leadership, left the white house and anger when they announced a deal to air and basically went up and organized the force is to try to knock it down. i think that was a critical moment in which the conservatives antiestablishment part of the republican party in congress began to flex its muscles in a much more significant way. and we then saw a 1992 -- i remember doing an interview with tom delay after the 1992 election and i asked him, but was the feeling that those of

you looking to build a new republican party, different republican party in the night that george h. debbie bush lost his election and said was fabulous. his view was this was a moment of liberation for those who wanted to go for a much harder edged, much more confrontational , much more conservative approach to the way the republicans are going to operate in congress. 1994 was to say he says in that it brought back down to the congressional level that was seen at the presidential level, which is the southern station of the republican party and that created the coalition big enough to turn republicans into a majority congress. so for a short part of time it was viewed within the republican party is sort of a culmination of a series of forces that time i started with cold water and continue to rake in but now finally gave the republicans the possibility of becoming the

dominant party over a longer period of time. obviously we have something like that there is the reaction in the reaction was in the northeast it was difficult for republican candidates to go along with at the national republican party now is that in this party was advocating. so you decide if further gap and you saw moderate republicans/more on the defensive. i think that ironically, you know, the last piece of this in the last few years are the most current piece of this at the tea party movement, we describe much of that to the election of barack obama and the reaction to that. but i think there is also a piece of that that is related to the presidency of george w. bush, who campaigned in 2000 companies and house republicans as a foil and to try to suggest that he was a different kind of

republican, a compassionate conservative, which was i suppose as close as he was willing to say a more moderate conservative as opposed to a hard-core conservative. but as we know in the latter stages of the bush presidency, a lot of the conservative base rebelled against the kind of thing he was doing and domestic policy he was undertaking. so over the last couple of years of the bush presidency, a revolt underway within the republican base, which was then accelerated with the election of barack obama and the stimulus package in health care package and it has now created this huge goal. i make one other point and then stop. and that is, this is not unrelated to the general homogenization of both parties. i mean, we think of moderate republicans and conservative democrats in an area when the party is for and you had some of each in both parties.

we don't have that anymore and in part because voters have sorted themselves out. if you're a republican at this point, 90% or 95% you vote for republican candidate. so there is much less mixing and matching that we see among the electorate and that has encouraged a think the widening of the gap between the two parties and particularly within congress, the wings being more dominant in the middle. >> so i'm going to follow up then open up to the rest of the panel. we have a recent book, all of us on the panel know tom mann with the title worst anything, but the headline of the book has been guessers polarization in both parties, but really it's much more significant in the republican party and the problem is that the republican party. do you agree with that? determinist asymmetric polarization. as one party more polarized are

much more homogenous or d.c. more for balance between the two quick >> at this point the republican party is more confrontational, more resistant to anything the president has tried to do. now you could make an argument the that same thing happened the night teen 93 when president clinton was the lack good and instead of doing some of the things he attacked about as a candidate, particularly welfare reform agenda another track after having essentially sort of the mortgage part of his presidency to the congressional leadership and took a more aggressive or liberal approach of the things he was trying to do and republicans said were going to fight against that. remember his budget plan in 1993 went through without a single republican vote as i recall. it is not as though it's unprecedented, but there is a harder edge in the election of a tea party freshman, robert draper in the last week called

do not ask what good we do, which is about the house republicans over the last year since a guy like in 2010. and it talks about the conviction that is now they are within the republican base and within the tea party side of it. and i think it's a much harder thing as we've seen speaker boehner try to work through that, not terribly successfully. so there is right now in the republican party, a harder edge about it. we do not know if you had a republican president in the equivalent of the democratic party of the democratic majority on one side whether we would see the same kind of thing, but at this point it's more heavily on the republican side. >> anyone else want to weigh in on that question quick >> i find myself nodding in agreement and i don't want this to happen. it's often forgotten that the inspiration for today's conservative movement is the communist party. it's not often remembered because there's a bit of

exaggeration. the principal strategists at the conservative movement did take a lot of this tactical inspirations from battling communist with the american veterans after world war ii and realized this talk of voting, dominating means that the whole array of type dixie vow that a small faction can use to take power within the larger body which is largely unaware. and over the years the success of the syndicate, which was the operation had white blame russia had within the republican organization experienced success with the goldwater movement, went on to become the back bone of a lot of conservative campaign. a real problem with conservatism is much better at winning elections than knowing what to do with power once it has it. indeed the role of the ripon society was great at coming up

with innovative republican policies, not so good at achieving power or winning elections are getting the things implemented. richard nixon knew they were the republican soul, which is why he was such an effective president so many ways although we tend to forget that. we still see this problem where conservatives are great at knocking down everything they don't believe, but also leaves them in a nihilistic position when it comes to office. >> i'm going to disappoint you and agree with most of what you just said. i have a quite different account. the other thing is one part of the elephant leg that thinks it's a treat. but anyway, republicans don't know how to gather and peer there's some truth to that is something i complain about a lot. at the junction between whether there is -- they may be able to win elections. whether they can command a majority public opinion to

support some of the more serious ideas, that is more doubtful and conservatives resist a man honesty. again, that is reagan's prudence. he made social security comic at his head handed early on and never did it again. had he tried it again he would not affect great popularity ratings he enjoyed throughout his presidency. i do wonder though -- there's a long historical cycle on the right and i've been thinking about experiments in the current president and our vice president hasn't been tripped up by as contingencies, which you can never eliminate from your thinking. suppose you had and how the florida disaster which was both parties, especially bush's opposition. and to you hadn't had 9/11, what if bush had been a domestic policy and no child left behind was the first of several in the tax cuts arguments was on forever.

