taxpayers, basically ideals. would you support that kind of approach? >> first of all, the terminology , the current use of liberal for the new deal approach really is sad and that rent the rest about, a lot of his gray sort of political rhetorical achievements, herbert hoover never consider to be called a conservative. the way in which fdr used that term to amalgamate the new deal but the american founding, with the liberal tradition of shoppers then was an important event in american politics. it wasn't until the national

review in 1955 that the opponents of the new deal consented and even embraced the term conservatism. they thought all along that they were that drove liberals. what to do with the welfare state, that is a big question. i would say in general that i think simplicity is always better and what things we can do to simplify the process -- by simplicity and in the political logic of the welfare state as it has been created in this country and by other groups is that we, to use one of built up please passphrases, with rack and admitted as complicated as possible. money comes from us in a variety of ways. it goes to different people in a variety of ways. nobody is ever quite sure whether they are a net importer or not exporter of all of these free range dollars.

at the conservative interest investors compare the pier we should admit in a way that the new deal has sort of one. liberals act as though they have to keep bribing people to create the charade that everyone can be a net importer of a finite number of dollars. i don't think that's true. the american people are quite ready as you suggest to make sure nobody has a miserable life for reasons the on-air control. but we don't need to have a military state as her best, sloppy, duplicative as the one we have. i think we could achieve the goals, be serious about that may reduce the burden not simply on the economy, but in ways that burden on the policy works. the governmental confusion in attenuation is that for every public. >> right here.

>> at the very talkative table. >> i have always understood for me -- [inaudible] the new deal than it should be understanding of the world. but to your point, i assess that the liberal thought that perhaps some kind of welfare program as well. the new deal liberals i encourage some time ago although liberals from the fbi standpoint

nonetheless thought it necessary to create welfare programs. this is a kind of bribe. that is the direction that comes to mind. the whole solution -- [inaudible] is to buy them off as some kind of welfare. have you considered that in your thinking? >> well, i considered simply that i agree with that. they're sort of two problems. one is this about you give a five euro they can read the whole world is a nail. people tend to -- they have their toolkits, their preferred responses and interpret everything out there anyway that is preventable to the utilization of them.

so you recall in the worst days of the vietnam war the johnson administration does. used about a nikon delta project to replicate the tba. this was so impressed ho chi minh they would collect all of this trouble. so there is that, disbelief that there are now, in a sense, fundamental disagreements. there are misunderstandings declarations and we can address those. we know how to solve this. and the first sign of bad is that so commended arafat, this is not just a problem of modern america and liberalism. it's a problem of the democratic experience itself. the life of democracy is so agreeable, reasonable that it becomes impossible to seriously

believe there were people out there that hate it and want to end it and reject it. lock stock and barrel. so i think i i think that what we see and liberalism is sort of senate and case of what is a more general democratic process, this kind of inability, people love a strong desire to believe the other bad people out there aren't really that bad. reasonable people aren't there aren't that reasonable. just sit and talk with them. we can work things out. it is not the case and believe in it is the case to make a dangerous situation more dangerous. [inaudible] -- research foundation. about 50 years ago, other jay basically focus on political programs, welfare, food stamps, et cetera. years further today obama continues spending, but not

things but how many pieces of celery should be eaten in school. it is right not to speak liberally working on fuel efficiency standards. so we've gone from the expanding to micromanagement. i wonder what point liberals make up her share not just to cash people, but really their lives. >> well, if you look at the archetype half-century, it is less departure and more culmination. once you announced that it is the governments job to obtain these big goals, then all the second, third and fourth order about how people live their lives become relevant. so for example, a law to the nanny state -- there is a circularity here. before we had medicare and

medicaid in the public health system, you could take the position that people wanted to do crazy things. they want to ride motorcycles that a helmet, that is their business, not ours. once you socialize to that extent, once we find a pay their medical bills, when it does we're invested in this. we have the right to protect yourself against your reckless conduct. so things that used to be private become was a public. and because they become public, there is more of a rationale for making them purely public. >> right over here. >> how well can you prove the effectiveness of an individual protest given that there's a multitude multitude of factors that may affect the outcome and is very longitudinal studies of litigation at the data and the fact that running the individual

program in whatever limitations they have is not a precursor. >> friends of roosevelt in 1932 before he was president said they existed in bold experimentation. if it doesn't work, we set it aside. experimentation barely does presuppose that when you have failed experiment you are going to get rid of them. for reasons that are part the, sort of who pays the logical, who is to say it's not really clear. partly political people would get a vested interest. this experimentation ideas not very democratic in that the lab rats don't get to those, but in democracy the people part of the experiment do. even if it's not working, they are going to care about their little site today.

to me it seems -- there are lots of people doing a great sort of walk you work on just a question on a whole variety of ambitions. many of them at the manhattan institute, health care for example. as more of a macro than a maker. we have the federal budget for what the office of management and budget cause human resources is about $2.3 trillion that includes social security, medicare, all of their income transfer programs, all health programs an all federal programs and job training and services. pretty much if you want to throw possible piano, there's another 700 billion a state and local governments in this area. another ability to calculate

cost comes from programs that instead of the government taxing money or pirate on one hand the other two racks as doors was talking about the people help one another. minimum wage laws, that kind of thing. it's a lot of money. it's more than $90,000 per american. look at the macro level and think if we think were good, poverty should be up really small problem in 2014 in the united states. the property is in a really small problem, instead of looking at 3 trillion saying it is an outrage that it is so small, we need more, a much healthier approach would say let's dig into that and see why without the level of expenditure we are not doing what we are supposed to be doing with the programs given they are. so i think it is to a liberals advantage to look at individual

programs. industry conservatives advantage to look at the aggregate, to say look, we can argue all day and night about whether this program for that program is cost effective. we will never convince each other. let's look at the whole thing. let's not slice by slice it. if we are not, shouldn't we be considering wholesale different approach? >> we will try right here. >> i want to follow up with what rice said. the macro i talk about micro-and the ceilings and regulating it. it's really come down to want to hire regulators to regulate they absolutely run out of meaningful regulation. they don't turn the light out and say gone fishing. they continue regularly.

yes. [laughter] >> i couldn't have said it better. there is that chronic problem. there was a notion -- jimmy carter ran in 1976 on this idea that we could acknowledge this problem and deal with sunset laws so that agencies would have so many years and then they would have to justify them both all over again. would have zero-based budgeting. set of last year's budget being the floor for which we negotiated the next one, they said we are going to start with zero and make a case for the whole thing. nothing resembling the results took place. the political forces that are powerful and relentless and you don't need a guest speaker to tell anybody the institute event. they just never sleep. like the rest solely on commercials. you can have all of the studies

and the political opposition. but as long as you have these entries that are there day and night, care about nothing else than one program, one public subsidy is nearly impossible. it began is why i think that you need to go back row. you drain the swamp. don't try to find individual fish that you're going to catch. [inaudible] >> i think you're right about how dangerously attractive compassionate liberalism can be. if there is imaginative conservatives then, if not, which could be a similar force entity to serve in policies that can actually be helpful? >> compassionate conservatism

was george bush's signature domestic framework. came up with that when running for president in 1999 for 2000. it was never pledged out extremely well and even less so after 9/11. so to this day, we can only sort of know what it was so supposed to be, but it might've been. i talk about that. the summary of what i have to say there is i think there were good ideas they are. i the best thing that can be said for capacity and conservatism is george w. bush recognized that compassion should encompass the entire human being, that compassion that is saying today, the different cyberis how you are, how you are faring in life are what you do doesn't do service to people.

and so, he was in favor of more welfare to the armies of compassion and, you know, political platoons. i think the reason that there is didn't work out and probably even a great deal circumstances could not have worked out is that george bush is running for president, he didn't want to be billy graham. he won it to be ronald reagan. the idea, especially the conservatives, the idea that we are going to entrust the government to be a moral catalyst to bring about greater discipline, self-respect is implausible and dangerous. so i think he had his finger on the need for great social revolution. but i don't think it ever could have been and should never have

been a political transformation. >> we have time for a couple more questions. [inaudible] >> to what degree is the self of the ideology due to higher education? >> why'd you ask me a question that you know the answer better than i do? [laughter] it is kind of a chicken and egg. you know, a lot of people go to college then used to. they are getting the idea there. i think that there is a time in this sense, it even has the entomology tells us, which is derived from piety.

