least the data suggest that the decent thing. so the effectiveness notion that you are right to press on, the first approximation and is where people are not like george lucas with respect to death of luke skywalker, meaning not going to happen, then something might be moved. and notice if you want in return of the jedi, yoda did die. made some progress. >> i want to thank you for a very interesting presentation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is on twitter and

facebook, and we want to hear from you. we does twitter.com/booktv or post a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. >> [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome dr. condoleezza rice. [applause]

>> good evening everyone. my name is john heubusch by the honor of being executive director of the ronald reagan presidential foundation and want to thank all of you for coming out this evening. in honor of our men and women in uniform protecting our freedoms around the world, would you please stand and join the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. please be seated. before we get started i would like to recognize just a couple people in the audience. and i know the first couple everyone will recognize them. they been such terrific

supporters of the library of the you and i would be congressman -- [applause] >> as well we have another couple that is here with us, much of the greatest that you see here at the reagan library and also at our new offices with open in washington d.c. has been made possible through their generosity and i just want to point them out briefly, that would be hairy and his wife. [applause] >> thank you. i don't know if a book is ever been written that included with it instructions or and operators manual on how to best introduce the author. i wish there was.

come to think of it it's not a bad idea. because if the introducer simply follow the instructions in the manual carefully, say like you built a bike for a child on christmas eve, all the pieces of the introduction would sit right into place. and when you're finished there would not be a single extranet or vote on the floor for the bike or praise and flattery for the author. now, what would such -- i manual start to write his most recent best-selling work actually say? well, part one of the operators manual would likely be very simple and clear. consider yourself extremely fortunate, it would say. dr. rice is one of the most respected and admired women in the world with a public service record second to none. the fact that she is sitting

with you repaired to discuss her newest book is like winning the powerball lottery. now, i have no argument with that. part two, the manual might also say winston with a statue of dre lectern in a formal speech during a visit in favor of an opportunity to be interviewed onstage, take it. the audience gather before you would probably like to hear from dr. rice, not all about dr. rice. i don't think i needed an instruction manual to figure that out. i have been honored as some of you to create dr. price at the reagan library here before. once when she was here with her memoir about her life and family entitled extraordinary ordinary people come and once more when she had just penned no higher

arm, a memoir about her years as the first woman to serve as security advisor to the president and as first african-american woman to serve as secretary of state. her newest work is a book i think any decent construction manual accompany it would clearly state dr. price had to write. it subject matter goes far beyond her personal memoirs and into the realm of how she thinks democracy can play, can and must play a fundamental role in the lives of people all over the world. when i say the book she had to write what i mean is this. i think that she detected some years ago that someone wise needed to frame for the american people and freedom lovers around the globe how the effective democracy could be understood in the context of a very complicated and confusing world

order. or disorder as the case may be. from the time the united states and several of its allies set in motion the defeat of saddam hussein in iraq to the present they were american soldiers and diplomats are fighting for the rights of people around the world, the fundamental question that seems to underlie actions is this, is that in the interest of the united states to promote democrat come democratic institutions wherever they need. from the many, many other related questions dr. rice has had to answer over the years, such as in democracy prevail where it is not been before? is it right for every culture? how might we gauge our benchmark its progress lacks how long must it be before it can take hold? it's evident that these questions and others like them have been at the center of inquiry of her world. her book was a very long way in answering them, but before you

read her most recent book i know that you will first enjoy hearing about it from the author herself. so with that, ladies and gentlemen, if you would please join in a conversation on stage at the reagan library with dr. condoleezza rice. [applause] >> well, madam secretary, on behalf of our board of trustees of the reagan foundation at all of your fans that he we just want to welcome you and know that you're at the tail end of a very long trip to discuss your book and we cannot thank you enough for coming out. >> thank you very much, john. thank you for your leadership. i want to thank all of you for joining us for this conversation by just want to say that there

is no place that i would rather be than the reagan library to talk about freedom. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to test my theory as to why you wrote this book. hasn't this been on your mind for a long time and you thought okay, someone has to get out there and describe how democracy can flourish around the world no matter how difficult mib? >> yes. as a matter fact it's been on my mind a long time but it may evn go back before that. because when i think about democracy it's actually kind of mysterious thing, you know, that people are willing to trust these abstractions, constitutions, rule of law. they are willing to go to the polls and elect people to represent them rather than going into the streets or rather than

binding to family or to client or to religious. they trust constitutions and rule of law. that's a very mysterious process. and i think as a kid, child growing up in birmingham alabama i was perhaps one who very early on so something even more mysterious. i saw in segregated birmingham, alabama, we couldn't go to a movie theater or you could go to a restaurant if you were a black person, where you are most certainly a kind of second class citizen, i saw black citizens still actually devoted to the institutions of american democracy. i had one incident in the book that encapsulates it for me, and i was six-ish years old, and my uncle alto, my mothers brother had picked it up from school and it was election day.

