of a now defunct annual publication called the godspell. not exactly something you'd find in the new stand, yeah, at the airport. to write a little essay about kircher to go with a series of, to go with canisters of illustrations from his books but as i mentioned, his books were filled with these fantastic engravings, you can see them online. you can see some of that in my book. in some ways they were the first coffee table books. they were these beautiful, lovely volumes. and so i wrote that essay, and i brought -- i brought them home and i was just, it was just mind-boggling. the range of stuff that he was into, and it was so esoteric, so strange, so i just kind of fell down the rabbit hole.

and seven years later i think we are here. >> i had known about edward muybridge as most of us do when i mentioned those photographs of the horses, a lot of folks nodded their heads. for many years, but in all of the scholarly stuff that i had read about him, there was no mention of the murder that he committed. and i thought it might be interesting to tell the story of an inventor who committed murder and who changed the course of media history in the process. so it was like going back to an idea that had been simmering for a long time. >> they are both figures that i think, especially in the last decade there's been a lot of interest in, but i think your books are both outstanding and

add very much to her sense of both men or all three men. and so i will say thank you, thank you, john, thank you, edward. and i should mention that both books are on sale outside. so if you have a purchased a copy complete of places, to copt thank you. thank you for attending this program. they will be signing them in the arts room. stimp we would like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback on twitter.com/booktv. >> luis fleischman argues that hugo chávez laid the groundwork for the emergence of a socialist authoritarian takeover of south and central america that would eventually become serious problem for the united states. this event was hosted by the fund for american studies in

washington, d.c. it's just over one hour. >> thank you. thank you for these kind introduction. i want to express special thanks to the sponsors organizations, the center for security policy, the fund for american studies, and the american forum. i'm very pleased to be attending tonight. terrific job by the sponsoring organization, a special thanks to nancy was in charge of the security project where serve as an adviser and as a coeditor of the american support, as christy mentioned. and, of course, very special thanks to the president and ceo of the center for security policy and chief operating office at the center. for the general support of the project and for having supported throughout the years our work at the center. i also would like to thank john

perdue from the fund for american studies for helping make tonight's hesitation possible. in terms of the book, the reason why i wrote this book was in order to try to make sense of the nature of these phenomenon called hugo chávez and his revolution. and the potential application of this revolution not only for our region and for the united states, but in general. and my intent was, i was not content different views of the situation in latin america. particularly those who defined shoppers a socialist or populist regime that emerged as a result of the failure of free market

policies, and they feared job is only as reaction who is a failure of these free market policies. most of these explanations are economic. they seek chávez as an economic phenomenon and they believe that chávez more, the road for which is not good but good -- could last as long as -- [inaudible] or if oil prices go down they will no longer be in the bolivian revolution. i reject that notion because i believe that hugo chávez is not only -- unser, the bolivian revolution that hugo chávez initiative is not just a domestic revolution but a transactional revolution, a revolution that goes beyond the boundaries of venezuela in the same way that any other revolution was not necessary total tally in but let's say --

[inaudible]. i also tried to challenge those who claim that the region is going in a reversible direction of democracy and that chávez and the revolution are made exceptions to the rule and only temporary phenomenons. i disagree with those views because i believe that those views do not take into account the nature of the revolution, the ideology, the scope and actions of what bulletin is him has done -- bulletin is him has done. it's important to point out that the regime is deeply revolution and this an attempt to recount the foundations of the state similarly, its domestic revolution a project is connected to our transnational

project. in addition it has developed relations with countries such as iran, with organizations such as the revolutionary armed forces of colombia. has establish relations with drug cartels them with other rogue states, and with china also. so even those what we point out the finger on those dangerous relations, very often they tend to be informative to they tend to be descriptive, it was a failed was lacking was something that would put all those together, the relation between common you know, the fact that the bolivarian revolution is an italian revolution of goes against democracy 30 years after democracy has been restored in latin america.

the fact that it is establishing relations with iran over the drug cartels. i tried to make sense of all these phenomena altogether, but not only with the objective of explaining that or trying to understand that, but also in trying to project, i'm trying to reject the future scenarios in order to clarify what my view is the situation in latin america. so this book's primary intent is to unscramble and make sense of the facts and the reality so that we can have lenses, if you wish, or some sort of framework through which we can look at the reality of latin america today. so, the book is comprised by

nine chapters. in the first chapter i discuss the roots of the bolivarian revolution. not only the roots of the bolivarian revolution in venezuela but also in the countries that actually had a following. the explanation that i give to why the bolivarian revolution emerged is not the economic explanation, even though i can identify economic reasons why it emerged, but mostly the emergence of these revolutions to the fact that these were very efficient democracy. [inaudible]. democracy was limited to just