hideous what is left of piety after you drain away all of the overarching theological teleological implications. other great colleges in this country struck out as a religious institution. it is residue that you still care for one another. caring for one another doesn't mean at the same time doesn't mean that we got through the issues judge one another or think that people have ways of life that are more or less successful. so i think perhaps the higher education atmosphere is particularly conducive to that sort of confusion. >> yes, back there. >> i am a health care financial. when we look at companies,

companies have to provide by cap accounting and the practices they all have to do what they're going to jail. the government doesn't have to do that. to deport generally accepted accounting practices at the federal or state government and they get deals like this. >> why'd you ask me a question that you already know the answers to. >> yeah, maybe. but the silver bullet solution strike me as if there weren't that amenable, we would've solved it already. i think if you set up something like that, just as we set at zero base budgeting for sunset laws for public agency, people find a way. you could write all the regulations, the stipulations. if you don't deal with the underlying political problem of

what people want with your determination to get it that the availability or lack of availability of resources to prosecute it, i don't think you are ever going to come up with something like that with the margin for a little while makes a period >> may be time for one more question. >> you mentioned briefly 9/11. in the post-9/11 world where people get diseases and their lifestyle of corporate calamities in the world -- [inaudible] and there's all kinds of calamities. is there not a nonpartisan view of compassion of carrot or?

why does it have to be liberal or conservative quiet >> well, maybe it doesn't have to be liberal or conservative. indeed, there are calamities and indeed there is a more interesting world. there is increasing ways in which we can affect one another. sometimes bad e-mail. but it seems to me they were the liberal conservative argument cuts into that is that conservatives have legitimate reasons to push that against liberal coverage to over generalize from that. that miller, a columnist for the "washington post" wrote a piece after the big typhoon in the philippines earlier this year where he said here is the moral lesson in this. we help people when they are

suffering. and therefore, if you are in favor of that, you are also in favor of obamacare. you're also in favor. and the notion that because people truly are sometimes in desperate hope of the situation and need help in our suffering from things by no means good faith be accused of having that brought on themselves, that you generalize that to sail suffering when you trace it back wines have been something like that. this is what brian can tell you more about this than i could, but this is what john rawls did. suffering comes about everything that happens to us is really we don't make choices. even if we are hard-working, that is because we were brought up in environment adding courage is hard work. even if we are disciplined, that just reflects the good opportunities we had as children. so there is really no more

agency left by the time you do this. i think that conservatives are pushing back against this not because we say under no circumstances if you are suffering it's your fault. let's make realistic grown-up distinctions here between those who do and who don't deserve it. >> last question right here in the center. [inaudible] -- to the programs that the micromanagement approach is not going to deal resolve. you also imply $79,000 per head is too much and they should be some point at which you say enough, stop. what do you think is the root to keep being the goal of a

functioning society and yet keep being the cost down and the incentives possibly placed to move forward? >> it is a great last question. i only say such questions i can't really answer. it seems -- here's the thing, it seems to me that you recall some 20 years ago irving kristol introduced the idea of a conservative welfare state and what were talking about here. given the political reality that they created new deal what is the conservative welfare state? he never really spelled it out. it is a difficult question. for one way of defining the

welfare state would be the conservative welfare state is the welfare state liberals have told us they will actually prepare for. american conservatives should take heart in the fact that liberals are so skittish about tallying their fellow citizens are project ds is going to cost money, but it's going to do wonderful things come us in the end you'll be better off. europeans from the social democrats don't have that problem. they say package deal. go have very little discretionary income left over, but on the other hand, you won't need very much because the government is going to take care. members of the democratic party make a different sales pitch. as barack obama promised to route the 2008 campaign, we can do wonderful things for me only increases will fall to 2% to 3% of the population making more than $250,000 a year. the numbers don't even begin to address.

nobody takes that seriously. so i think a starting point for the conservative argument is to say since you guys tell us that we can do it within these revenue restraints, let's figure out how to do it, which means a much leaner welfare state. this is the essence of paul ryan and projections of the changes will be severe. you're going to boucher as medicare. you're going to block grant also is a programs. and big, big changes. but it is sort of going down the calmly to the democratic party saying you criticize the courage of the language to go to the american people say guess what, we need big taxes. you win your neighbors and your friends. the results will be better off. then we've got a different argument. since you don't do that, where we are is where we are. >> thank you are a match, thank you for coming.

i've not i want to say that transport is on sale in the lobby for those of you who might want to pick up a copy. you will appreciate it, as you learned. [inaudible conversations] >> what i always say though is it is 400 years have been terrorized, traumatized and quick mattias yet it goes back to the 1600 you are right.

the united states doesn't emerge as an independent colony breaking for the ugly empires of britain until 1776 and later run 1787 constitution. its 400 years of being terrorized. you had slavery for 244 years ago but only slaver between 1787 in 1765 on the ages of the united states. to see the the point i'm making? >> she's gone, she's gone. but it does continue to hundred 44 years of slavery, which is a long, blonde time. the average age of the slave is 26. you've got violation of the women going on all the time. you've got the malaise of cores shattered and what have you. but under the u.s. constitution, you've got slavery for another rate errors. what does it mean to have the

u.s. constitution a proslavery document and practice in practice no matter how beautiful the words were in practice is still reinforced slavery. and then we get to break. democratic energy from below. she's right about the civil war. it took the words to break up the slavery, the 12 years of reconstruction sunshine's for a bit weird here comes jim crow and another kind of slavery. the black one wrote that wonderful book, slavery by another name, a story with all the trouble in mind i'm jim crow. so that is what i had in mind. ..

resist nonviolently, told come down in the end the freeze to stay onside but always take the high moral the spiritual ground. people have a right in the defense of chronic injustice. there's no doubt about that. i'm hoping and praying of course the magnificent leadership of young people builds on the rich legacies. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org.

>> booktv continues now with a panel discussion on mayors from the sixth annual boston book festival. it's a little over one hour. [applause] >> feel like i'm towering over you here. no sermon for me today though. >> i will do that for introduction and just so that first we want to thank carol and

john moriarty who are very active in the community in so may different ways for showing the great support for the boston folk festival. a great event as we know, and specifically we thank them for their sponsorship of this event this afternoon, so thank you, john and carol moriarty. are you folks here? [applause] of course we all also want to send our very best wishes out to boston mayor tom menino who is supposed to be on our panel here today, but as we all know, he's not feeling well. i'm sure the very much regrets not being here, and i'm sure that we all send him our best wishes. thank you, and good luck, tom menino. [applause] to our discussion here, the

author, dr. benjamin barber, will be signing books next door in the gordon chapel which is just across the hallway, the atrium directly across from the back of the whole. here's how it's going to work. doctor barber will make a presentation. then we will talk about the book, all of us here on the stage gaza excuse me, on the stage, and then you wil get the chance to ask a few questions of the members of our panel. if you notice there is a microphone right in the center aisle. since this event is being recorded by c-span and the boston book festival we're going to ask you to go to the microphone to ask your question because we want to make sure we can hear you well as opposed to asking the question from where you were seated. so thank you in advance for that. now we begin. good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the boston book

festival are i am bob oakes from wbur in boston. very happy to be here this afternoon, and are pleased to be able to be a participating partner with the boston book festival again this year. given what we witnessed just this week in ottawa, what we've experienced in boston in terms of terrorism, given guns and drugs and climate change, and other issues and challenges that nations sometimes seem unable to solve, dr. benjamin barber posits that mayors are better problem solvers, and that they should be given a try here today to help us discuss this topic our three distinguished massachusetts mayor, the honorable marty walsh of boston. [applause] the honorable dan rivera of lawrence. [applause] the honorable lisa wong of