you cannot might've churned out. likewise i tend to give obama -- and the critic obviously, but he could not pass to a large grief for this reason. he's handed the financial crisis 60s before the election. economic crisis republican effort to were three years and said that he was going to do and then did it. and obama suddenly handed this crisis and then you get t.a.r.p. and then you get the stimulus and then you're back to what you really want to purchase health care. by that point the experiment is what is obama's presidency been like if he had a more quoted quite from a election campaign indicating that the administration. we can figure that one out either, but i wonder if we had a contrary particularly unusual point of time since the great depression and i don't know if that is germane or not, but i think it might be. >> the thought experiment suggested that bob dolan city at

at the question for the panel, how would nixon be remembered without watergate? that took some real experimenting. [laughter] spin the code link can be remembered without the civil war? [laughter] but the argument i just made which is closer to the main theme, there is something that clinton was elected that you thought, which is very real, very raw and problematic in that w-whiskey was was a baby boomer from the hippie side of the 60s. the culture where access. one thing that right if he tried to say goodbye to all of this visa post-baby boomer. so even say what if these guys hadn't had radical contingencies? there so the work going on with obama -- senator clinton and i use the obama. not quite the same because that's fair, too.

that is a typical problem i think. all the best baby boomer screw. >> are all making a point for jeff green. i'm going to ask a question. one more historical question. perhaps still he also appeared to moderate republicans ever see themselves as taking over the party in changing the direction of the republican party? or was it more that they thought he should be a balancing wing? yearbook i think makes a little bit of both cases. which is it? was very path to some five of a new southern coalition maybe the republicans could get some african-american posts or other sort of coalitions that change public and party was that i was going to be an important wing that had to be preserved? >> of course being a moderate in the sum of one and some of the

other. [laughter] a lot of people and besides object to independents and moderates. in deed returns tossed around are, transsexuals and hermaphrodites. for the bipartisan opposition to moderation when i say. i would actually say that operation was some paint and stood for some demon in 1860s during this time. they wanted to see his positions dominate all but wasn't interested in taking power within the party per se. when all is said and done it was a think tank for the term. it wasn't sent teams is going to seek out and stir things up at the grassroots. the positions were internationalism versus interventionism and upon a decentralization versus centralization that characterize the great society and johnson's administration. they wanted to see less of an emphasis on bureaucratization and more on devolution of government responsibilities to his apprentice that. voluntary and secondary sector.

and it actually wanted to see a kind of temperamental moderation of conservatism. you know, my book is trying to be a little too cute by making notice major villains nelson rockefeller on this principle here is bill buckley. but the point is rockefeller undermined the moderates and the multitude of ways for bill buckley was actually working towards some kind of understanding. there is a post i came across in a heap of bill buckley's personal letters. i've recently had to negotiate with a 15-year-old son re: whom i probably possess weapons as definitive as those with nuclear is the pentagon but i found myself not temporizing. that's a bad word, but calculating, figuring kopechne. it's part of the conservative functions to do that and i don't think it is to engage in betrayal and this is the kind of moderate middle ground, small and moderate to some sum of the conservative side and some of the moderate republicans that

are working towards. we can't forget the productive negotiations and working arrangements between them. the ripon society partially brought use per side side economics. the alumni did and the ripon were further ahead on not then were conservatives in the party at that time. i think i've lost the moderates kind of hope to have a more concerned if conservative than, kmart it can't conservatives and dominating the party. i don't think there were allusions to take power back. they wanted ta just prevail enough and they succeeded. >> there is a take on that they think is useful. i remember some of our colleagues in the state named these questions are pretty complicated in this modern world and they deserve to be aired and debated within both parties, not just between the parties. i think the ribbon role is to try to ensure a lively debate within one of the parties,

within the republican party hoping that would have been contributed to a broader and wiser debate between the major parties. i'd think and i'll express it by us i suppose. i think in policy terms -- of insane rhetoric terms, but in policy terms the modern philosophy did covering the republican party during the nixon years. nixon without watergate -- i agree it's very hard to imagine. nixon said he be remembered for two things, china and watergate, one could, one bad. if watergate were not there and i'm not saying it shouldn't be. i think accrue out of some thing -- i think nixon is two different people and watergate was one side with nixon. but it wasn't just china. it was the first nuclear, first reduction arms treaty at the nuclear age with soviet union.