the act of voting the people who vote for leaders or the parties, the parties would do whatever they want and then he would wait until the next election. there was no connection. with the emergence of democracy early in the 1980s and 1990s, we have a situation where more and more are realized groups, including indigenous groups, and other groups that were previously marginalized, all of a sudden, to the political scene and they get mobilized. the political system is enabled to absorb these new forces. and what they did is they act in the own way, in their own radical way that i described before. and for instance, yet cases that

promises everything to the indigenous populations, and they promise to respond to the indigenous populations. and once he comes to power that's exactly the opposite of what he promised during the election period so this kind of political structure eventually radicalize is, breaks the system -- of democratic system, it collapses and that is filled by nudity that actually come out of the establishment outside of political parties and filled that out. in other words, to summarize, the bolivarian revolution images in venezuela and in other countries because democracy basically failed. it's not a good democracy. it's not an institutionalized democracy.

there's no connection between state and civil society. the state does not respond to civil society. there is no way for the integration of forces. i come back to this issue later at the end of my book. chapter two stresses the nature of the regime founded by hugo chávez. and i say that the bolivarian revolution is neither, if not a classic populist regime and does not a typical liberal democracy. neither i would say we can reduce the venezuelan government as being merely a socialist government. it is also highly ideological, it's expansion -- it's antidemocratic, it's

anti-american. in addition, it is very important to point out, even though we have elections taking place in those countries, those elections are mostly referendums. that's the only form of democracy that still prevails in a way. these regimes have also totalitarian -- and what are the characteristics? basically the regime calls for constitutional reform, at this constitutional reform, usually a constitution, a constitution that is usually divides more rights to civilian society. it's an extension of rights. most of these constitutions -- our constitutions that tend to strengthen the power of the state as, at the expense of the

rights of so society. so what we're having is attacks against the basic civil economic rights. in other words, an attack against private property, private property is actually being demolished by the venezuelan government in particular. by individual rights, in emulation of the citizenry and the media, and -- such as the trade unions, one of the things chávez just destroyed. and, of course, the use of the derogative to weaken institutions in the judiciary and the political opposition. now, all these things you can say they are characters is also italian regimes, but the elements are so far, ideology, the government is trying to indoctrinate through education as much as possible, and in

addition it subjugates the judiciary and the legal system to the will of the regime. and i give you an example. the case of maria. she as a judge. that judge released a person that chávez want to continue to be in jail. the reason why that judge released that person is because he said he already served enough time. he doesn't need to serve all the time. so she followed the legal logic of the venezuelan legal system, but instead, chávez didn't like that and she put the judge in jail and later she was raped and those sorts of things. so that reminds us very much -- [inaudible] but there is a book called hitler's justice.

in hitler's justice the judge's new exactly what the regime wanted. and day, they gave according to what the regime wanted. they didn't follow of the chill -- a legal logic but the follow the logic of what the supreme leader water. this is the reason why the german judges a lot of people to death for nothing. so if the president doesn't like that judge and put them in show, that's typical of these regimes. typical of -- this is exactly what the government of hugo chávez is based on accumulation of power, what it means is the invasion of state into all the arenas of civil society. for that, he sees as crucial an alliance between the government and the military.

he has corrupted the military and is also created paramilitaries. he has created a lot of organizations outside the institutional system of the state in order to create more and more loyalty to the regime, more than the institutions of the state. i hope i'm explaining myself. not to speak about -- [inaudible]. almost every aspect of venezuela, particularly the oil giant. be expelled -- [inaudible] and instead he appointed by people loyal to the regime. the person who is in charge is no other than a family member, with the same last name, ramirez. [inaudible] the totalitarian

feature of the regime is that there is such an obsession with a committing power that they have completed disregard for immediate consequences and national interest. for instance, look at what chávez has done with, for instance, [inaudible] the united states is not in the interest of the venezuela but most of the oil in venezuela itself sells to the united states. at one point somebody from an economic magazine asked me a question whether i really believe that chávez is going to nationalize this and that company. i forgot what company. says it is making sense, it's not convenient for venezuela. and my answer was totalitarian rulers do not have calculations of economic gain over accusations of national interest. they are very much stuck in the

own power and trying to accumulate as much power as possible. this is why those people who believe that chávez is going to fall on economics, and when i say chávez, and i thought that chávez regime. chávez is no longer a course. they are wrong. this is a regime that has been designed to perfectly sell forever, for a long, long time, and they believe that those who actually come after chávez are going to radicalize the revolution even further. so in the next chapter i talk about how the transnational aspects of the bolivarian revolution. the bolivarian revolution, chávez is put a lot of resources in trying to find countries whose ideology was again to his

own. and also tried to use other means, sometimes violent, in order to make sure that some of it actually follows this line gains power or is selected in different countries to the reason is very clear. if other countries create the same type of regime, namely, having a full pot, executive poweoutthat controls the populas much as possible, that means that would be easier for the bolivarian revolution to achieve unity in the continent, because most of these positions are going to be in whatever position is going to be in the hands of a hundred people. now, what is the threat to your?