fitchburg. [applause] but first to outline his book for a few minutes of title "if mayors ruled the world : dysfunctional nations, rising cities" is dr dr. benjamin barb, senior research scholar of the center for philanthropy and civil society at the graduate center of the city university of new york, dr. barber. [applause] >> thank you so much for the boston book festival for inviting me at a chance also interact begin with people who i've come to be really fun of in the world we live in today which is people like mayor wong, mayor rivera and mayor walsh, and also tom menino who i had the pleasure also a beating earlier -- meeting earlier this year. to be with mayor walsh, mayor wong and mayor rivera to talk about cities and mayors is a

particular pleasure, and they're glad they're here because for a change i.t. to say something about people who have a chance to either say are you crazy? or, yeah, i think you got that right. but let me just back up for a minute and talk a little bit about the era in which we are living and why for many cities, mayors, city councils and this citizens of cities have become so important. in an air of isil, ebola and terrorism and national gridlock and the congress, not just here but in many places in the world, that our political systems around the world are in crisis. as a result democracy is in crisis. we also know and afraid will see it again next week in the elections that less than half of those able to vote to vote him and often those who most need to vote don't. the result is a skewed political system in which the demography

and democracy of cities which are the great preponderance of the 75% of america in that in many cases being ruled from the countryside by a minority with very different interests, whether it's unkind, transportation or health or anything else. there's a skewing of the political system right now in which the guardians of our safety and our welfare and our economy for the last 400 years nation states, have become increasingly dysfunctional. i want to tell you i travel a lot, not just an american problem. you see the same problems not just in england or china, other parts of the world come you see even in the european union, that great experiment in transnational sovereignty which in recent years has found it more difficult to attract the attention and engagement of its own citizens, or nationalist and populist reaction is making it harder for the european, noble

european experiment to succeed. the nation states are in trouble. increase the dysfunctional and as result democracy is in trouble. because nationstates have been the guardians of our democracy for at least 400 years. what do we do? what do we do about what we need to turnout the vote, reform government, need a more efficacious congress, find ways to bring europe back from the brink. i have a different suggestion. my suggestion is change the subject. stop focusing on obsessive with nationstates, washington national government, and start looking at cities. stop talking about president obama and prime minister cameron, the president of the european council, and start thinking about people like mayor wong and mayor rivera, mayor de blasio, mayor walsh, and mayors around the world who can't even as we see states

dysfunctional, we see cities continuing as they always have, to solve problems pragmatically, realistically, and necessarily. twice in the last couple of years the federal government of washington close its doors. the great, most powerful government in the world closed its doors, number one, how many people noticed? but number two, imagine for a minute mayor walsh has a problem and says i'm sorry, next week boston is closed. no police, no hospitals, no schools, no garbage pickup, no sewage, no matter, no subways. we are closed until we get it right. you can't close cities because cities are the quintessential human communities. they define our identity, they are where we born, grow up, have children. get educated, when we create and procreate, where we play and pray.

when we get old and where we die. cities will are often pay for no sense, not just another level of government. the people we choose with us to govern our cities can whether it's mayors or city counselors orchestra leaders are pragmatists, problem solvers, and above all, neighbors. we know that the ed koch used to wander in new york say how am i doing? not something that president bush or president obama would be likely to want to do, even if their secret service let them do. imagine a prime is one addressing how am i doing? it's not how it works. but here when we walked in, mayor walsh and i walked in with mayor marino in rome, and walk around and people stop and say hi, what's up? you are not guards pushing them off. no secret service pushing them away because mayors our

neighbors, citizens of the town, and don't forget that city and citizen have the same etymology. the word city edward citizens are locked together in the very meaning of the word. cities are where problems are solved. as a result mayors are rather different kind of politician, a different kind of political animal. than national leaders tend to be be more pragmatic. if they get to 80 them a logical, i'm a progressive democrat. mine here in new york applause is progressive democrat buddies had to learn he can't come in making war on the rich, making work on the developers and think you get a progressive agenda through. he has to build coalitions. he has to reach out. e-business guy like bloomberg coming to office he knows his to reach out to the union's because can do with working people, deal with the poor. mayors have to build coalitions. they can give orders if they have national executive

authority. so have to find ways to get people to work with him to solve problems and that the government is supposed to work at that is how does working city and that's why cities despite the crisis in democracy keep functioning. it's also why cities as result all through the world have levels of trust with respect to their citizens but you don't find in any a level of government. the presidency in the united states is under about 38%, the supreme court which used to be 65, 70% that has a level below the majority got about 45%. congress, about 8%. single-digit trust. that's a disaster for democracy. it's a disaster for governance but when you come down to cities and counselors, mayors, the trust levels shoot up.

this is true in europe, south america not just you're in the united states. the trust levels shoot up to 65, 75%. but he may not be my guy, not the woman i voted for but i trust her. because she's my mayor and she's my neighbor before the. i know she's working hard you try to make the city work and she shares are disasters but she shares our catastrophes as she result had to, mayor rivera. because they are neighbors taking on the mantle of government and so we trust them. that trust factor is essential to the success of government and democracy. without trust, no democracy but you don't have to trust that the data. he's there. he does what he does and you fall or you go to jail. but democracy depends on trust. that's the element of trust. in our cities that trust level as build powerful presence and allows us to trust our mayors.

that leads me to the rather provocative but by no means political title of my book, "if mayors ruled the world." why in the world with a global level there is a democratic global governance, where either corporate monopolies with private interest, nothing wrong with that but they're not legitimate representatives of the planet people are there, or global terrors or positions like al-qaeda and isil, both of which i call malevolent ngos. the our cross-border organizations. we don't elect them but they are extremely effective. the only forces out there are monopoly and anarchy at the global level. why not let cities that come one by one, have done so much which increasingly in networks and associations of cities are working together, why not give them an opportunity to come together and work together? there are hundreds of city

networks, most of you probably are part of the sea 40 climate cities. mayor bloomberg and others initiate a couple of years ago which is the work together on climate issues but if you dig deeper if i were to say, for example, how much of you know what the ucl g. is? rager hand. united states and local governments is 100 year old institution of most of the world cities which nobody has ever. i call the most important institution were but nobody's ever heard of. test your high school student the test your college professors and most of them won't know what it is because the network is not just the u.s. conference of mayors and the mexican congress of mayors, these associations that across the globe already encompass a network of associations in which mayors are recognizing when you work together, when they do together to get better results. they share best practices. they share problems.

they share approaches. at bar one and others commissioners. widgets in new york and london go back and forth with transportation and police commissioners. cities working together to create an informal governance structure which really works. what i want is just is that we take the powerful, the powerful capacity of mayors and city counselors to work on problem solving any pragmatic and efficient way which defines what democratic government is supposed to be calm and take the inner city networks already out there, a letter of these networks, but without a keystone. you build an arch, without a keystone any archer they all fall down. the web of intercity association needs a keystone to create a governance edifice, a global governance advocates. i want to propose that a global parliament of mayors working

together we put a keystone into the arched up into city associations, allow mayors not to do something connecting because our target were together maybe take it to another level, to actually do something together, to make some ordinances, to some things will be say wielded together. california, the siege were not have the with the emission levels with the government and the race at about 10% both of these standards were. do you know what happened? it didn't make a law for the united states. the car industry has a decision to make. they sell 70% of cars in california. when they said can be 35 miles per gallon, the car industry could make 70% of the cars and the others with less cumbersome to make that understand. guess what? they made that their standard. so using the market, taliban cities in the state leverage to the marketplace to make fundamental changes. there's a new mayor in jersey

city which just became the largest city in new jersey. he has a plan to use the market to change gun laws. he said one of every city in the country which buys weapons and ammunition for the police forces got together and said, we will only buy ammunition from gun companies that don't sell big magazine also rifles and don't sell armor piercing bullets whose only job is to kill copts? 17% of the market i guarantee often countries would say okay, if that's what you're talking about, we will make the switch. by the way views federal government, if they buy another 40% of the arms and ammo. so if covert uses caching in the marketplace. not to make laws. forget the inr a. every time you want to make a law the inner it is there to stop it. just use the market and make it work. we mayors work together, when

