[inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top notch and -- top nonfiction authors and we can. booktv television for serious readers. c-span2 providing live coverage of u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy sense and every weekend a booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. ..

speakers will include the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. live coverage gets underway at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. about next the discussion on governance and leadership in the world from the united states to europe to asia. part of a conscience -- conference from the rand corporation speakers include francis fukuyama and banking regulator sheila bair. this is about an hour. >> hello welcome back. i am michael rich, president and ceo of the rand corporation. the focus of the last session was the middle east, foreign policy more generally there,

also the middle east is a region several hundred million people, hardly any democracies in that region. in fact authoritarian states, petering states, vanishing states, increasing amount of endeavoring to territories. we are going to shift our focus to places that on the surface seem stable secure, even prosperous but the question is on a they and will they be up to the challenges of the new century? it is an appropriate time to take up questions like this, the 25 food anniversary of the opening of the berlin wall this year, 25th anniversary of the protests in the andaman square. in 1989 there was a wave of democratic transitions beginning

in eastern europe, europe and asia and africa, liberal democracy and free-market capitalism seem to have prevailed in that great battle of ideologies hofer's various forms of totalitarianism that at least one panelist has written about. that was francis fukuyama, he wrote an essay, we reached the end of history. ultimately a very famous book. the original paper has a question mark at the end, it was the end of history. it went from article 2 book and we will ask about that. frank recently said the year 2013 feels different.

this is an electoral authoritarian regime that seeks to take back territory that it lost when the soviet union dissolved. china has an economy that rivals hours but remains authoritarian. to democracy in many countries has proven anything but smooth or straight in the united states we experienced a prolonged recession, gridlock no end insight. this involves confidence in public institutions. it is an inconvenient union that we have written about, succession movements and economic stagnation since the need for fresh approaches to governance and leadership and that is the theme and i think we have almost a perfect panel to

address this. francis fukuyama, rand trustee, alumnus of the research staff, the author of many rand report and best-selling books including the two volume book on political d k we are going to get into today, the second volume of this that has just been published. sheila bair is also a brand trusty who lived systemic risk council and was chair of the federal deposit insurance corp. in 2006 to 2011, critical time. she is the author of bull bible warns, fighting to save mean street from wall street and wall street from itself but she has another book coming out. it will come out this next spring explaining the financial crisis and its implications for young adults and its title is the bullies of wall street this is how greedy adults messed up our economy. she made it easy for reviewers

with that title. nicolas berggruen is next investor, philanthropist, impressive founder and president of the institute on governance and he launched to that institute, several government projects including fees three the 21st century council focused on global governance, but counsel for the future of europe and residents of california, he is co-author of a book, intelligence governance for the 21st century, middleweight between west and east and the far left simon sinek advisor is leader is in business and the non-profit sector for leadership and a close tie to the subject. he does look at rand and adjunct

researchers, and the american military author of several best sellers and a frequent speaker at rand. frank has done a lot of research, more research and analysis on the causes of political decay. more thinking of the problems plaguing modern liberal democracy than anybody i know. nicolas berggruen's book contains intriguing ideas for fixing democracies, taking ideas as the title suggests from east and west and putting some to the test in california. a few people thought more about the shortcomings of our institutions for modern economies and financial institutions than sheila and in this end it boils down to the confidence and leadership qualities of the individuals in the institutions that we have and nobody better than simon sinek on the quality of leadership so let me start with frank. you have gone along way back in

history, collective experiences from around the globe, many continents. what does an affective modern state, a liberal democracy needs to endure, and what is causing the d k in those institutions? >> this is a really important issue because the issue between 25 years ago when i wrote the original article is back then i think most people around the world looked at the united states as the model of democracy and i think very few people would say that. we want to replicate everything going on in washington with the shutdown and refusing to pay back the previous steps and that sort of thing so it is an important thing for global politics and in might view modern political order has three things, it has to have a state

which is about the ability to use power to enforce laws and services to protect the community and it has got to have rule of law which basically sets rules for the powerful. if it doesn't set rules for the president, the prime minister and the king is not the rule of law and there has to be democratic accountability which make sure the government helps the interests of the whole community and not just the ruling elite and americans have a problem in perceiving the world because in a sense the american system is built around the instruments constrained around law and democracy and that is what we think of when we think of the critical system. we don't think about the state part of it but as my mentor samuel hemming this said before you have power you have to generate power, you need an

