that's an issue for our family, too, and one of the reasons why i chose to run for office. >> be sure to join us july 21st and 22nd when we'll feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. earlier today "the washington post" hosted a discussion on the future of democracies across the globe. we heard from leon panetta, who served as defense secretary and cia director during the obama administration and john negroponte, who served as director of national intelligence under president george w. bush. this runs about two hours.

good morning. thank you for joining us. i'm jennifer lee, director of events at the "washington post." this morning we'll be talking about the future of democracy, both here at home and around the world. as president trump begins a week of meetings with world leaders in europe, we've gathered key voices from government and diplomacy to discuss the places where democracy is showing resilience and where authoritarianism is gaining ground. our experts will also talk about how americans view the health of our nearly 250-year-old political system. before we begin, i'd like to thank our presenting sponsor, the democracy voter group for study of today's program. now please welcome joe goldman, president of democracy fund, to the stage for some remarks.

good morning. it's really an honor to be able to support this important conversation we're having today. for those of you who are not familiar with democracy fund, let me say a few word about our work. the democracy fund is a bipartisan foundation. we were created about four years ago by the founder of ebay. since our inception, we have given away about $100 million in grants. these funds have gone to organizations working on a wide array of issues from reviving our public square to strengthening our system of elections to working with our governing institutions in the united states to ensure they will fulfill their obligations to the american public. unfortunately, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, the last few years have raised pretty profound

questions about the health of the american republic. questions that we as americans are not used to having to ask about our own country. at the democracy fund we responded to this moment by dramatically expanding our commitment to strengthening american democracy and defending the united states constitution. but in addition to that, we found it really important to think about what we can do to expand and improve our understanding about how the american public is changing and what that means for the future of the american political system. to help us do that, we've created something that we call the democracy fund voters study group. the democracy fund voters study group is a group of two dozen public opinion experts from across the political spectrum. on the right it includes scholars from places like the american enterprise institute and cato institute and scholars

from center for american progress and brookings institution. this group of scholars will never agree on everything about what is best for the american public, but we have committed to study together what is going on with our political system, how the american public is changing, and what leaders in washington need to understand about the public. today's program focuses on trends in authoritarianism. a subject of the voter study group has focused on quite a bit over the last few months. some of what we've found has been quite disturbing. in a recent survey we found one in four americans said a political system in which a strong leader wouldn't have to bother with congress or election would be a good thing. more concerning, we found that those kind of authoritarian views are increasingly polarized within our political system, a trend that could be very

dangerous for the future. the good news is when given a direct choice, the vast majority of americans choose democracy. people believe in the rule of law. they believe in checks and balances. they believe that congress and the courts should be a check on executive branch authority. this kind of support for the pillars of democracy should give us some hope, but we can't be complacent. leaders of both parties need to stand up to the rule of law. they need to stand against abuses of power. we need to support free and secure elections and independent media, and we need to support the protection of the very dignity and rights of every individual that our founders envisioned for this country. at the democracy fund, we're committed to work with you and other partners around the country to make sure our democracy remains strong. we're grateful to each of you for joining this conversation we're having today and look

forward to continuing it at voter study group.org and on twitter at the twitter hand @democracyfund. thank you. look forward to today's conversation. really appreciate your being here. >> thank you, joe. and now i'd like to introduce "the washington post" mary jordan who will lead our first discussion. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for coming out for such a light topic. i'm mary jordan, and i am the national correspondent, cover politics around the country, try to figure out what's happening here in america. i want to welcome our distinguished guest today.

gerard has been ambassador since 2015, an important figure in washington that everybody knows. before that he was france's permanent representative to the u.n., director general for affairs and security and he was the ambassador to israel. we also have ambassador dermer of israel. before becoming ambassador in 2013 he was senior adviser to prime minister benjamin netanyahu. as israel's minister of economic affairs in the united states. is co-author of the book "the case for democracy, the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror." and we have ambassador silva who became ambassador in 2016. he was previously the country's vice minister for environment and held many other jobs, industry and trade. welcome. what a powerhouse.

we're lucky to have you here today. before we begin, i'd like to tell you in the audience and those joining us online to send us questions. they will pop up in my ipad and i'll try to get to that. let's begin. water polo going to talk about the state of democracy in the regions you know so well. "the washington post" and the news, a lot is happening in europe. the president of the united states is over for a meeting in nato and he just called the nato alliance and said our allies were delinquent is the word he used. he said pretty strong extraordinary statements. he said germany is totally controlled by russia. another tweet that he just made, he said nato countries must pay more. and more was in all caps.

the united states must pay less, less in all caps. then he said, very unfair. the tone beginning this pretty important summit has gotten off to an interesting start. i just want to hear some reaction to it. ambassador. >> you'd be surprised but i'm a diplomat up to a point. i think we need all this debate, you know, in a democratic alliance, and i think all this debate has started. no, more importantly, i think we have to wait for the summit itself. that's the play of the summit. very seriously, there is a debate about sharing, a legitimate date about the future of this alliance that we have created in 1949 in very different circumstances. so let's wait for the summit

itself. let's wait really the president of the united states is going to say but also to ask, you know. it's a debate that we should have. i think we'll have it. >> let's be a little more undiplomatic and just say what you really think here. >> no way. no way. >> but how does this style -- does it matter then? does the opening tone matter? >> the foreplays matter always. i'm french. really it's -- again, in a sense you have an unusual president, so it's leading to an unusual way of debating between allies. but less go back to the substance. what are the substance of the proposals, of the request of the president and the other allies

will respond, will tell what they want or what they don't want to do. >> what do you think? >> first of all, i'm glad to see another ambassador in the hot seat. that gives me a great deal of pleasure. i think as the ambassador said, the issue of burden sharing is a real issue for my country israel we spend 6% of our gdp on our defense, so the united states is around 4. the united states, most countries between 1 and 2, which is this debate. israel is 6% without u.s. assistance. we also receive military assistance from the united states, which we're grateful for which helps us bear this enormous burden we have on our economy and that takes us over 8%. so i think it's a real issue. i guess how this is going to work out in europe remains to be seen. it seems to me that many countries are starting actually to address this, various degrees and at various speeds. but from the discussions i've

had, most people think this is a real legitimate issue the president is raising. i think he'll see something, how much and how fast. >> is there any effect of calling our allies, particularly germany, who seems to have a contentious relationship. any effect from the words and tone. >> at the end of the day, as the ambassador said, you're going to want to wait to see what comes out of the skumt and what the policy would be. i think it's hard to judge these things in the moment. have you to look a year, two years, three years and see if europe is on a trajectory of a greater share of their gdp devoted. how dramatic 1 or 2% can be. there's a formula they do how long it takes your money to double, 27 over n, n is the interest rate. it can double in 7 years, if

it's 7%, 10 years. if there's a 3% gap between what the united states is spending at around 4% and let's say european country, 1%, every 24 years it means that europe has doubled the money to spend on other issues, on health care, education, social welfare, social safety net and everything else. so you're now over 75 years since world war ii, you're doubling and then doubling and doubling in that time. it's an eight time difference. i remember 25 years ago europe would a lot of times look at the united states and say, you don't offer your people health care and you don't offer your people enough of a social safety net. one of the reasons why the u.s. has not had those moneys to do it is because they have also spent an enormous amount of money defending the world. >> do you think nato will exist in 24 years. president trump -- you're both good with numbers. people are very concerned about

these historic alliances. we'll come back. >> i think yes, it will exist. >> you don't think there's any danger of this thing blowing up as some worry about. >> i don't think so. i think they have to focus on the mission fidefining the coalition rather than the mission defining the coalition. >> from the point of view, what do you make of what's going on? >> ininat nature or the region. >> in nato. there is a big focus. hugely important country, what's the view from brazil? >> we're not associated, we're not members of nato. we don't face similar challenges nato does. so i'm an observer, not a participant. as an observer, the only comment

i make is similar to the one that the french ambassador made. i think a discussion is as to the assumptions. is nato as needed as before? at the point when the u.s. president goes along apparently quite well with russia, does russia represent the danger it was expected to represent some years ago. >> what do you think? what do you think about that? >> i don't know. that's a very different subject. >> it's really -- there is a real question about nato. nato was created against a threat to the free world, a czar. disappeared, vanished. russia is raising some questions but russia is not ussr. russia is not unifying threat that ussr was. so there is a legitimate