cities were together they can leverage markets in powerful ways that they can be one by one. imagine global you can do. imagine you could do global decisions together. not to make a law but you are leveraging the global marketplace. so the proposal is here that we take the pragmatism, the problem solving, the neighborliness, the trust levels of our cities where, by the way, 52% of the global population live just a couple years ago, they can have the worlds population in cities, and in the developed world here, europe, asia, it's 75-80% of the population live in cities. and in resources 82% of global gdp comes from cities. don't you believe it the next time you hear a tea party guy sitting out in kentucky saying, the minorities of the cities are stealing our taxes. sorry folks but if you want use

that kind of language, it's of the other way around. 65% of yes social services go to counties that vote tea party and vote conservative on these issues. the money come from the cities, from you, because over 80% of the resources and tax base for national government is in cities. it's a crime today that city to so much and they should of course. of course, they don't just pay for themselves the that's part of our civic obligations. but it's a crime that cities put out 80% of the wealth and tax credit and gdp and then have to beg national government for some back. to do the jobs they're doing more effectively than the national government. they have a right to those revenues. they have a right to the wealth they generate and right to demand it. they can't do that one by one, but together cities can save to the federal government, don't give just money from your treasure. let his people more of the money we're putting in to the treasury

to do the jobs you are not doing. i know that's a radical statement that you got the radical because cities are aware problems have got to be solved. they're being asked be solving them on the unfunded mandate. mr. mayor, i want you to do abc and the, and okay, and the money? that your problem. but you'll have to do it. it may be my problem but the money came from esa we'll find ways to keep more and we will create a way of organizing politically that allows cities to do it. i said last year in brussels and the commission of the regions and the cities said to a group of mayors who were there, we decided to raise the appropriations to your cities this year. and the mayors literally said thank you so much, mr. commissioner. thank you so much. i was sitting on the podium as a

speaker and i said excuse me, when you say you're going to raise the revenue, the appropriation, where does appropriations come from? well, from our revenues. where do they come from? well, from the regions. really, from the reaches? primarily from the cities. so you mean you're offering to give them back a little more of what you took from them? is supposed to think that's a gift. if cities have a majority of the population, the majority of the capacity to produce wealth and gdp, if they face the most devastating consequences of climate change and see rise because like boston, 19% of the cities are on water, rivers, lakes, oceans and seas. they are the first of to do. i don't know any city whether its emphasis or new york or boston or new orleans is involved in planning to try to do with the reality of the see rise that national political parties refused even recognize as science.

that is not something that we as citizens of cities, the gratitude of americans that live anwar can't afford. it's not an abstract argument. it is the science and we cut to take action, ma and mayors know in cities know it. cities are where the action is. cities have the kind of government that works. it's not ideological. it's not 19th century property owners versus workers. these old issues of left and right, labour and tories, it just is so little to do with what mayors and city councils actually have to do in governing. no mayor, not even a de blasio can say i won't deal with the capitalist. in a knowledge economy who are the capitalist? the programmers at that level? in a knowledge economy to any service economy those older divisions don't even make sense. mayors know it. in cities work by consensus in

coalition and building a tripod of civil society and business working with the public sector together. that's why private public partnerships are so much more productive and less problematic in cities than the art than the national level. all over the world i find mayors are saying of course we have to work public-private. we can't work without the private sector. the private sector says without a flourish healthy city that provides infrastructure, health, education, we can't do business. so it's a two-way street. it's a collaborative street. what i want to suggest then is that we are in a world which looks come if you look only at president, prime minister's and nation states, if you look at the faltering united nations looks ungovernable, but look at the city or town you live in and you see a model that is governable where democracy is to

working, where citizens are not cynical, where the young people don't vote nationally but they say in my time i believe in. cities are for example, a place where today hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers and illegal humans are found that toshiba all over the world. in mexico there are illegal guatemalans. a mayor can't say, well, the undocumented, i will look the other way, which is what the federal government does. mayor de blasio says how about urban identity cards? they are here, we will acknowledge them, give them the privilege of rights that the local residents and citizens and ask from them the obligations and responsibilities registered with the pleased to let us know where you are. my own prediction is the idea of the municipal id will be the road to citizenship for all of those 12 million you're into united states.

because again mayors can't look the other way. they can't pretend. so cities, not states, mayors, not presidents, and most important and what i love about cities, i said city and citizen, you all, the citizens of cities are the fabric of the cities. it's why cities work. and to empower, the real name for this book wasn't "if mayors ruled the world," but if citizens of cities ruled the world through and with the municipal officials. that isn't optimistic positive solution which not only to provide a new form of global governance but can rekindle the spirit of an to trust in democratic institutions. thank you very much. [applause] >> a few questions for you and then we will discuss all of this with the mayors.

you talked about the theory, but there's actually a practical application just ahead because mayors from around the world are about to meet. >> thank you. i will take just a minute with you because i want to get to discussion, but chapter 12 of the book i proposed a mayors of parliament, but since that time i was invited first to seoul, korea, by me or park and than by mayor bloomberg to see the lab last you and your company this year the four major mayors of the so-called dutch g. for mayors of the netherlands, invited me and a group of mayors to amsterdam to discuss and plan a possible parliament. we had that meeting a month ago. among the cities represented not directly by the mayors but representatives was boston. mayor walsh, mayor garcetti, vienna, athens, singapore,

seoul, about 32 nations. and if it meeting just six weeks ago the decision was taken to launch the pilot parliament in london next year. and since that time we've gotten the support from people in london and in the city of bristol which is the green capital of europe to have a sitting next october of the global parliament. so this idea is already well beyond an idea the cities of said enthusiastically we need more cooperation, we need to work together, experiment with what soft global governance. it'it's not committing central t it's not getting orders. it's not top down. but when several hundred or perhaps several thousand cities agree this is what we will do, that will become i didn't you a template for congress that the world will not be able to ignore. >> let me ask you about that. if the parliament of mayors would not govern, i don't mean

to imply anything by using this word, but what it just tackle global issues locally? would that be the extent of its powers, or would've had more power than that? >> that is a decision that would be up to what happens with upon. i'm starting with the notion that initially it will be up and central income not commit to control. it's not the mayors will say here's what the world is going to do and give the orders. mayors don't individually or together give orders. but if mayors together come up with a solution for local citizenship, local registration all over the world and everything in the world come up with a solution to climate that involves congestion fees, pedestrian zones, limits on emissions that go beyond anything done come a cities come up with inner-city protocols for intelligence sharing and increasing cities are recognizing in the face of terrorism going to the national government, the fbi is that what you do.

also got to deal city to city, city intelligence services. the new york intel squad is now deployed in 10 or 15 cities around the world. basin to detect is there to talk to the folks. had we in boston been in touch with the police in moscow, the police and moscow you about the to chechnya's and neither dangers. that information, i can't be certain but i've been told that information was given to the fbi, the boston police did not prior to the marathon have valuable intel about those guys. even in areas like secured in intelligence, city cooperation, city sharing becomes powerful. is the command and control? know, but will do a lot more than the united nations or the world bank does? multilateral agreements between nations? yes, it will. >> let me ask this question and bring the mayors and. this is heavy stuff for at least it could be heady stuff. what do you think?

do you want your male colleagues from around the world to be able to weigh in and help solve some of the most vexing problems, some of the most vexing global problems? mayor walsh? >> first of all thank you all for being here today and thank you for the presentation. isaac and backward trip from our of our sin belfast, over to dublin and the concerns of the mayors of type outcome of same was on talked about here, growing an economy, creating a for, stabilizing our cities and worrying about attacks, terrorism, whatever it might be. we are talking about the same issues. but we talked about the marathon bombing, about how we're preparing for it, talked about ebola, about what's happening what steps we're we ae taking. i think there's an opportunity as a mayor to sit and ensure best practices. i was asked a question this

morning about the steps that nietzsche is taking while setting up a quarantine for folks coming in from west africa and are willing to do in boston? i said no, we are not. when i want to do is educate the medical facility, educate public health, educate the emts come far department, the public to understand what the ebola crisis is all about. i think there's an opportunity for us to have a conference like this dish best practices. we meet fairly regularly, the massachusetts mayors to talk about different issues and different concerns. we had a meeting last week with all of us to talk about what legislative priorities do we want to see this year coming out of the legislature. at all ethics the people in our cities. anytime and as an opportunity to talk and ha have a conversationo share best practices it's helpful to the particular city or the cities around the world. >> when i think about it, i think about this one except that

happened recently and governor patrick was talking about helping the immigrant kids on the border, bring them to massachusetts my phone started ringing off the hook. we take its? we already have this obligation, it was a whisper campaign and people were angry at the governor. it wasn't until mayor walsh said it was okay for us to take the kids that that whispering went away and people said we've got good people. i think about that power of us getting to some of the craziness, the mass that happens of the national about, around budgets. that's crazy to us. our budgets don't balance. they don't balance. you can't argue. you can't make up a nasty term, call it the debt ceiling or the borrowing ceiling. that is nothing to do with the budgets. you can't do that on our level.