the thread is a very clear -- the threat is very clear. the government of venezuela established relations with iran. they established relations with drug cartel, and the other countries did exactly the same thing. so when democracy is undermined, the way this undermined in those bulletin countries we should be very much aware that it couldn't and major geopolitical, major geopolitical problem because when the talking about an intern issue with the country -- [inaudible] this total tally in country is anti-american and also have is a step in connection with a number of enemies of the united states or any -- enemies in general.

so democracy, that democracy your is equal to our geopolitical threat. so the more dictators like this are being elected that are less and less accountable to civil society, or less and less accountable to, let's say, the legitimate power, that means the more the accumulate out and the more they're free to make decisions on some of these positions are not good. so, therefore, as i said, i repeat, democracy, the lack of democracy in the bolivarian countries is a threat. next i also talk about the outrage of the bolivarian revolution to the new groups that i mentioned before, like the indigenous groups, like the

marginal groups that existed. hugo chávez and the bolivarian revolution have tried to reach to these groups. taken with many, many groups in argentina and in chile and in brazil in particular that actually see hugo chávez as a symbol of revolution, as a symbol of liberation but as a symbol of anti-americanism. it's not clear to what extent the bolivarian revolution succeeded in reaching out to all these groups. but definitely we have some clear examples of powerful groups that today they don't hold their own leaders as symbols, but they hold hugo chávez. like for instance, the movement in brazil, they are actively, they are actively bolivarian.

they have supported hugo chávez. the grassroots of the worker party that has ruled brazil since the year 2003, 10 years now, the grassroots is hugo chávez. the movement in argentina that was raised in the early 2000s professing -- protesting the argentine government there is also pro-transit to get more other indigenous groups that are also pro-tracer. so in the future these democratic systems do not absorb these forces big most probably could fall in the hands of some revolutionary movement, in this case the bolivarian movement which in my cases are much alive despite the fact that hugo chávez is dead now. in chapter five i talk, i tried to make sense of revelation with the farc and the drug cartels.

the relation with the farc is based on, in my opinion, to point, and something that you can see clearly -- [inaudible]. the first is that the farc cancer as a paramilitary force, and that is something hugo chávez and his allies have created. to protect from an external threat they will claim -- which is not unlikely, not impossible, inconceivable. or in cases threatened by interim enemies. so the farc, which is an organization that since the 1950s is based on what is called -- [inaudible] if you

wish. it's a marxism oriented group internally but has been defeated in colombia slowly. not entirely defeated but slowly i think it lost a lot of power. if you look at the ideology of the farc, the farc has moved from having ideology of marxism oriented to the peasants, to adopting the bolivarian revolution. it's something that we can see. the bolivarian revolution, they endorse the bolivarian revolution. they embrace the bolivarian revolution, and if we look at the farc of files and other documents we can see clearly that the bolivarian revolution also sees, these the farc as the means to promote the bolivarian revolution across latin america your and as an example, the farc has already worked together with

the dpp in paraguay, but it's called the people's army of paraguay. it is worth -- it has worked in chile. not necessarily big groups that they are big enough, big enough to create violence but they are big enough to challenge governments in latin america. in terms of the drug cartels, there are two elements to drug cartels but at this point everyone knows according to a report that we saw in the year 2009 by the government agents office that venezuela is clearly enabling that transit of drugs through columbia through venezuela, through the united states and into europe. all venezuelan ports and

airports, venezuela today enables the drug cartel to open it. and a lot of the drugs that we receive here in united states, and europe originate in venezuela airports and that was announced by federal-state departments, officials. and at the time when we are fighting the drug cartels in mexico, that means that on the one hand we're trying to fix a problem, the venezuelans are helping the drug cartels on the other. what is the logic of cooperating with the drug cartels? here is an idea i take from -- [inaudible]. the drug cartels are not only, do not only poison our society with drugs, not only intoxicate our kids with drugs and sell it

here, but the drug cartels also destroy the states. they bribe politician. they bribe charges. they bribe that democracy. they bribe, they destroy the state. today, for instance, country such as guatemala are safe states. a total state of anarchy and i believe this is going to soon extend all across central america. it's already happening in other countries in latin america. so that means that what we're going to find very soon is in afghanistan right in our backyard. now, what would be the interests of the bolivarian revolution to work with drug cartels? very simple. to create anarchy in those countries, and that anarchy would probably or at least it's likely that would bring a leader

such as hugo chávez, a leader that can claim, put back order and then we would have it, takeover those governments. and, of course, the drug cartels cooperate freely. so this is i think major damage that the drug cartels are doing. remember, in states where we have anarchy it's also very easy, is usually taken over by gains. it's taken over by federalist groups, and very often also foreign countries have influence in countries that are in a state of anarchy so do we already have the business of iran. so the more anarchy goes, these countries are the more we could see the presence of, you know, the the the possibility of our

