he saw himself in the -- in the fashion of governing like in brazil, not like chavez in venezuela and i don't think anyone was surprised at the outcome of that election and contrary to maybe some of the trends in europe and elsewhere. . . economic standpoint that will recognize human rights and the defense of those rights, i do think those are some themes that perhaps can produce a somewhat different way. somewhat different way. again, very much grounded, we like to call in virginia the common-sense conservative outlook that started way back with the

founders of 18th century servants of jefferson, madison and the rest. i do think you may see a trend again, deliverables spawned by adherence to these market-based principles of a limited government, but taking care of folks. >> i think conversely, you've got to avoid elections more and more, which will be one of the fallouts from iran and elsewhere. i also think that for next year there's going to be this growing trend. it's boring, it's organizational, but it's nonetheless very significant, which is the fact -- the view that the g-20 is now in a sense, the global economic regulator. i think that's going to be inescapable. i mean, it's a major shift in what was effectively the poll lar world, but the united states was -- >> two g summits next year, one in canada and one in south korea in the autumn, that it will be prominent. can i ask one final question?

then we'll go to the floor. perhaps to you, joe lockhart. europe, not something that perhaps people spend too much time worrying about. but there was the famous kissinger question, who do you call for europe. the europeans are now agonized for, what was it, eight or nine years over a constitutional -- well, it was no longer called a constitutional treaty, over a treaty, which has given them a so-called president and a high representative, in effect, a foreign secretary. but they've chosen people in these roles which charity eable can be described as people nobody has ever heard of. does anybody care about europe as a weight in the world, as an entity? has anybody answered the kissinger question for america? >> i think it's an evolving question. >> can you name the presidents

of europe? >> eric can. [laughter] >> i know who wants to be the president of europe. >> well, he didn't get it. >> i know. >> i think it's not a pressing question as far as america goes, because i think europe is a trusted place in this country. they think -- you know, we didn't agonize very long about going in head-long into military conflicts in europe in the last decade, because it was europe. while we young our hands, while there were exponentially more devastating genocide being committed in africa. and not taking a position, it's just a way of highlighting the deep connections between. so i don't think we worry much about europe. i think as europe integrates and becomes more powerful, we may over time, because i don't

think the average american thinks of europe in the way that europeans want to. >> actually, one of the concerns about the obama administration in europe anyway has been that he tended to take his allies for granted in focusing on reaching out to some of the parts of the world where relations have been previously more complicated. and there could be a reaction by europeans. and he's going to need allies in places like afghanistan. >> it's funny, because i think that goes to the previous question, too. i think one of the reasons why there isn't a trend right now is that the u.s. -- at least around the world -- is not as polarizing as it has been in the past, among both democrats and republicans, depending on the time. and electrics are getting decided on the ground, by issues on the ground, and not being influenced by cold war issues or u.s. diplomacy. i mean. you could go through europe and even other parts of the world and look at elections that

turned on whether you were anti-american enough or whether you were pro-american enough. and right now we have a president who's deeply committed to multilateralism. no one thinks they get enough time or attention from the american president, but -- and it is in some ways a positive and in some ways troubling, because the world needs leadership, and we're very internally focused right now on putting our own house in order, and that is potentially a dangerous situation. >> i just think there's a huge divide between europe and the united states with regard to strategic issues. i mean, there's been a change in orientation here about the war on terrorism, which this administration doesn't use. and peter in "time" magazine wrote something provocative about obama sort of downsizing the war on terror, compartment liesing it a little bit more, rather than making it as sweeping and broad as the bush administration did.