if you could clue the evidence of that i can easily help with the trust i have at my level to make you move your that at the state level or the federal level can't do, i would welcome the. it does help us just get to work. >> so i have to say i have a lot of respect for my colleagues, but believe it or not i am the senior mayor on the panel. i have to third current mayors here and i'm a fourth term. i can tell you -- [applause] >> i would've not have made it fourth term government is to go to if it wasn't for the help of my fellow mayors. i have never met a mayor who doesn't have a vision. i came in as me because i really wanted to tackle inequality. when my first meetings with with my city solicitor and i said let's talk about how i'm going

to tackle inequality as part of my vision. number one i think what to tackle the $6.5 million budget deficit and number two, i can say what you can do but i can tell you what you can do for the charter. but you are the one who messed articulate your vision and to drive the vision. if we're talking about tackling inequality and a lot of cities are surrounded by suburbs and a lot of these suburbs are a lot wealthier and they are very different from cities. so if we really want to figure out what the best practices to tackle inequality, we have to reach out me miles down the road can sometimes across oceans and get ideas from mayors all over the world. as of right now i'm posting a mayor of cleef, germany, as our sister city but they are a wealthy sort of countryside area in germany near amsterdam. i am in central massachusetts which is sort of a small urban area. what are we talking about this week? trying to get how to bring

advanced manufacturing because as part of our cities begin an part of our country's agenda to get how to bring that back. we are talking directly to each other. i'm sure obama and angela merkel are also talking with these kinds of things but they are not communicating to us much. we can get on the plane, on the phone come on skype and we are exchanging of ideas. most recently cleef germany was able to build a holy university regarding advanced manufacturing to work on utilize those skills is can workforce training and bring those who. this is a good thing that happens every single day with mayors. >> want to ask for almost a one word answer from the three mayors. was the most vexing problem local problem to deal with everyday? spent i was attacking the inequality issue. >> crime. spent any quality education. it's one issue, mr. chairman. but inequality, crime,

education, they are tied together and we know you can't let ideology pull them apart as the criminals are bad people, minority become educated something over and funding for education, and mayors know that because they have to do with it. >> kevin johnson committee chair at this conference of mayors, has made this issue and he appointed mayor de blasio from new york and myself to have a task force look at this around the country. i think it's a problem in every urban area in the country, whether it's pittsburgh, lord, boston anywhere in massachusetts. it goes back to what's in the book about what is coming back to dance and what is the real address? i spent 17 years in the legislature. we were policy driven in the legislature, and i think what's happened there's been a growing disconnect between legislatures and cities understanding what is the real agenda. mayor wong spoke about what her policy is and what her agenda is

when she came into office. if we're not talking at the same agenda, not giving the cities and towns the tools they need to get that agenda, there's a disconnect. we have an agenda in boston. i did a few peace legislation i try to get through this you and i was able to get it. whether you agree with the issue or not, we've put together -- i don't care if anyone is on. we're looking to extend in a temporary peace extend the valley of the city of boston. i have a vision for boston but on that same open bar rooms on every street corner. i'm saying a vision i'm not going legislature but we have to do the same page when we talk about vision. it's a vision and legislatures around the country including congress, they don't have a vision for what the country should look like. that's the problem. >> just to follow up on that. the language is important. what people feel in the neighborhood isn't inequality. they feel crime but they feel like it is not getting

education. but they feel like they don't have a job. it's important for us to have this conversation in a real way. what i feel first and foremost is the issue of crime. under tight to that is we failed to generation of high school kids. and i do that is there's 11% unemployment. all that is tied together but it manifests itself in crime. it looks like homelessness and it looks like destitute and makes us electricity is in a funk. so when i talk about it and attack about what we need to change, even if you have that little amount of money in your pocket because you're a poor family, you still feel unsafe. so we are doing those things and talking about it, the things about that some cities and towns have a big opportunity. talking to a davis cup he said there's 100 cops on a corner. i have 120 police officers so i can't have the same outcome.

but thinking about that as a policy, if i can fix crime, if i can impact crime, i get trust and then i can help leverage stuff round of vc come around any quality. >> so explain to us highly think that the collective power of the world parliament of mayors standing behind you can find this very local problem would help you do that? >> in massachusetts just over 10% of cities and towns actually have mayors. the majority of towns have a city or town manager. there's major differences between the two big cities and suburbs, first of all town managers get paid a lot more than mayors so that's number one.

[laughter] number two, when we sort of look at these different beast of groups that we have, a lot of the city and town managers talk about how to deliver services. oftentimes when they're delivering services its two people who can afford to live in those communities. we will look at poverty and crime in our municipalities, there are two choices we can do. we can try to mimic suburbs into the same thing and spend limited resources to try to push out crime, osha poverty. but we would be pushing the that the areas that are not interested in solving those, that are becoming more expensive so that less people can be there. it's cities and towns do not get together and we don't sal would causes of crime or would cause of poverty and no one else is going to do that. so parliament needs to come together because the cities and towns cannot act alone. there's a lot of issues going around that of her national or global in nature. we have to come together if we're going to solve the root problems that affect all of

humanity. if we are talking about moral issues. >> just a couple things. i'm so glad mayor walsh use addition. a model in america, presidents clinton, obama had vision. mayors or town managers. they get stuff done. i worked with bill clinton. i love the man and had a vision we talked by for look what happened in the united states, no vision. obama, to be perfect is there's a lot of talk about visions of the national about what i said the local level, visions that get implemented. it starts with a vision, what is this about, what is going to be life for our neighbors? the second thing is you can't do it alone. let's take the example we talked about earlier, that's a de blasio and walsh say let's make these places where we give urban visas to every resident whether it's legal or illegal. in a very short time -- that's a

problem. you really need all of the major cities in america to say together, we will do it. it should just be boston and lawrence saying we will take some of these kids coming in from latin america, which the america's cities meet together. it should be the world cities do it together. the other point and this comes to yours, mayor wong, a lot of people said to me, what about suburbs? what about the air is beyond 128 or so much of the tech forces and so forth are in this area? are you just talking but cities? no, i do not. you are so right, mayor wong. when we talk about cities we have to start thinking not of the old inner cities of the 18th and 19th century in europe, 14 to 15 century. what to think about the metro regions which incorporate the city, the suburbs, the excerpt and a little bit of land around

the provides local agriculture. if you think that's utopian, just about a year ago today i sat in florence italy, with the mayor of florence italy, and he said to me if it doesn't work anymore. we are still organizer and provinces across the nothing to do and we have cities. a lot of them. he said i have a plan to i would like to see the fire intimate regions and governed that way. he said had to go because i'm so i can't stay. where you going? i'm going to rome. why? i'm becoming prime minister tomorrow. he then went to rome and became prime minister. look it up on google. today, italy has a constitutional revision which in place of the traditional provinces no longer represent in the senate, there are nine metro regions around the region. which encompass all of italy.