this middle eastern policy. it is so many things on the domestic side that it's hard to list them all. i have a class about nixon in part at least 29 domestic initiatives that people have forgotten, beginning with the first real bold environmental legislation, how people can see others initiative or nixon was delegating to advisers which he did or he had to do it. but nonetheless he did 30 embraced it. school segregation went miles further down the road in the first two years of the nixon administration. nixon called it -- tom walker in his book, one of vice, and describes it as growing with muffled oars, not making a big fuss, but getting it done. the dual school districts were a

single array is districts, single school districts after two years. social spending, human resource and phoenix needed the defense budget for the first time since before world war ii under nixon. those are things that he cut done. the whole revenue sharing, federalism set of concepts were brought in. three things he did not get done are really relevant today. one of course people think of quickly sometimes as welfare reform, guaranteed annual income if they can use that phrase come and make a negative income tax which passed the house rather easily and then got hung up in the senate and never came out. truly liberal republican idea of a very cute. if network requirements another conservative elements in nixon described in the language that sometimes obscured its boldness,

but that was one. the second one was economic policy. opposing the international economic history in 19 -- what was that, 71 and really change the nature of international economics completely ron paul now was enforcing. but at the same time, nixon imposed price controls, which the democrat even talked about for a long time, and didn't work very well, but was willing to try it. the third thing on this and i've said this so often -- nixon's health insurance plan went beyond obama's. i worked on it a bit. i went back and read. i went in to to the house guy.

he bragged about and centered on the individual mandate. ted kennedy said before he died it was the biggest mistake he made in the senate was not supporting his health care plan. now we're being told the individual mandate may be unconstitutional. i don't think the argument was even whispered about in the nixon years. now it goes on to another list of the teen girl vote and volunteer army and the draft and tension reform and osha, the 20 item list. i think that the decline of moderate republicans in part stems from the fact that the great moderate press which it come down through the decades in iraq and discredited by watergate. nixon couldn't really pass on that legacy. obama today cannot fake nixon as an example. there was a whole tradition that

sort of off-limits and i think that is another of the cost of watergate. >> can i pick up on that? the reciting of nixon's accomplishments brings to mind a comment made in 1970 that m. stanton evans where he says there's only two things i don't like about the nixon administration. domestic policy and foreign policy. [laughter] but it's a guarantee on one of my themes which i have a product that is what should happen the homogenization of the party started at the democratic party first. imagine buckley and 67 who is alarmed. he and moynihan arlington would have been to lyndon johnson. he said a rat clicker which is a flamboyant phrase. buckley has allowed this to to for reasons of stability, something you just brought up. in 19.friedman said close to what i have in mind have been in the house but ties in the senate

and from two sides, ronald reagan i discovered ferociously opposed it and lobbied heavily against it in ways that surprised me and how thick the fire was. and secondly, the left was against it. wasn't enough. one of my books was gene mccarthy can say you can even discuss this thing now because of the people on the left. and then you get to the mcgovern years and those people say today reagan was not only a reaganite. we have a swarm of the interest groups by reforms that both begin with republican followed any point out the lives of the direct primary have empowered them to extremism and both sides. we'll guess what if you have a smoke filled rooms we want to get rid of because of reform, you can preserve more of a breath in the party and as other parts of the nationalization of issues that breaks down some as well. and that's a big problem.

the outcome of pitcher finger on the right again that's the key that nixon told buckley that i learned when i ran an ace center member when i ran for president you can't run only right-wing. when i ran for governor of california can't run without them. he called himself a pragmatic liberal when he started out in california politics. >> i have one memory of him, i think the worst moment in terms of moderate -- a moderate dominance of politics at the moment was very cold water the san francisco and the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation -- richard nixon had just introduced goldwater and was sitting right behind him with a wonderful introduction saying this is known as

mr. derivatives. this man is known as mr. conservative. today he becomes known as mr. republican and in november were calling him mr. president. goldwater starts out with what nixon later calls salt and vinegar and the wounds of any moderate who were lingering. and nixon carefully and not partly did not upon that line. i've come to know him by ben. he's very much turned to plan out his comeback and he just couldn't. he had to -- he did support the ticket, but he was not going to be drawn into that kind is conservatism. he got into a very animated conservatism. anyway, just use that to kind of signal. always wanted to play to a broad party base and to include -- conclusive as the code and

sometimes his lack of spontaneity made that an awkward currents near the current candidate trying to do that. [inaudible conversations] -- following many republicans around, but if ashley are soon to be nominee. of course there are questions about mitt romney's past position and pass governance in massachusetts, but i also went to maybe that up later about his father, lineage also is a very moderate and the near candidate for president in 19 he. can you tell us about mitt romney, his relation to his own path and also his windy and it's been what that says about how a mcgovern? in montgomery to to describe the

relationship with his own lineage is awkward. you know, if you look at romney who ran against teddy kennedy and the romney who ran today, they could be running against one another as hard to know which one would prevail. but somewhere in between there is the real mitt romney and i think that we're going to find out more as we go through the general election, exactly where he wants to come down. through this whole discussion, the kind of elephant in the room if you will is, how did this party that we are talking about that is lost every shred of moderation supposedly in which there is no moderate wing end up nominating a person like mitt romney to be its presidential candidate this year. no part of what you can say is that he was blessed with a terribly weak field, which is certainly true. you could say he had more money than anybody else and said the