question about the transatlantic relationship, which was based largely on nato. i do think we have to create a positive agenda between the europeans and americans beyond a military alliance. and we have a lot of issues where we could work together. >> are you worried at all, any of you, about what many people in the united states are, that this president, president trump, is too close to putin? >> just to follow up on what i was saying, if we discuss assumptions and that we agree that the danger is not the same, why should countries have to reach 2% to be more provocative. >> but they don't necessarily have to. >> i'm not part of this game. but as an outside observer, that's the question i raise. >> europeans are spending their military budget several times the russian military budget, you

know. russian military budget is slightly superior to the french military budget. >> just back to this question about russia and the personal alliance between putin and president trump. is that anything to be concerned about? a lot of people in the united states are. they feel he's giving the cold shoulder to some of our allies while being very cozy to putin. does that raise any? >> no. i think it's a very good thing, actually, that the president of the united states has a working relationship with the president of russia. really because especially in the russian system, if you want to work with russia, you have to work with the president of the united states -- with the president of russia. no, i think it's a very positive, very positive development. >> anybody else? >> yeah. i mean, we in israel definitely think it's a positive development. a lot of the problems we have in our region i think would be

alleviated if you had the u.s. and russia working together. obviously the most acute issue we're dealing with now is what's going on in syria. if the u.s. and russia could come together, and i suspect this will be one of the issues at the upcoming summit, could come together on a political process for syria that they could both agree on, which would ultimately make sure -- ensure from our point of view that iran leaves syria, i think that could be very good and very positive for the region. i think there's other places where u.s.-russia cooperation could be good. >> british officials have been particularly unhappy with putin lately, especially because of the problems with nerve agents and things going on, people dying, for instance, in england. how do you square kind of the another contract actions and some of the really dangerous things that the president of russia has done or many people

believe he's done with these cozy relationship with donald trump? >> i think this is a worrisome development, but i think it has to be further checked and verified. we have many assumptions but i haven't seen any really documented assessment of what happened. >> look, obviously international relations, you are making agreements with parties and countries that you don't fully agree with their policies. i look from israel's point of view, the leading powers of the world made an agreement a few years ago with the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, the state department of the united states, the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. there were people had thought that would be good for peace and security around the world. so when you look at the threats that you're facing, i would be much more concerned with the world lining up with the worst regimes on the planet that represent existential threat to israel. now you're seeing throughout the region the dangers of giving

such a regime hundreds of millions of dollars in their coffers. we're dealing with the reality today. a few mix ago before i walked in, there was a red alert, which is when we had to respond to apparently a projectile, we're not sure exactly what it is that came through the goalan area from syria. we're dealing with powers, many of them upset, the relationship between the president and president putin. but a few years ago they made an agreement with the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. so i don't have any issue with the president trying to have a better relationship with putin. i don't think they are going to agree on everything. i'm pretty sure they won't agree with everything. i don't think they are going to change, president putin. if that relationship can lead to a better relationship on the ground in syria, that's certainly good for israel, good for arab neighbors and europe. a lot of the refugee problems

have happened because of the neglect in syria. >> let me say dan shapiro, u.s. ambassador to israel under obama said something on twitter this morning that's getting a huge amount of attention. he said, i don't think we are fully grappling with the possibility that we could be on the cusp of a completely you era, a fundamental reshaping of the international order. i don't mean over the course of the trump administration, i mean by next week. this is in response in belgium and onto nato. what do you think about that? >> i think he's right. unfortunately he's focusing only on the presidency of president trump. he should have also focused on the presidency of president obama. actually i'm used to shocking a lot of my american friends saying the foreign policy of president trump isn't that different from the foreign policy of president obama, which

means, for instance, on syria. in ukraine, the obama administration basically really refusing really any active american policy. i think we are really now what is happening is in this country there is a fatigue towards foreign intervention. i'm not speaking about washington, d.c., the rest of the country. i think president obama and president trump have felt it. you know, and have decided in their own way that the united states should be anymore the van damme of the world. we have to face. not only again in europe but syria. i don't see a major crisis since 1945 where the united states had been so adamantly refusing to

really speakervene. -- intervene. whatever we think of it, that's a major shift. the countries have to adapt to this new reality. >> changing and reshaping of the world order, the topic was democracy. so i'd like to start here in brazil. just do a very quick kind of summation about the health of democracy in your region where the person leading in the polls is called the donald trump of the tropics. is that fair, by the way? >> i'd like to compare the situation of democracy in brazil and latin america with what's going on in the world. i think we all are under a

difference. the changes all over the world represent a real revolution. we have to just wait. the revolution means globalization. this means information revolution which brought about a sense of nationalist and populist. in our region, i think it's different, because we never had so many democracies. if you take the oes had 34 members. out of them, the exceptions are venezuela and cuba. the other countries are democracies. in our case, we don't have an excess of globalization, we have a deficit. we don't have the fear from the foreigner as an immigrant or goods. we can cope with that. and our institutions show to be quite resilient. we went through three very

important crisis, impeachment, a recession of 7% in two years and an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign. the press was free and institutions are working well. >> but the polls in brazil show the result of the corruption and the result of the trump-like character that's running shows people want law and order. the military is the most revered institution there, right? what is the health, would you say going forward, for democracy as we have known it? >> i think democracy will go out of this difficult transition stronger. why? because people are fed up with politicians, with corrupt politicians and business people. they want more democracy not less democracy. i think this is the general feeling in latin america. i think we should not miss

understand politicians, lack of democracy. people are very much against politicians. understand something that's different, ideology and democracy. you may have -- now you have a leftist government in mexico, but you had a very conservative government in colombia and a very conservative government in chile. it doesn't matter. the ideology. what matters is people like the institutions of democracy strengthened. >> what about the middle east? >> the middle east has a huge problem with democracy. israel is the only true democracy in the middle east. we'd like to have neighbors hold be democratic, because democracy -- nondemocratic states tend to fight others, external enemies in order to justify internal repression. when it comes to israel's

democracy, i think it is a tremendous model for the world. democracies are tested under crisis. that's actually when it counts, not when you're at peace. israel is the most plebeleaguer democracy. we've never known peace. fortunately we have peace with egyptian and jordanian neighbors. in 17-year history we've had to deal with security threats by no other democracy and yet we've retained democratic institutions and values. i was born and raised in this country. as a former american, i marvel israel was able to do it. i remember the situation in this country and people will remember this september 12th, 2001, the fear there would be another imminent attack. and people were willing to trade civil liberties for security. over time as fear recedes, the pendulum swings back. europe has been for 10 years, you don't know, there could always be an attack.

the fact that we've been able to keep our democratic institutions strong and vibrant and all our branches of government strong and vibrant and maintain free press -- >> you don't see it changing any time soon. >> no, i don't see it changing. but i think other countries dealing with these security challenges can look to israel as a model. i agree with the ambassador, what he said. i think a lot of this is the effects of globalization, changes in the workforce, and different movements have come about. it's important also to not say the sky is falling when it comes to democracies. >> what would you say instead of the sky is falling, what's happening with democracy. >> i think it's a natural source. dem casey contras always fights between governments. point that out -- >> is it raining if the sky is falling. >> the role the supreme court should play in our society. sometimes that is cast as democracy in israel is falling because of that i totally

disagree. you had a battle in your country about the role of the supreme court. the person who fought that battle was actually thomas jefferson in a case 200 years ago and said, hey, the supreme court of the united states should not have the power to actually knock out legislation in congress. this was the person who came up with the bill of rights. >> just a second only because we only have a few seconds left. >> ten seconds. >> okay. >> i think it's important not to cry wolf on there's the natural process and give-and-take within democracies and say this a sign of fascism, this is a sign of totalari totalarianism, because when you do have a real threat to democracy, people won't be able to see it clearly. >> so europe is like hungary, brexit, a lot of worry about immigration. now all eyes on about the alliance with nato. how do you see the world order? we started talking about the

changing world order. how are things changing? >> i think it's the first time in my life where political life is so comparable. we are facing the rebellion of some of the voters who are telling us the elite, telling us the political power, you are not delivering. and instead of crying wolf, i think we should respond to their concerns. we should listen to what they are telling to us and respond to their concerns. that's what my president is trying to do. i think a part -- i think a substantial number of have been hurt over the economic policies in the last 40 years. never inequalities have been so high. for the last 30 years, half the americans have seen their income stagnated. when people say, why? why a crisis? you give this figure and you

understand it. basically you say, there is a crisis of the middle class. any democracy is based on the health and we will-being of the middle class. we need policies addressing these concerns. we are a democracy so right wing response, left wing response. right wing response we see it. we see in this country but also in europe, which is really protectionism, which is immigration, which is really responding to the crisis of identity of our society as you can believe it's a good or bad answer. i think that's something. the question now on the progressive side of the political spectrum, what is the answer. what -- the left side is telling to the voters, that's democracy. really we need this debate because the citizens are asking us a fundamental question.