they are not represented and they are forcing and affect the places and our hostilities, divisions of interest that they are forcing them to say that so we have to do with his. let me give a concrete example from the u.s.a. whenever i say cities are great, what about detroit? you know that ploy. everybody has their favorite, mayors should rule the world. rob fort of toronto, is that whawhat you are talking about? crack addict and so forth. [laughter] ics, detroit not detroit though it was defined to would just go in the city limits because that detroit which in 1950 and 2 million citizens, today at 680,000 which had all of the odd industry, today it is about 5%, half of who schools and parks are closed today. it is truly bankrupt. that detroit. but did you know that 10 counties around detroit that make up the detroit metro region, their population went

from three to 5 million while detroit was shrinking. they got about three quarters of the car companies that left downtown detroit. they went to the regions around it. that is the fourth most prosperous new tech knowledge economy region in the united states. if detroit with the detroit metro regions it would not be bankrupt to be one of the more successful cities in america with a problem in which every cities have which have the resources to deal with. so the metro region idea, to find ways to incorporate and think about cities in terms of the real population and the economies they serve, which the way beyond the city lots. lots and lots of people work in boston allow the boston museum and take advantage of all the boston transportation but who don't pay taxes or don't the reference here into are not really part of the city of boston. that is something that has to be changed. you can't change it one at a time but in the global parliamenparliament of mayors ye the opportunity to say we need

an urban revolution that redefines cities as metropolitan regions and we can do it together. >> i'm a new mayor so lisa is actually my mentors, and she got a lot of -- the of things we talked about was being this season on all the suburbs, and it makes sense. a lot of people that live in the suburbs work in our cities. so when you look at the stats, a growth of employment and everybody is excited about the growth of employment and lawrence. the rail is we still have touched a lot of people to work in a position created in the cities of this approach is really, really important. she taught me about make sure you have a supply chain around, go about those things. they were happy to have the discussion. no one had talked about the regional transit authority. it worked on its own even though

it was economic department leverage we could pull that could help, that in turn would help lawrence, that could help. we started talking about and going to the meetings. each city has representatives on the regional transportation authority, and i pulled my because it was an attorney anyway. by no intent, this is the kind of thinking about being there, everyone thinks you do this all purposefully. i became the chair of the regional transit authority. it was just by mistake. i did really -- last night i know nothing about buses. but no, the mayor, the manager of andover, they competed meetings. they talk about, we'll get a bus from them. because five bucks when you park in a train station in lawrence and it gets you over to hand over spent just make sure you

don't have chris christie working with you in the port authority last night. >> from the question you asked, i like the regionalization to we've taken that approach in boston. let me go back to the original question about the empowerment idea now it's going to be accepted. doctor barbara mentioned two points in his introduction. one he spoke about the power in california of the 17% of the auto industry changing global auto industry. the second point was the ratings of congress versus state legislators versus ms. i think the fact of the mayors would get together and had a conversation is going to open the eyes of a lot of people who say they are the most popular people in the region's. what are they talking about and why aren't we part of the conversation? by having that idea that changes the conversation. that changes the discussion. when we talk about regionalization and transportation, governor patrick is put together a transportation plan, really the first time, i

spent 17 years in the ability to know and regional transportation plan but now there seems to be more coordination with cities and towns around transportation. i think the fact that in boston, we'll quickly, pharmaceutical came from cambridg cambridge tof years ago, a great victory to boston. at the end of the day the region it didn't win. taxpayers did win because they're going into one part. it's how do you create opportunities to get the so that if one industry please, let's create new industries so we can go together rather than go to lawrence and steal what the mayor has come and go to fitchburg and fitchburg, to boston. we've got to try to use our brainpower to grow new industries. >> but in addition to creating

opportunities, don't you need to flexure muscle a little bit? i'm looking at all three of you when i say this. i can remember anytime in the last 10 or 15 years when i read a news story that said something to the effect of the mayors of the 10 most largest cities in massachusetts or the 15 largest cities in massachusetts got together and said that the what the state government to do x., or they want a national government to do why. you're not flexing their muscle right now. >> it's because of politics be used to working for individual cities and towns and try to which you need up there. i see a change when it comes to mayors. i've been here for 10 months but i've been in politics for 17 years but i see a change within me is we've had. we had a meeting a friend where we had that awful lot of mayors show up from around the commonwealth. we have the metro mayors

conference, 13 cities. i think we all feed off each other and i think you'll see a change. i think particularly around educational funding. the mayors have to step up but we have to have a plan to stay together and understand that if we go for this part together, there might be something small in area that you might like it because it will be frustration. >> i think mayors have won the election because we been able to build a machine of the commute to rise up and defend our vision. we need to do that a month collective mayors but imagine if i want to do education next year, he wants to be vice versa, education and crime. you hearing a noise in the state legislature. what we've been able to do, i became a 2007. in 2008, 11 similar mayors and simmer cities around massachusetts in together and we signed the first ever compact called the gateway cities compact. we looked at different things. we said she would be called the

forgotten cities? that didn't sound good. the middle cities? we decide on gate receipts because our gateway to innovation, immigrants, total optimism i have to say. what we decided to do is we decided to work together which meant that we and our expertise of staff, like her economic development or housing people, came together in debated behind the scenes a common agenda. very similar to what the legislature does but proactively coming from us. what we'v we do is we worked on creating a strong mechanism, and because of that we that changes in economic department, fun and policy, changes in public safety policy and i would try to push for changes in education. we could have ever done that unless we've been working for these six or seven soldiers as a compact. and also give the legislature, hthey had to adopt the term gateway cities as a term so that they could provide funding and policies to help us.

without that term, without the parliament, then what is a bunch of mayors? everyone will call it something different. just like gateway cities the parliament is the mechanics in which we come together. the nra, would you consider this a pretty powerful organization? have you heard of mayors against illegal guns? started by the mayors of boston and new york. when you talk about bringing together funding and changing a national conversation against a very powerful organization, whatever your beliefs are, it's mayors against illegal guns. you will start hearing the youth conference of mayors more and will because these organizations are getting more money. mayors are buying and growing in membership every year and becoming universally recognized by the press and by the public. we don't have anything on this global scale and this is what i'm excited about part of it. >> i will say i'm a little concerned with all things being local, that concerns me that we get for a few.

part of that is my news. i spread my wings as well as of the folks. i feel like i did a good positive view when mayors come together, they have this bucket of money, said every call your rep and if there. all of a sudden we had possible money. i did in the that existed. there wasn't headline, but it was headline in my city. >> it's going to be now. >> the mayors battled their swords a little bit. i think you'll see the on education reform, people are angry but not fully funding education formulas. a lot of towns are being hurt. >> at the same to us local mayors in massachusetts can't tackle climate change. i think of parliament could. we are affected by the. >> i'm thrilled about the gun thing. that's genius.

i would sign on. personal politics on my level. >> a great massachusetts guy once said, all politics is local. not anymore. we live in an interdependent world when we talk about transportation or immigration or inequality or jobs or climate for terrorism, you are talking about cross-border global problems. mayors are the problem solvers but they've got to understand it's an interdependent world and now, local politics won't do it. global politics of mayors will give an opportunity to begin to take these issues on in ways that will make your job easier. it's not easy for you. nobody will go to the parliament and come home interested since i did just why did you spend the money or where he went? if you got to admit that the you are solving problems effectively by working with others, that will be welcome. but the world is interdependent with the notion of politics just

been local simply isn't true anymore. >> there was an article in "the new yorker" this summer about the zuckerberg christi packed around the schools and one of the guys said oprah made booker of the rockstar mayor, and one of the guys did some research on the impact. he said what we found was you could be a rockstar and you could be a mayor, but you can't be both. so the idea, i worry because i think like an issue is important, that we could leverage our gun buying power and shut down, go read the nra. that's awesome. we should do that tomorrow. >> no one will go to the poll and vote you out of office because they didn't. >> 80% of carbon emissions comes from cities. >> the medicine he was a rockstar before he became -- [laughter] >> that's awesome. >> one more question before we open it up to the audience but i

want to remind you if you'd like to ask a question, please come to the microphone in the center aisle. here's my question to the mayors and to professor barber. how independent do cities need to be from their governing authorities from the u.s., from the states or from there national government? and are we talking about, professor barber, meaning cities off from state and national government depended? >> i'd like to wean national government often depends on cities where is because that's what you get the world. that's what he gets a tax credit that he tried to maintain jurisdiction. cc for gestational authority, more autonomy, more of their own resources in town to do the things they need to do. when you work together they can get that. message to cory booker. i told him no major mayor of the training of america has ever in history of the united states become president of the united

states. i believe there's a reason for that and it's not that mayors are not effective. it's that presidents are not effective and mayors are problem solvers kind of a real problem when they tried to go to let her come and they don't. >> quick answer to my question. >> there are three branches of government. you need to have a relationship. it's important for that. i think the relationship is frayed. i think we need to focus the country back, we need to be in this together. ..