effective administration. my diagnosis is several things. >> i want to ask nicolas berggruen if his definition of intelligent governance is close to those three ingredients frank just listed? >> the greatest incur a living today in terms of governance and government but whenever he says is right. >> i will go on. to address one of the key issues, the government as frank said, its power, government is really there at the end of the day to serve the public. it has a function. the function is controlled

direction, but also service. the issue we see at the institute is the service part at least in democracies has become too politicized. we have to be able to separate the political side where do we want to go? morley, ideologically but also the government service, the bureaucracy needs to be fair to make things function to make sure people have opportunity, that they are safe, future for every one of the individuals and that has to be politicized and the issue we have in the u.s. and a lot of other places democracies on the side. >> let me now reflect on that

basis let me return to frank and complete your diagnosis. maybe you agree with nicolas berggruen. >> it is a different way of saying what i was saying. you have to hack a competent executive and administration. the problem we are in is everybody is aware of polarizations though now the most liberal republican is more conservative than the most conservative democrat. that has been measured clearly by political scientists and has happened since the 1980s and that is a fact of life. there is also what huge group of interest groups well-organized, well funded, supreme court has said money is a form of free speech some money and politics makes more difference than it used to. these buys themselves would not be a problem but for the institutional structure of the country. the founding fathers were interested in maximizing liberty intensely suspicious of strong centralized power so they created a very complex system of

checks and balances in which different parts of the government check other parts of the government but when you bring this together with polarization and powerful interest groups it leads to a rule by the toe where it is extremely easy for well-organized small minorities to block famous that bothered public interest so that is why we have this absurd tax code that goes to thousands of pages and is a collection of special privileges, it is why congress has not been able to pass a budget since 2008. that is a case. >> it is the good lead into a question i wanted to ask sheila because one of the changes that occurred is the economic and financial institutions, the government is responsible for, government regulating, overseeing are much larger much more complex much more

international and howl in your experience is that set of trends complicate the government's challenge for modern democracies. >> it complicates it aloft and a lot of the cynicism we are seeing now and lack of trust rogers spoke about eloquently stems from the breakdown of the financial regulatory system leading up to the crisis and the bailouts which were obviously helped people who were responsible for the mess to begin with some would create a lot of cynicism and lost faith in government but we can get that back and we are not doing a very good job right now. again getting back to emma rogers's remarks which i was taken with to be a good public and effective public servant we serve the public and agencies like the nsa or fda or whatever

should not be about political purpose or advancement but provide a service clear and distending what his agency did, to protect the u.s. public against one threat and gather intelligence to that end. i am happy to look at my telephone records. i know a person like that and people who work for a person like that will know what to do or what not to do with that information but we don't have that kind of strong sense of public purpose, a lot of leaders of the agency, or if they do they don't publicly articulate, as they need to talk to the public and explain what they are doing and why they're doing it. and in the financial sector, you get a lot of reforms, hideously complex rules, make the tax code look simple bank regulations coming out but the regulators are becoming less effective and

less confident, they don't get the political support they need and they are also too many of them so they can't reach the net this relentless lobbying against it so the financial crisis has a lot to do with that and the government response is not -- it has weakened the confidence and making it stronger began destroying it. >> so frank and nicholas have outlined in different ways but quite common ground the ingredients for an effective set of institutions. what are the ingredients for an effective leader of an institution of the sort they have been talking about? >> first and foremost leadership has nothing to do with it. authority comes with rent. there are many times to sit at the highest levels of the organization who have authority but are not leaders and they tell us we wouldn't follow them and we all know people who sit

at lower levels of organizations with no authority but made a choice to the person left of them to look to the person to the right of them. this is what leadership is and to look out around those of you and you gain authority and have an opportunity to look after more people. this is where we trusted our leader. we as social animals responding to the environment we aren't a good people and put them in a bad environment and are capable of bad things we respond to the environment we are in so the trust in our leaders is a believe human intuition as social animals that our leaders have our interests in mind which is why we devote blood sweat and tears and willingly and proudly help build their vision. when we have a sense that they have their own interests in mind or they would sacrifice our lives to protect their interests which is even worse than we keep our walls up and keep a safe distance. the reason we don't trust

politicians because the we may agree with words that come out of their mouths we know the words they don't believe the words that come out of their mouth so we keep a safe distance. it goes to the primal reaction which is can i fall asleep at night and trust this person will watch for danger? can i turn my back and does this person won't stab me? if there is any doubt than trust the case and self-interest prevails. >> nicholas, you thought a lot about what we might do to change our system in the united states. can you tell us a bit about the path we should at least consider going down to fix these problems? >> is a complex problem and not a simple recipe. i go back to what i said before and apologize for that. it should be the politicized.