if we ignore this question, despise these concerns, the crisis would be -- >> how do you respond? how do we respond, europe respond to what the voters are saying? >> really there's a lot of different questions. first, free trade. i think president trump is perfectly right to say what matters is fair trade. it has been for the last 30 years people are saying free trade is global good. globally -- nobody is globally good or bad. it means some of our citizens have suffered from free trade, from trade that actually has been unbalanced. we have to look at it. we have to define what means fair trade. in our relationship with china, for instance, that's a very good question. automation and artificial intelligence, they are going to destroy millions of jobs in the decade or more in the decade which is coming. what does the mean.

the first profession in the u.s., try driveuckdrivers. you have 4.5 million truckdrivers in the country. four years, five years, what does it mean, knowing now with the driverless trucks, what are you going to do with the truckdrivers. that's the fundamental questions. >> let me ask the first one talking about fair trade. do you think what the trump administration has proposed in terms of trade and tariffs is positive? >> of course not since we are the victims. in this political debate, which is very hot in this country, i think we should also wonder whether, first, whether the answer is a good question but whether the question is a good question. as i said, i do think the question about fair trade is a good question. my president went to davos.

you know davos is free trade and said actually, no, there is a problem of free trade. we have to think about the consequences on our citizens, on our territories. you know, it's not by chance that france elected five members of parliament. we have seven members of parliament, six of them were elected by this rust belt. it has been devastated by globalization. >> it's a stunning change. your president said recently, macron said, populism is spreading, quote, like a leprosy all over europe. let's talk about populism. >> make a commenton that and trade. >> yes. >> i have a sympathy for reciprocal trade. we have been running a deficit with the u.s. for 10 years.

we'd like to balance that. second point on populism. i think in the case of italy it's a very interesting one. have you two populist movements. one in the right the north, one in the left the west and they are forced to adjust. i think overcoming populism will be an imposition when these movements come to power. they will have to become political parties and not outside movement. it's the only way. as french ambassador said people aren't happy with the political system. it's not working. it doesn't provide the answers society is waiting for. they are looking for an outside response. >> you have written a lot about democracy and just from where you are born in the united states. you have a great perspective

about the world. where do you see populism moving? >> look, i think we have to understand and always keep in mind the fundamental moral difference between democracies and nondemocracies. nato to me is not just about a common struggle against the soviet union, and i agree with the ambassador of russia it's completely different from soviet union. with all the issues and concerns it's not the soviet union. nato is an alliance with democracies. there's one country a concern turkey, remain a democracy, move in a different direction, it is moving in a different direction. we have to keep this moral difference. populism and different ideologies and right and left, that's part of the democratic game. >> are you worried about what's going on around the world with populism now? >> i think within democracies, i think it's a natural response to what happens and change within democracies. >> but dying is a natural response. i just wonder if you're worried about it? >> i'm not overly worried about it. i just think the failure to

distinguish between democratic societies and nondemocratic societies, between free societies and fear societies, this is an ongoing problem as people follow this. so when people attack this or that thing that will happen in a democracy and cast it as fascism, cast it as if it's some authoritarian regime, what it does is it blurs the line. the man i wrote the book with said the worst day of human rights violations in a free society is better than the best day in a fear society. if you don't keep that distinction clear, then you won't understand why democracies need each other so much. the reason why i have faith in the alliance of nato is because they are all democracies. ultimately i think they will stand together. sometimes we lose sight of what keeps us together and what separates from nondemocratic regions that don't give their people any rights, the right to vote or the right to have basic freedoms we often take for granted. >> thank you. i'm so concerned because we have to keep the program going.

as we wrap up here and the big meeting in nato is ahead of us, just, in a word or two, could each of you talk about do you want nato to stay strong and basically as it is? if you could really quickly say about the importance of nato and you want to keep it? >> i think nato has been very important in the past. i don't know whether taking into account the present circumstances of the world order it could or should play the same role. >> you don't know whether it should or could. >> i don't know. the discussion on the assumptions of nato i think is the crucial issue. from that discussion you may develop an indication of how much each country should invest in defense. but if you keep saying nato as what nato was during the cold

war, i think we are misleading the discussion. >> do we need nato more or less as it is now? >> i think that nato should be expanded to include all democracies. there's not a body internationally that can unite all democracies and that they can act together to defend freedom and protect other democracies. the united nations can't do it. democracy and dictatorship. >> who? >> a country like japan that's a strong democracy, a country like israel, india. i think there is -- have you to take nato and a little bit redefine its mission, skpapd it and redefine its mission. democratic societies should stand together. >> redefine its mission. >> defend democracy and freedom. i said this whole issue of what percentage of the gdp. israel has been blessed by the fact that the united states has devoted these resources for the last 75 years to defending democracy around the world and protecting it. if it's not for united states, all democracies around the world

will suffer. i think europeans understand that and i know countries and democracies in asia understand that. israel certainly understands that. >> of course nato has to survive. but to survive, i think there are two conditions. the first one is should be able to handle affairs by themselves without calling americans as soon as there's a shotgun somewhere. that's why the french has pushed european union to be more active on certain issues. the second one is to reinforce -- as i said in the beginning, have a real strong transactional relationship we have to expand them beyond the military side of the alliance and to work on a positive agenda. we need to define a positive agenda. we have a lot of issues on which we can work together. >> and the last and crucial question, the world cup.

congratulations to france. big, big game today. would you rather go up against croatia or england? >> england, of course. for three centuries we have been fighting. >> do you think you have a better chance of beating them. >> of course. no doubt. >> thank you so much. really appreciate this. now i want to turn over to my colleagues, karen, who is going to have the next discussion. thank you all here and listening online. we'll go here. thank you. okay. let's go over here.

>> okay. so good morning, my name is karen, global editor at "washington post." i'd like to welcome my guess today. steve hilton, host of "the next revolution with hilton" on fox news, adviser to cameron and author of popular populism, ideas for economic security, family and community in america. sitting next to him is john negroponte, currently the vice

chairman of the company and served as director of national intelligence under george w. bush an previously as ambassador to honduras, iraq, mexico, the philippines and the united nations. and so before we begin, i'd like to remind the audience that they can tweet their questions to us using the #postlive. we'll shove sboit. we had a really robust discussion with the ambassadors previously, so we will get into some of the discussions about nature and democracy. first of all i want to start with this question about are we with everything that's happening with populism, with the current administration, with the rise of populist forces around the world, are we in a revolutionary moment for democracy? i want to start off with you, actually, mr. negroponte, because you've had such a long career in international

relations and diplomacy. over 40 years of experience. to giving the longview and what you've seen, where are we right now? are we in a certain revolutionary moment? >> okay. well, i'm not about to publish a book on this. >> i'll get to him. >> no, i look forward to what steve has to say on this. what i would say is first of all regarding the state of democracy in the world, when you look back when i started my foreign service career, i was an appointee, one of the last appointees into the foreign service of the eisenhower administration. so during that span of time, i think that the march of democracy has been nothing short of impressive. if you look at latin america, the picture has changed completely. everything is looking much, much better there. the ambassador of brazil mentioned that with the exception of cuba and venezuela. the rest of the map is pretty much colored green, if you use the color scheme of some of the

ngos that covered these issues. africa has become when i got into the state department, africa was becoming independent. now they are moving towards more responsible government, although admittedly with greater difficulty. with the fall of the soviet union, eastern europe has been liberated. so i think the overall trend has been basically positive. to try to make generalizations about one ism or another spreading like wildfire around the world i think would be perhaps going a little bit too far. i believe, and this comes from years of doing political analysis in the nine different foreign service postings that i had, you have to look at the particular circumstances of the country you're in, historic, geographic, economic, cultural, linguistic and so forth to really be able to grasp what's happening in these countries. so that would be the first thing i'd have to say.