but we covered our respective governments or p.m.'s at the time, an seeing tony blair, the british public wasn't there at all. certainly not on iraq and not even on afghanistan as much. so you're seeing that. the notion of the nato alliance and maybe it's going to pledge 7,000 additional troops, you know, it's nice to have a coalition of the willing, but this is america's war. we're going to have 100,000 troops there. we own this thing. and the british, frankly, they've been there, seen it and said, no, thanks. but i mean, there's a view -- i'm not saying that they haven't been in afghanistan, but you're seeing more what you described, which is we just don't want to have a sustained commitment there. >> and i think oddly enough americans don't see the british as european. you ask someone, are these -- they don't, they don't. [laughter] >> let's go to the questions from the audience, who would

like to ask? >> right here. >> yes. wait for the microphone to come. >> oh, there's people here. [laughter] >> yes, could you say who you are. >> first of all, my name is ezra matthias. gregory david raised the point about the c.e.o. he was speaking to that talked about what's happening to american capitalism. now, i'm very surprised that -- i think it's a man who wrote a book on rogue economics. i'm surprised she's not part of the conflicts and globalization has unleashed problems that drove economics to go rogue, which is per primary thesis, ambassador i'm surpriseed that we haven't examined that -- and i'm surprised that we haven't examined that at all. >> that was more of a statement. let me go to the back there. yes.

>> i'm mark with, the foundation for job creation. my question is, is america's problem of not being able to create jobs, where does the lobbyists fit in? and are they interfering with job creation? >> where are the lobbyists? >> where do the lobbyists fit into this business of job creation? do they interfere with the process of job creation? are they perhaps helping? >> well, you know, i think that's a tough question. i think in the broadest possible sense, you know, even the best ideas get altered, and generally not for the better, because there are powerful lobbying interests in this town. and the lobbyists are very -- you know, they do well and their job is not to advocate

for the public good, but to advocate for the narrow, for their interests. and we still, despite, you know, the president running on a platform of let's take the special interests out of politics and government, it's still very prevalent. i think again, most broadly, i agree with republicans when they talk about the -- you know, the private sector is going to create the bulk of the new jobs. we don't want to create 10 million new government jobs. that makes no sense. what the federal government can do, both congress and the executive branch, is create conditions where jobs will flourish. we've had periods, the mid 1980's, that most of the 1990's where conditions were good and the private sector and the public sector worked together and jobs were created. we haven't seen that in a while, and that's really what we need to do. >> congressman?

>> i'm not sure how to answer the question of whether lobbyists as a whole are helpful or harmful to job creation. i mean, there are a slew of lobbyists, obviously, in this town, some representing big corporations, some representing small businesses, some representing labor, some representing consumer groups, and the list goes on. i think, again, the jobs for the party in power as well as the minority is to work together to produce an environment that can foster some job creation, as joe said in, the private sector, because i think deep down americans understand what's made this country prosperous, and that is the entrepreneurialism, risk-based investment that's characterized by the american dream. so if you talk to big businesses right now, i think what they say is too much uncertainty. as david said, we've got to do something. we can't have the uncertainty of card check, the uncertainty

of cap and trade, the uncertainty of health care, the uncertainty of the tax hikes that are embeded in the code that businesses don't know how that will play out. that is inhibiting investment. if you talk to main-street concerns, small ises across this country, what they're saying is we don't have access to capital. we need credit. if we're going to create jobs, we have to be able to grow and we can't do that without credit. all of this, i think, will play out over the year. how lobbyists intermingle with that, i think lobbyists are much more in tune with their specific client's interest, and right now i think what we're talking about is an environment that has been grossly unfavorable towards risk-based job creation. >> yes. don't know where to start. lot of questions. here first, and then -- >> hello. i'm roland. "the economist" predicted that nato might lose in afghanistan

in 2010. however, representative cantor did not mention afghanistan in his initial speech here today. does that suggest that the republicans are generally happy with the president's plan in afghanistan? one. and two, is there a prediction that there will be success this year in the campaign? military campaign? .