at the same time citizens have to approve of their government so they should have the last word. there should be separation of difference between serving citizens and giving of a power and responsibility to people who we like and elect. there needs to be some difference there and tea or point of leadership the question, somebody may look good and be a good leader and the popular but may not be the best administrator and we have to make that difference and on the one side government has to attract people who are willing to lead to and inspire but on the other hand care has to be an organization that has to be able to attract people to that and i

would say what is interesting i would love to get your view on this. is government in view s and in a lot of western countries able to attract the best people? is bit exciting to be in government, the best people and i was listening before countries that are less rich than this one, saying government has to pay more in this country, that is also true but there has to be prestige, recognition that comes with serving government and do you get the best people? you don't get the best service. >> that is very true. as people are more cynical about government and get relentlessly

bashed in the press, you want to go into that or it becomes more dysfunctional, good people want to get things done. or even worse instead of getting good people in you get people who want to use government to create favor with tax dodges or whatever, that is not what she wants so it is a real problem and again you want to attract people who are committed to serving the public that is defined by congress and elected officials protecting depositors, whether it is national security or collection of the tax code you need to identify what the public purpose is and not for other reasons and it is important your comment about public service is a real issue as well. we need better management and

business skills and government leadership. there has been not slow recognition of that but again if we can't -- people know how to defend their agencies the latest professional, you need to get out and explain to people what you are doing, that helps with staff morale and we have people that the fdic, i don't think anybody in crisis the folks that identify with the service we are providing and want to be part of that but again you need to have -- you are never going to be in the financial service, you never see that compensation. but i didn't want people like that looking for multimillion-dollar salaries for the fdic because to make money going for right way, that is not what you want to drive the folks in the agency, you want some

paid fairly but hopefully serve a higher purpose, they are joining in and do good job for you. >> i was just going to make a comment. 25 years ago when the wall fell in berlin, as you say the end of history and other important things, 25 years ago who would have predicted that today you would have more countries that have become autocracies as opposed to democracy is in essence. >> that is not true. >> in terms of a large country is becoming -- russia turkey, india. >> germany was a military

dictatorship back then. >> in terms of governance they have become all less democratic. >> i do disagree with that. there are 35 electoral democracies in 1970 depending how you define it is 110 to 114 right now so there has been accused increase. >> maybe i am wrong, 10 years or so there's a shift over the last eight years so i meant over the last ten years. >> in fairness he said you might disagree with him. >> but the point, the point i was trying to make is the reason why i think some of these getting more traction is maybe they are perceived by their citizens, right or wrong to be more effective and citizens of some of these countries

including china or so have seen the government in some way perform. the issue we have in democracies is our government's seem to be less able to perform and change. that is my point. my point is not so much about the system that system or not, i am saying there's a perception that the government is more effective citizens at the end will be better served and that makes democracies' harder. >> i'm looking for point of entry to start changing the situation so what i have heard so far is we have a set of public institutions that are not professional competence service oriented one problem is they human capital in these institutions isn't as strong and

appropriately motivated as it should be at all levels as simon pointed out. one reason is the polarization in congress which has lead to gridlock over complexity of regulations and so on and yet congress is elected by the very citizens that should be consumers of the services. this summer just before the referendum there was very little publicity about campaign publicity, no billboards, hardly any bumper stickers or signs. the turn out in that election 84.5%. in 2012 when president obama was reelected the turnout was 58% of the electorate we had a rat race for mayor of los angeles second-largest city in the united states 16% of the registered voters turned out. how do we fix that problem?