>> so with that backdrop of your experience, is there -- what is happening right now in the realm of democracy and perhaps even democracy promotion that does give you hope sort of at this moment. i would also ask what perhaps gives you the most anxiety or fear about the state of democracy today. >> right. there's examples on both side of that ledger. in our own hemisphere, i think i would worry most about what's happening in venezuela, which has been a failed state for some time now. the economy is plummeting. here is a country with the largest oil reserves in the world that has managed to mismanage itself practically into obolivian. refugees fleeing to neighboring countries and so forth. the international community, particularly the community in the hemisphere is a little bit, i think, at a loss as to what to do about this. no one wants to see us go back into some kind of

interventionist mode as we might have done back in the 19th century and serious doubt whether that would even work. there's also hopeful developments in this region and elsewhere in the world. i would just say two recent examples, one is colombia. right there neighboring venezuela, which has made tremendous advances. and thanks, in fact, in part at least to nation building support from the united states. i would have called it nation building light. i think when we get into regime change or occupations or sort of heavy duty nation building, i think the opportunities to make mistakes are much greater. i think we supported colombia in a very effective way. what was important in the end was their willingness to defend and develop themselves. let's not forget this. if there's sort of a bottom line here, democracy promotion can be helpful in facilitating a number of different things.

but in the end, what really depends is the political and desire of the local citizenry themselves to accomplish democratic objectives. >> so off of that idea of the local citizens themselves and encouraging them to play greater roles in their democracy, i want to turn to this question of populism and this word, we hear it so much more now in the last two years or so. steve, you've written about this concept of positive populism, and you literally are talking about revolution. can you explain a little more about positive populism? i think the word has gotten -- it has a negative connotation and we can go into those reasons why later. are we in a revolutionary moment and what is positive populism in your view and how could it play a role in this climate and atmosphere we are in global. >> thank you. happy to get into all that.

first of all, thank you so much for allowing me to participate today. what a great event and it's a great pleasure to be here. one really unexpected pleasure from this morning looking at the previous session was to welcome the french ambassador into the fold of populism. i thought he did a great job of explaining the populist sentiment and seemed to agree with it, so that is an unexpected treat. welcome, ambassador. >> we'll get into the world cup later. >> exactly right. let's not get into that. i think that the way i'd put it is this, we have seen an expression of revolutionary sentiment over the past few years, and you've seen that in, first of all, brexit and 2016 election here. not just donald trump, remember, bernie sanders and europe and germany, mexico. so you're seeing this expression of a desire for big change. but i wouldn't say that has translated yet into the actual

changes that will deal with the problems that have given rise to that sentiment. that's why i've tried to set out an agenda for populism that is positive that actually brings into play the kind of policies that the french ambassador is talking about, policies to actually deal with the issues that cause this. i think that's how i would describe that. i think the important point when we bring that conversation back to the theme today, which is democracy, is to challenge the notion that the stats quo represents democracy and somehow this populist revolutionary challenge, whatever we want to call it, is a threat to democracy. for a lot of people there hasn't been democracy at all. and their experience here in america, in the uk, across the world for the last 40 years or so, it doesn't matter who you voted for in actual elections,

you get the same results. and the same result is that the rich got richer. and as the ambassador said, half the country othat's true in america, true in the uk, true in a lot of places -- got poorer. actually data shows -- we use this word income stagnation. actually if you go back and look at the income data in america, it's actually a fall in real terms. for most workers in america that income has fallen. that isn't just last few years, the measurement is since 1972. this is a really big long-term trend that has hurt working people and they want change. i think the characteristics of the regime that has been in place regardless of whether democrats have won or republicans have won or uk conservative labor, whoever has been in charge, you've had the same policy agenda, which is positive about globalization,

positive about automation in the economy, unlimited immigration. above all, i think, centralization. i think that's the defining characteristic of the last few decades. you've seenfrom local elected officials and got further and further away from people moving to multi-lateral organizations like the eu and so on, but also in the economy where you've seen businesses get bigger and bigger, mergers and these giant corporations and on the government side what that's left people feeling is that they have this big centralized authoritarian government that treats citizens with contempt and on the economic side people get a sense you've got these giant corporations that treat their workers with contempt. that's what people have had enough of. what we need now is real structural change in government and in the economy so that we can make this populous revolution really positive for working people. >> i want to come to this exact topic because we have brexit.

>> right. >> well, we don't have brexit, but i want to talk about brexit. on your themes, right, of taking power away from the eu and you in particular, you made headlines by breaking with david cameron over the issue of brexit. you publicly supported brexit and you've said membership in the eu makes britain literally ungovernable in the sense no administration elected by the people can govern the country. how do you comment on the resignations this week of david davis and boris johnson and what would you say to critics who say those that backed brexit never gave any sort of coherent alternative to membership in the eu? >> great questions. i think just the context there, a lot of what i spoke to my american friends about the eu and brexit and there's been this assumption the eu is basically a european version of nafta and therefore, people are mystified by brexit.

what's wrong with that? the truth is the equivalent of the eu in an american context is not nafta but the federal government. the eu is actually a federal government for europe. the difference is at least in america with all its problems the president is elected. congress is elected. the decision making and policy making part of the eu, the european commission, is not elected and they drive policy in the eu and the result of that as i experienced working at the heart of power trying to implement an agenda that we were elected to do, it turned out that most of the time most of the policy work that we did in government, most of the administrative and legislative implementation that we did was implementing eu policies that nobody in the ui voted for and most -- uk voted for and mostly we disagreed with. that's why i argued we should

leave the eu. coming back to where we are today, it's not correct to say those that argued for brexit didn't have a positive vision. it's what you ended up with was a prime minister who actually opposed brexit and therefore was in a mindset that brexit was actually a threat to be handled and managed rather than an opportunity to be seized. my basic point is that the real truth about brexit is that what will help britain succeed in the years ahead deal with some of those economic and social issues that gave rise to brexit is not the deal you reach with the eu. it's actually uk government policy on taxes, on employment, on investing in infrastructure and education and skills. those things should be within the control of the uk. that's what really matters and they've been so bogged down in this bureaucratic negotiation with the eu they haven't focused on doing something positive about the british economy. >> i'd like to get your thoughts, john, about the brexit situation.

>> i'm married to an english lady who devoted considerable effort to keeping britain and europe back in 1974 and working on the referendum and so forth and i've always felt that the european union was a positive thing. i think you very eloquently described some of the problems people have. i'm not sure getting out of the eu is going to solve the problem and you mentioned britain afterwards dealing with these problems on its own. i will ask you will britain remain britain? so i think there's an added element of risk involved there, but ultimately britain and the europeans are going to have to decide this and i'm not saying america doesn't have any dog in this fight because i think we've been very comfortable working with the eu as an institution over the years and

i recall mr. obama perhaps mistakenly by speaking out publicly before the referendum may have actually contributed to the brexit vote. he may have helped make that a reality, which was the opposite of his intention, of course. so i think we're better off just waiting to see what happens. >> what do you think theresa may should do now? >> i really am sincere when i say i think they've got to work it out themselves. this is about democracy. they've for got -- got a democracy that is devised to deal with these problems. they've got a wonderful parliamentary problems. what i like about steve's comments, when you're talking about populism, you're talking about populism but with an agenda. >> yes. >> where i think a lot of people think of populism as indiscriminate yelling and screaming. that's not what you're talking about. >> i assume you mean bernie sanders, for example. do you consider him a populist?