there were long lines of black people waiting to vote dick and i said to my uncle, well, this must mean that man wallace, george wallace can't win. i knew in my own six-year-old way that we probably didn't want him to win. and so my uncle said oh, no, no. he said, we are a minority so he's going to win. i looked at my uncle and i said, then why do they bother? and my uncle said because they know that one day that vote will matter. and as i went around the world as secretary of state and i saw long lines of liberians are afghans or iraqis, south africans, in latin america, people voting sometimes for the first time can i thought to myself they know that one day that love will matter. and we are blessed with this extraordinary gift, democracy. americans in particular were blessed with founding fathers who understood and institutional

design that would protect our liberties, our right to say what we think, to worship as we please, to be free from the knock of the secret police at night, to have the dignity that comes with having those who are going to go when you have to ask for your consent. but if we were blessed with that and we believe that we were endowed by our creator with those rights, it can't be true for us and not for them. and one of the marvelous legacies of the united states of america and the building and which we sit, the library in which we said, one of the most marvelous legacies of ronald reagan, was that he never forgot our obligation to speak for the voiceless. he never forgot our obligation to do the right thing in supporting those who just wanted a simple freedoms that we had. and he delivered. because he believed that the

united states of america, america is an idea, and it's an idea that universal here and so that's why i wanted to write this book. [applause] >> when you were secretary of state, you were in a position to know the world's opinion of the united states and its actions better than any other american i'm sure. i know you're not in office now, and it's only been just over 100 days since we had the trump administration in power, but i wonder if you are able to speak to, as there been any change in your mind as to how americans are viewed as we transition from president obama to president trump? >> i was in europe not too long

after the election, and the firstnet said to all of my friends in europe, just settle down. [laughing] the united states of america is engaging a little bit of a democratic experiment. [laughing] [applause] we just elected somebody who's never been in government before, he was never even sniffed the government before, and that president is going to take some time. there's a bit of a learning curve, but the one thing that you can trust is that america has institutions that are absolutely firm and absolutely concrete and will hold america in check. and so if you look at the president, i think he's getting used to the fact that actually it's not as easy as it looks in there. that the american presidency is not just one person, it's an institution. it's a constraint institution. the founding fathers were very,

very terrified of executive power. they didn't want to create another king. they created a congress, two houses a as a separate and equal branch of government. as a matter fact its article one of the constitution as the congress will constantly remind you when we are in the executive branch. [laughing] and today that congress is made up of 535 people, most of them who think they should be president of the united states. he has a court which he learned will challenge the president. he has governors, 50 of them, half of whom think they should be president and they of legislators. by the way he has the press as well, civil society, and american tour ungovernable. and so the job of getting to be president is one thing. once you're there is quite another. the learning curve has been

steep but i think we've seen some things that really the world likes in what they see in america. i think the decision to strike the syrian airbases after the chemical weapons attack by assad on his own people was a very important corrective. we had laid out a red line for five years ago. it had been crossed. we have been nothing. eroded american credibility. in that single strike, the administration said this far and no further charges something sadder intolerable. i saw something else in the way this president did they. remember he said i couldn't sit by and watch babies choking on chemical gas. what he was really saying was as president of united states i cannot sit by and watch babies choking on chemical gas, and so i think that there's still a lot

of water to pass under the bridge and we are still learning and many, many ways what it's like to get up and not just react every time, but some very good things have happened. the one thing i will say is as an american, we have only one president at a time. and we have did everything began to try to try to make our president successful. [applause] >> you make a point in your book, and i've also heard you in various speeches make the point, that when you talk about democracy it's extremely important for the united states to go beyond talking the talk but you got to walk the walk and when you set the example of the rest of the world if we are going to promote that they, too,

adhere to democracy. i'm wondering is there an instance or two, not just earned the top administration, certainly going back to last decade or two, where you would think america really messed up, we set the wrong example and what could've done better and we should've known better? >> well, we do it all the time, right? because democracies are not perfect. america is not perfect. one of the saddest and hardest moments for me was abu ghraib in iraq. because it was a stain on one of our greatest institutions. the fact that we had men and women who volunteered to defend us at the frontlines of freedom is just an extraordinary gift your it's an absolute gift. and a few people acting badly cast than a kind of cloud on the