>> how do you see this debate to? >> i think there is every reason to be skeptical. i question everything, every statement, every position, every note of optimism about this war. i think all americans should. i think your partners around the world should. somehow, that the karzai government will create a standard security force that has enough space to break the momentum of the taliban, if that is brought to bear in a reasonable time frame, but the other big issue is whether it becomes another country.

the real bad guys are in pakistan. that is the problem. what is pakistan prepared to do? the challenge for this president is that [unintelligible] they will argue a but articulating an exit strategy or some sort of timeline. i think the secretary of defense was clear yesterday in that there is a time horizon. that is just the goal of a handoff to karzai in five years. that assumes that everything works. all of that is in place -- you all of that is in place -- you have to see what the conditions -- rouble see what the plan is down the line.

we are basically not winning. but it is time to come home. >> this is a very live issue for british politics. british troops have been dying in afghanistan in disturbingly large numbers. as you mentioned, the war has become increasingly unpopular. how does this decision by president obama play into the debate of britain over -- how does it play out publicly? >> gordon brown is talking about drawing down troops. gordon brown is talking about taking it down next year, which is an election year. you can see the rhetoric and the political calculation. i think that the reality of the situation is that possible strategy but is supported by all of mainstream.

next year is going to be an intense time of pressure. we're the main driver for reform for pakistan and afghanistan. if you do not establish ourselves known as a potential government, we are going to withdraw and you will be get -- and you will get killed. the problem is that that will be borne and paid for by the troops on the ground. that is a sober moment. that is before you get into the issue on how stable in iraq is. >> next question. >> my question is for the panel at large. given the opening of copenhagen today, what is the panel's view on president obama's strategy

going to copenhagen, and emissions target that has not been drafted by domestic legislation? i am interestininterested to hee republican view is what the american responsibility will be if there is a definitive agreement at copenhagen when the president comes back? >> we spent about 50 minutes talking about politics and we have not talk yet about the environment. >> from the larger sense, the question of climate change comes down to, if there has been in constant in human history, it has been climate change. the real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all that. that is from the larger sense. i think our party will approach it as such, with the the notion that all of us wants to make

sure that we leave this planet a cleaner place. how we strike that balance, given the priority of getting this economy back on track, i think that will be central to any republican response. there is much reticence right now, obviously, from the capt. trade finance. -- from the cap and trade finance. it is an ill-conceived plan that will kill jobs. it is a huge detriment to the number one priority, which is getting americans back to work. >> would you like to comment on that? >> is hard to believe. i think it is going to be a test of american leadership because the rest of the world is going. if we educate our role as a leader in the world, as an economic leader, while we are fighting about the politics of

our congress and the u.s., then it will be a step back for our country. we have been out of this debate for too long. i do not hear from the party opposite any good ideas on how to solve this. cap and trade came from industry. it is supported by lots of american corporations. there are certainly losers here and they do not support it, but, more importantly, this is an international issue, a global issue. if we want to continue our slide from influence in world leadership, this would be a way to do it. >> you talked a lot about jobs.

we have seen the unemployment rate drop. then you talk about the set -- your thanksgiving table. i was just wondering if it was representative of the whole country. i feel like maybe it is not giving thank you. maybe the republican party, are we going to be able to see the republican party come together with the democratic party in 2010 and worked together on soe issues? >> any bipartisanship in 2010? >> first of all, i think all of us wants to get this economy back on track. going back to the stimulus discussion, we continue to profit are alternatives. there are discussions surrounding the health care bill right now. it is taking place behind closed

doors. there needs to be a mutual cooperation. it is in the minorities interest, especially when you have the majority holding power in the house and the senate and in the white house. it is certainly in our interest to work together to produce results. it is about jobs. it really is. there has been a constant drumbeat away from the priority of trying to say, look, we want to provide to small businesses access to credit. we want to promote investment again. it is the private sector that will be which brings the economy back. >> i believe it is going to be the private sector. but can you imagine? no one can predict how much

worse it would be if the government did not take the strong actions it did. in the great depression, unemployment was at 25%. 10% is way too high. people are suffering. it is very real. people who have jobs are afraid of losing them. but very bold steps were taken. people want to ignore that right now. they want to score points and that is what politics is about. some of those very real steps were taken by a republican president. >> the follow-up to that is that the steps that were taken in 2008 under the bush administration and those of us who supported that effort and tarp, that tried to arrest what was believed to be a potential collapse in the market, that was meant to be an emergency temporary step.