weapons he was able to bring to bear against were kind of popped up at any given moment were far greater than that person had to defend themselves if they were going through it. but also, it is the reality that would've romney decided to do or thought he had to do was become more like a party of today, at least in some nominal ways to give himself the nomination and we would see it this point just how costly that is in the general election. i mean, the most obvious place his buddies down on immigration, where he went much farther to the right than i think most people believe he needed to. but i think -- if you step back and try to push yourself in the shoes of the romney campaign, i think they believe that rick perry was going to be a real tough opponent and in many ways

a much more natural nominee for the party they mitt romney would have been. and so they took the perry campaign and a way that i don't think i've taken anybody up to that point quite a seriously. they took it seriously and thought they had to knock them down. there were things they did in the first debate on social security when i think they felt the immigration piece was one where they could make in terribly vulnerable to base and went ahead and did it. and he went even further than not before the case that the campaign. the romney who has emerged as someone who has tried to be comfortable with the tea party republican party and yet as you watch him, listen to him in just the sort of general demeanor that romney tells you that's not quite who he is through the struggle he's going to go through the next several months to present himself in the most comfortable way possible that keeps the base of the republican party energized.

>> i'm going to a minute to the ideas. we have microphones around if you can please identify yourself will start right here in the back. >> raman buehler. i'm originally from california and my question is, one of the things that wasn't mentioned here was the new open primary law that passed by initiative in california by which puts the top people on the ballot impractically empowers independent spirits and other nominees of both parties are going to have to compete not just against the partisans in there and party registration universe, but with independents. and of course california fans are than 10% of the delegation to congress. how do you think that will impact in moderation but in the republican party and the democratic party? >> zacatecas data that is of

fellow californian. i think that depends in part on how those lines are long. we had this crazy commission process, but my reference on this since the 1990s. california had two things happening. the passed term limits we pass everything out of the legislature in men because of the deadlock between republican democratic legislature and the masters the districts in the way he was doing the civics textbooks, continuous city's comments assembly districts inside, senate district in my observation was difficult years especially in the first half for pete wilson had huge deficits, the reach compromise the democratic legislature. my perception was you had more moderate democrats and moderate republicans because you districts competitive as opposed to gerrymandered districts in the last 10 years per unit heavily either way the democratic majority within each one of those gerrymandered districts you had the interest

groups and the extra party machine and a dominated nomination of the republicans died in groups the democratic side. again it's gone for a while, but this date it is much more in the 80s that the 80s not that was highly partisan and in this decade for the 90s dance that is something different and i think it was actually having a seriously competitive districts and a few in the congressional seats. a few more moderate democrats come a couple more moderate democrats not disappeared also. >> moderate republicans pined reforms came to pass most recently. hewlett-packard was one of the majors of that. moderate republicans used to dominate politics than they had the ability to run in the democratic primary. oral war and is notorious for running the primaries.

>> nixon won both primaries. >> ebay. quickly i have great goes for the california reform. maybe my hopes are much too high, and it seems that might encourage people to play to the center. the two go together as redistrict teen element and the two winner alan at. >> i have to say more skeptical about this as to whether it will bring about the kind of changes a lot of people anticipate what the proponents claim our hope. i think the point here that the republican party today in california such a different party than it was historically. mostly because it is so small and has been so unsuccessful with the obvious exception of schwarzenegger and the odd recall election of being able to win statewide elections in getting anyone elected at the statewide level, their record is terrible over the last decade. so i think until you build more

viable republican party, it's going to be hard to see this play out in the way the proponents anticipate. >> run. fund drive for national journal. what was the impact on conservatives of having a significant moderate wing in the republican party? for that under the post having a conservative claim the democratic party whether it's congress that the reagan administration. even in the reagan administration were voices of the different factions come a different in the party. how does that affect the way choices were made when issues were debated as you said not only between the parties but within the parties? >> jeff, your book is great. >> sure. i think conservatives had to think about what was going to appeal to people in their party and then go on to sell it to the

broader public as well. it's actually disciplined conservatives and made them realize the need to actually persuade people of their views rather than simply rally troops and oppose over any kind of opposition. here again ronald reagan is the exemplar, someone who is not the single greatest locator in the 1966 election. his lieutenant governor, robert finch and the only man his opinion on politics to break and really respected anything. i think reagan saw the need after the goldwater defeat that if republican was going to triumph, had to cooperate with moderates and had to be a big tent party and how to make the case for an affirmative conservatives that could solve the nation's problems. and we often forget how the rhetoric has deteriorated and was pretty terrible that it was reagan who impose to his critics frustration the 11th commandment to not speak ill of

another republican candidate, but the philosophy, too. >> allen has a book coming out in the next couple years on william buckley. >> from new jersey originally. just book talks about -- tributes one of the causes of the moderates demise to the inability or lack of interest to the organizational ability. lead tax about her but is taking over the party machinery, which they relinquish. my question when i let packet. you had a third of the senate called themselves moderate republicans and they had two dozen governorships come from new jersey, not california but the same story they went from maine to maryland. couldn't find a state without one or two republican senators or governor. why are they so allergic to