>> is its australia? you get find if you don't vote. which is what that does is says it is your civic duty. there is something to be said. i get a kick out of politicians who think they give mandates when they get 16%--a percentage of the percentage. isn't the mandate the people who didn't vote? the thing that fascinates me is why the polarization? we are polarized and i had a conversation with a member, congratulated her for the 9% approval rating and asked what do you think the reason is? she said it is the system. i said you do realize you are the system. one of the things that fascinates me is why the polarization and if you think of what makes functional organizations functional it goes

back to trust, relationships, cumin is -- good old-fashioned human relationships. some damage was done when newt gingrich implemented some of the policies of the contract with america. one of the things he says was leave washington and go back to your districts. there was a time the when you won a seat in national office you move your whole family to washington and flow you may have fought on the floor during the day you sat in the bleachers with your opposition and watched kids play ball and tip o'neill famously, wood-reagan, what happened is politicians have spent so little time in washington that don't move their families there, they don't know each other. it is that simple. >> there is a reason that is happening which has to do with money. >> absolutely. there's a cost for the money you make. the breakdown in relationships, they don't know each other, how can you work with somebody that

you just don't know? it is much worse than polarization of democrat and republican. democrats and republicans don't know each other, they don't work together and lacking good old-fashioned relationships of course self-interest prevails in we hunker down and everything becomes short-term interest rather than long-term what we can do together and not until we can fix the quality of relationships within the party will use the change in the polarization. >> when there was less polarization some people were not happy with that. you used to kirk there's not a dime of difference between the two parties. how do you fix the roading social relationships among people who are supposed to work together and compromise while still having some creative tension and competition of ideas? >> it was functional.

they would debate a 80% behind closed doors and come to some sort of agreement and publicly the last 20%, not 100% on the floor for the theatre. .. >> that suggests there's actually an institutional -- >> our media viewing habits would not agree with that.

>> no, no, i think -- i mean there's a lot of data other than just who watches fox and -- but in any event it's a debate. you're right, there probably is more polar. but i think, you know, if you're going to fix it you've got to go to institutional rules, and there are a lot of institutional rules that are promoting it. popular primaries were supposed to increase participation, and they have increased polarization. if you want a low are turnout go to a party primary. the only people that show up are activists and, you know that's how someone like richard lugar who was a great senator could get defeated by a tea party candidate who then goes on to lose the main race. i think actually c-span in the chamber has had a destruct tive effect -- destructive effect because that's killed deliberation. senators and congressmen do not talk to each other. they talk to activist audiences

out there in tv land. >> i would glee with that. -- agree with that. i don't know what's -- if they're talking because they don't need to anymore they're not being held -- because they can only get reelected with 16% of the vote. they don't care. they don't have to deliver. there's not a broader populace that is holding them accountable. so you're absolutely right the personal relationships -- i worked in the senate in the '80s, it worked a lot better then. they're not there. but i think one feeds on the other. i think gerrymandering's a problem in the house. the senate, i used to work for the senate, i'm biased, they could get a better legislative process because they have longer -- [inaudible] though the primaries or caucuses are the worst of the worst in terms of having a group of activists decide who the party candidate is. i know it's heresy but i like runoffs, you know? i like getting the top two and having them go to the final vote in the general election as

opposed to these hily- highly-controlled primaries where you can get elected with a very, very small percentage of the voterrers actually feeling good about you. so i think we need better personal relationships, we also need reform of the gerrymandering the gerrymandering's got to go. those districts seem to be drawn in a way that's impartial. set up separate judicial panels -- >> i'll call on nicklaus in just a second but maybe he can address this. we started the day with a discussion of innovation at the city level. and as we've been focused in this discussion at the federal level here in the united states, at least implicitly. so i guess the question i'd have is whether or not the local level is the place to start. i know that nicholas you've written about devolution as having some advantages for performing certain functions. you have a view about that, whether or not we'll expect to

see the pushback against polarization maybe come from the bottom up rather than at the congressional or presidential politics level. >> well i was going to make a point a little bit on the prior discussion but it's, frankly the same point which is on, you know big issues that are issues for everyone if they debates in public in front of c-span, you know, you're not trying to compromise, you're trying to win votes. and that's damaging. we created a committee, a task force in california called think long committee for california. fourteen republicans and democrats, very prominent. and with strong experience but also ideological views but who were not in office to at the time. and we had a series of meetings