are we going to live up to the initial promise, saying that it was tempered, that they were taxpayer dollars and need to be paid back, or are you going to allow that to be some kind of permanent slush fund in this town to go where the political whim is? i would take the position that we need to go ahead and deliver the promise that it was a temporary emergency steps. >> we will have to break that particular conversation. let's go to our final predictions. allowed each of you to give a particular production -- i want each of you to give a particular prediction for 2010. >> i think we face a very real question about the overall direction of the economy, whether recovery is more

stagnant and there's always the potential of a double-dip recession. it is primarily a jobless recovery. that will be the big trend in politics next year. the question will be to say whether this is a zero suming game -- a zero sum game. right now, the big prediction is anti-incumbency. >> i think there will be a watershed. we're clearly going in a different direction next year than where we are now. for the first time, we will have leaders' debate during the election. >> i think 2010 will be the year

that the politics of the middle will be empowered. if not, yes to the extremes -- >> tell me what that means. >> that means moderate republicans and conservative democrats having a stronger voice in the debate, which i think you saw in the 1990's. the corollary is that, if that is not true, you will see that a third party will be sown and we will see it as early as the next election. >> the elections in 2010 will bring about the fact that the democrats will lose their majority in the u.s. house. i think that will happen because americans like a check and a balance on federal power. that is what we got right now. it is administered it through an agenda that is far out of mainstream from where people see this country. >> we will be here in a year's

time to see how that came about. in the meantime, thank all of our panelists. [applause] next, the successes and failures of the u.s. government. then, the house subcommittee discovers how terrorism is being used to recruit members. later on, author richard burr kaiser on the life of william f. buckley. >> beginning monday, a rare glimpse into america's highest

court threw unprecedented on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices about the court, their work, and the history of the iconic building. starting monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and get your own copy of the documentary on dvd. it is part of the american icons collection. this is one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. ç>> next, an author discusses e successes and failures of the u.s. government over the last 75 years. this is hosted by the commonwealth club in san francisco. it is just over an hour. >> i love the weather. i am pleased to be hereç tonigt with my friends and colleagues

and many relatives are here. my brother and his wife are in the back and a lot of my cousins. this really means a lot. >> if we can put a man on the moon, how many times have you heard that phrase? if you put a man on the moon, why can't we cure homelessness? it did not start off as a cliche. it started off as a challenge issued by president john f. kennedy. >> i believe that this nation should commit its silo to land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth. no single space project in this time will be more impressive to mankind or more important for

the long-range exploration of space. >> i usually give the presentation and a co-author does a wicked kennedy impression that usually gets a big ovation. it is an impossibleçç challen, but america pulled together. in july of 1969, neil armstrong planted a flag on the moon. the trip to the moon inspired a generation. no one who was alive at that time, and i know that a lot of you were a live band can forget that feeling of pride. most of you probably remember exactly where you were a time. it made an impact on every american, particularly the young, including our president, barack obama. he said that as a young boy, he

remembered growing up in hawaii, sitting on his grandfather's shoulders, and his grandfather explain how we can accomplish anything that we set our minds to do. who could argue that we could put a man on the moon. we had won world war ii and we built a national highway system. we were justifiably proud of our accomplishments. but is our government capable of executing our most important challenge. the brutal economic breakdown, and we're concerned about the ability to execute. political observers believe that we have a crisis. part of the book tour that i have been doing, as people mad at wall street and also at our

government. those who run our government's programs, our most senior executives, believe that we have a crisis. resurveyed individuals and 60% said that government is less capable of executing the it was 30 years ago. most people would ask who is to blame for the state of affairs. the answer depends on whose side you're on. it is a natural question to ask. but is it the right question to ask?