increasing and is there any reason for this? the second is to be of any appeal at all? i want to get to the culture issue. nixon's majority were not all against new deal, not all rockefeller voters. many were rockefeller voters. there seemed to be no connection between liberal republicans and what we called reagan democrats, union voters, northern catholics. reagan may not have been the leading vote getter in california but won by a million votes, many democrats. we didn't see a lot of that with another lender are they going to give up and do the social networking all the stuff we see obama people doing now in the tea party doing. where are they? >> to be driven by some passionate ink, moderates are often less passionate and this is the original claim when you're carefully looking at both sides of the issue, you see the

pastel shades and not the bold colors. and you probably get a little less excited about all of that. conservatives have had serious -- i think jeff talks about the marginalization's conservatives had tremendous energy that saw most desperate effort that took part to lead and also advance their cause. i don't think many moderates had bad. maybe on the civil rights issue in the 60s that was the period i think one element we haven't mentioned which has helped to make this disparity even more intense is the rise of the religious right and propelling a lot of that on the conservative side of the spectrum and the unusual dedication of energy.

what's the right word? the sense that everything on this. moderates have other lives. many of us who are involved in the ripon society end up doing other things. i think that is one -- one dimension of the fact. >> curt daley was another member who had a great quote. moderates are moderate. raising the sword of moderation and waving the bloody shirt of operation. it's a contradiction in terms. the things about moderates said they had doubts. they see the world in shades of gray. if you have no doubts whether that's religious certainty or politically fueled to whatever tape that you make the personal investment of time, money, energy passion to see that prevails.

moderates hope for the past and if it doesn't work out, that's okay, too. >> i think there's another aspect to this and we cannot talk about the moderates as this embattled come in narrow band always survival. in fact if you think about it the other way, moderates were in many ways the establishment. so every movement attempted to crack the establishment wouldn't do for the top down. they had to do it from the top. this is the goldwater evolution 64 and the way he won was to co-organize grassroots. the religious right is leaches pointed out has done the same thing. now the tea party. in all cases, any effort on the part of conservatives to battle the establishment has had to go through grassroots rather than top down. it is not that moderates were immune to war against doing this they never had to. they assumed they were the

historical basis of the republican party so it was the others crashing the party. >> one quick observations. individuals make a great difference. one of the problems with the moderates as they did not time to do it anymore. he was one person who understood the necessity of organization and got moderates organize to take over the apparatus and when he passed, so did this whole perspective. >> and nixon talked about picking it up, but even if he had been able to i doubt watergate qualified him from doing that. >> thank you very much. john price. the question looks more into the future than the past. we've spoken about how moderates were marginalized in both parties and i am hearing something -- it's up to someone last night about the effort in this election cycle to have an internet-based third wave. i wondered whether it is time

that lasts you think of the demise of the waves and the evolution or metamorphosis of the parties come at least one of them and whether or not the establishment or the grassroots are moderates or somebody is going to take the initiative, which will eventually end a new and more centrist party. >> so the question is about america section of the third-party prospect. >> no insurer. we have a two-party system. we're stuck with it. it's not going to change for reasons i won't get into but that's the answer. the party has taken over from within. by the is provocative in its title come destruction of the republican party. you can call it creative destruction, coalition-based republican party with new conservative party because republican party is now the conservative party in all but name and moderates have a significant impact in the future through one of the two parties.

>> a quick one sentence comment. that could happen if there was a am both parties went to extremes. the both clinton and obama chose preamp to center anything prevented that from happening and it's unlikely to happen this year. >> i agree with jeff again. >> are going to want a refund here. with this wrinkle, more and more people are unassociated with the party of the john persuades me add that mostly pretty heavily one way or the other. but 20 years ago the angry middle are not at both parties and their champion impartially was ross perot, not exactly extreme and certain other ways other than ideology rate for the flawed messenger. i typed earlier that the radical historical contingency. i can see a possibility supposedly three or four years

to now, it's -- that if you have the body of government, which some seem to like as the separation of powers of the check on at some level. and we have the european-style financial crisis for the markets punish the country in the town can't fix it. i think there might be a narrow point to be something like bloomberg. a lot of resources step forward and say enough and that's a very narrow window, but otherwise jeff is right. the two-party system makes it almost impossible for that to succeed. >> is even less space in the middle today than there was when perot was up. for the time being, there's enough in each party to make them think that what the next election they can gain the real foothold they want. as long as there is that balance, i think the energy is still within the basis of the two parties are not the third-party movement.

ingredients are certainly there in a lot of ways because of what is discussed in washington generally do not see it it having enough to really fly up at this point. >> there's this access point to do an internet poll and put somebody the ballot that someone accepts to go on it. so that is a hidden factor in this election, but i agree. >> i was once a conservative. in 64 came back from barry goldwater as a 17.high school senior. i was a member of the ads, young republicans, the american conservative union and then i went to vietnam and that changed my mind. the campaign for howard bakeries to be in the d.c. republican committee and i was a member of the set to society. i just voted for my last republican or john huntsville was on the ballot and i called the next is that i voted for him and i could say that proudly.

i consider myself a rhino. but you have an elephant you can read taliban. you have a and you. had better by now always has a point to make and has a very solid point to make and does it. so no labels this around. that is almost in between now. that is like mark lieutenant who was 43 public relations person. so who was the moderate wing and how does it really come back quiet because a lot of the things the democrats are too -- i hate say this, liberal and now, the republicans are to something or another. i can't figure out what they are. >> so are the moderate republicans on most, fair way of putting it?

yesterday's moderate republicans on most. >> sure, why not. the polls stayed, but there's still millions of moderate republicans out there. ..