revolution or an increasing crime for more and more presence of iranians or other rogue states, but particularly iranians. so chapter six actually deals with iran. and here i tried to also try to dissipate another myth about the presence of iran in latin america. many people think that iran is seeking to break the isolation to which they've been subject as a result of international sanctions. the realities that this is one reason, but in order to understand how, what is the weight of the presence of iran in latin america, we need to take into account what is the

agenda of the bolivarian revolution. so i argue that the presence of iran in the continent is not only iran's interest to avoid sanctions but there is an element of these but in order to understand that we need to look at what is the agenda, what is the edge of iran and what is the interest of venezuela. so iran as an agenda that is seeking nuclear weapons. of course, the bolivarian countries can support, are supporting iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. but remember that once iran obtains a nuclear weapon, they

can use venezuelan soil and become a threat to the united states, on shorter distance than the distance between iran and israel. and that's really, that could be really, really problematic. the other thing that the iranians are looking for in latin america is probably having a base for war-fight. you know, the president of revolutionary guard in latin america, the presence in latin america represent the presence of terrorists, iranian backed terrorist in latin america, and that would also serve to cause some harm to the united states, of some american interest. i'll give you a sample, what happened in the dover 2011 went iran -- in october 2011 when iran had killed the ambassador by using a member of a major

drug company and mexico. hezbollah has a strong presence in latin america, and the connections to the drug cartels, and it also have connections of course to the venezuelan government. now, what would be in the interest of the venezuelan government in having relations with iran? and here i go back to the same logic that i used with the farc. the iranians are experts in creating or consolidating -- [inaudible]. this is what is not surprising that we have the revolutionary, iranian revolutionary guards in latin america. secondly, the iranians, of course experts -- [inaudible],

which is what is called guerrilla warfare, protection of their own regime. and these are things that the iranians are experts on. particularly i think what people of varying government is taking into account is the possibility that cuba, if castro dies in cuba undergirding type of reform, and they decide to move to transition to democracy and they leave the bolivarian experience, they can always build that back up. so i think there is a mutual interest between the venezuelans and the iranians, and that's the reason why the iranians are in latin america. i don't think the iranians alone went to latin america because they wanted.

they were called by the bolivarian revolution. they were called by hugo chávez to join. then i discuss revolution with china and them going to be very quick care before i finish. china is usually understood as a country that is seeking to grow economically. and they're looking to increase the economic power. i claim that china is also seeking to increase its political power and its influence around the world. and the situation right now is that the united states has a lot of influence in china's backyard. we have very strong relations with the philippines, with japan from was south korea and we then provide weapons to taiwan. we are not allowing the chinese to soil taiwan. and that is on the chinese nerves. the bolivarian revolution offers

china a great opportunity to be in america's backyard. i know that americans don't like to call themselves the backyard of the united states, and i don't blame them for that, but having chinese presence in the united states field of interest is also a very important thing for the chinese. but the danger is not that the chinese would have influence in her own backyard. i think the real threat is that the chinese can help the bolivarian revolution with all its implications. they can provide them with economic health. they can sell them, you know, and we are seeing that behavior of china in the world. we are seeing commute, we want to impose sanctions on iran, the

chinese opposed. we tried to impose sanctions on sudan. the chinese objected. and, of course, in the searing kiss, we're in the same situation. they also objected. they continued to object. so, therefore, it is in the interest, vital interests of china to help perpetuate the bolivarian revolution and all the allies of the bolivarian revolution. so that is something important to take into account. finally, i talk about the regional and u.s. policy. i'll try just do not, toledo for the question and answer period. you prefer me to stop right now and take questions. because the other two chapters deal with the region and u.s. policy, how the region and the united states reacted, react to

the bolivarian revolution. and, finally, i propose restrictions. sociality therefore question period, and i will stop right here. [applause] >> i'm russell king, i'm a federal employee and i the question about, i thought i heard that chávez's body is being involved to lie in state permanently. and the only president i know about that is in common is countries like vietnam, russia, china, places like that. and i think what they're trying to do is sort of invalidate your expression, post chávez air which i think is a valid expression.

but we have a cold of that. [cheers an-- isa summit that ha? >> , if you look at the story in latin america and -- [inaudible] that was the case. to talk about they didn't do that but definitely come you know, the grave actually became like a place where everyone actually went there like the mecca. and i believe that what they're doing makes a lot of sense because the post-chavez era is -- [inaudible] big only difference, this is where i believe the government is going to continue to go any direction of hugo chávez because hugo chávez left behind a huge, huge structure. and as i said in my presentation, the government,

the bolivarian revolution government of venezuela has been designed to perpetrate itself. so i believe that using chávez as an image, and it's interestiinteresti ng because a lot of people who in the last election did not vote for transit, they say they still like chávez. which is very interesting. that shows that the charisma of chávez or the appeal to the poor sectors was really, really effective. something that has more difficulty to achieve. i don't think maduro has succeeded and this is why he even if we accept the results of the election in venezuela, what we see there is the support for the ruling party actually diminished, all right?