i think 12 meetings over about a year to discuss and come up with proposals that on very deep issues like tax reform. and so republicans, democrats who have ideologically let's say, very different views were able, after difficult discussions but still constructive discussions, they were able to come up with, i think, very thoughtful bipartisan proposals. that was done, frankly, in a place like this. you know? a rand environment. behind closed doors. not to hide anything, but to be able to deliberate openly. so people emphasize important issues by people who the public, frankly, respects on both sides. and to be able to give that space to political classes on both sides is a little bit what, what's lacking. and to go to your question about, you know, cities being able to potentially be

morefective -- more effective than states or countries, i agree. why? because simply, you know, providing border or providing clean streets shouldn't be political, you know? it's just, you know, begun a service. so that makes, you know mayors and sort of local officials potentially, you know, more effective. >> well let me turn to the audience for questions for any one of the four panelists, and i know the microphones are coming around and people can signal if they have a question. >> start here on the panel's left. [inaudible conversations] >> go ahead. no no. >> the question is for nicholas berggruen. last night we talked about

interstellar and the opportunities for governance on a new frontier. and this morning we heard from admiral roj ors regarding cyber -- rogers regarding cyberspace and some of the challenges associated with governance of cyberspace here on our planet but internationally. i'm curious be you've given any thought to -- if you've given any thought to a virgin frontier of governance which might be something like the interstellar governance or governance of cyberspace on a grand international scale and how that might take shape or form contrasted to your comments about the state of california that there's no easy recipe. >> i'm not sure that there'll be easier recipes for cyberspace. i mean, in truth what's happened i think it's a good thing, but the consequences are enormous. the cyberspace has become incredibly relevant same way as

50 years ago nuclear weapons or let's say nuclear power became incredibly important for good or for bad, you know? create energy but you can also create weapons. same thing with cyber, these cyberspace. cyberspace is a fantastic opportunity to share and communicate information. at the same time we're going to be in a position where we need to understand between nations what are we allowing ourselves to do and not to do between let's say, civilized countries. and our country countries are going to spy on each other, our countries are going to do economic espionage up to one level? what should countries permit or not? and if you -- and to cooperate there and to establish limits, i think, is going to be incredibly important.

and we're just starting this kind of global negotiation. but i think that it could -- it's going to make friends and enemies, and it could really create, i mean, exacerbate tensions if we don't deal with it. especially china and the u.s. >> we have a question back here. >> yeah, hi. i just had a question, i'm dawn -- [inaudible] in full disclosure, i work with nicholas berggruen. [laughter] i just had a question about the role of globalization. it seems like a lot of our focus is on national governments and their incompetence but they're operating in a very different context than the one in which they were created. national governments were in control of their destiny in a way today they're not, we're not. so how much of the incompetence we're seeing is not about improving relationships or tweaking our regulations but more about the fact that we're operating in a context where

they cannot solve the problems they face because they truly are global problems? so they're just going to continue to look incompetent in the face of that. >> sheila, do you want to take a first -- >> yeah. so i think that's a fair point but i do think there are things that should be getting done that just aren't getting done. i think there needs to be some accountability too. and, you know, we heard this idea during the crisis, it was the 100-year flood, nobody could have seen it coming, and that just wasn't true. now you're right, the challenges are great because of globalization, because of the sheer complexity of our interrelated economies, but there's still things that can and should happen. our tax code's lunacy. it's horribly unfair. we should have -- we shouldn't be allowing banks to borrow $20 or $25 for every $1 of common equity that they fund with their balance sheet. that's crazy. i mean, you know? it's just there are obvious things that need to get done that aren't getting done.

so i guess i hate to sound hard-nosed, but i don't want to let people off by saying oh, it's just hard. it is hard i know that. but we need leadership. that's why they're elected, that's why they're appointed. so i think there needs to be some recognition they have jobs to do and there are things that clearly and should be getting done, and people need to think about that. >> frank? is. >> well, if you look at the deepest causes of the financial crisis, in a way it was the accumulation of these very large sur -- pluses. china was the biggest but they're in a lot of different countries. the fed was blamed for running too loose a monetary policy, but the fed couldn't control the ultimate flow of funds into the u.s. housing market because there was so much liquidity sloshing around in the world. and that's one of those areas where g20 admitted this was a problem. they haven't done anything to deal with that kind of issue and i'm really just not at all