>> >> i would just at the thought. the surgeon aspect of the old laing of the party coming along the nomination process. bush, dole, much of bush bush, john mccain talking to democrats. [laughter] mitt romney. why can't we get to another ronald reagan? >> it has been the executive oriented party and the democratic party is more

legislative which is why they dominate congress and ken mcgovern better than republicans. also differences write them they control the house. newt gingrich is unthinkable as senator gingrich. there was always say food fight in california passing with one vote then somebody goes to the senate's then they have a food fight again. we designed them on purpose but the historical pattern people tend to gravitate

while it is more chaotic of a grass-roots movement. >> people are moderate or independent generally a disappointment to the left but the centrist and where we go but obama is very clear. >> impossible pc a return in the republican party this election now we see will

send, you then chris shea. could didier counterweight from the last election? >> minimal. we may say 2010 was the peak for the tea party good and bad influence. but it may not be ebbing back from being conservative but it is not a general proposition. as i said, parties are dynamic and turkey and nec

adjusting twos success and failure. if republicans lose seats seats, there is a period bad reflection and recrimination looking at how they position themselves 2014. look gain 2010 comment 2012 is not the way. these will have an influence on the direction of the party. >> i doubt they'd you have addressed the growing tendency for rejecting party identification with the growth of the independents.

if we look hard, don't we see that increasing? >> we see that statistically that the fastest growing group has declined. with no party but in a practical way people do not the haven that way. people say independent floor personal i did the vacation but this is more polarized. i don't think the growth has said the material effect on the way they behave the. >> number have grown but

most are strongly line to 21 party. ask the independent leading republican would be more likely to vote republican. >> and hold more conservative positions. >> there is a slice of 10% perfectly persuade loopholes. >> why are more and more people rather say what party affiliation? i being that there needs to be an update of why americans hate politics. maybe they have opinions but say why do i want to be affiliated with the there

one? [laughter] that is the problem. a lot of quote -- consequences. i will stop there. >> on that optimistic note to. [laughter] [applause] we will end their. [inaudible conversations]

joint chief of staff chairman dempsey spoke today in washington. out line key elements of the

new defense strategy outlined by a bomb that. including iraq, afghanistan, korea. this is just under one hour. >> afternoon. i am president of the carnegie endowment for international peace. they give or to levying us for this event for general dempsey taking up his position october succeed being admiral mike mullen that we've lourdes fortunate to host his last week of his tenure so it gives me pleasure to welcome general dempsey at the beginning of

his term so he can some of in the same chair. general dempsey nine thinkpad this inherited a tougher situation than most. syria, sudan, i am thinking systemic a decade of for iraq afghanistan iran drawing to a close. there is an outcome there as positive as we can make it. also the region's growing wealth and military power,

taking on a new significance prompting a shift in strategy. >> there are no examples of the world order to accommodate a great power. this laid behind the china peaceful rise. this hess to raise at the top. third, the coming wave of budget cuts to creating and is sustaining flexible and effective as the change of the security environment that the crystal ball is cloudy. asses but the military adviser and leader of men

and women in a uniform, there are no easy decisions. and certainly true for this one. with his responsibilities, the country is fortunate to to have the man of his experience. serving in uniform 30 years living in all corners of the world. nc rose through the ranks, an adviser to one of his predecessors and assumed an oppressive of our re. during the year early days, he distinguished himself and later commanded commanded -- commanded the army doctrine command to become chief of staff last april. less than eight weeks later

president obama tapped him as chairman and continuing along distinguished career along distinguished career taking bob has heaved dedicated himself to rebuilding the force to prepare with future troops and families. >> not a bad recommendation but the president has called him with the most respected combat tested general's. we are deeply honored to have him here. please join me to welcome general dempsey. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction.

and all of you for your presence today. i did not know there was the overflow room. i have not add this crowd since i saying karaoke. [laughter] that's not true. but you have the right feigns on your mind and i will say some of my peers in other countries will almost express sympathy for my plight the joint chiefs of staff. i say i am the senior military officer for the finest force the world has the first scene and came in 38 years ago i would try to

make a difference. now they have converged and it is a blessing everyday i put to on the uniform and service great country. i was in colorado springs yesterday conducting the wounded warrior games. each service as a team of 50, things that change their lives. the model is ability over disability. i mentioned to keep it in context. in afghanistan is that time of the day blair we do most operations. we will figure out because that is what we do and we have a nation where sons and

daughters count on us. then we have the chance to have the conversation. the subtext to suggest is making strategy were. we have formulated the new defense strategy built on the foundation of qdr. but important in several ways. number one is rebalancing to the pacific. not that we ever left but i would suggest i was then they go what does it mean

