going up. and that's probably a -- been very beneficial for both countries. >> one thing i would add, you win elections in swing states. that's an unfortunate coincidence where the swing states are and where manufacturing has been decimated, who loses, et cetera. if you're in l.a., new york, miami, globalization integration -- this stuff is okay. not so much in western pennsylvania. right? so i think the nature of the election campaign forces a focus on the downsides of global integration, whereas there's quite a lot going on that drives the good sides of investment and shared growth. >> there was a question in the middle on that side. >> thank you.

thomas from egypt. my question is about the climate change. i mean, the arab spring. what do you expect from barack obama or mitt romney to do in handling the changes -- on going changes in egypt and in the middle east in particular and whether it is going to be just relying on security alliances or deeper or useful partnerships? thank you. >> well, one thing that will come up quickly that may come up before the election is whether there are differences between the candidates on syria. what you have seen in syria is the obama administration very careful about talking about the potential for american military

engagement, for example, and he has been criticized by that by some parts of the republican party as well as some parts of the democratic party. there's kind of a hawkish alliance that straddles the two park parties. i don't know if mitt romney would behave differently in syria than obama has so far. i actually doubt it. i think the idea that we would rush to military intervention in syria is overplayed. your question was broader than that. i think there are sort of fundamental tensions here in the arab spring for the united states and fundamental stakes and the ability to navigate what's coming is going to be a critical test of either president. i don't have a crystal ball. i don't know if strobe has more insight. it's hard to have a sense of this. one of the things we haven't talked about it, it will matter who romney or obama picks as their secretaries of states and

there's a pretty wide cast of characters on the list for romney and that will shape things quite a lot. whatever it is i think these two challenges we have been talking about, sort of the economic rise of asia, military rise of china, but then the turbulence in the arab spring will be the defining moments of the policy. >> you would put iran on the hiss. >> i would put iran on the list. >> homi, anything? >> yeah, i think in countries like egypt in particular taking an economic lens now is going to be important for both candidates. and the big challenge that will need to be addressed is that the real money and resources for helping countries in the arab world is likely to come from the gulf and the questions are going

to be to what extent can those be merged with the support that can come in a variety of non-grant form, but trade alliances, investment alliances, et cetera, and from the multilateral institutions. if that combination can be effectively put together, then i think that there's a reasonable chance that the economic support packages for these countries can be quite useful. if that can't be put together, then i think you will be faced with a situation where there will be potentially significant economic risks and trying to forge security alliances with countries that are having their own domestic economic problems, i think we have seen in pakistan is a difficult thing to sustain over time. >> we have time for one more if

the question is short and if the answers are short. right up here in the front. >> hal richmond. since the presidency is often defined by what the president achieves in his first year or so of office, i want to ask you a question about priorities that this candidate might have. not just based on the campaign rhetoric, but overall. this is a hypothetical. assuming that domestic and foreign policy constraints were not forbidden, what do you think obama and romney would most like to do in terms of their priorities early in the next administration? thank you. >> whoever wants to take this one, keep it short so we don't run over. >> well, short answer. either one of them priority has to be about fixing the problem that is not going to be fixed this year because we're having a presidential election campaign

which is fixing this country and particularly fiscally. and as far as for the priority in the election, it goes back to the famous reagan question that allowed him to defeat jimmy carter. romney is going to ask that question, he already has. and barack obama is going to try to persuade the american people since this is a referendum on his performance in his first term that we are actually better off than we were when he came into office. >> i think it will depend on the state of the european economy, but maybe homi can talk to the global economic issues and the european issues. i don't think they'll be given a choice. i think the iranian situation either will be resolving itself or not resolving itself and will be the dominant issue in the crisis management mode in the first year of, you know, in 2013 under virtually under any

circumstance. where people will look to opportunities if they want to define those thing, i think where the opportunity lies is in the tightening up the alliances with india, with turkey, south korea and australia and sort of forging new patterns of cooperation with those actors. i suspect either party would look to opportunities this. >> i'm with strobe on this. i think that before looking abroad and really being effective abroad, fixing the fiscal and fixing growth is essential and both will have to think hard about how to do that. >> okay. well, so what our program calls for at the moment is for a closing thought from each of these gentlemen to try to sum up all of the things that we have talked about perhaps or set us to the one thing that we didn't or the ten things that we didn't. maybe we'll move down the line and which ever way or whoever wants to go first. homi, do you want to start us