so i think what that talks about the will of the current government to continue. i believe there will be more social revolts in venezuela. there will be more organization by civil society and the parties and the organizations, but i believe that maduro is going to respond with repression, more and more repression. and we already seeing that now. so i believe that eventually the elections are going to be abolished because after april 14, i think the message was, you know what, we may lose the next election. so either they continued to commit fraud as they have done, in my opinion, or they are going to eliminate the elections altogether. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> i'm from chile. >> yes, we know each other i

think. >> your presentation left me, i was a, deeply compassionate say, pessimistic. so let me try on you and i will turn this scenario. if you look at the performance and how venezuela, bolivia, et cetera, are doing, what they're going on the one hand, and you look at chile, peru, colombia, mexico on the other and have their integrating the among themselves and across the more developed region, is it conceivable that if you take the long-term view that something very analogous is happening that happen between democratic and capitalistic systems on one side, on the commons regimes on the other, where the lack of viability at some point may be

noted and these other regimes may implode? particularly because you have weaker economies that underpins those regimes, as again the soviet union and china, et cetera, in the past but is it conceivable? i want to leave with a little bit more of the spirit come that's what i'm asking you this. >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry that i actually left you with a sense of pessimism. in my opinion they can implode, but a revolution regime can survive even while being poor. i me, look at north korea and look at cuba. so they can survive even if they don't have enough resources or, you know. they can face reports with it can also repress rewards, you see? i think this, in my opinion, it is up to the local population,

right, the local civil society to raise those issues. and i think if they continued to be active in the way that now the venezuelans are acting under the new leadership, but that's not enough. they need to also begin to be active at the international level. they need to begin to be active at the international level because part of the reason why the bolivarian revolution survives is because the regional environment supports the bolivarian revolution. ..

>> and as long as the workers' party, the pt, is in party in brazil, i think they will continue to give political support to the revolution and to the government. finish. >> my name is -- [inaudible] , i come from venezuela, and my partner and i make part of an organization called -- [inaudible] which translates for consciousness. there are three themes you

didn't mention, and i wonder why. one of them is the importance of the participation of the sao paulo record funnel in all the -- forum in all the outlines of political issues in venezuela. the other one is why -- during the intervention in cuba we had 120,000 military in venezuela, but we have also 60,000 cubans who are there in political activities and military too. and the other thing is about the elections. they are absolutely, agree with you, these elections are kind of referenda. but these elections are also fraud elections in the way of russian and other countries of

the former soviet union. they are controlled elections, they are fraudulent elections. it's very important because there is no way to, there is no way out of the regime with elections, with democratic activities. that's my question. >> okay. so i think we agree on the third one. in terms of cuba, i do mention that in my book. but i have to be honest with you, i tried to make sure that that's another premise or another thesis that i have challenged. a lot of people say, well, chavez or the -- [inaudible] revolutioning is basically a cuban invention or creation. i think the role of the cubans is mainly to provide advice on how to make the regime last forever. in other words, there is mostly

in the art of repression, in the art of establishing and consolidating regime. this is, i hi, the greatest contribution -- i think, the greatest contribution of the cubans. it's not medicine. certainly, how to run the machine politically. and, of course, the cubans have a lot of experience x be that is bad news. and i mention that. on the other hand, i believe that the boly vain revolution -- i don't think they are property of the cubans. first of all, because the cubans themselves depend on venezuelan oil. vensvenezuela -- cuba is the lat recipient of venezuelan foreign aid. they are not the only ones. and i believe that the most dangerous agenda in terms of, in geopolitical terms i don't think is coming from the cubans, i

think is coming from other factors that i mentioned before. iew -- but i'm not diminishing the importance of cubans. i even mention it in the book. i actually gave a presentation in miami almost a couple of weeks ago, and though usually i have a lot of questions about cuba because they really view chavez as another cuba. no, i tend -- the bolivarian revolution has been successful way beyond -- when i say successful, it's quote-unquote. insofar as it has been able to cross boundaries, all right? it has been able to actually not only to have presidents that were elected on a chavez platform, on bolivarian platform, but also every political party of the left even if it's a social democracy has somebody who's opposed chavez.

