been more legislatively oriented party. that's why they tend to dominate congress and they run congress better than republicans can. now we accentuate the extremism of the republicans, we control the house. newt gingrich, if he had been single -- the assembly was always a would pass by arm twisting and the senate would pass nearly unanimously. after your six years are up in the assembly or a couple cases someone would go to the senate, get along, they'd go back to the assembly and start having food fights again. that's the nature of our purpose. i do think you're seeing an historical writings that people

tend to gravitate to. i mean more chaotic and reflecting of the grass roots. >> that's interesting. where do moderate republicans go or people that are moderates and disappointment general pli. obama has certainly been playing to the center, i think, and was supported by a lot of people. what happens this election is lek for me to pend on. -- to depend on. i think obama is very clear about wanting to clear up the center. >> i just wanted to ask a question, is it possible that we're actually seeing a slight return to pragmatism by the republican party in this coming election as opposed to the last wave. that now rather than seeing karkts like even chris sheas

coming from behind up in connect? >> i would say minimally. we may look back and say 2010 was the peak for the tea party and both its influence both good and bad on the republican party, but there is not a lot to suggest that the party is in any way kind of ebbing back from being as conservative as it has been. we may see some individual cases where that is the case but i don't think as a general proposition. but these things do have, you know, as i said in my opening remarks, parties are dynamic. they do adjust to success and failure and if the republicans,

you know, lose a bunch of seats in the house, if romney loses, there will be a, you know, a period of reflection and recrimination no doubt, but there will also be as individual candidates look at how they want to position themselves in 2014 perhaps others saying the way we did it in 2010 and the way we tried to do it in 2012 is not the way we have to move a little bit back away from the right a little bit. you may seem individual on that. so he's elections will have an influence on the direction of the party. >> last question right here. >> i don't think any of you have addressed what i have read is a growing tendency for rejecting party identification on either side. the growth of the independents. and is that a -- if we look hard at the figures, don't we see

that increasing? and isn't that going -- what impact do you all think is that going to have? >> we see that statistically. you see it in the polls and in registration. and yet in a practical way people aren't behaving that way, which is more important factor in politics today. people may asiem independent because they've pulled away from the institutional party, particularly in their identification, but this is a much more polarized -- i don't think the growth has any material effect in recent lebss in the way they've behaved in the ballot box. >> to second what dan said, a

number o of aligned with one or another. especially on the republican side, when you ask a republican who leans republican, they're more likely to vote than some of the -- those who would describe them weak republicans. . often taken matter. because you're independent doesn't mean you're more hod rat in the middle. and people argue about the amount who might be perfectly persuadable. >> to modify your question slightly is why are more, and more people wanting to be what party affiliation you are? seems echlkts j. need to -- people have political pins but are not strongly politicized, look up and say why would i want to be affiliated with either one

of these parties in a public way. they i think some of that is what's going on and i'll stop there. and on that optimistic note, we will end the panel and thank our panel. [ applause ] . . the libertarian party will elect its presidential nominee this weekend at the party's national convention in las vegas. our live coverage begins tonight at 9:00 eastern with the debate between the libertarian presidential candidates and we'll be live again on saturday at noon eastern when the convention delegates hear speeches by the candidates and then vote for their party's nominee.

in a few moments, world bank president robert zoellick calls on the u.s. to deal more effectively with its debt and deficit. in an hour a forum on nt national development and relief. and then the israeli ambassador to the u.s., michael orren, on relations between the two countries. here is the flat iron building going up in 1903. it was not the first and not the tallest. everybody says that but it's not. we see this all the time, steel frame skyscrapers. top and think what is the technology. basically back in the 1890s when they were introduced, they were explained as a railroad bridge on its end. how else do you explain this. as a matter of fact, you might think we were all loving it. i man, we love innovations, we're americans. actually, this thing looked a little scary. the poor guy who had this building was not too happy. he couldn't rent it out, he