i just really appreciate, dr. barber, your inspiration on this. i'm going to disagree with the slightly mayor want, because i believe mayors in boston can help solve climate issues. on the mitigation work on when to ask you ought to think a little bit outside the box and do three things. being a massachusetts mayor, or that climate change specifically, invite out-of-the-box thinkers to help work on it for five euros up to 95-year-olds across the board. i am going to ask you to work on the massachusetts wicked cheap solar on everything from building to public transportation and number three i ask you to entertain the idea of having massachusetts be the first, big cities in

massachusetts follow our friend in framingham and amherst, northampton to be the first cities to the vast from fossil fuel company is in this for the amazing leadership. >> all right. i may just job on the question of getting together. to put together policies that hasn't been this fast acting. a lot of them sometimes don't have the ability of boston. chief of environment in the city of boston reducing common emissions, working on the action plan and unsustainability universally answered all the important issues. the state really had a plan at one point in the state is not where it needs to be. a lot have done a lot in the cities. i think there is an opportunity that one may or can make a difference. when it comes to the climate and action plan, one mayor can start

it. so it's been a state that's been doing it to this point statewide and i think there is an open opportunity here for us. particularly we are like-minded in many ways that we just want names. democratic, republican, doesn't matter. it's had either the agenda forward quite >> of a climate change climate change action committee overcome these issues. what i do us a mayor, the next mayor may change. so as much as i've also focus on what i do, i am trying to get stuff happening on the state level. i love the idea of the mayor talking about it more. [inaudible] >> no, we don't have time for that. i'm so sorry. i would take one more question if its quake appeared >> have a question for everybody, but especially interested in mayor walsh is answer because i actually go to the high school if you graduated

from. so with this is that warrants a spurt of boston all had unlimited call for his senate seat in net revenue was the only problem, what is one policy to help america's schools become competitive on a global scale? that you could all agree on? >> early childhood literacy. >> i agree with that. technology. these are important. they are all-important, but we also have to have the technology. a couple weeks ago i walked into my mother's school in a small world village in the countryside in their sturdy kids of the school and every single kid in the school had an ipaq. i went to the school down the go. we are sharing computers, technology. where to provide young people the best opportunity for success. we need early education. no question about it.

but also the best technology for the innovation economy. we had to have young people are prepared. this is in about the united states anymore. this is a worldwide economy and you people have to be prepared for the economy. >> on that note, we say thank you to all of our panelists for their time today. boston mayor marty walsh, fitchburg mayor leads along and the author of its mayors who are the world, dr. benjamin barber. thank you for being here today. thank you for attending. clark that -- [applause] ♪

factual setting to make figures sure to the committee to protect journalists of any censorship talks about targeting of journalists by governments around the world including the u.s. government. during the event hosted by columbia university graduate school of journalism in new york city, mr. simon is in conversation with kathleen carroll can do to get better of "the associated press." speenine good evening, everyone. thank you for being here today. i'm sheila carrera. we are pleased to have kathleen

carroll and joel simon for this conversation. journalism is an increasingly dangerous profession. no one knows this more than our guests tonight. joel simon is director of the committee to protect journalists, organization founded in 1981 by a group of u.s. correspondence to realize they couldn't ignore the dangers around the world are facing. research and advocacy are focused on defending the right to journalists to report. forever in the world journalists are attacked, and present, killed, kidnapped, threatened, censored or her past comest dpj takes action. when journalists can speak for themselves, see p.j. speaks up on their behalf. i know this because before coming to new york as a journalist in the cities and see p.j. is the group that would run

to whenever we were in trouble. see p.j. has played a key role in raising awareness about the killings of journalists in my country and elsewhere around the world. journalists need to be positioned to talk about how the landscape of threats have changed in the past two years. his new book, copies available. it is called "the new censorship." as published by columbia journalism review. it documents the changes taken place in the landscape. those of you who want to work as journalists overseas or for those of you who want to learn more about how despite technological changes and changes that is even more inane danger profession. the columbia journalism school is proud to be hosting this event tonight. our school has a long tradition of press freedom work. many of us teach and do research

and press freedom worldwide. several of our faculty, including myself who just walked in said on the board of trustees. more importantly, they come from overseas. many from the place is talked about in his book. joe will be joined tonight by kathleen carroll, also a member to see p.j. board. at the executive editor and senior vice president of "the associated press," cat lane as a top news executive of world's largest agency. she oversees 72,300 journalists working in more than 100 countries. she has a very keen awareness of the problems will be talking about tonight. please join me in welcoming joel simon and kathleen carroll. [applause] >> thank you on the sheila.

joel, one is start out by talking about this endlessly about your >> thank you so much. thank you to the journalism school of hosting this discussion. "the new censorship" explores fundamental contradictions of our modern global existence. why in an age defined by information are the people who bring us india's dying in record numbers? y at a time when technology was supposed to make censorship impossible is actually on the rise? let's start off with the raw numbers. according to some for data, these last two years have been the most deadly and dangerous for journalists in history. a record number of journalists have been killed. a record number are in prison. freedom of expression is on the wane according to indices compiled by independent advocacy groups.

so in "the new censorship," what i do is address these issues not an abstract theoretical terms, but based on my inexperience is executive director of the committee to protect journalists. so the book opens with a mission that we understood the pockets on and pockets on this mission happened to coincide coincide with the may 2nd, 2011 raid that killed osama bin laden. sabine on the scene of pakistan gave me a renewed appreciation for the unique role that local journalists play in informing their own societies, but also the global public reticular land times of crisis. it also clarified for me personally the imperative that ideal to support the efforts of local journalists on the front lines. so i began my own career as a journalist covering mexico and central america and i am actually old enough to recall writing my very first story on a

manual typewriter and filing by tatian. so i made my living as a freelancer, often telling the exact same story to multiple publications and this is a kind of journalism like so many others completely disrupted as the internet. so when the first chapter, i describe the transition as i've seen it. but i was in mexico, there were a few dozen international reporters and we sort of served as an urban nation gatekeepers interpreting mexico for the world. most of us were working on more or less the same stories for different mark than audiences. and just to start just to certify forward by the time the 2003 iraq war walter brown, this kind of reporting was obsolete. since news consumers, people following developments could easily curate their revenues by using search. if you want to fast forward again to the 2010 arab uprising,

an active duration has been replaced by social media, which not only to democratize news gatherings, somehow made it more efficient and more participatory. journalism has not been transformed by these technologies. for me it has been offended. there's obviously tremendous excitement about what is happening in many ways, pretty early at a place like columbia. there are tremendous challenges as well and i want to focus on some of those because in some ways the abundance of information available online obscures the tremendous gaps in our knowledge about global events because information is suppressed by violent than censorship. one of the leading obstacles to the information is the rise of what i call the democracies. these are elected autocrats who

empowered by popular support in their success at the polls come a use their power to dismantle these institutions that constrain them, particularly the media. in the buckeye look at a couple case studies, air to one, turkey, the late sean said vladimir putin in russia. and these are raw leaders who have used this strategy is to mask their re-process policies towards the media and they've used things like unit of tax audits of legal harassment and anti-terror prosecutions in the creation of parallel media structures finance supported by the state. these strategies are effective because the leaders are able to position the factions as consistent with international norms. this in my view is the very essence of the new censorship. journalists also face a variety of threats from nonstate actors including criminal and terror

groups and in fact if you look at the terror dynamic is played out in iraq, dissident journalist felt threatened that those militant groups decide to kidnap and kill them in the u.s. military was overly aggressive tactic led to the death of 16 journalists during the conflict in the unjustified detention of many reporters held for long periods in deplorable editions as kathleen as well, one of those journalists with and a pew reporter. i dress in the book specific actions journalist can take in response to the kidnapping epidemic and perhaps we can discuss that during the question-and-answer period. i also look at the threat to the internet itself. the internet is a shared global resource on the primary platform for independent journalism, particularly across borders. the reality is the structures that underpin the internet and allow it to function as it does today are threatened by otto