even colombia has a cha vista -- [inaudible] so that type of outreach and success, transnational success that the chavez revolution had i don't think the cuban revolution ever had. but i agree, the cubans play a role in helping the bolivarian revolution to consolidate itself and its power. >> i'm luis -- [inaudible] from argentine that, and i'm interested how you see the future of relations between argentina and venezuela. there are indications that the argentine president who shows kind of a populist government is perhaps dreaming of assuming a kind of a leadership role after the passing of chavez. today i read in the argentine press that the president of argentina is planning to travel

to colombia next month to act as a mediator between colombia and vens venezuela. >> yes. that's another example. i mean, the fact that a country such as argentina and the president of argentina admires chavez tremendously. actually, i follow him occasionally as tweeters. it's unbelievable. she almost wrote love letters for chavez there. i believe that, yes, the president of argentina has a lot of aspirations to be a leader in latin america, and she admires the cha a vez model -- chavez model. she will never be able to impose the chavez model in argentina because it's a different type of society. there are many elements in civil society, many more counterbalances, you know? chavez, i think, had the advantage of having oil and having the monopoly on oil,

basically. in the case of argentina, you know, there are so many conflicts there, there is so much opposition. but certainly i think christine that is trying to strengthen the executive power even having reforms that actually limit the action of civil society, particularly against the press, limitations on judicial power. and these are all initiatives that actually have been brought a few weeks ago too. i think christina writer,rer in tried in the past also to mediate. she tried to mediate between the jewish community and chavez, and i believe that at the continental level the leader of the bolivarian revolution is not going to be -- [inaudible] because he doesn't have the charisma. but i believe if somebody is going to be the leader of the

bolivarian countries, this is going to be rafael -- [inaudible] from ecuador. christina kirschner, i don't know. christina kirschner may lose the next election. corps rea is not going to lose the next election because corpsrrhea is not going to lose the next election. the design of the government is to perpetrate itself, so that's the way i view i. -- view it. >> well, you've talked a great deal about the threat that's growing. one of the questions is what can this administration do about that in the next three years that they're in place, three and a half? but also you've talked about the lack of civil society -- >> yes. >> -- and the role that that plays in the deterioration of democracy. is there a role for u.s. or other civil society institutions

also to respond to this threat? so both the government and civil society? >> well, yes. yes. and i discuss this in my book, and thank you, christine, for your question. first of all, i think the united states needs to take a leadership role that hasn't had it in the last ten years. and, for instance, the organization of american states. in the organization of american states, the democratic charter has not been applied to the violations of democracy carried out by the venezuelan government. and by others. the inter-american court of the oes, they published a whole report about violations of human rights in venezuela, and the oes didn't adopt any resolution about it. but on the other hand, the oes did adopt resolutions with regard to -- [inaudible] in 1992 when he actually

conducted or carried out a self- coup d'etat. they did it with manuel salaya when he was deposed in honduras, and they did it most recently with the impeachment of fernando -- [inaudible] in paraguay. i said before that supporting democracy and supporting the democratic charter of the oes, i think, is crucial to stop the advance of the bolivarian revolution that has geopolitical implications. so i think the first thing that the united states can do is demand that the democratic charter of the oes be respected and be applied also to venezuela. i think that's crucial. i think, also, venezuela needs to develop relations with brazil and cultivate brazil and raise those issues based on what they see. and i know that our people here would know better than me, they

know better than me be these issues. you don't establish a political relation by discussing trade only or by increasing trade. of course, increasing trade is good policy. but on the other hand, you also need to raise these issues particularly with countries such as brazil. brazil is a growing economy x it's a growing democracy. i see no reason why brazil should not be part of the western front in the world. they should share, they share -- they should share the same values that the united states and europe share, the values of free market, values of democracy. and by the way, they have opted for themselves. but their foreign policy is basically supporting the bolivarian revolution, approaching iran, develop relations with the third world, trying to take independent initiatives on the middle east mostly against the united states. they are developing a foreign policy against the united states. i think it's important to raise

those issues. you know, these issues need to be discussed, and the importance of democracy in the region. in terms of civil society, i think, i know that some people don't like the word nation building. they say, well, we don't have to be in the business of nation building, we heard that during the iraq crisis and others. no, i think in the case of latin america we need to, we need to be involved in nation building. and nation building means institution building. we are doing it. sometimes we are succeeding, sometimes we are not. but i think it's important to strengthen democracy, to strengthen the legal system, to help them build and educate them how to build their democratic institutions. even teach them how our parties work. i know we are not that happy with the way our parties work, but, you know, how to respond more to constituencies. i'm not saying that the united

states has the ability to solve their problems, you know? sometimes, you know, you try to help somebody, and it doesn't help, you know? [laughter] but, but i think the united states should encourage, you know, institution building, what they call nation building, democracy building. this should continue. i think democracy is a very good response to the developments of latin america. >> i come from venezuela, too, and i would like to say something for america, for the united states. in venezuela we grew up believing that the best democracy was the american democracy, that you defended democracy and that you respected democracy, and you enforce democracy in other countries. and i am an activist, and i want

to tell you that i will really love to see how the united states really tries to defend democracy in latin america. how to empower civil society. we feel in venezuela that you have forgotten us. we were very happy when the obama administration said there was not, they were not going to recognize the government, maduro, because of a fraud. not because he was a fraud, because he didn't even want to count the votes. the problem is not that we said he was a fraud. it's what we said, okay, let's count the vote. and they said it's an electronic machine, and you cannot count bites. so there is no way to count the votes.