commitment of men and women who do the right thing. i felt terrible at that moment, but i also say to people whenever something like that happens, when we have are right in our streets about a contested police shooting or we have a katrina when we don't respond quite as well as we might, i say to people abroad, look, that's what america is a good example. because as madison said, he said i didn't think that the constitution would be the perfect work of perfect man. he said it was because men are in perfect that we need it. and so imperfection is a part of the human condition. the fact that united states has been struggling with our imperfections ever since, by the way, our birth defect of slavery. we were born with an imperfection. a constitution that originally

counted my ancestors as three fifths of a man. but somehow i would take the oath of office to that same constitution as the 66 sect of state, and i would would be sworn in by a jewish woman supreme court justice. [laughing] and you would say to people, you know, we just keep striving to we get up everyday, we tried tried to do a little bit better and that's really what democracy is about. it's always a work in progress and that i think is a good thing. [applause] >> turning to russia and a few other countries for the moment. we seem to have some real predicaments on our hands, and to me they really do feel that they have excellent read in the last 100 days from the day tearing relations with russia and its expansions tendencies with iran and its funding of

terrorist actions, north korea, access to nuclear missiles and long-range missiles. is there one of those examples where you would say this one rises above all the rest, if we can't fix this we have a huge on our hands? >> let me say first bet that president trump has an outstanding national security team. rex tillerson is a really fine secretary of state. some of us who wanted to see them become secretary of state and understood that the president needed a different kind of secretary of state. we need a business. the oilman know the world like nobody else. they have to live and deal with long investment in difficult place to come deal with difficult people. there are people working in troubling circumstances. sounds like secretary of state. jim mattis is one of the best commanders of his generation

h. r. mcmaster compassing. so it's an excellent team. but in the ashes and christine would the north korean problem, and i think it's the single most dangerous problem that we've got. i was the secretary of state who try to negotiate with the north koreans to get them to give up the nuclear weapons. that was kim jong-il, the father. father. he lived in a parallel universe, but it was a bounded parallel universe. i think junior is unhinged, and i think he is living, when he says things like i can destroy united states, i think i hope he doesn't really believe that. he's also reckless picked anybody who will reach into malaysia to kill his half-brother with the gas about reports his half-brother was under chinese protection, so he's reckless. is probably a little unhinged, and they've made a lot of progress and the last several

years on their nuclear programs. a nuclear weapon, usable nuclear weapon yet to three elements, you have to have fuel, and even harvesting plutonium and uranium for some time. then you had to have a bomb design. when people tell you that it's easy to make a nuclear weapon, it actually isn't easy to make a nuclear weapon. the bomb design has to all the material in critical mass until the moment when you want to hit and exploded. so when you read in the newspapers that the north koreans tepco that they're not getting very good yield, that means it's exploding premature prematurely, but they're getting better at it. they're working at it. recent ever get to the place where they can explode it when they want to hear then they can affix it to the third element, which is the delivery vehicle. what's worrying people is that their delivery vehicles are getting longer in range. and i don't know whether president trump is being told

it's one year or three years or five years. my guess is that someplace three to five years. he's going to be able to marry that weapon to an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the united states. now, no president of net estate is going to let a reckless, unhinged north korean leader be able to reach of the united states with a nuclear weapon. so what do you do about it? the only country that actually has influence with the north koreans is probably china, but the chinese have always been more fearful of the collapse of the regime that of a nuclear regime. so they've refused to tighten the screws on the north koreans, and they could do a letter they could close the border. they could deny them fuel oil. the chinese could really hurt the regime. the chinese have to be convinced that they now have to do whatever it takes to stop this regime. and when you're the administration say, if you want

deal with the north koreans, we will, that's the message of their cindy. that we will face kind of ugly. because if you want to look at military options, you're looking at seoul which is very vulnerable and very close to the border, to the may demilitarized zone. they could do, the north koreans could do a lot of damage, a lot of civilian casualties very quickly and seoul. so the options are not very good. it's complicated by the new president in south korea who is a man of the left who has said we ought to be negotiating with the north koreans. trust me, i tried that. they walked away. we are going to have to try to find a way to protect south korea, protect japan. because again, no president can let the north koreans be able to reach the united states with a nuclear weapon. one good thing, the russians that with so many troubles on on other things, it al long-range

missile can reach alaska, they can reach russia. so this may be place will be can get some cooperation with the russians. [applause] >> speaking of the russians, i've seen a lot of analysis that essentially says putin, if he thinks there's one tragic that will occur in the last 1000 years, he will point to the disaggregation or the dissolution of the soviet state. so he's off in crimea and georgia. what do you think it's all about? what is it that he wants? >> i got is that knew this because first of all i know vladimir putin pretty well. spent a lot of time with it. he actually kind of like me. [laughing] he thought they would get more attention and he told me that once.