but i suggested in his unprocessed that starts with intellectual band with. by an happy to be here today. one of the center's of thinking and we need to understand how '02 rebalance ourselves. it is also about thinking. second, building partners that is the cornerstone. not of necessity because we do less but the world we have seen evolves around us over the last 10 years is a

world that is a secure the paradox the air act and evolutionary low of violence. it does not feel like that because of technologies to middleweight and non stayed to actors servitude feel bad to i came in the army 1974. not as a way for credentials but to do throat up the shield of the security paradox but not to be that with bigger forces but different forces and among 15th to make that work

feasibility to build on existing partnerships, the north atlantic alliance, and emerging partners. our adversaries have decentralized for pro they network and syndicate using the defers century technologies then syndicate criminal state and non state actors based on the moments in time for common purpose. somebody quintessential hire col institution -- quintessential hierarchical institution we have the market cornered on end hierarchy bad addis

the quintessential hierarchical institution we have to be a network and be more joint. we have to pull off and partner with the network for those who are like-minded, it makes them stronger and building a stronger network. if you are interested i was in nato, colombia, ed jordon , that narrative was reinforced and i will be happy to talk.

me and 27 closest partners sat around the room for briefings but somebody said a wooded you describe the position as chief some of defense? >> my wife wrote me a letter win we still wrote letters. now you tax search of new children last time they answer their phone this quite a while but the answer the text immediately. but my wife said i am miserable without you. it is almost as though you were right here with me. [laughter] i confronted her after words

if that was a freudian slip and assured me it was. you are miserable without them but also with them their i.r.a. a couple of things of building partners we need to take on to beat up teller. intelligence sharing sharing, military sales come of behalf to reform some processes that the first was rebalancing but the

integration of capabilities we did not have 10 years ago. back then the acronym isi are would be elusive for most of us. but now you probably have heard the term means intelligence surveillance and recognizance but blended and means our ability to collect intelligence pollution video video, signals, intelligence bomber remotely that 15 years ago would have been stuff of science fiction. second is cyber and thud domain called cyberspace that it has it's own unique

capabilities, requirements, of capabilities, we must continue to learn to put the capabilities into the normal way of operating because it not only makes us better but slaughter -- smarter. also forces have increased fourfold but 25 pulled in capability. but in the four -- former times are increasingly becoming integrated into the conventional way to operate

but we have moved now from right teeing our new strategy to beginning to challenge ourselves on what it takes to deliver. but integrating these capabilities are the key to the endeavor. you can ask questions. please identify yourself if you have the possibility to

ask easy questions. >> introduce yourself. we brief it is not meant to be a press conference but a conversation. dive behind the headlines for conversation. >> going back to the beginning talking a bar rebalancing in asia, i can you talk about what what was sequestration do? >> didn't you hear what she said? [laughter] >> rebalance thing. it is a multi service

approach to overcoming anti-access. not unique to the pacific but to increasing capability with the proliferation but i had to stand up of the anti-access whether munitions, a whole suite of technological capabilities. the airforce and the navy approach to overcoming anti-access but it sits under the joint operational concept. so the chairman has a

concept to insure we could have it through the land to maine and inouye to do night us. read our but operational access is intended to make sure our movement as the battle has the multi service approach with those anti-strategies. and as i said, not just pacific but iran have the strategy we could potentially overcome. let's not talk about

sequestration and the particular but budgetary issues in general. somewhat successfully but it if we did that happen the constructions or any adjective, we have to change based on what we learned to and to see the security environment in the future. we tried to jump out to and then look back words getting ready to submit a budget going from 13 about 17 that

we would have more opportunities to build the force 2020 against a strategy from the fall. 1317 submission was the first of four steps but we have no idea where we bonds to be and back ourselves into it. i have to mention sequestration in the context. we submitted the bell in february. it is in marked up.

is this but we tried to build the force with the strategy of the articulate. it will come back. it is never exact are you familiar with the first rule? but but the first roll wing walking was never let go with both hands at the same time.

[laughter] when people ask me reworking on sequestration? i have a grip what to 13 months like but if i come up short i am thrown off. in the spirit i follow the first rule and have not done anything at this point*. >> everybody has to be very brief. >> i am just a mom. people say the pakistani isi was aware of their presence and how do address as a partner leading to the green on blue tax and the under

current? >> there is a lot of threats that come together to form a question. the question of the relationship with pakistan is the complexity. also of significant military aid to military and a misunderstanding and mistrust going back decades. officers of my generation have a closer relationship with each other but the generation behind us they did not come to our schools so we have generational gaps that create mistrust and

misunderstanding. we are concerned. we have been upfront. i china not to have it play out to in public but for those who run along the border in pakistan but if you're not familiar with green on blue the insider threat to of soldiers or policemen turning on their partners. is related but i cannot see cause and the effect. if we take 100 institute -- cases they are based on ravages in but

everyone has its own challenge. the other 75 out of 100 archrival, in salted, not respected, internal problems to that soldier's family like our own. we work on it from several directions counterintelligence come the biometric, at education, tactics comment techniques, procedures, it is extraordinary complex. the relationship with pakistan is the most complex

but i am committed to find increasingly common interest especially along the border with afghanistan. >> but what about being a functioning party? >> let me describe where we are today or need to be. of the doctrine that guided guess we saw that through

the middle with clear objectives with overwhelming force. we found this is about finding modng models you coulbot finding models you could nidal the bias the entire nation. second, the definition for example, it is pretty hard we conceded after fighting we have a role and began to

embrace it. then it comes 9/11 and famously going from the template to the powell doctrine. >> so what i have heard. >> if i put the tag line on it, it is pretty a measure but i would describe as a global network approach.