off, strobe? >> i think it's appropriate that iran came up towards the end. i would make one observation yet again about the irony and perversity of the election year. there's been more progress than pessimists have expected, not as much as the optimistics had hoped for on iran. one of the constraints on president obama though as he figures out how to get to the end game over iran is dictated by the election. that is in order to get a big deal with iran, he would have to give away enough so that he would be vulnerable to the charge that he gave away too much. so the dynamics of our election process is going to drive him towards a modest or even minimalist agreement which is a lot better than none by the way. but makes it necessary to wait until the next administration

for a big deal if there is one to be got with iran. >> so, you know, my sense on e the -- is that whoever wins the election will have to quickly come to grips with how aggressively do they want to address the issues of global governance and what to do about international institutions and about forming new alliances and whether that actually -- whether it requires or not a major overhaul or a muddling through kind of process. i think that there will be a big question about whether the so-called tilt to asia can actually be implemented or whether it's iran or syria or europe, something will keep dragging the president's attentions and priorities away from the large dynamic emerging

economies in asia. and then finally about whether the foreign policy of the united states will continue to be bloodibloo broadly speaking dominated by security concerns and military interventions or whether it will become more driven by economics, by development, by global growth. >> finish us out. >> i'll make two points. one, what's the test? i think if you look back in 2015 or early 2016 and you're trying to judge, did we do well, did we not in foreign policy terms, the question i would most want focus on is are we in a tighter alliance, a productive alliance with india, brazil or turkey? critical emerging powers whose participation in global structure and in global

economics is going to matter a great deal. china will be a different category. we have to manage it in a complex sense, but below china, other actors who are kind of the new swing states who can kind of tilt us in a positive direction or keep us in a very complex space, are we in better shape in terms of our relations and structures for cooperation with those actors? that's the test as we look back. the second issue that we have to talk about is we've got a pattern of global economic investment in this country and trade relations centered in major metropolitan cities. i heard john warner in the room next door talk about what he thinks has to happen the most, which is start driving global economic investment to rural communities and to communities outside of major urban centers for two reasons. one, in terms of what we'll do to kind of kick start growth. second, more importantly, to start educating those parts of the american public that have not seen a profit from

globalization. in other words, educating the american public about the world we're in can't be an abstract discussion about bricks, who's up or who's down. it's got to be about integration is a positive thing in terms of generating jobs. so maybe that's a 2016 comment more than a 2012 comment. i think those two feature, can we change the patterns of where it is that globalization is generating profit and jobs in this country. and are we in better shape in terms of the alliances with these new players on the international stage. >> all right. well, a lot to think about. thank you to homi, strobe and bruce and thank you for being here.

sunday on q&a -- >> i think the problem is with walter cronkite people see him as the arun vuncular man, and hs obsessed with the ratings. he's the fiercest competitor i have ever written about and i have written about generals and his desire to be the best was very pronounced. >> best-selling author douglas brinkley on the new biography on walter cronkite. sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific. on today's "washington journal" we talked with a writer of the bimonthly column subject to debate in the nation

magazine. this is 40 minutes. >> if you have joined us for the spotlight on columnist series, you know it started on saturday with mona charen. and matt lewis and s.e.cupp of "the new york daily news." we are joined by a columnist for the nation and welcome. >> hi. thank you for having me. >> for those who don't know you, could you explain the people you write for? who's your audience and what topics do you frequently write about? >> well, i write a lot about -- i write about politics, books, culture. i write about feminist issues and women's issues. and things that are in the news, but every now and then i review a book or a movie. it's pretty much what i want it

to be. as far as who reads it, well, of course, i hope i reach an audience of millions and millions but realistically i mostly reach people who are on the left end of the political spectrum. >> your column most recent deals with the topic of wage theft. for those who haven't had the benefit of reading it, can you encapsulate what you were talking about in the column? >> oh, yeah this is the shocking thing. as if it's not bad enough that low-wage workers are very low paid, and that a lot of them are undocumented immigrants who can't really go to law enforcement. making -- adding insult to injury, their tips are stolen. they don't get paid for all their hours. they don't get paid overtime when they should be. they have absolutely no job security and a wonderful