now that you are secretary of state we will get it. one day we're sitting there and he says, condi, you know us. russia has only been great when it's been ruled by great men like peter the great and alexander the second. now, every vote anybody wants to wants to say, and do you mean vladimir the great? [laughing] but you know your second of state, that would be rude, you can't say that. [laughing] but that's actually who he thinks he is. he thinks he is reuniting the russian people in gratis. he is avenging the humiliation of the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union. so what if it means to take somebody's territory like crimea? so what if you make eastern ukraine basically ungovernable because the russians are backing ukraine separatists who are killing ukraine soldiers every day. so be it if you fly bomb runs

along the coast of sweden. what did this week due to the russians? at least for the last 300 you spend anything to the russians. and he does something that truly dangerous. russian pilots fly awfully close to american ships, to american planes. and so is going to push it until he is stopped. president obama did a good thing in deploying rotating forces in the baltic states and in poland that was a signal that article v of the nato treaty, an attack upon what is an attack on all. i would've made those permanent but that's fine. rotating will do. we need to also say to putin, stop flying within ten feet of our planes because one of your guys is going to get shot down really soon. and stop doing it. they are doing some very dangerous things and we need to send strong signals about that.

now, as to ukraine i would arm the ukrainians. because people deserve the right to defend themselves. to be fair the ukrainians are not great militarily, we ought to be careful what you give them. something they can't hurt themselves with, right? be careful what you give them. [laughing] but i do think you should on the ukrainians. and the final thing, and this is something the president has done, rebuilding the american mr. budgett is an important signal. all of those years at sequestration has been really costly on the american military. [applause] >> from a landgraf perspective, is there one nation that you think is most particularly at risk in putin's strategy? >> i think he will try to dismember ukraine. that's basically what he's trying to do. ..

the great. and then come in 1954, nikita kirchoff gave crania to the ukraine as a symbol of russian friendship, but it didn't matter with the soviet union. so when it became independent they should've given it back.

he said no, that's not the way it works. it is a violation of international law and they can never recognize the russian annexation of crimea, but we need to be aware that among russians it's not an unpopular thing to have done and so it actually added to putin's popularity. he can't be stopped. you have to be pretty firm. >> with putin in charge in russia, near fairly pessimistic with putin in charge. [inaudible] to thrive in russia with him in charge. >> the fact is he managed to systematically dismantle. when you think about institutional divide, which you want is an executive that's not so strong because it's checked by other powers.

rae shelton was really the one to mess with russia because they actually have a functioning legislature. he got frustrated with it, started ruling by the creed. that strong russian presidency is one thing. the strong russian presidency under vladimir putin is another. there's always a sliver of hope because, you know, when ronald reagan said mr. gorbachev, tear down that wall, i don't think he really thought it was going to happen. authoritarian regimes are brittle. they are brittle and putin is right now in a position to rule because there is no organized opposition to him and is making sure of that. a few weeks ago, people flooded into the streets of moscow to protest corruption.

bill online, bloggers are still protesting government actions. the russian people are different than they were in the soviet union. when i went to moscow in 1979, they never looked at you. now they travel, they send their kids to study abroad. even middle russian spoil their children at toys "r" us and putin is not their guy. somewhere along here, someone might emerge to be a focal point for that constituency. but before we get too carried away with the liberal russia, the other potential opposition could come from within the

harder right because there isn't even more ultra- alter orthodox kind of site that even putin tries to keep under control. so yes, i worry about russia, the place that i think has some great potential, but unfortunately the institutions just aren't there right now. >> on the refugee front, president trump lost be amendment priced enhanced attempt to even halt for much, much better vetting refugees coming from syria. i wondered if the policies he attempted to put in place actually survived the review and were in place. do you think i would substantially improve our national security or a nearer view what to do about nothing.