go to a local bookstore and a concurrent events section. i wanted us to appear -- and wanted ann coulter to appear on our book in a black mini dress. there is always the paperback version instead of who is to blame, we ask a different question. we ask why some big initiatives fail and why do some succeed? to answer that question, we studied more than 75 major undertaking since world war two to look for both great success and monumental failures. we looked at everything from the success of the marshall plan to the struggles of immigration reform. willett of the wars on poverty and inflation to the real wars in vietnam. when we look to these initiatives, we realized that to do it right would require a

small army of intelligent, thoughtful individuals who understood that and were willing to work for free. so, the answer was clear. we did grad students. with the help of more than 70 grad students, we decided to understand the factors between success and failure. the difference between a government that is mired in failure and a government that can succeed. we were looking for a path to success. michael walter and i bring a distinct perspective to this issue. john is an engineer by training. he develops process maps for making toast in the morning. like any good engineer, what john did was say that we needed to break this down into its discrete processes. we found that while they were all very different, these initiatives all day path.

a series of steps that we call the jury to success. there are a lot of ways that the initiative can win -- ken lynde -- can in the disaster. -- ended in disaster. this is when it goes through the legislature and recall that start date. that is because like the science fiction series, when you walk through the political star gate, a u.s. central travel forms -- from one universe to another universe which is a democratic universe there must be competent implementation and the initiative must generate its desired result. we used to this map and discovered that by simply visualizing it, helped

visualize the problems. consultants are often called in when an initiative is in the ditch and the need to get it out of it. i am also a bit of a pessimist. this map, while technically correct, it really does not reflect the real world that i see every day. i tend to look at all the possible problems to success. the potential for failure lurks everywhere. any time you do a major government initiative. we identified seven hidden pitfalls which are the seven deadly traps on this journey to success. we're not going to go through all seven of the traps today, but to learn about them, we have to read the book and which means you have to buy the book which is available afterwards.

if you take the process map, and you take the traps, and you put those together, then you have the actual matt that is a more realistic map of how to get things done in government. it was a little bit like that. there are actually copies of a man behind you. -- of the map behind you. this pogo-copter was a bad idea. new coke was a bad idea. a really bad idea was gerald ford's whip inflation now buttons. these buttonsçó were designed to actually be how we with double digit inflation. have the ideas like this come

into play? well, ideas are the first phase in the process. you cannot have a successful initiative if you have a bad idea. bad ideas generally become reality when they are not exposed to criticism. this phenomenon is called poe's story syndrome. it is the biggest trap. it occurs when people shut themselves off from those that think differently than they do. eight years ago, a professor at the university of georgia study how the brain works. he wanted to conduct an experiment. he had art of republicans and ardent democrats-ardent republicans and ardent democrats watched the debate. while they watched the debate, he had their heads wired so that he could monitor their brains.

they were wired up to an mri machine. çweston found that republicans thought that bush had won and democrats thought had -- thought that carey had one and both sides ignored it when their guy was consistent -- inconsistent. what's the private -- what was surprising was that the part of the brain that was activated during the debate was not the thinking part, but the emotional part those few in the debate were not thinking at all. they were just pulling for their guy. now, this phenomenon is called confirmation bias. it is when we are not open to new thinking. it causes a lot of problems. just think about the world that we are living in today. i]it confirms our views rather than informs them.

if you look at the root of all our problems today, this is one of the things that we found, time and time again. how do you fix this? >> the answer is to expose these ideas to new ways of thinking. it is kind of like having an engineer and a consultant look at the same problem. that is the approach that was used. my family grew up in a suburb of lake michigan. we were about 1 mile from the beach. my family was crazy about the beach. we absolutely love going to the beach, but throughout most of my childhood, we never actually got to go to the beach because it was covered in dead fish. why was it covered in dead fish? because of something called acid rain. acid rain occurs when coal burning plants send a solution into the atmosphere, it goes up

into the clouds where it gets absorbed and then goes hundreds of miles and lands somewhere else. it kills lakes and rivers and the animals and wildlife within it. it was the biggest environmental issue of the 1980's, so you think something would be done about it. unfortunately, the debate had fallen into two camps. you had environmentalists who wanted to eliminate all pollution. you had a business interest on the other side that believed that regulation would actually killed jobs and put them out of business. each of them was locked into their world view. they did not disagree. they despise each other. 70 bills were offered in congress to address acid rain. not a single one made it out of congress into this quagmire came to seven -- two senators.