couldn't sell it. they figured any moment the flat iron building is going to topple on to it. >> architectural historian barry willis, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> world bank president robert zell zoellick completes his term in june. he spoke for an hour at the conference group interaction. >> is this loud enough? if you could turn it up a little bit in the back. thank you. >> it is a great pleasure to welcome to the interaction forum mr. bob zoellick, who is the

president of the world bank group. i think it is telling that during his tenure and i think i'll address you as bob since we've known each other for a while, that bob has not only led a -- one of the major multi-lateral institutions of the world but has done so in a manner that has been based on a significant recognition not only of the role of civil society but civil society as a fundamental partner and critical player in the development space. as you all know, bob zoellick came from the private sector as the vice chairman international of of the goldman sachs group but also someone who has devoted years of public service, whether it's been as the deputy

secretary of state or a career in terms of time as the 13th u.s. trade representative. an individual who is perhaps the best of what a public servant is, someone with both dedication, knowledge and a vision for change. we're going to have a brief conversation and thought that we could explore a number of topics before we turn it out to you, our audience, and there will be some mics for that. perhaps the place to start is as you end a term, a very successful tenure at the world bank, what do you have perhaps a sense of legacy, greatish accomplishments, accountability, transparency, a more sort of client approach. if you had to sort of reflect back and look at where do you think you have left the mark and

then we'll turn a little bit to the future after that. >> okay. well, first, sam, let me thank you. you in particular in and interaction have been a great partner for the bank. and for all the people in the audience, i was reminded that i think i participated in this for um from london in a video conference a couple years ago. it's a great for um. and you've had as i understand it a very successful three days in terms of covering a wide variety of topics and from a brief exchange with sam, i had a sense in some ways what you've been discussing is a similar aspect what i would have been trying to do at the bank over the past five years, which is to see how the bank fits into a larger network or ecosystem of partners and how to leverage and draw from one another and sam has been extremely helpful in many different aspects. so thanks to you.

>> i guess when i reflect on my tenure at the bank, i tend to think of three phases. it's been a busy five years, that's for sure. the world economy has been a little bit in turmoil. but the first part was the institution faced its own time of troubles and so there was an internal turn around that one had to focus on. and as a complement to the bank staff, my judgment was that the sooner we got people focused on the mission of the bank that the sooner they would move away from the gossip that occurs in every institution. and so i tried to focus people on some core strategic themes and that judgment turned out to be right, which is the reason people come to the bank because they're deeply committed, want to accomplish important things. those are challenging issues but

getting people refocused is an important part. second, as you know, we work closely on interaction with this. i came to the bank in july of 2007. by later that year we were starting to get worrisome signs in terms of food prices and i think we also talked at the time, there was an article that had come out in lance yeth is over. we quickly had food, fuel and financial crisis. it was upon for the bank it respond in a big way, more flexibly, more quickly. we will about a quarter of a trillion dollars of financial support across all aspects of bank throughout that period but as important as the money was the type of things we did with interaction and many others and u.n. agencies in the foods and

seeds area and the flexible type of supports for countries that are frankly treading virgin grounds in terms of the challenges they face. the third phase, we're able to focus more on it, which is to try to modernize the institution. one of the themes that i've stressed is the need to modernize multi-lateralism. i often view things from a historical perspective because i have a great love of history and so i look at the world bank as one of the bretton wood institutions created in world war ii for one set of functions. if you think about the issues that people were trying to deal with in that era, which is currency, exchange rates, deconstruction, trade, those issues haven't gone away, they've been transformed. so the institutions -- some

people believe you should do away with institutions. i think they play a critical role as a thin interconnecting tissue monday sovereign states and you have to make them better. there's a lot of modernization of the financial agenda. one was evening. we got the first capital increase of the bank in 22 years in the area for of 79 poorest states we were able to raise about $90 billion for those countries over the past five years and then a second area is something that i know you feel very strongly about which is to try to open up the institution. and this we created the first freedom of information act for a multi-lateral institution but equally or if not more important we've opened up all our data sources, so 7,000 data sets