the first one was sent so great. green card holders which is not legal. there are few countries in the world is basically uncovering spaces. somalia, sudan, we don't have too bad people on their crown because they are very small and under constant siege. you'll probably need much more thorough vetting from this kind of countries and it was taken off the list since they are fighting with us. we are actually going to take the time, step back for six months, eight months a year and

see i think that would have made sense. the fact is they can really think prove the vetting without an executive order on department docketed in sudan. make them go to another country. i do think it's a problem. related to president trump trying to capture what it really feels one might put foreign aid

and there's a very large% of our audience here it's an actual waste of our tax dollars. in our bridges and all the rest of that. the question is coming from the former secretary of state, do you think there's a foreign aid argument that's really important for the american people? >> for me it's a little bit the same argument i would make about democracy and promoting democracy. you can't say pay attention to our own knitting, our own affair. we've got to rebuild our bridges and pennsylvania, so why are we building bridges in afghanistan? you can say our schools are not in great shape so why are you trying to send girls to school in nigeria. you can say all of those things.

but i think there are really two powerful arguments against that kind of thinking. one is the moral argument and one is a practical argument. the moral argument is this. america is an idea appeared in this life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal and are good for us and it can't be good for us and not for them. so we are at our best when they leave from power and principles. the principle that no man, woman or child should have to live in the direst of poverty and worst of circumstances because we are also a compassionate nation that actually believes as many problems as we have, we have been given an extraordinary bounty. if you go to some of the places in the world, i don't care how bad it looks in the united states of america. it is much, much worse. how do you turn a blind eye to

those children playing in the dirt in haiti and how do you turn a blind eye to an ebola pandemic in liberia? we are too good to be that way. and so, the moral argument is, you know, i am christian and i have been told that what you do for the least of my brothers come you do for me. whatever your tradition in an endeavor that influence comes from compassion, america has had it that we need to keep it. that's the moral case. now the practical case. democratic state that can deliver for their own people don't invade their neighbors. they don't track the soldiers who are 10 and 11 years old. they don't traffic the human trade so women and up in eastern europe and southeast asia.

they don't harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. democracies don't fight each other. we know that. it's called the democratic peace. so there is a reason we have believed that we are better off when other people beyond our borders can live with decent governments to try to take care of. as the foreign assistance, yes i think there was a time when foreign aid was just given so we gave money to somebody else or maybe a little bit of guilt about colonialism. it's been going on a long, long time. the foreign aid programs and a very good example of this. millennium challenge says to countries you will receive large foreign aid packages for and united states only fewer

governing lively, investing in your people. if you are doing those things, then we will give you foreign aid. i'll give you one example. one of the millennium challenge contract. a lot of farms in the third world are actually quite inefficient because they are very small farms. one of the problems combining them is nobody knows what the title is. they were going going to do land titling. there is a lot in the book that women couldn't hold land in their own name. the united states of america said if you want to see a dime of this foreign assistance, you will change that law in the change that law. so when you go abroad and look at what america has done in eight relief or humanitarian

crises for the kinds of programs we run all over the world. the largest donor of food aid. he recognized the most powerful country in the world also ought to be the most compassionate. it's good for us, too because when you create responsible progress that act in the international system in a way that enhances prosperity and security, we are all better off. so foreign aid to ultimately having to intervene in other more expensive ways by military forces. there's been a pole, a survey. foreign assistance is about 25%. they go to democracy and improving the lives of people.

[applause] >> i have two more questions and then i would like to invite you in the audience to raise your hand when you have a question. there's adoration that follows you everywhere in the last two decades, everywhere you go, people ask, would you please, please run for the presidency? [cheers and applause] and i know you've always said, i just wonder if it's the kind of thing now if you've reached a point in your career when you say no you really, really mean it or do you not say no --

>> john, a really, really mean it. you have to know your dna. i really admire people who run for office and i don't think office is too tough. it should be tough. i remember being in election campaigns of george w. bush. at the end of the day, he was raring to go and i just wanted to get back to the hotel. i love doing public service. i'll keep doing public service. and very involved in k-12 education reform, which is extremely important to our country. without that, we are not going to be very strong. the boys and girls club to try to do work. and i'm busy teaching. they are the most public minded kids in my 30 plus years of teaching.

but they also are the kids who got the participation trophy. so they are slightly fragile. that yet, they are the funniest combination of slight a fragile and hyper confident because they've been told. so my favorite two lines i want to be a leader and i say now that is not a destination and it's not a job description. so what actually are you going to know so that somebody might want you to lead? my other favorite one is i want my first job to be meaningful. i would say your first job is not going to be meaningful. meaningful means somebody will pay you to do something for the first time in your life. that will be meaningful. [applause] i've got work to do at stanford.

[inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> final question for me. but can anyone in this audience do to influence foreign affairs? so much opinion, so much interest in what involves america's relationship with the rest of the world. oftentimes people are incredibly frustrated with decisions we might make. is there any advice you give to someone and say don't bother, read about it in the paper. you're too far away from doing anything that is something they're involved in. >> i think there are many things. you're not going to have an effect on what we do. those are decisions that we have elected people to represent us to take tough decisions in north

korea. when you look at the united states of america and the wide range of things we do across the world, much of what we deliver for the world is actually through volunteers and civil society. if you care about gross education worldwide, i guarantee there is a nongovernmental organization that is doing better off. if you care about the march of islamic extremism, i guarantee you they are civil society organizations trying to find reconciliation between the great militants trying to help people find a better way. if you care about what is happening to people who live in places where religious freedom is not permitted, i guarantee you that there are faith-based institutions that are finding a way to get to people so they can

practice their faith. the one thing that we forget as americans is not all of our democracy is actually practiced in washington. thank goodness. much of it is practiced in the states. that's what the founding fathers gave us federalism. much of it is part distant civil society. you know, tocqueville's son came to the united states in 1835 and wrote democracy in america, he noticed as he called them voluntary associations of americans and he said they just get together voluntarily to do great things, to do good things. he couldn't quite understand it. it is a little bit of a paradox. we are one of the most individualistic people. i'll take you all the way to the supreme court. brown v. board of education yesterday. we are also the most humanitarian.

we do get together to do good things today if the red cross for the boys and girls club for the rotary club. that is had an international component, too. my own view is that work makes america a much stronger abroad and even the things that we do with her extraordinary military power and extraordinary economic wealth. there are many ways to be involved internationally. and by the way, being informed is also very important because in the day when social media does matter in congress is always listening for opinions, formed opinions would be nice. we are getting an awful lot of uninformed. [applause] >> so with that couple would like to turn to you in the audience. i ask that when you raise your

hand if you could wait until someone with a microphone could hear the question and also on television now as well. start right here in the middle. >> interested but your feelings are with regard to the tinderbox that is the presence on the israeli northern border of 100,000 missiles of hezbollah across the army. word is that fit in and other ships. it is a situation that has two things going forward. the missile defenses that have helped to protect israel.

and of course you've got the northern border between syria and lebanon, which applies to hezbollah and lebanon. and getting the lebanese army in. we hope to protect the israelis. they are very militarily capable. and that's the reason you see fewer incidents, not no incidents but fewer in that area. the problem with the korea into really don't have that kind of faith. >> over here. >> i know you're a california resident as i understand.

[inaudible] [applause] >> well, here we really do need help. we can't keep living beyond our means and trying to raise taxes as a means of covering up the fact that we have tensions that are unsustainable and so on and so on. at some point, they will have to blow the whistle on the budget games that are going on in sacramento. we have other issues. i do think k-12 education is just a real disaster for poor kids. i am a major proponent of school choice for the following reasons. [applause] we have an opt-out system of public education. if you are well off, you will go

a district where schools are good. that's when fairfax county, virginia and hoover, alabama where my family lives in palo alto. you name the place, you know where the schools are. if you are really well off, you send your kids to private school. so who's stuck in failing neighborhood schools? poor kids. a lot of them minority kids. and yet some poor parents are dysfunctional and just don't have the choices. the next time i read an editorial in "the los angeles times" for in the "washington post" about how charters and school choice and vouchers are so bad for the public school system, i want to say okay, send your kids to school in east oakland and when you've done that, you can talk about keeping poor parents from school choice.

and they would not choice for poor parents. >> let me just say you are my hero. >> thank you. [applause] in a day and age where there's so much talk about the challenges for women, the challenges for minorities, looking for you to share what is the attribute that will help us in interested in releasing no one else. they can be productive and contribute. i worked with millennial than the lattice.development. women in leadership is important

to me. i would take your top five in a heartbeat. >> thank you could let me start by saying i grew up in a particular way. i was lucky that my parents had me believing that i couldn't -- including president of the united states, whatever i wanted to be. they had two important mantras and i now work keep these to my students. one is you have to be twice as good. they meant this as armor against prejudice. i tell my students if you work hard mess to find you might be twice as good, you're going to be confident and nobody's able to throw you off. secondly, they said there are no victims. they said because the minute you

have described yourself as a big time coming that giving control of your life to somebody else. you might not be out of control your circumstances, but you can control response to your circumstances. somebody doesn't want to sit next to you because you're black. don't let someone else's prejudice bring you down. but also to male students. don't mention someone else's