but then kerry had a meeting with -- [inaudible] and, you know, two days ago while we said you read not in the press, because the press is totally censorship. but in the, on the tweeter or facebook is the only way we can speak even though you don't believe it. but the only way we can speak is on tweeter and facebook. that the united states has forgotten us. and i think that starting with the oas is the best thing you can do. but also giving us the hope that you're looking towards us. because for us, i mean, even though we try people to do nonviolent activism, people are so afraid, so, so afraid. i mean, it's a kind of

dictatorship that is the worst because it's not seen. you cannot touch it, but it's underground. you're afraid to go out at night because they kill you. everyone has somebody in their family who has been killed by criminals. so they do it on purpose. so you go out at 6:00, everybody's at home. everybody's afraid. you know, we don't have parties at night. the party's at four in the afternoon. and i know that's absurd of thinking in parties. but i'm telling you, it's an unbelievable situation we're living in in venezuela. and it's not easy to have the revolt as in egypt or tunisia. it's not easy. because the repression is terrible. i myself the day before i come

here, i came here because i have my daughter lives here. and i'm sorry to be so personal. but the day before i came here, i received a call and say turn on the government tv. and it was my voice. they taped me, and they put me in the tv show twice in the afternoon and the night. you cannot imagine how you feel when you feel your voice speaking with a friend what you're saying to the tv. and that happens to a lot of people. i'm not that important for my voice to be taped. so, i mean, i don't dare to speak in the phone. when i get home, i will not dare to speak on the phone. that's -- sorry to take so much -- [laughter] >> luis, thank you so very, very much. [applause]

>> i want to make sure to help luis sell as many books as possible, so i want to make sure we get the cover on camera for anyone who watches this on c-span or the policy web site. and be for you lucky few, it's going to be for sale in the lobby just immediately following with a signature for luis, and let's all join in thanking him once more for coming today. thanks. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see peetured on book -- featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> malcolm balad welshing what's your new book about? >> it's called david and goliath, and it's about underdogs.

i got really interested in telling the stories of people who seem weak and powerless and yet go on to accomplish great things. and i, that was a puzzle of how they managed to do that that i thought was worthy of a book, and so this is my latest. >> host: well, back in '09 you wrote a piece for the new yorker. >> guest: yeah. >> host: david v. goliath, about -- and i'll let you tell the story, but is that when your interest started? >> guest: yeah. i wrote a story, although weirdly nothing in that article i wrote for the new yorker made its way into the book, but it was what got me thinking about it. it was an article i wrote about a guy, started with the story of a guy who, he's an indian, indian immigrant living in silicon valley. he starts to coach his daughter's basketball team x they're all 12, 134. and they're all the daughters of software engineers from silicon valley, and they can't pass, shoot, dribble, they can't do anything that resembles

basketball. and so he decides what they're going to do is play maniacal defense. they've going to play -- they're going to have the full court press 100% of every game. and that proves so devastatingly effective that they go all the way to the national championship. and so the idea was that he responded the a weakness, the fact that they had no basketball skills, by adapting. and by adapting in a way that proved to be pretty devastating and and also by breaking the rules. because people don't expect 12-year-old girls to play the full court press. in fact, it's a little bit up sporty because, you know, the skill level is such at that stage that the if you play the press, no one can bring the ball up the court. so it's this really interesting example of someone who chose to rather than remain passive in the face of some kind of weakness to adapt. and that's, that adaptation is what really this book is about, about what are the strategies people use to respond to their open shortcomings.

>> host: what's one of the examples that you use in the book? >> guest: well, i'm really interested, for example, in talking about dyslexia. i have a whole chapter on why are so many successful entrepreneurs dyslexic. it's a neurolong call problem. -- neurological problem. it's a deficit. a part of your brain is not working properly. i mean, it's nothing you would wish on a child. and yet in one case after another many of the most famous entrepreneurs we know have lived their whole life with this devastating disorder and if you talk to them, will tell you that they succeeded not in spite of this disorder, but because of it. that it taught them something about how to deal with the world, that proved to be incredibly valuable in their career. be and that's, there's something very beautiful about those and very moving about those kinds of stories. and i tell a couple of them about -- and it's a beautiful