here is how they broke through. they brought in economists to look at the problem. the economists were actually from a think tank out here in san francisco. it is the environmental defense fund. they took this out of the new round of the absolutist on each side. they looked at like economics problem. other economists in the room? you know what they say about economies, don't you? economists are really good with numbers, but the lack of personality to become engineers. [applause] [laughter] >> the cap the level and then

they left it up to the market to decide how to me that pollution level, not the epa or the california department of environmental quality. energy producers could then use any means they wanted to get under that cap. it was workable. it was acceptable to both sides. it was one of the biggest environmental successes of recent decades. it resulted in a 40% reduction of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions and most importantly, by the time my little brother tim along, our home town beach was free of dead fish. overcoming the syndrome is all about listening. we think that we know the answer and we close off all of these avenues of exploration.

in the 1990's, california had a problem the economy was in a slump. it was in part, due to an energy crisis. gov. wilson had an idea. what if we replaced government monopolies with a competitive market the goal was a energy cost savings. competition -- deregulation was largely successful in the 1970's. it be a result would depend on how was designed. the design of the new electricity market was really quite simple. power generators had toi] -- not

many people understood how word. but do you know who figured out how this whole system would work? who figured it out? in run -- enron. they and a few other firms felt they knew better than the regulators. they used schemes with cute names such as ricochet, fat boy, and death star. the could take electricity out of california and into nevada and in making huge profits for doing nothing at all.

in the summer of 2000, the crisis hit. you all know how the story goes from here. you all lived through it. there is a heat wave. they got up to about 109 degrees in san jose and they recorded the highest temperatures you had ever seen an energy demand shot up and the lights went out. the weird phenomenon of rolling blackouts become a feature of life in california and in silicon valley, the global center of high technology had their electricity supply -- had the electricity supply of a third world nation. electricity prices skyrocketed. just two years into the law, after the law had been passed, a total meltdown resulted in billions of dollars lost by consumers and billions of dollars were lost by the state. gov. gray davis was kicked out of office. how did such a bill -- bless

you. çhow did a bill become law? >> that is where the process gets really scary. why? because it was an exemplary process. they had hearings and meetings and they visited other jurisdictions. there was bipartisan cooperation. they worked until late at night and they did such a good job of the law passed unanimously, 98- 0. as you know, nothing passes legislature unanimously. nobody voted against it. what was the problem? they did not designed to work in the real-world. they saw themselves as crafting a bill that would pass and wanted to see that they got as many votes as they could get and put an awful stuff to make everyone happy. the different parts did not work together as a system.

the design would not hold up to the likes of enron. california electricity deregulation points to a big factor behind many large government failures. at the root of many implementation failures that you read about actually lies at the design phase. we surveyed members of the national academy of public ministration and this is what they told us. only 16% said that federal government designs policies that can be implemented. we see very similar results elsewhere. it turns out that if you want to get a senior executive really animated, all you need to do is ask them about the policy design process. this is what they told us. they said it is pathetic. there is a gap between communication and understanding. it is dictated part -- -- top down.

there is a big problem here. what is the cause of this? >> civil servants will say it is the politicians. politicians will say it is the bureaucrats. what we found was that neither one is the case. the problem is the gap between the two. that is a gap that has gotten bigger in recent years. this wall of separation has a lot of problems. one of them is that if you are in the policy side of the process, success for you equating getting a bill passed. that is success. but the real goal is way down . nowhere is this more apparent that our for decades quest for independence. president ford signed a laww3. the goal was energy independence.

the results, by 1980, net imports were 400,000 barrels per day higher than the were in 1973. in 1978, president carter signed the national energy act. we did not quite get to 20%. by 2000, the sun provided 0.007% of all the energy in the u.s.. in 2005, president bush signed the energy policy act. the results was the energy independence act of 2007. getting through the legislature is a milestone, but you do not get the ticker tape parade until the results actually roll in. if you forget this, you will end up drowning in a river of failure.