confident that, you know, that's going to happen. >> yeah. well, it's worse, if anything. and i think they were going to open up the spigot, there were some regulatory approaches but we were letting banks take on more leverage instead of trying to constrain it. no mortgage lending standards. i mean, there were, you know, it could have turned what was a crisis, it could have been a down turn. it could have been a difficult spot versus a near catastrophe. so yes, these global dynamics there's no doubt it makes it harder, but there's still some things that can and should be done and just to throw up our hands and say it's too hard, i just don't buy into that. >> but, sheila isn't the reason why we didn't do something simple just the result of the banking lobby is too damn powerful? >> well, it is. i mean, you know, people talk about too big to fail, but there's a problem with just being too big too. and there's been some real progress in providing crafting resolution regimes that can

actually let these institutions fail without exposing taxpayers again. there's still a lot more work but a lot of the work that needs to get done because they're so politically powerful and a lot of the end users, the consumers of financial services are fearful of speaking up because of the market power. so so i think even if we solve too big to fail, there's still this problem of too pig and how it skews decision -- too big and it skews decision making in a way that makes our market unstable. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. hah ran with the middle east board. i have two questions, one for frank and one for simon. frank, last time we met in your office you said very eloquently that i remember, something to the fact that instability in weak states starting from north africa to middle east and asia will be a threat to nation-states, democracy. so my question for you is the stagnation in our political system and other countries like us which are generally seen as

stable and a beacon of democracy, what will that do the whole concept of nation-states? and quickly simon i was -- i had a teacher at usc called warren bennett, and he said something that leaders are like beauty. you know when you see it. [laughter] so my question for you is, in your research do you still -- do you believe it is something that people are born with? can it be adopted? can they be taught? >> uh-huh. well, in answer to your question i would actually echo something that nicholas said earlier which is that, you know, i think one of the big problems in the world right now is when someone like xi jinping or putin gets up, and they say, you know, look at us, we're on the move, we can make decisions and so forth and then they point to washington or

brussels and say look at these democracies that are really glued locked. no many -- gridlocked. in the long run, i do not believe this is the right argument because i think they've got a -- especially russia, but china as well. they've got a lot of problems in the sustainability of the china model and so forth. and i think there are resources that democracies, but particularly the united states has had in the past that have come into play, you know slowly but, you know, over time. but there's no question, there's just no question that in the short run this has been very damaging in terms of perceptions of the relative strength of authoritarian systems versus democratic systems in the world, and that's why i think what happens in our country really does make a big difference for, you know, for global politics. >> i can meld the two questions together. there is a difference between rallying people and leading people. and time is the thing that

wishes them, you know? that distinguishes them, you know? we see what we call leaders and you can throw putin in there you can throw hitler in there if you want. you know, able to offer people something, it seems to be leadership but for the fact it just doesn't last. the finite pin to the personality or the problem, usually blaming somebody else. leadership has an infinite quality where, you know, one of the things that distinguishes our democracy from, i mean, you know benevolent dictatorship's a fantastic form of government. the problem is succession, you know? and for however people want to complain about whichever president is in power, what's always remarkable is the peaceful transfer of power. so i think time will distinguish who's rallying and who's leading. and to answer the second question, leadership is a skill like any other. some, because of the experiences they have when they're kids,

when they're raised, have natural capacity for that. like some kids are great at basketball, you know? and some work very, very hard to become good leaders. it's a skill like any other that requires tremendous amounts of practice. the problem is we don't teach the skill very effectively. when you're junior in your job, you get lots of training how to do your job and use the computer systems and what not. and if you're really good at doing your job we'll promote you into a position where you're responsible for doing -- teaching people to do the job you used to do. we can't help but want to, like, meddle. right? good leaders the transition they make -- and we don't teach it again, what i'm saying is our mbas or even inside our countries we need to teach the transition where you're now no longer responsible for the job

or the results you're responsible for the people who are responsible for the results. and that transition, like becoming a apartment, is hard and takes a lot of -- becoming a parent is hard and takes a lot of practice which is why we want people to have experience so they can practice leadership as we promote them up the ranks. >> nicholas, i think you wanted to jump in. >> i was just going to say on the issue of confidence and democracies, i mean, people here probably are frustrated a little bit how good is the u.s. at, you know, progressing and all that. look at europe. i mean, they're all wonderful democracies, and the european union was constructed with the idea well, we should have a free trade area and be peaceful after two terrible wars. but when you look at europe it's not able to progress at all. and it's not able to come together in terms of some of the big issues like economic