it gets back to the point* taking these capabilities integrating them and part period but to not to have these networks with something other than huge four rations of soldiers or sailors. i am not there yet. but what we're looking for is the counter insurgency strategy.

put those challenges range from terrorism to piracy to organized-crime. this is a work in progress. >> can i do two or three questions that once? then i can pick what to answer. [laughter] >> i want to pick up about partners and networking and explain your feeling with a lot and institutions but in the traditional relationships between military and law-enforcement how does that play?

>> among the lessons prominently, in particular it is not enough. we talk about bill holt of government which overtime began to take shape. overtime it began to deliver. one vignette to highlight. i was the first commander baghdad. there was no security forces. we won't talk about that.

became clear we had to find a way to get the local forces on the street. i began with my commanders to both the army lake forest park row we've trained them for a minimal amount of time to get a face on unsecured -- security. concurrently the department tries to build back up the police forces. with the disconnect, i was training the iraqi national guard to operate against and

at -- and enemy that was very well armed. it began to manifest itself. they were good. but the police were trained with investigations i am not making that up for denigrating it. you were mayor image jane the experience and they were being clobbered, it killed, it took us time but the conceited for a time 1/2 to have a capability but over time will hold

collaboration began to bear fruit but in the complexity and corruption are extraordinarily difficult to overcome to see it then address that. two years ago we had a stand-up anti-corruption task force. the whole mission could have been corrupt. we did not turn the corner on fully understanding but we have come along way since 2003 and we have to keep plugging away. we're closer as 10 injured agency, we are a network but

how much better to we need to be? there are new ones ahead. >> good afternoon thank you for your thoughtfulness. of love to talk about your experiences but many places have said there is not of military solution can you talk more about the experiences? >> this is one where i weld

digress but circle back. when i speak to groups of young colonels i am invited to speak to rising groups of civilians. what is most important? relationships. how did we made progress fundamentally if there is a captain standing up here. i am not making that up. we had no reason to interact

with each other. police as a colonel but today you cannot find a lieutenant that has not been paired with somebody or another agency of government. how in the world believe maintain that relationship as we go back to our cubicle? my soldiers go back to four brag theaters go back to foggy bottom. we owe it to ourselves and our nation to do something about that. >>

>> when you talk about networks but with the secrecy? bair makes the case specifically how to share intelligence. but the government in the '90s is phenomenal speaking specifically of the until share range parameters technology all of those not

saying anything about the process but they have not adapted themselves but with that strategy we have to give over the process. >> you mentioned to the israeli counterpart chief of staff increase paribas with other countries assuming you can confirm that is this a coordinated effort? and at what coordination doesn't take place now? >> i have not been accused of talk gained about i

remanded passing. [laughter] i know they would rather speak for themselves. closely collaborating on many of their front to come to a common understanding and a likely timeline i have met with more than any other month and that will continue with common interest in the defense of this real and earlier determined from iran to become a nuclear weapon

say. we're collaborating with the eight israeli military intel sharing and our posture it does not rise to joint planning but we are closely collaborating. >> >> pci new leader of the rather large military parade myth that sudden rash you have a better understanding and what you can share with us? >> he is clearly a defer person and his father.

not only gave the speech but much more archrival a lot of the visit this to military and solutions he says piracy is military. that is distressing that he leads the country starving to death but the fact that it is worth exploring and my role is military preparedness. the of their chief of defense is myself korean

counterpart it is premature to see what type of leader kim jong un will be although we were all disturbed of the ballistic missile launch of the heels of engagement but we maintain prepared this and others work the diplomatic side. >> i am with the place of america ugh chinese branch. we appreciate your information regarding to a gnat economic dialogue hall been paying but it has

established could you please talk about what will the discussed and you just mentioned the partnership. on that south sea issue especially with the partnership with the philippines. >> it is worth mentioning our future with china not a containment strategy. one historian had them

trapped but it was if the year a raising spared the that makes it inevitable. one of my jobs is to avoid this. we don't want the fear of the merging china so there are more opportunities and liabilities and of course, you hear senior leaders say we embrace the raising tied up. i could meet with my a counterpart in their slow and youthful but positive. each service has a different relationship because we've tried to work out.

might go to singapore soon hoping by chinese counterpart is there to talk about what we are trying to do to build these partners and to ensure stability and to assure and make it clear there is interest navigation, commerce, intere st, to live up as the asia-pacific partner because there is another country called india that this modest and influential. i don't know of the agenda is for that conference.

>> thank you for the discussion. i would like to know your definition of victory for afghanistan. the parameters and why a it has been protracted why does it say that long for the taliban macquarie. >> thank you perhaps being. i am a student of vocabulary. but the one question, why is it taking so long? i say because we've to write to. we could have