socialologists have studied this and they've worked out -- that among the very large percentage of workers who have any of their wages not paid to them in the right amount or at all, the average wage theft is $51 a week and i want adds up to $2,400 a year. if a politician said let's raise taxes by this much, he'd be strung up from the nearest lamppost, but here we have the extremely vulnerable people who are being robbed of their just wages. it is completely shocking. >> so as far as exposing it as an issue, what's the message then not only to your readers, but then perhaps politicians and the like who read your column? >> what's the message? well, i think the message is that we don't -- be very careful -- one is be very careful when you leave a tip for

a house keeper in the hotel. in one of the more shocking cases she documented, a hotel housekeeper whose supervisor would come in ahead and steal the tips. can you believe that? i mean, what kind of person would do that? i think, you know, unions need to get involved and some of them are. occupy is getting involved, which is really great. and there are these worker centers, like the laundry worker center, and they're involved in helping workers who want to organize against this. but i think, you know, we have to really -- we have to have good enforcement. that's the thing. even when the laws aren't so bad and professor milkman documented that in los angeles, which has the best laws protecting workers there's the most wage theft because there's the most of these vulnerable workers working in cash only businesses. so i think that we have to have lots of enforcement, and a lot of that happens at the state

level. so even though the federal government has -- hilda solis is good on this issue, she's added 150 more investigators and a lot of it happens on the state level, the enforcement has to be there. so we have to start caring about this issue a lot. >> you can call us on one of three lines, and 202-628-0025 for the independents. if you want to send a tweet, and you can send us an e-mail. on a larger issue on unemployment, there's new figures out today from the labor department saying that weekly applications for unemployment rose 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 383,000. with that figure in mind what does that mean particularly for people you write about like the one you wrote about in your recent column? >> well, the harder it is to

find a job the more exploitive employers can be because there's a huge crowd of people who want that job and who will -- who need it desperately and will have to put up with bad treatment. i think also, you know, i really worry about the people being kicked off unemployment now. what is going to happen to them? people who have been out of work for two years. there's a lot of discrimination against, as you know, against people who have been out of work for a while. for some reason, i don't know what it is, employers don't like them. so it's sort of like -- what does it say in the bible, to those who have all things shall be given and to those who have little even that shall be taken away. it's like the people who are on the lower half of the good things are having taken away even the little security that they have. it's really -- it's terrible. >> other topics we'll address during the time together with our guest, but let's hear from

callers. grand rapids, michigan, you're up next. go ahead. >> caller: hi. i'm on the left and i love the president obama. i don't care about the democrats that don't like him that much. i am going to vote for him because i trust him. i trust him completely. i know he has my -- what happens to me, i know he cares what happens to everyone. i am terrified, too, about the unemployment and we were one of the ones that got -- my husband after 30 years, you know, lost his job. he was on unemployment for all of the time that there was and he finally took a minimum wage job. you know, if you're poor, you're

poor, and you don't, you know, have a big house and blah, blah, blah, but when you go and lose two thirds of your income, how are you supposed to pay the bills? >> caller, we'll leave it there and let our guest respond. kathy pollitt, go ahead. >> i am very sorry for your situation. there are a lot of people that are living that way also because one thing that the unemployment figures don't reflect is that let's say you get another job. it can be as in the case of you and your husband, the job you get, this is more than likely, pays less than the job you had before. so people are just really pressed. and the other piece of it is they're losing their houses, too. there you are, working minimum wage, you have a housing problem. you have health care problems maybe.