>> i do. i have to agree with some of his policies. >> surprisingly as a republican i happen to agree with a lot of the stuff he says, too, particularly on domestic policy. >> i think that's exactly -- you touched on the fact that populism is seen as negative. i would absolutely agree with that. that's actually why i somewhat provocatively chose to call it populism because i know what some people think, an angry, screaming rejection of everything that could turn very dark and pulling up the drawbridge and all that stuff. i think the real answer is to give it an intellectually coherent positive agenda or policy. i think at the heart of it is decentralization of policy. that's why i focused in my remarks on the fact you've seen this concentration of power in

the economy and government. i think decentralizing power is going to be at the heart of how we solve some of these problems. >> just an example of populism that i had in mind, the father of french populism was pierre pujad. i went to the university at the time he was holding forth, but he was focused on only one issue, the question of taxes, if i remember correctly, and i think you're talking about something much broader than that. >> definitely. the impact of these changes, the centralization of power, we talk a lot about the economy in the previous session again. i don't want to repeat that in terms of jobs and incomes and so on and also in government in terms of people are more aware of issues of corruption in big business and all of that, very important. there's another piece, which is the social piece, the piece relating to society. >> yes. >> i think one of the things that has been a consequence of

this centralization of power over the years has been the ripping apart of our social fabric, specifically in terms of those core building blocks of a strong society, family and community. that aspect i think is a real important part of it. so for me a positive populist agenda has to have answers to the problems of family breakdowns, the problems of community disempowerment and you'll see in the book -- i don't want to be too much of a tease -- but when it's published in september, i've got very specific ideas. that's why the subtitle is rebuilding economic security, family and community in america. that aspect of populism that relates to our society and strengthening that i think is really important. >> trump is going to be in the uk this week and he'll be met with protests and apparently a large balloon. >> balloon, yes. >> what do you make of that? i also have this question and we spoke a lot, john, about the

u.s. as a democracy promoter. under this administration are we a populism exporter in this day in age? do we consider ourselves that? i'm just curious about those two questions. >> well, if you're asking, for example, does the example of president trump sort of have some effect on the way other leaders believe? i'm not entirely certain that is the case because as i said earlier, i think each country is driven mostly by its own internal political dynamic. if i could broaden the question a bit, as far as his trip into england and europe is concerned, i think what we're all hoping for is that despite some of the rhetoric in the runup to these events that he reaffirms our commitment to article 5 of the nato alliance

and which provides that an attack on one is an attack on all and i do think to look back at the conversation that just took place with the ambassadors that we are committed to the defense of western europe and we've done a lot to bolster defenses there, deploying people to the baltic states, giving lethal aid to the country of ukraine, so on and so forth. and i think it would be a pity if nato started to erode in some kind of a way. so at least i want to believe that the outcome will be sufficiently positive that nato isn't in some way threatened by these developments. >> steve, what would you hope for out of trump's visit to the uk? >> what i would hope for around trump's visit to the uk is that england win the world cup. i at least say that because whatever else happens you can

be sure that if england beat croatia today, no one will care really about trump or may or brexit, whatever. it's all about the world cup finals. that's absolutely true. but to be serious i think the really important point actually is something that's highlighted when you asked about boris johnson's resignation. one of the fundamental reasons he resigned is the deal on brexit that theresa may finally published as it were internally to her own government and asked her cabinet to sign up to last friday. that deal specifically prevents the uk from signing in the president's words a big beautiful trade deal with the u.s. there's nothing that could be more helpful to the british government than a really warm relationship with the president and the president actually putting the opposite of what president obama said, not at the back of the line but at the front of the line.

that's what president trump has promised. he's kind of a fan of brexit. he wants to help, but they've now actually put forward a plan to stop him from doing that because the rules would mean they can't negotiate trade deals and that to me is an example of why, frankly, boris and the other ministers who resigned were right to resign, because this is -- he used the phrase semi brexit. it's worse than that. this is not really brexit at all. >> do you think brexit will still happen? >> it's very hard to say. the real problem is although everybody agrees -- when i say everybody, the country at large, but also conservative members of parliament and obviously the opposition -- they all agree theresa may is hopeless and useless and making a complete mess of it, but they can't agree on what comes instead. so she's left there kind of stumbling along in this incredibly depressing way because nobody can agree on an

alternative. >> sure. >> and i think therefore sadly i think we can expect more of this slightly shambling performance. >> i want to move on to trump's next stop which will be meeting with vladimir putin in russia. john, i wanted to get your thoughts on this summit and what could he get out of this meeting that would serve america's interests? >> well, first of all, i think the meeting is a good idea. i think great power leaders -- after all, russia is part of the permanent five members of the united nations security council -- it's a nuclear weapons state. it has been a big player on the international scene, sometimes more, sometimes less. obviously in the time of mr. putin the russian role in the world has expanded somewhat from the doldrums days, if you will, of the 1990s when russia was really pretty much flat on its back because of all the changes that had taken place.

so they're a power. they're a force to be reckoned with and they're proactive and i think a very good activity of their pro activity has been the role they played in the middle east, especially in syria. so i think there are constructive conversations to be had between the two leaders on syria, on what to do about iran, which i'm sure the russians will have some views about our having withdrawn from that agreement, and, of course, the situation on the korean peninsula. let's not forget russia borders on a part -- or north korea borders on a part of russia. so they have a direct and immediate stake in that situation as well. so it could be a broad agenda and i don't think one wants to either exaggerate or underestimate the importance of this meeting. >> steve? >> i really completely agree.

that's what i would have said if you asked me first. the most helpful things would be a more constructive attitude in the middle east, syria and in north korea, completely agree. >> very, very quickly i want to touch on the roles of technology. you're coming from the west. you've been involved in silicon valley. the role of technology in our changing society and what role that can play in either some would say maybe exciting populism or promoting positive populism and, john, what role technology and social media could play. >> yeah. it's a great question. i think what thing that's happening is all people are

being empowered including the bad as well as the good aspects of human nature and i think that's something that they are very conscious of and reckoning. i should just make sure for full disclosure everyone understands my wife is a senior gazette at facebook, just so everyone is clear about that. i started a tech company myself called crowd pack and i would argue that was an example of the positive and it was a crowd funding policy. >> it makes you the centralized power, right? >> no. it's completely the opposite because it's actually undermining the control of the party systems and the idea is people can run for office and raise money without relying on the big donors. i'm not pitching it because i am no longer the ceo because ironically enough crowd pack which started as a nonpartisan

platform for all comers has succeeded greatly amongst the resistance since donald trump. so you have a fox news host having started a platform that is really funding this. >> you have jobs being eliminated, the news about uber and putting cab drivers out of work, the tech sector is becoming extremely powerful with not necessarily the same sort of accountability that we would have in an elected system. i just wonder again the power of the algorithm as you talked about, how does that -- it seems like we're replacing sometimes one sort of centralized power with another. >> i totally agree. i know we're short of time.

i'm very conscience of time, always have to fin -- conscious of time, always have to finish on time. i argue in the book and i have for many ways including in ways that definitely conflict, let's put it that way, with the agenda of the companies that my wife has worked for that we need to have a much tougher approach on anti-trusts. we need to aggressively go off this concentration of economic power. i've got some very radical ideas that will be published in september, but i completely agree and it's not just tech. it's in every sector. if you look at what's going on in the health -- one of the big problems in healthcare is the concentration of power there, the insurance companies, the giant insurance companies. they basically wrote the obamacare laws to suit themselves. you see it in insurance. you see it right across the economy. so we need a much more aggressive anti-trust position. on the jobs and automation, the answer to that is not to try and stop these things which actually do bring convenience to some people.

it's actually to equip other -- the people who are going to be the victims of those changes with the skills and the training and the education to really increase their productivity so that they can get jobs that are really going to pay well. that means a complete revolution in how we think about education from the beginning of life right the way through and again i've got very specific ideas about how to do that, but that's the answer. don't try to stop the technology. >> john, will technology save us or save democracy or hurt it? >> well, i think ultimately it's going to be a wash as far as saving us, but i do think it's contributed in many, many different ways to our well- being. you mentioned healthcare. ill just think growing life expectancies around the world would be one example. there is the dark side of globalization you were talking about. i think it's not so much all these technologies are

inherently positive. i think it somewhat depends on who is at the controls and also i think that the tech sector is going to have to face up to the fact that although it's made a big mantra of not being regulated because that impedes the freedom of the internet, there's going to have to be much more regulation of the internet than there has been up until now and then lastly and i think this is perhaps the most significant point from the point of view of populism and the discussion we've been having, what impact is it having on the nature of work and what policies need to be adopted to address that? at this point i think we're sort of just standing there watching a lot of people losing their job and not completely -- we haven't got a complete program as to how to deal with that fact and i think this is a very serious social problem in this country and i'm sure it's true in many, many other countries as well. >> all right.