prejudices about your views are about you. be confident enough in yourself. i watch her kids and i think social media has contributed to this. i heard someone say once to a group of young people, don't compare your actual life to somebody else's virtual life. they read on social media and everybody is perfect on social media. and so, i think they are internalizing now they sent out i can't achieve and i can't succeed. we need to say to them, life is not so easy, but if you are well-prepared, you can get there. the final thing i would say is we had this mentors and role models. neuron model, your mentors have

to be people who you admire. you know, mine were white males. old white men actually dominated mayfield. but they were people who saw things in me that i didn't even see it myself. and when you found those kinds of mentors and role models, you want to navigate a lot of the ups and downs and difficulties of getting whatever color you are, whatever gender you are. i think that i was fortunate even under the circumstances to never let me off the hook for personal responsibility. [applause] >> during secretary clinton term

the second air, the state department was doing some influencing and pleasant prudence -- president putin's terms. and all of a sudden that was on the news once or twice and it disappeared because of the alleged hacking into dnc and then they release a very damning e-mails. what about the elections in nationbuilding. >> we don't actually interfere in elections. what we do is we try to help people to have free and fair elections. so one thing that the united states supports is when the national endowment for democracy which president reagan began

sent electron monitors to make sure our proceeding freely and fairly. the fraudulent activities and elections. we tend to through democracy or freedom and others actually train people who then can go and be candidates and so forth. that is not interference. what we are doing is trying to strengthen opposition forces in places where authoritarian suppress them. now, in putin's case, he got really mad in 2012 because hillary clinton said his election was fraudulent. his election was fraudulent. if you are not named vladimir putin, you never showed up on russian news channels. you found your offices if you are the opposition suddenly close.

you found your people with tax evasion. this is a really bad election in 2012. in a really bad election he didn't win moscow. that tells you that something is still alive among the russian people. and he's an eye for an eye kind of guy. so he says, by the way, they've been trying to interfere in our elections for a very long time. it's just the internet and the cyberattacks gives you other ways to do it. he says now i'm going to show you what i can do. my view is that was really wet the interference was all about. now, the way i think we should have dealt with this was to say we know you did it. we will punish it at a time and place of our choosing. and by the way, we have absolute confidence in the american elect

girl system and we have absolute confidence in the outcomes of the american electoral system because he likes nothing better than seeing a spin around like chickens with their heads cut off, talking about this is influenced and that was influenced. we shouldn't expect confidence in our own system. he wins when we don't expect confidence in our own system. i am all for investigating what happened there. it is a hostile act by a foreign power. we need to know what happened. we need to be smarter with her cybersecurity. after all, chinese hacked into our office of personnel management, so clearly we are doing something that is making us vulnerable. so i do think that he was going after hillary clinton because he was angry because of what she did in 2012. that is where i was stopped in terms of his motivations. i would not have gone so far to say he was trying to elect a particular person.

i think he was eye for an eye. >> we have time -- [applause] one last question and i'd like to take it from right appear in the balcony if you would. >> you've given us your thoughts on your inspiration from places like china and russia. if you can share some of those thought on the surest governments in south america. >> in south america, yes. north america is actually a tremendous success story. when i first started teaching at stanford, i taught the role of the military in politics and i always had several that i could talk about. now you look in latin america and most of the big stage are functioning democracies.

brazil, peru, one of the things i wanted to do in the book it is in iraq and dan. that is a security problem and that is very hard. but colombia is the place we help bring back from the verge of being a failed state. so the big things of latin america is actually doing very well. there are a few blackbirds like the sandinistas that are still hanging on. and the cubans are still making trouble in latin america. but they won't last. those regimes they think will not last. the place that i am most worried about is venezuela. this is an horrific situation. this is a middle income countries that now people can buy food and they can't buy

medicines. i don't think there's a factor to the rest of the region because the countries are pretty strong. but i do think that the organization of american states ought to finally say to maduro, enough. and they need to arrange for that regime to be voted out of office. it's going to take a long time, maybe a transition of a couple of years because the liberal forces have been so depressed and so suppressed by the maduro regime. but maduro is stored up without charm. and so, i don't think that regime can last. you are beginning to see cracks in the regime. venezuela is the single saddest situation right now in latin america and we need to deal with it. the effort to bring socialist regimes in central america will come and go, come and go to el

salvador and nicaragua, but ultimately those regimes can't last. >> we are honored as we always are on behalf of all those here, i want to say thank you for coming. you all are invited back at any time. >> thank you so much. [applause]

>> now, one thing that is clear is that it's utterly boring to understand the biology of aspects of your behavior. your brain tells your spine, tells your muscles to do something. what is incredibly complicated is understanding the meaning of the behavior because in one setting, firing the gun is from an appalling that like heroic self-sacrifice, and one setting putting your hand on top of someone else's is deeply compassionate and in another it is a deeper trail.