development, economic equalitity nation, foreign policy. it's having huge difficulties. and that, at the end of the day -- even though they're all democratic environments -- is really going to undermine more and more the confidence in the democratic, you know system. and that's really a shame. so in some ways democracies are their worst enemies by not able to come together and to make, in this case europe, function properly. and you have many some case i mean, you see it now, you have nationalistic tea-type parties in europe that really didn't exist many a big way a number of years ago. it's really a symptom, and it makes it even harder for europe to come together. and that's really, i mean, that's a danger. >> we have two questions here to your right. >> hi, al --

[inaudible] i think history can be a great teacher, and so this might be a question primarily for frank and sheila. the last time i believe we've had kind of part sap gridlock may have well been the -- partisan gridlock may have been well been after the reconstruction from the the war. what lessons might we extract from those experiences in the latter part of the 19th century that might help us politically and economically? somehow we got out of it. >> that's a fascinating question because, you're right. if you look in terms of partisanship, it really kind of peaked in the 1880 and 1890s. basically, the country couldn't decide whether it wants to remain a kind of agrarian jeffersonian country or sort of modern industrial/urban one. and, you know with that's why i guess, you have to temper your pessimism about this country you know, at the moment because i think in the 1890s no one

saw a solution to this, and all of a sudden you had this realigning election in 1896 that brought mckinley to power, then you had some great leadership in the form of theodore roosevelt and, you know, the whole progressive era, and the country made up its mind and said, okay we're a modern industrial country, and they built the right institutions and fixed a lot of things. so i would say that, you know, that -- i guess the only thing um, to keep in mind is that history doesn't always repeat itself. [laughter] and so in theory, democracies should be self-correcting in this fashion. but, you know you need three things. so you need a kind of grass roots mobilization where people are angry, and they're upset, and they want things to change. you need good leadership simon says. and then you need an idea. you have to actually have a concept. it can be a really bad idea hitler had an idea. you don't want the wrong kind of idea. you want roosevelt rather than

hitler. and those three things have to come together, you know, i think to really fix the problem. >> i think it was a really important thing to highlight this idea the seasons of vision, the sense of -- the sense of a vision, the sense of a future we can build and this is one of the great things about the american experiment which is the declaration of independence. all men are created equal. and this is sort of the vision that was proposed to us that when we are at our best that's what we're trying to offer. you can compare it to the arab spring and what happened in egypt. everybody knew what they were against, which is mubarak out. but nobody said what they were for. okay mubarak out, now what? i think that was one of the distinguishing factors between america and sort of the egyptian which is we didn't say, you know england out. it started with a vision of where we wanted to go, and then -- and if you go look at the declaration of independence, then the rest of it is and here is why england is preventing all

of this from happening. king out. so i think there's a lot to be said for that idea of where we can go which is sort of really lacking, i think, in a lot of companies, democracies-- >> i would agree with that. leadership can make a difference. maybe we need to hit rock bottom, things get so bad that people do get fed up and are willing to give support for someone with a strong mandate. i'd love to have a teddy roosevelt on the political horizon these days. he was all those things we were talking about, he had a strong sense of public purpose, he was willing to betray his own class to break up some unsavory business practices that helped the country and helped the economy more broadly. so i think having that kind of leadership today would be, would be good and that's not to say it's not going to be difficult and challenging. it is. but people will lose their despair, i think, if you have a strong leader who has a vision, a way forward. and, you know, i think even if it takes tough decisions in the short term, if people can see

where we're going and why we're going there, i think they'll support him or her. >> and whenever we've struggled, all our great leaders mistaken back. hearken back. they always go back to the founding vision to to take us forward. >> question to your right. >> perhaps coincidentally a good follow-up to that. in thinking about our dysfunctional political landscape and how we teach the next generation to be good citizens, what would you say if you were on a curriculum committee would be the right methodology or the right messages for civics classes k-12? [laughter] >> mandatory service. [applause] >> frank? >> i would say you should, first, just teach the civics class, you know? >> yeah yeah. [laughter] >> the content is not that complicated. but, you know, the kind of -- somehow we've lost, you know this sense that citizenship is