it is really, really terrible, and i don't understand why this is. maybe someone will call in with the answer. i don't understand why everybody isn't on occupy wall street, why you can fire a teacher and everybody says $50,000, that's too much, but you suggest raising taxes on bankers and everybody gets all in a big tizzee. i don't understand this. >> the caller started off with her talking about her support of the president. what's your assessment of the president in his first term? >> you know, i still have hope. i still have hope. i think president obama, people think he is like the king. they think the president can just do anything he wants, but the republicans have said, they said this, we want him to fail. we're going to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, and they have done that. what i don't understand is why in 2010 the people who voted for obama for president didn't go

back and give him a democratic congress. i think people are -- i think people are a little kind of dash i am taking my marbles and going home about electoral politics, that if somebody doesn't immediately make everything better or do everything you want, then you just say, well, to heck with him, i am not going to say that. i have a lot of problems with president obama, but i am going to vote for him. >> how do you think he will fare against the campaign against governor romney? >> i am not a fortune teller. all of my fingers are crossed, what can i say? i think it is going to be hard. i think these swing states, these swing states are very swingy and not only that, in some states like florida the republicans in charge are doing their best to knock people disproportionately off the rolls

which is another major, major scandal, 180,000 people in florida have received these letters saying, well, you're registered to vote and we think you may not be a sit sdplen. come prove in the next 30 days you may be a citizen. >> hawaii, nathan is on the independent line for our guests. go ahead. >> caller: how are you doing? >> you're on, sir. go ahead. >> caller: i just had to bring up a point with your guest, katha. i am just amazed, i heard you talk about your article about immigrants losing wages due to unfair bosses and to be honest, i can't believe someone in your position with the media is bringing up such an insignificant issue in our country. the immigrants are one of our issues that we should be -- the sympathy does not go to them right now.

>> why not? >> caller: because we need to worry about the people that are actually taking care of the voters. none of those people are voters. none of them are citizens. i understand amnesty, but it is not always necessary. >> we'll let our guests respond. >> a lot of the people, it is not only immigrants in the first place that are affected by wage theft. it is just disproportionately them. a lot of people -- i hate the word impacted, a lot of people affected by wage theft are citizens. they worked for a long time. it is disproportionately people that are in that sector of the economy that has a lot of undocumented workers, but the situation of undocumented workers affects everybody, and that's why unions who used to be really against undocumented

workers have to really change their mind because the workers are all together in this and it is not possible to separate out the ones you like from the ones you don't like. it is one big economy. >> here is atlanta, george. keisha, republican line. >> caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment. my comment first is i don't know if this is really to be addressed to you, carlos, but as a republican and what we call a mirnlt i would like to see a woman who is an african-american host on your show. that is really lacking on c-span. my question to the guest is what do you think of what is going on in wisconsin and governor walker and what the workers there are trying to do and all the big money that is coming in from the republicans and to the caller that called in just now, i would like to let him know he is also

annum grant. we're all immigrants to this country. the only real people that really truly do live here back in the day are the indians, and who want to get technical about it, and thank you so much. bye-bye. >> to speak to the wisconsin situation, i think here we see the terrible, terrible effects of arguably the worst supreme court decision in a very long time, citizens united, that vast amounts of money are pouring in to help governor walker, and we don't know who these people are. that's the other thing. you don't know who they are, the donors, and that information can all be secret. and this is what our politics have become. it really -- i just think to myself, well, if the person with a lot of money can just donate a

lot of money and affect an election in a major way, in what sense is it still a democracy? i think that it is what's going on in wisconsin and not just there, it is completely shocking. you know, think of another thing. think of newt gingrich running for president. he had one donor, sheldon adelson who gave him millions and millions and millions of dollars, and i don't know why, because it was always pretty clear that newt gingrich was not going to win the nomination, but it did affect the whole primary setup and presumably sheldon adelson thought he got something out of it or he wouldn't have given all of that money, and i think it is really wrong that one person should be allowed to have that kind of major, major effect on the way our political system runs. >> memphis, tennessee is next. larry is on the democrats line. >> caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment on two things concerning what you are talking about this

morning. first, the unions, a lot have influence on what's going on in the government. i think the union heads over there if they knew what was going on, the wages would be high. i can remember $15 an hour it is considered a good wage, and 40 years later it is still considered a good wage. and the temporary agencies, the temporary jobs, i think they're doing a disservice to this country and wasn't for all the temp agencies the jobs would have to hire people and the wages would be higher. the companies that the temp agencies are paid $22 an hour per employee and give the employee minimum wage and $10 an hour and if they were to take the $20 an hour it would be a better country and people would be doing better and buying thing and it would be a much better economy if they pay the workers that they pay the temp agencies. what do you think about this? can you comment on those