unfortunately that's all the time we have for today. this could have gone on much, much longer. i would like to thank you all for joining me today. thank you all for joining us today. now i would like to hand things off to my colleague who will lead the final discussion. [ applause ] >> gentlemen, it's a pleasure to offer this last discussion in the future of our democracy. i can't think of anyone who is a more appropriate clean-up hitter, you will, than my guest, secretary leon panetta. he has served in so many different capacities helping our country as a member of

congress, committee chairman, director of the office of management and budget, white house chief of staff, cia director and secretary of defense, now runs the panetta institute which is doing good in all sort of bipartisan, nonpartisan ways. mr. secretary, i want to get started by talking about the thing that's on all of our minds, but repeat the injunction. ask us questions from the audience or from the live stream audience. send them to #postlive and we will process them and put them to secretary panetta. secretary, this morning we watched president trump arrive in brussels just, you know, not exactly smoke coming out of his ears. sat down to breakfast with the nato secretary general goldenberg and talked about how germany was a captive of russia

and all of the familiar lines about how europeans aren't paying their way. i always remember hearing when i was growing up when we thought about the future of democracy, we should think about nato and our european allies and that structure of friendships and alliances that was about the future of democracy and keeping it going, but what did you think as you listened to president trump's rhetoric yesterday on his way to brussels, this morning? what's your reaction to that and how do you think our allies will react? >> well, first of all, it's good to be with you, david. david tracked me a long time here in washington and we've always had a great relationship and i thank you for doing this. i worry a great deal about where this is all headed. it is in many ways it fits a

pattern for the president. i think this president who has not steeped in history or steeped in foreign policy is someone who likes to react obviously based on his gut instincts, but his reaction is always to create disruption and to operate with chaos and part of that i think goes back to something, you know, you mentioned in your column in the washington post, which is this kind of new york developer mentality because that's been most of his life, which is to operate on the basis of challenging people, criticizing people, demanding things and knowing that ultimately the more he can antagonize and create disruption that ultimately people will come around and come back to the table because there's money on the table and try to work out

some deal. the problem i see is that he creates this chaos which, by the way, i mean tactically i understand that chaos can be helpful, but what certains me is strategic chaos where there is no strategy as to where it's going. so you get rid of ttp, but where's the strategy to deal with that? you get rid of nafta. where's the strategy to repair that? you create a trade war, increase tariffs, but where is that taking us? you move away from climate change, but where is the strategy to deal with that? you get rid of the iran agreement, but where is the strategy to deal with that? and i have a sense that he's applying that same kind of approach when it comes to nato, which is to create a lot of disruption, to kind of challenge these countries and look, i do

these countries obviously have to meet their responsibility to a nato. i nato. i think he deserve -- to nato. i think he deserves some credit getting these countries to respond to their 2% requirement, but what he's missing is this isn't just a country club where people have to pay their dues. this is an alliance of allies that has a 70 year history that is critical to the security not only of the united states, but the security of europe and the world and he's got to keep coming back to that fundamental point. he's not doing that. he's basically criticizing. he's pushing them. he's making the kind of statements that he made this morning and what concerns me, as i said, is where the hell are we going with this? what is the long term strategy?

is he trying to undermine or weaken nato or deep down is he trying to use this as a tactic to hopefully strengthen nato for the future? >> mr. secretary, let me ask you the question i was puzzling over this morning. i traveled to nato summits with you in the past, if memory serves, and i wondered this morning whether we were getting near the tipping point where at some point people say, you know, he's been banging on us now for a year and a half. i'm beginning to believe it. i believe that he doesn't really believe in nato and so at that moment if you're a european, you say we need to think about other ways to defend our security. the american commitment to defend us with nuclear weapons is not there. how close are we to that tipping point where people say we got on make other plans? >> i think one thing that could

very well happen in these next few days is that it may very well define trump foreign policy for the duration of his term as president. and it can go one of two ways. if he takes advantage of the fact that european countries are coming forward, tries to take steps to strengthen the nato alliance to provide the kind of military assistance and deployment that are important to keeping that alliance strong, he could use that as a strong point in going to the summit with putin. i think it could strengthen his land in dealing with putin. and then ask, obviously deal with putin on some of the critical issues that we confront with russia. that is something we should hope for as the path that he

will take. on the other hand, it could be a disaster. he could very well wind up in nato continuing his criticism, demanding that if they don't pay, that the united states will somehow withdraw in terms of the numbers of military personnel and equipment that we provide to nato. so he could really send a torpedo into the strength of nato, weaken nato and then go trotting off to russia and have a great reality tv meeting with putin. similar to what happened with the g7 and then going to kim. i think if that repeats itself, then i think europe and our allies will have a very clear message that this president is not interested in trying to strengthen the alliance but

rather weaken it. >> not to push you too hard, but after this first warning, as we've watched it, it looks to me like the latter scenario, the torpedo scenario, seems a lot more likely than the former. >> you know, i don't know. this guy is totally unpredictable and erratic and i have no damn idea what the hell is going to happen here. you know, i watched the president with the supreme court announcement. he followed his line. he behaved himself. he did well. as a former chief of staff, that's what you want presidents to do and so, you know, he does seem to have at least the ability to adhere to that kind of, you know, big moment.

now on the other hand, by virtue of his tweeting and the way he behaves in other areas and the criticisms that he makes and the personal attacks that he engages in, that's the other side here and, you know, whether or not -- look, the most encouraging thing is that he's surrounded by pompeo, mattis and john kelly happens to be there, who is somebody i worked with and, you know, particularly mattis and kelly who are two marines ultimately i think, you know, they're trying to keep him on the right track. and whether they're successful or not, you know, we'll see, but at least i'm somewhat encouraged that he has the right people at the table beside him, but obviously he's still not following their lines. >> you may just have given the kiss of death for general kelly

and general mattis. i don't know. let me ask you what's in some ways an awkward question, but it's an appropriate question for a former cia director. it's written often that donald trump's behavior towards putin, support, encouragement, being friends is a good thing and his his behavior toward our allies, chancellor merkel, theresa may, is consistent with someone who is acting on behalf of russia's interests. obviously these are questions that in the end will be left to robert mueller and his investigation, but if you could just speak from your perspective as a former cia director about ways in which people sometimes wittingly or

unwittingly end up acting in ways that help foreign powers, i think that would be an interesting way to look at this question. >> well, look, you know, i've been in public life over 50 years and i've served in one way or another with nine presidents and every one of those presidents recognized russia for what it is and understood that they were an adversary and that we had to defend our interests in dealing with russia because from all of the intelligence that we gather on russia, there is no question that they continue to make efforts to undermine western democracy. that's pretty clear. this president doesn't like to

read his pdbs, but i'm sure that every briefing that is provided to him mentions the fact that russia is engaged in efforts to undermine our democracy. so the fact that this president kind of goes out of his way to try to in many ways defend putin when putin says that russia was not involved in something that all of our intelligence agencies agree that they were involved with, which was to try to undermine our election institution in this country , and putin says no, no, we weren't involved and the president of the united states says well, i kind of take his word that they weren't involved when all of the evidence and all of the intelligence and all of the evidence is that, in fact, they were involved, then obviously

that raises concern. what those concerns are, you know, i don't know. bob mueller obviously will determine whether there's a money connection or whether there's anything else that truly is influencing him, but i think the bigger issue is this, that donald trump is president of the united states. he has sworn an oath not only to defend our constitution, but to protect this country. and i think for that reason alone the president of the united states has to protect our country from our adversaries. i always felt the cia director and secretary of -- as cia director and secretary of defense, my primary mission was to keep america safe to protect our country. that's what presidents of the united states are responsible to do and i worry that this president for whatever reason

is not operating with the awareness of how much an adversary russia is to the stability of the united states. >> that's a power of answer and i'll leave that there and turn to a related question. your experience in the process of bringing order out of chaos and i'm thinking of when president bill clinton was in a lot of trouble after his first couple years in office and you came in as his chief of staff in a situation in an environment in which i lot of people thought there's no way