illustration of the sort of pair to docks i'm interested in describing which is that very often we learn more from our disadvantages than we do from our advantages. >> host: malcolm gladwell s there any connection between david and goliath, the tipping point, outliers? >> guest: well, i wish there were. i wish there was a grand, unfolding narrative so that i could argue if you owned one, you had to own them all. [laughter] but i don't think that there is. they simply, they happen to be what i'm interested in at the time, and they -- can i suppose they're all answers to the question why does the world surprise us. why does the world not work the way we expect. and that's the theme i keep coming back to. >> host: how long do you sit with an idea? >> guest: a long time. i mean, i think about a book for years before i start writing it. i don't think -- if you're going to ask a reader to commit a big

chunk of their life to your book be, you have to correspondingly commit a big chunk of your life to that book. in other words, you cannot expect people to make the investment in you if you don't take your time. so i take -- i thought about this one and collected ideas for years before i started writing. >> host: some of the david and goliath stories that we've heard are military stories, the viet cong versus the u.s. army. are those included at all in your book? >> guest: well, i start, the book starts with me retelling the actual david and goliath story, which is not what you think. it's very different in reality than has been -- and then i tell a story from vietnam about a guy who understood very early on that the viet cong was not who we thought they were, that today weren't going to give up -- they weren't going to give up easily, and no one would listen to him. and it's because the military was not, the american military

in those years was not, like all of us, i think, had difficulty with the notion that someone could be without obvious strengths, without money, men, weapons, anything and still be a formidable opponent. and that's what my book says, my book says the opposite that don't be fooled by the armor someone is wearing. what matters is the man inside the armor. >> host: how did the tipping point change your life? >> guest: well, i mean, i suppose it just put me on the map as a writer. and so it paved the way for the success of my other books. it didn't change me personally. it just made my life, my professional life a little easier. people, i suppose, return my phone calls a little faster than they used to.

[laughter] but it didn't turn me into a different person, for which i'm thankful. so it just was kind of a such a bizarre and happy accident that that book did so well that i've just been grateful ever since. >> host: do you look at your books or do people look at your books as perhaps self-help books or business prim primers? >> guest: well, all great books are self-help books in that they encourage us to look more closely at ourselves and what we think and how we behave. so in that sense, they are. they're not how to change your life in seven easy steps. but the reason i write them is i want people to take a step back and say, and just rethink their own experience to say, oh, i hadn't -- that had not occurred to me or, oh, that's how i make sense of that or that sheds a whole new light on something that's happened to me or someone

i know. >> host: there's a reason there are goliaths, and that's because they've been successful. how do they maintain their success? >> guest: well, that's a great question. the first half of my book is devoted to the ways in which gliepts shoot themselves in the foot, that the acquisition of success sows the seeds for failure. and breaking out of that cycle is very, very difficult, you know? every single day we look around us, and we see once mighty institutions falling. i mean, the camera that is recording this show is by sony. sony was once the mightiest electronics company in the world. last year they lost -- i read this in the newspaper yesterday -- $8.5 billion, and some people say they should shut down their electronics division. i mean, that's happened in ten years. they've gone from the top of the heap to a situation where people say openly they should pack it in. you know, this country, we talk about vietnam. there has never been a

individual country as powerful as america was in 1964. and what happened over the next ten years in vietnam? we were humbled, right? so, i mean, there's, there is something i think profoundly humbling about what happens to giants, to goliaths. and there, to be someone in position of great authority and power is a more precarious position than i think most people realize. >> host: why do goliaths shoot themselves in the foot? >> guest: well, there are many reasons. i explore just a couple. one is they assume the same strategies that made them great will keep them great. and that's not true. and two is they underestimate just how useful struggle was,

how creative it made them. when you don't have enough, when your business could shut down tomorrow, when you're constantly at the very end of your wits, you, you know, i mean, some cases you fold and die, but if you don't, you learn how to be innovative and to take chances and to take risks and do all kinds of things that you're propelled to do all kinds of things you won't ordinarily do. when you get comfortable, you're no longer under that come pulse, and that is a huge -- compulsion, and that is a huge, that's a huge transition that many organizations or individuals can't make. they simply, they forgot how useful their own, their oldies advantage was. >> host: are there lessons to be learned for the american political system from david and goliath? >> guest: you know, i was a canadian, and i'm always very wary of ever holding forth on

the american political system. i'll only say this, i don't know that there are. you know, i'm in a minority on this, but as someone who's not from this country, i'm always impressed at how good our political system is. i think, look around the world. is there one that you would trade for american system? i mean, none of them are perfect. ours isn't perfect. it's pretty good. we're all pretty happy with it. we all pay our taxes. we don't leave. and people want to come here. so it's like i don't think there's anything i could teach the system. the system, as far as i can tell, doing a pretty good job. >> host: are you a citizen now? >> guest: no. i remain a canadian. can't give up my canadian history. >> host: when does david and goliath hit the stands? >> guest: october 12th of this year, 2013. >> host: and this is c-span2 previewing "david and goliath." october 2013 is when itts