the challenge for us is to understand the biology of the context of our behaviors and no one is really, really challenging. one thing that is clear is the word never to really understand what is going on. if you get it into your head if you are able to understand everything that part of the brain or the hormone or the childhood. for the evolutionary mechanism that explains everything because it doesn't work that way. instead, any behavior that occurs is the outcome of the biology that occurred a second before, hour before in a million years before. okay, so to give you some sense of this, you are in some situation. there is a crisis. there is rioting, violence going on, people running around and a stranger running at you in an agitated state. you can't quite be sure with their facial expression is. maybe they are angry.

maybe frightened, may be threatening. they've got something in their hand it seems like a handgun in her standing there and you have a gun and they come running back to you and you shoot and it turns out what they had in their hand was a cell phone instead. unless we ask the biological question, why did that behavior occur? what is really the central point is that's a whole hierarchy of questions. why did that behavior occur? what when on one second before in your brain that brought about that behavior. to begin to understand that, the part of the brain of the usual suspects of the brain you can call the amygdala. you want to think about aggression and think about the brain. you think about the make love. if you stimulate the amygdala in experimental lab you didn't outburst of aggression. her types of seizures that start there, uncontrollable violence.

if you damage the amygdala, people and the ability of the organism to be aggressive. the amygdala is about violence. if you sit down dirt typical apologist anathema to the amygdala is about that's not the first to come out of their mouth. the amygdala is about fear, fear and anxiety and learning to be afraid. in other words, we've just learned something very interesting, which is you cannot understand the first thing about the neurology of -- or biology of violence without understanding the neurobiology and sowed fear. be afraid there's an awful lot more between the audience and labs. the thing to begin to make sense of the image of a face what parts of the brain does it talk to and which regions talk to in turn. the next region that is incredibly interesting is called the insular cortex.

the insular cortex is in fact incredibly boring after a lab rat or any other monitor because it does something very straightforward. you bite into a piece of fruit and it spoiled and rotten and rancid and all of that. what happens is as a result, your insular cortex activates and it triggers all sorts of reflexes. her stomach lurches, stomach lurches, you cannot, spit it out. you have a gag reflex. very usefully keeps mammals from eating poisonous foods. we do the same thing with humane. getting a cement volunteer to bite into this food, that ransom and disgusting. the insular cortex activates. we do something fans here. all we have to do is think about eating something disgusting and the cortex activates. but then, something much more subtle. sit down someone in your brain scanner and have them tell you about the time they did something miserable and latin to

some other human or tell them about the mother occurrence of some human doing something in this room brought in to somebody else in the insular cortex will act today. every other mammal on earth it is discussed. but en masse, it also does moral disgust. what that tells you is there something sufficiently morally appalling. we feel sour stomachs. it leaves a bad taste in our mouth. we feel nauseous. our brain invented the symbolic thing of mores and standard sum 40, 50,000 years ago and didn't invent that part of the brain at the time. everything at the time and moral disgust, and there's the that does like okay in their portfolio now. give me some duct tape and now

going to do moral disgust as well. it has trouble telling the difference. no surprise the main part of the brain the insular cortex talks to in the human brain is the make love because once it decides this thing is disgusting, and you are away from it even scary, being menacing, something you need to act. and lots of ways and supposed to see some more of that needs to be cured and that can make enormous self-sacrifice did that can take the ultimate sacrifice in some cases. moral outrage with the abstraction, this sort of distance would be hard to pick up and act against it are atomic atomic -- stomach churning. that is where the force comes to to make a moral imperative. is. but then there is a downside

because the insular cortex is not very good at remembering it's only a metaphor that you are feeling disgusted and suddenly you have the whole problem of people who are disgusted and is a normal loving lifestyle in time and space. it's a pretty good litmus test deciding between right and wrong and make sure all the ways in which that can get you into trouble and probably most of all, every ideologue in history and how the insular cortex works, which is if you can get to the point that when you talk about with them living in the next valley, who pray differently, love differently, if you can get your followers to the point where you invoke them,

you are 90% of the way towards genocide. taking them and turning them into such malignancies and what ever is they hardly even count anymore. >> up next, ohio governor and former republican presidential candidate, john kasich discusses the 2016th presidential race in its outlook on america's future in america divided are united. governor kasich is interviewed by governor christine whitman. >> host: governor kasich, it's a pleasure. the last time i saw you we were doing a fundraiser during the presidential campaign. >> guest: well, you know,