we can discipline this and i think it would be interesting for this audience on hear a little bit about how you did that and what rules you laid down to impose some discipline on a talented, but undisciplined man. how did you do that? >> it wasn't easy and, frankly, i didn't want to do it. i was omb director and we had just passed a very significant budget for the president that, by the way, provided 500 billion in deficit reduction over five years. >> what's deficit reduction? we don't remember that. >> and the combination of that plus the bush agreement is what produced a balanced budget. so i was very pleased with the opportunity to work on the budget and work on appropriations bills and, you know, actually vice president gore who was a classmate of

mine in congress said, "i think the president wants you to be chief of staff," and i said, " al, i'm much more valuable as omb director." besides that, i kind of knew of the chaos in the white house. so the next thing i knew, i was being invited up to camp david and so i flew up to camp david and i walked into the presidential cabin and it was president clinton, hillary clinton, al gore and tipper gore and me. i knew i was screwed. and so at the end of that conversation i said okay, i'll take the job and i had some conditions, but the most important was that you -- i had to establish a chain of command. i remember asking my predecessor, matt mccarty, give me the organization chart for

the white house and he said, "i don't believe we have one of those." i knew i was in trouble at that point. so i took my army experience, developed the chain of command where you have chief of staff, deputy chiefs of staff, people responsible to people, not having people wander around into the oval office, these kind of people that carry a broad title and can walk into any meeting, have no responsibility and walk out. that's a lousy way to run the white house. so i developed that kind of approach along with trying to control obviously access to the president. the key difference was that this president wanted that discipline to happen. he knew that in many ways his reelection would depend on that. so he was very cooperative in the effort to try to put those changes in place.

it was not always easy. you know, he is somebody who just instinctively wants to reach out to people, wants everybody to come into the oval office and talk and be a part of it. through the whole thing. i said you have to put a chain in command in place. you have to have a policy process that you put in place for the president. i said the big difference, john, is your principle. and whether or not in the end, he's going to be willing to accept that discipline. that will be the difference between success or failure. >> so we keep hearing reports of friction between general kelly and the president.

yet he stays on. and i've wondered what would be the consequence if one day general kelly decided, this just isn't working, sir, with the greatest respect and walked out the door. or the president fired him. and decided he didn't want to operate with the chief of staff. let's face it, that's not working out very well. what would that be like? what would a white house without a chief of staff be like? can you give us a word picture of what that would be like? >> it would be chaos. but the president likes that kind of approach. i think he basically may very well have arrived at a point where he thinks, i don't need a chief of staff. i know this job now and i can handle it without a chief of staff. >> and the leon panetta who is

sitting on his shoulder, who has been given an opportunity to whisper something in president trump's ear would say, mr. president -- >> mr. president, no matter how you've operated in the private sector. no matter how you've operated as president of the united states, you absolutely need to have a chief of staff that can implement the things that you want to do and organize the staff and make it respond to you and to what you need done. you can't operate without some discipline. i don't care who you are. you need to have an organized approach to dealing with these issues. and yeah, the president of the united states is the elected individual in this country. and he determines what policies are. but the reality is, that no

president can operate without a support foundation in which you have advisers and key people that know these issues, that present options to the president. that allow him to look at issues, understand those issues, and try to make the right decision. that's the process you need to have in place. i'm hopeful that the president will stick with john kelly and that job. you know, this president is not somebody who obviously fires people the way others do, despite his background on reality tv. the way he underminds people is by tweeting and criticizing them. you know, he did that with sessions. he's done that with others. he basically embarrasses them, criticizes them, and ultimately pushes them out that way. what i've noticed with john kelly, and i thank god for

this. he is now trying to pull back on those kinds of tweets, which may send a signal that relationship has gotten better rather than worse. >> so, i want to ask you about the broad topic of our gathering this morning, which is democracy. and ask you not about how difficult it is now, we see that, but about how we go about putting this country, the political system, the process of governance back on track. you are somebody who has special standing in that debate, in my book. because as i've written, you're part of what i described as the great chain of being in our government. the people who came through congress and who basically made

this system work. made things run. made the dollars and scents add up at the end of the day. so, as you think about an agenda for restoring the health of our democracy, what are two or three starting points that you think we should think about as we head toward the midterms, as we think about 2020. >> look, the most critical thing in our democracy is the ability to govern. i tell the students at the panetta institute, in a democracy, we operate by leadership or crisis. if leadership is there and willing to take the risk and make no mistake about it, if you're going to lead in this country, you have to take risks. if you're a businessman, you

have to take risk. that's what leadership is all about. if that leadership is not there for whatever reason, then we will govern by crisis. and we have largely been a country in recent years that governed by crisis. you have to have a shutdown of the federal government in order for congress to figure out what to do about the budget. you have to have crisis in other areas in order to drive policy. the problem with that is, you can operate that way. it's easy to wait for crisis and not do anything to anger your constituents. but ultimately, there's a price to be paid. the price is, you lose the trust of the american people in our system of governing. i think that's what the 2016 election was all about. was the lack of trust in washington and the failure of washington to deal with the issues that were confronting the american people. i haven't seen that improve.

in my history, i've seen washington at its best and washington at its worst. the good news is, i have seen washington work. when i came back, worked as a legislative assistant, there were a number of moderate republicans, they worked with democrats like humphrey and jackson and russell. they work together on issues. yes, they have their political differences, but they work together when it came to issues confronting this country. when i got elected to congress, o'neil was the speaker. he said democrat, democrat. he got along with the minority leader. did they have their political differences? of course. when it came to major issues, they worked together. they were willing to sit down, to negotiate, to respect each

other, to develop trust between each other, and to govern the country. that's broken down. that process is broken down. there is no trust. they can't agree on the facts regarding issues. so there's an unwillingness to sit down and to negotiate and to find compromise and find consensus. you have dysfunction. it's a dangerous dysfunction. you can't deal with the budget. you can't deal with the debt. that's going to become almost over 100% of gdp within these next few years. they are not dealing with immigration. they are not dealing with energy issues. they are not dealing with the whole issue of infrastructure and how to improve infrastructure. they are not dealing with the issues facing our country. the concern i have is that if this dysfunction continues, along with the president who is beginning to withdraw from our

leadership role in the world, i think that spells a weak america. and that could undermine our democracy for the future. now i have great faith in our system. i have great faith in the fact that there are communities and states out there and institutions that want to make our democracy strong. but i will tell you this. i do not think that our democracy is going to solve its problems from the top down. it's only going to solve problems from the bottom up. which means the election of new individuals who are willing to get back to governing. >> so let me take that issue head on. there are a lot of people in your party, in the democratic party who say, we are facing a mortal threat to our institutions, our values, they

point from immigration, to various human rights issues. the whole agenda that you went through. and they say, you know, all this talk about compromise and all that, that's getting us nowhere. we need to be an angry motivated party. and we need to be more prepared to confront the other side. so, if sarah huckabee sanders goes to dinner in lexington, virginia, if the folks there get angry, send her away without her dinner. if mitch mcconnell is trying to leave his house in the morning, go remind him about immigration issues. and whole series of things like that. illustrations of this argument to be successful democrats, need to be an angry militant party to rally the country.

there's obviously an alternative argument. governments should try to be a governing party, with a broad tent of lots of folks feel comfortable under. you heard the argument from those motivated young democrats. what is your answer to those folks that say, we tried that, it doesn't work. let's try being angry. >> well, if you're angry and you lose, it doesn't make a difference. the objective has to be about winning. from all of the concern about, you know, kavanaugh and the new justice to the supreme court. but the bottom line is, that's the result of losing an election. the democrats have lost a major election in this country. and the issue is whether

democrats can win an election. and they can't win if they fight republican extremism with democratic extremism. the only way you win in this country is by reflecting what america is all about. and the america i know is a country that obviously has vast differences, but at the same time, in terms of values, represents very much the same belief in what this country is all about, in the importance of a job for their families and the importance of decent healthcare for their families and the importance of educating your children. the importance of being able to pull together as a community and the importance of caring for one another in this country. in the importance of welcoming

those who come to this country. i'm the son of italian immigrants. this is a land of immigrants. so, it is those kind of fundamental values that the democrats have to speak to. it isn't about tearing people up. it isn't about playing the same tactics. it's about providing a message to this country about what we really can be. which is to return to the important values that make our democracy what it is. that's what is at the heart and soul of our country. our forefathers came up with this saying, reflecting what america should have as its motto. out of many, one. out of many, one. the fact is, our differences are not our weakness. our differences are our strength. that's what america is all about. but, to be able to deal with

that, this clash of ideas, which i think is healthy. i think that's what america needs to be. out of that, we have to be one nation. and that means yes, we have to sit down. we have to listen to one another. we have to work through and find consensus and compromise and govern this country. that's the message that democrats are going to have to provide this country. otherwise, they can play the same games that republicans have played. they have now become a one man party. they have given up on basic principles. whether it's foreign policy, whether it's remaining strong against russia. they have given up on a lot of principles. we can't play the same game. we have to represent something very different. it's not that different. it is what america really is. go out in this country, go to the midwest. go to the south. go to the northeast. go to the west.