craddick governments, notably china which seeks to build not only a system of domestic control, but to reform internet government so the internet itself better serve state entries. in order to combat the emerging threats of media freedom i argue for specific concrete action. confronting the deplorable record of impunity in the killing of journalists, which today is around 90%. by profile to murder journalists and marlene garcia and the philippines were both victims of state violence. i explain how international advocacy and both of their cases lead to partial justice and i highlight the progress of the limitations of such a strategy. the underlying reality is technological transformation that has empowered average people both as news consumers and citizen journalists has

weakened the institutions that support existing journalism and this has real consequences. the power of the media and the power of individual journalists over the last half-century has been derived in large measure from their position as information gatekeepers in this position has been eviscerated. in other words, the power dynamic between journalists and those they cover has been permanently changed. in order to ensure media freedom in the future, we need to build a grand coalition of all those who benefit from the free flow of information. you can't just be journalists and media organizations. it must also include international civil society, businesses and even governmental institutions. the fight must also be brought to you not just for media freedom, but global freedom of expression which empowers all people are missing the enabling environment. we need to expose to my particular is so they can claim democratic legitimacy. we need to rally to support in

open a free internet and when it did not make it governments availing to combat state violence and support development of ethical quality journalism at the global level. so this is obviously a tall order and i am not suggesting any of that will be easy. the point of the book really is we are living three. are living to repair the crisis in which both the individuals and the systems that deliver news and information to a global audience are threatened as never before. we need to recognize and understand the challenge and also what is at stake and we need to take concerted action to ensure the promise that the information age in which all people everywhere i empowered by their ability to access essential information can one day be fully and finally realized. the bank joy is just taking you very briskly through the entire

book. let's stroll down a little bit on some of these issues. you started telling some pretty personal stories and many people involved in the work of protecting journalists have a story that is very meaningful to them. someone they knew was that connection. yet the solutions you describe can't be built when personal heartbreak at a time. so how do we get people in a time when people's attention spans are notoriously short. remember brownback are girls? how do we motivate people to care about this to the degree of what the level of activism that would be required to begin to accomplish some of the things that will make them change. >> well, you have to say bradley about the environment in which journalists operate. i think if this is perceived as

simply an issue that affects professional journalists, we have media organizations, professional journalist, but i still think you kind of reach a point at which you need to broaden that coalition. i think the way to do that is to frame it as a broader struggle for freedom of expression. and to create this environment in which independent journalism can function at a global level. i think that we actually have an advantage because we live in a world in which people participate in the process of gathering and accessing information and often gathering information and disseminating it. so the journalism which was once a professional activity is now something accessible and meaningful to so many people around the world because they participate themselves of this

process may feel very strongly and personally about their ability to access information and they feel personally violated by censorship. but that is the kind of person that day with which we have to approach this. >> just a tease that out a little bit more, what you say about people feeling a personal connection and the right they have taken away, they feel strongly about it, you and i both know plenty of countries in the world and hundreds of millions of people who don't have that, live in a world with some kind of censorship. institutional, government or otherwise. you know, as long as many other things are going fine in their lives, they don't miss it quite so much. how are you persuasive in those circumstances? >> i think that honestly it is very difficult. that is the kind of bargain difficult to overcome and that is what makes that democracy is

so affect this. as long as things are going well, as long as incomes are rising a nice amount of civility and personal liberties our respect it and a certain amount of personal freedom, it's very hard to get people riled up. the governments themselves realize that because during the crisis, during periods in which there is volatility, that is in the ability to access information and particularly depending information matters to people. if you use turkey as an example, turkey was cruising along the significant economic growth. stability. everyone had delivered this to the turkish people. there was sort of encouragement as well. this sort of exploded in the

protests that took weighs a little more than a jericho, which spontaneously developed over the purity of minor issues in the development in central istanbul. at that point, people were fighting for information. they wanted to understand what was happening in the government was fighting as well. you can see these dynamics play out in authors of situations in brazil for there is three protests in the ukraine were obviously just seen a revolution. i think that is the dynamic and governments understand this. as long as they can deliver increases come economic growth and a certain amount of economic stability they won't feel this pressure. >> talk a little bit about some of the countries that are not a crisis right now, but where you

seem to change from a sudden improvement. it may not be perfect but is certainly an improvement. >> well, i think that the improvements you see tend to be coming you know, unless you are dealing with some violent. , subsides dramatically, to most of the time these are incremental. i like to say columbia as an example. when i started at cpj, which was well over a decade ago, columbia was the focus. i ran the latin america program in colombia was the country living through a period of tremendous violent civil war that had morphed with a major drug crisis and the levels of violence for absolutely extraordinary. many of the violence affected journalists. beside large number killing. we saw a state that the institutions were essentially unable to function.

you know, what is happening in colombia is that the levels of violence has subsided, and the issues of press freedom, freedom of expression and impunity have come to the floor. we've actually seen some significant steps in terms of reducing levels of violence against journalists are in terms of creating a more open environment for reporting outside of the capital. so columbia missouri could point to some positive trends. >> well, then let's take the empty half of the classic tonight. you've are pretty good description of how hugo shoutfest transform venezuela and how his example has been replicated in many places on the continent. can you talk more about that and explain that? >> again, he's one of my leading

examples of this democracy under approach to team in the media. what is amazing about chavez is obviously the time he died of cancer he was perceived as somebody who was a knockdown drag out fight with the united states, but when he was the lack of a 1999, it is funny to remember that he came here and rang the bell at the new york stock exchange. he led through the first pitch at shea stadium. he met with any broker. he was kind of a little tour of the united states and was playing all nice. but then what he did and the innovation was he basically used his popularity and have success at the polls and the mobilization he was able to achieve the venezuelan society

to take over institutions one by one with the supported approval of the population. the irony is each election in venezuela made the country less democratic. initially, he didn't know how to do with the media since it was a member of the direct control of the government. obviously it is an independent institution that is very much opposed to him. then he developed all of these innovative strategies and the first was this intermediate the media. so he would just take over these eight hour radio shows where he talk about how beautiful venezuelan women were our baseball or whatever he wants to talk about him go on and on. and then he started using government regulation to take over critical television stations, particularly after the aborted coup attempt in 2002

which he felt was precipitated by the media. by the time he died, the media landscape had completely transformed in venezuela. he came to power with an independent media that was highly critical. by the time he died, the bd had been controlled, managed and had essentially the level of criticism exists. venezuela is not a country that is a traditional authoritarian country. but it's greatly to managed in it no longer threatens the interest of the government. >> you talk a little bit about how some of the act to visit around us the by journalists covering. it is the beginning of cpj. in some other cases, certainly terry andersen in the case of the ap and danny pearl in a

different way. do you feel it is still an effective tool. two questions about that. is it still an effective tool or does it get lost in the onslaught of information? if it is an effective tool, is a penetrating beyond the western journalists who are not operated in their own country? is it as effect is for local journalists and hard to get coverage outside their country on this issue? >> i still think that was the cpg model. when you talk to the founders, he probably will remember what about those struggling up was to convince rolen is that an attack on their colleagues was something they should be covering with the news story. journalists at the time felt it was a self pleading taking

advantage of their position to advocate on behalf of their colleagues. that mindset has changed for a variety of reasons. one is the nature of international news coverage of the stories journalists doing a recognition journalists have a responsibility to use the resources and access that they have to defend colleagues around the world who may not have the same kind of support. i still think it works. it works in different ways. but you know, the fact that an attack on a journalists anywhere in the world will be covered. it will be covered initially by advocacy groups, but we have the ability to make it into a more general news story. you also may not be one story that goes out on the wires. it may be that story triggers

interest in social media, which triggers more local coverage and is more diffuse. but it definitely has an impact and i see that as i travel around and engage with governments around the world. >> so, advocacy on behalf of the ideals that journalism stands for as a proxy for the people is appropriate. you expressed some discomfort about journalists who are also advocates for the kind of freedom in their roles there is little more lindane. i mean, a little more confused. i am not a journalist covering something. i might be a journalist, but when i am off, i will stand and participate in the protests. that feels appropriate to those folks because they are fighting for freedom. but you are a little uncomfortable with that. >> i don't