going back to the late 40s and we continue to expand that. so the idea is not only to make it available but to help develop applications so people may tap into our household survey data, going back and maybe add to it in different aspects. and this is important because not only does it sort of forces institution to be open to a variety of voices, but it's part of a larger idea that i've been suggesting about the need to democratize development, move it away from sort of elite economists and universities that say thou shalt do this and that and instead work with people from communities to capitals and how they perceives problems and how we can have an interactive process. this has huge potential. if you think about it, you can

go to the web sight, call up all the projects in all the countries and find out where all the projects are. if you want to get interactive, you can go to a village and say this is how you see what's going on and this is how we see what's going on. as you think about civil society, these are groups that can help you assess corruption, these are groups that can help you determine, you know, what are the priorities of the community? so it's a huge shift from the notion of a big, bureaucratic, elite institution in washington to a much more networked system. and there are also aspects of modernizati modernization, how to draw private call tall in, connect us with trade agendas, integrate the public good agenda with an agenda that's normally focused

on countries, whether it's oceans or climate change or some of the other broader issues, how to interconnect those. and i guess how i would summarize it is to say what i tried to do at the bank is to focus on edeveloping thinks as kients as opposed to objects -- the idea is to go to clients and say let's understand your problems and let's try to figure out what we can brang to bear on those problems, either from our knowledge or increasingly from the experience of other developing countries. so the other change sam mentioned i was the trade representative in 2001 so over 11 years i've sort of seen this in trade and in finance and in development, the extraordinary changes of developing countries on the world economy but on

other developing countries is just something that is moved with extreme rapidity and the system is still adapting to it. >> a rather impressive five years during a very difficult, challenging time. i think that was interesting is you gave a speech on an understanding of the roles that societies play in development. and both the democratization. how did you come to the conclusions of working beyond the station's state. it might plag plai as a partner in this broader development effort. >> well, my background is more sort of multi-disciplinary. so whether it's history or

economics or finance or diplomacy or other aspect, you know, i sometimes joke that political scientists tend to like to come up with structures that will sort of societies. if you approach life through the perspective of a historian, you tend to see the complexities and the gray and so you know, frankly, whatever the problem you're dealing with now, whether as a business or as a diplomat or others, we're so far beyond the idea of sort of nation states as billiard balls and black boxes that you have to understand the society. so then apply this in the context of development, one of the things i've tried to imbu was 0 say these are very difficult political economy issues. so if there's a problem and we come up with the best textbook solution but it doesn't work in the political economy, well, then it doesn't work. we haven't served the client. how can we try to understand

their institutions, the limitations, the strengths, the weaknesses and bring things to bear? so this immediately opens the door to not only the governments that you deal with from the executive branch but it means the parliaments and certainly means the broader definition of civil society. so, you know, witness what's happened in the arab world. i mean, you know, so this is a very sharp example of you can have certain growth numbers. you can having certain types of performance, but if you don't have inclusive growth, if you don't bring people into societies, so it really runs through everything. you know, if you think about most any problem that i've dealt with in any capacity is that if you're trying to get something done or to improve it, you have to have your partner own it. and so in development, if you can bring money, you can bring expertise, you can bring all sorts of things, but if the local people don't own it, it won't work. and so, you know, civil society

is simply a very broad umbrella phrase to me for different ways in which people participate in their own future. >> now, thank you for that. one of the things that has been interesting to see the role that the bank has played. are you personally have played as an advocate to focus on the world's boar. to focus on change that impacts the broadest possible number of people. you know, since your tenure, to what extent have we as a global society been successful in dealing with global poverty issues and you know, you get a sense of the bank playing a role, a cat list role within that, to what extent have we made strides forward and where do you think we need toe really push our efforts? >> let me come back to that. i was just reflecting on the question you asked before because it might be interesting to the audience, at least this perspective. remember, i was trade

representative in 2001. okay? and so trade is to me a very fascinating topic because it's both international but it's domestic. and you know, when i came into the trade representative's office in 2001, there was literally blood on the walls because people were upset about various issues, whether it's anti-globalization or intellectual property rights and pharmaceuticals and others. maybe it's both because my experience in a democratic society in the governance, but my view has always been it's better to open up and have the dialogue and discourse. so, my own, you know, i have a preference for it being one where people aren't yelling at each other and throwing things at each other. so in that sense, i'm sort of 1th shouldn't enlightenment. but that's the way i prefer to do it, but you take life as it is, but you have to -- and so the more that you show you're willing to discuss and debate, but the other side of it, and i do this all around the world,