the fact is, deep down there are fundamental beliefs that pull us together as a society. that's what you have to appeal to. >> powerful answer. i want to take a question that came in from our twitter feed. it's an interesting question, as i read it. it's asking how sound is this structure that we want to rebuild? how bad is the rot? the way the person phrases this is to ask your view of the stability of our system of checks and balance, the rule of law and other corner stones of democracy, are you worried that those have been weakened by these many years of bitter, bitter partisanship. >> look, there's no question that as i said, pointing to the dysfunction, that it's been

weakened by virtue of the inability of presidents and congresses to work together. just happened with trump. this goes back aways. probably the last 15 years. presidents have found it difficult to work with congress. congress has become more partisan. they engaged in trench warfare. there's been this inability to sit down and really be able to work through those issues. and we're seeing that today. at the same time, our forefathers did design a system in which they did not want to locate power in any one branch of government. they didn't want a king. they didn't want a king parliament. that's the reason they created the three separate, but equal branches of government. and those checks and balances are there. are they always working the way

we want? no. you know, we see what congress is unable to do. we don't always agree with the court, although i have to say, courts are continuing to make decisions that do try to keep us in the path of the rule of law. but what i really see that i think is the great strength of america today, is that our institutions of democracy that count today are the free press and the fact the press continues to present the news to @ people. obviously with social media and all the other things involved, there's a real competition for how exactly the truth is. the fact that we have a free press is extremely important to the debate that needs to take place in this country. we have states that have taken up their responsibility to deal with issues that the federal government is not trying to

deal with. so we have a number of states dealing with environmental issues, dealing with immigration, dealing with other challenges that the federal government has not been helpful on. but they are doing it. i see communities. we have seen comments about communities across this country where yeah, there are democrats and republicans. people support trump. people who support, you know, bernie sanders. but the fact is, in these communities, they are able to sit down and to develop approaches to try and improve what's going on in these communities. whether it's in housing, whether it's in transportation, whether it's in healthcare. and there are other institutions in our democracy that are working as well. because of those institutions, look, we're all being tested. all of us, as citizens are being tested. in many ways, the question is

whether we're willing to step up and do what we have to in order to make sure our country stays in @ the right path. i have fundamental confidence in the underlying strength of this country, because i really do believe deep down, americans share a common spirit, dedication, to what this country is all about. the reason is s the secretary of defense, i saw those values in the men and women that serve this country. i looked them in the eye. these are young people that are willing to fight and die for this country. understand that. they are willing to fight and die for this country. if they are willing to do that. if they are willing to do everything necessary to protect this country. i don't see why we as citizens can't reflect the same courage

in terms of our democracy. [ applause ] >> are you sure you are not ready to run again? >> i like being 3,000 miles away. >> i want to stick with this question of damage to our institutions. maybe this is the last question. but it goes to an area that you came to know and love, i think. and that's our intelligence agency. you said nobody was more surprised than you when you were asked. i remember when you came in, that agency, you know, the sign said kick me, and you gave them some protection and cover.

that was rebuilding. and we have been in a period where the president, in an extraordinary way, has publicly attacked our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. talked about the fbi and never imagine an american president, talking about the nsa, engaged in abuse. for a time was attacking the cia. so, i want to ask you, you were part of that world. i'm sure stay connected with it. what damage has all that done as people listen to these comments coming from the president of the united states, week after week, what effect does that have and again, how do we think about repairing that so we get what we want. which is independent,

professional, self-confidence, law-abiding intelligence law enforcement. >> well, look. let's just establish the basic premise. this country cannot protect itself. cannot defend the interest of the american people. without the rule of law and without a strong national security. a strong defense force that can help protect this country from our adversaries. and critical to that is the ability to get the best intelligence possible on what our adversaries and others are up to. knowledge is critical to the ability to protect our country. that's what intelligence is all about. that's what the cia and all the

intelligence agencies are all about. that's what nsa is all about. it's the importance of being able to determine what others are doing that can impact on our national security interest. and that doesn't just happen. that isn't something where you can just pick up, you know, the washington post and the "new york times" or the wall street journal and figure out what is happening in the rest of the world. that means you're going to have to put people in dangerous places. in order to be able to determine what really is happening. you have to be able to deploy agents. you have to be able to conduct operations that can provide the best kind of information possible. and so if people are putting their lives on the line in order to be able to gather that

kind of intelligence, that's what it's all about. i talked about our men and women in uniform. the fact is, that the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies. for that matter, our law enforcement agencies put their lives on the line. when a president criticizes our intelligence and our intelligence operation, then clearly it impacts the moral of those people out there putting their lives on the line. i mean, they are basically asking the question, wait a minute, i'm out here. i'm taking risks every day. i'm providing valuable information and now i hear the president of the united states basically criticizing the importance of that information and criticizing what i do. it makes it that much tougher to try and attract people that are willing to go out into those tough positions and be

able to do what is necessary to do. now, i have tremendous confidence in the people that are part of our intelligence agencies. i know they are continuing to put their lives on the line. they are continuing to gather that information. they are continuing to provide that kind of important intelligence. the reality is, after 9/11, we recognize that intelligence in many ways fail had had to be able to determine what our enemies were up to. and the result of that is we really did improve intelligence operations in this country. we put them together. they are willing to share information. they are willing to work together. i think in many ways because of those operations, we've been able to protect this country. it is a continuing challenge. my hope is that the president

now understands that whatever problems he may have had with intelligence in the past, the reality is he cannot do his job without the men and women in the intelligence operations who are putting their lives on the line in order to make sure that they provide the information that is critical to our national security. [ applause ] so, when i talk with the secretary panetta, i think of, as they say in church on sunday, the law and the prophet. you know, you take us back to fundamentals about how our country works. really grateful that you are willing to take this time to be with us and share such honest and you know, thoughts. thank you. >> thank you very much. [ applause ]

coming up tonight, former white house adviser, ben rhodes looks at the legacy of the obama administration. republican senators speak out against president trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and acting epa administrator, andrew wheeler addresses employees for the first time since taking over the agency on july 9. the pentagon is making investments in counterterrorism. peter, is on capitol hill in the morning. he is scheduled to testify on the clinton e-mail investigation and russian

interference in the 2016 presidential election. live coverage beginning at 10:00 eastern right here on cspan-3. you can stream it live on our website, cspan.org and on the radio app. sunday night on afterwards. cnn political commentator, amanda carpenter. why we love it when trump lies to us. she is interviewed. >> and then suspense. creates suspense. all the time. i have investigators going to hawaii. there's a report coming soon. and even at that step, he suggested there was a video tape coming. so that generates more media interest. let's see what he has to say. guess what? it never comes out. it never comes out. and then he selects the detractor to attack. >> he finds someone, at this point people say, we think

donald trump is lying. well other people are just talking about this. i'm just looking into it. so he started to zone in. anybody that pops up, loser, hack, and so if he can find a target to start scapegoating, that's when it creates that dynamic. >> finally, he declared victory. >> with the trump hotel in d.c., everyone come in, i'm going to have a major announcement. you can also look at my beautiful grand new hotel if you want. he said yeah, barack obama is a citizen. but hillary clinton started it. i finished it. victory. >> watch afterwards sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2. this weekend on american history tv, on cspan3. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on