something that actually has to be can cultivated. it doesn't come to people naturally, i but it's a duty that all of us have. i mean so we've gone through a couple of generations where we think that we've got lots and lots of rights but no duties. and i don't think you inculcate a sense of duty unless you actually actively teach it. so, you know, i would, i would really start there. >> question here on the panel's left. >> brad bryon, i'm on the rand icj board. this question is for simon. maybe this violates the -- i hope it doesn't violate the tenet of setting politics aside, but we've established teddy roosevelt was a leader. simon, who do you think under the last 50, 60 years would qualify? >> well, if we're going the talk current history, i got nothing. [laughter] you know? >> ow. >> i got nothing. you know, a leader, whether you

agree or disagree with their politic, they seem to stand for something. and if you want to compare the first inaugural of reagan and kennedy's inaugural, they were both crazy islists, you know? -- idealists. that's really the difference how we get to the american ideal. so just go back a few years whether it's margaret thatcher or, you know, ronald reagan they were leaders. they stood for something, and they existed on a level above their own position. i got nothing of a politician now who seems to exist above their own level and more importantly, would actually risk their own career for that thing. you know, the election is everything. and i love watching these elections. i believe in this, and this is the most important thing. then they lose their election but then they don't go do that you know? then did you ever believe it in the first place? i think a good leader that we

can look to now, i have go good examples. i think pope francis is great. he stands for something, and he stands for something on a level above his job as pope, you know,s which is awesome. and he's like really attractive to non-catholics too. [laughter] and i think lady baa georgia's really -- gaga's really good. [laughter] she's consistent her message is positive it's about inclusion, she gives people a sense of belonging, she helps people boost their self-confidence. she meets all the rules. [laughter] >> i have a feeling that budget the answer that brad -- that wasn't the answer that brad expected. [laughter] but good, never theless. [laughter] any others? well, you know it's interesting that the panel actually ended up in a different place than i expected it to. [laughter] and i don't mean, i don't just mean lady gaga. because frank's book to some

extent nicholas' book and to some extent sheila's last book, focused on institutions and processes that those institutions were responsible are responsible for. but in the end, i think we all came down to the qualities of the individuals that both select the people in those institutions and who work in those institutions. so pretty interesting circuit that we've traveled. our next conversation and the final conversation in the program is actually going to begin at 7:00, and it's pretty -- michael linten will be back with eric spiegel from snapchat. but between now and then we'll have a reception back outside, and our bookstore will be open as well. and i guess we've got books from everybody here for sale there. thank you very much, simon, nicholas, sheila and frank. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> some news this morning a u.s. district judge yesterday temporarily halted the president's immigration executive order, and here's how the associated press is reporting it. on monday u.s. district judge andrew hannon in texas gave a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders. that ruling puts on hold the's orders that could spare more than four million people in the u.s. illegally from deportation. in a statement the white house

said monday's ruling prevents the president's lawful rule to take effect. and some reaction from cap toll hill house speaker john boehner released a statement that reads in part: hopefully, senate democrats will now let the senate begin a debate on a bill to fund the homeland security department. >> this week while congress is in recess booktv and american history tv are in prime time. beginning tonight at 8 eastern, c-span2's booktv features programs on topics like the war on terror with conversations on the report on torture the green berets and the guantanamo diary. on wednesday it's world affairs talking about china's secret plan to replace america citizen a super power, the egyptian revolution and the emerging crisis in europe. on thursday, politics and the white house from our "after words" programs with david axlerod, mike he huckabee and april

rye on. and then on friday -- rye on. and then on friday a hook at pakistan through the eyes of a woman raise inside karachi. and on more than history tv on c-span3, interviews with former korean p.o.w.s from the korean war veterans digital memorial project. on wednesday, the 100th anniversary of release of the film "the birth of a nation." the showing of the entire 1915 film followed by a re-air of our call-in program. and thursday historians debate the social changes of the 1970s at the 2015 american historical association meeting in new york city. and friday, japanese-american internment during world war ii. booktv and american history tv this week in prime time. >> political scientist daniel disalvo has written a new book called "government against itself." he debates the value and impact