you also have to say look, if i disagree with you, i get the right to say it. i don't just fold. if i have a different view on the role of energy development or electricity in africa or people who don't want dams under what conditions, okay, but what about the 30% of people, only 30% of people in sub-saharan africa have electricity, how are we going to get them electricity, to have and lit cal discourse about this. it's true in diplomacy, as well. i was the lead negotiator for the united states at the time of german unification in 1989. and in some ways, it was an interesting example of both state craft but kind of the public understanding because what our initial read of the situation in late '89 after the berlin wall opened was that the people of east germany wanted what the west germans had. there was a school of thought at

that time called the third way that said no, no, we're going to create our own separate state. well, i was in east germany shortly after the wall opened. and i was visiting lutheran churches which played a very important role in terms of the civil society that such as it could exist in the former german democratic public but what i could seep is that this was not going to be a merger. it was going to be a takeover because people wanted what west germany had, okay? so it was an understanding then the whole momentum of the next 11 months was driven by the fact that east germans were going to come one way or the other. so understanding societies can, understanding the messaging, you know, so even if you're a diplomat in the state department, it's critically important and certainly if in the world of trade or others. so i underscore this because to me, you know, now this is -- it's like so normal it's

obvious, okay? how people engage. and then of course, and you've all been part of this, how civil societies engage and one has to recognize, you know, some of them will be advocates. some of them will be participants. some of them, you know, will be you know, opponents and different things. but so the world needs room for all of that. and so you have to decide how youal engage with partners in different ways and to come back to this for the bank, you see, this is interesting because the other lesson for development is, governance is really important. it's not just a question of sort of the formal economics. well, we now have 188 countries because south sudan just joined and you got very different governances. they're not all democracies, obviously. what you can find part of my life is finding common ground to make a better good out of it, and what you can find is a lot of countries even within

authoritarian systems understand the importance of reaching out to their publics and go thing the public opinion and having a better sense of performance for their schools or their health care systems or whatever. so there's a way that you can make better societies as part of this and you know, better performance along the way. so all of this fits within sort of the concept to me of kind of the engagement of civil society and its richness. to say nothing of the fact that that makes for richer societies. reckon i come from this from the point of view, again, in sort of a enlightenment notion is that the state has the role, but in my perfect society, the state's not the all dominant role. it's there to be a servant of the public. so the public is groups that organize so then you asked about the poverty issue. well, you know in, macro numbers, you know, the first millennium development goal of cutting poverty in half is one that will be reached and it's

already been reached before 2015. and you know, but it's been largely the big aspect is the performance in china. but also to a degree india and some of the others but we've now seen progress across sub-saharan africa. so in macro numbers you know, there have been some significant achievements. on the other hand, you know, if you look at the number of people living under $2 a day supposed to $1.25 a day, there's still billions and billions of people. now, they're starting to get a chance to have some -- at those levels, the difference is whether it's almost just subsistence or whether you can start to see a better future. so when we start to get in societies where you start to see that, you know, mothers and fathers can create a better chance for their children to have a better life, you know, then you start to get into all sorts of takeoff possibilities. now, having said this, of course, you have to disaggregate

in the world. so one of the other areas i've tried to put focus on the bank and i know many of the people in this room work with is what paul collier porplized as the bottom billion, about a bill and a half people living in societies where you either have got conflict or post conflict and none of it works. you got, you know, a downward spiral of governance failures and poverty failures and leading to more violence. that's an area where i've tried to highlight at the bank, but we're still just beginning i think in the starting points of the work there and there's lots of things the bank and others can improve to do as partners. i think as you think about you know poverty, one of the challenges for the world is ftorekize that poverty is not only an issue of what they associate assay the poorest countries or what we have as the 79 ida countries that's a form of financial support t