that is not a place that you want to be. our next phase is the implementation phase. the biggest trap in this phase is overconfidence. this often occurs when really smart, capable people become overconfident in their abilities and they failed to prepare for all the rest. -- prepare for all the rest -- prepare for all the rest this is a lot tougher than it looks. the key to avoiding failure is to take failure seriously. anyone who has ever done every have on your house knows that you should take out a loan for $40,000 and moved in with your in-laws.

that is how to be successful. let me give you a quick story. if you are like me, few things get you more frustrated than sitting in traffic. there is one proven way to increase -- reduce traffic congestion and that is to charge people for using the road at rush hour. economists have been talking about for decades. no one wants to actually pay for the roads that they feel like they have already paid for. the result is that member is qq(÷çcities talkedç about a cn charge for decades butw3 no one had actually done it because they could not get past the star gate. ççby the 1990's, traffic was o bad in london that it was moving at the same speed -- at lower speeds and when they had carriages in the victorian age. then the convergence of events occurred, the most important,

the election of a new mayor. he is unapologetically a man of the left. he counts fidel castro and hugo java's as amongç his closest friends. çóhe made a sport of antagonizig margaret thatcher while she was prime minister. he had the most unlikely profile you could imagine of a candidate of someone who would adopt a market where pricing project. embrace it he did because it conform with his environmental use. so, there are many of ways to do this. think of the times that it has been proposed in san francisco. it would impact a lot of people's lives and had to be done all at once, not street by street. it had never been done on this scale before.

his political advisers told him not to do it. if it did not work, he could kiss his next term goodbye. the media said it would be an unmitigated disaster. there was a " form a rabbi that said bet my synagogue was bombed during the war, but livingston will do more damage than the germans. but he did not panic. he took failure seriously. he and his team took a lot of extraordinary steps to make sure that this went well. they tested and a planned and they tested again. there were fanatical about looking at every possible risk. two weeks before the launch, they had a dry run. it was kind of like one to put the control room to the test.

it was kind of like a preseason game, but with pads on. they would get calls to respond to potential crises. the day of war games started at 7 atm. the team had just sat down for coffee and suddenly a call comes them. a major traffic accident caused a backup. the team is ready for it. vehicles entering the zone are electronically flag and will not be if charged. then another call. again, they were ready and they had a backup computer system. it went like that all along. but they were ready for it and there were able to handle everything that was thrown at them. justin case, before the launch, they sent a womanç to walk the

entire route, 26 miles armed with a pin and a piece of paper and her assignment was to make sure that nothing was going to happen without them knowing about it. it was 5:30 a.m., the day of the launch. mayor livingston steps out of his flat and he is mobbed by photographers. they all want a picture of the mayor on the day that they believe will be his waterloo. but the day did not end in disaster. it ended in triumph. everything went smoothly. there was not a single glitch. the streets were eerily quiet that day. remember those gloom and doom headlines, will here are the headlines the day after the launch. >> he told me that those

headlines for the best days of his life. in livingston milliken had a tragic ending. as the mayor put it, nothing in public life has turned out better that he hoped for until now. this brings us to the last phase of the journey. that is the results face. that means we're near the end of the speech. recall the greek myth about sisyphus pushing a rock uphill. those who work in government know that the public sector hill is tough. the hillç is steeper in the private sector. okyou have culture, politics, incentives, it justsmakes a uniquely challenging. ççthe sisyphus meth --xçç mys

that it ist( -- to succeed requiresç havingçç people whe deeply skilled at navigating the public sector terrain. ççi like the thick of theseç people as the indiana jonesi] of government because when they see the goldenççóççç idolçççd to be. çthe people likeç this,çóç to not look very much like indiana jones. xddwight was a guy that was an unsung hero. he was the guy behind all the ;çó;çw3attention. he worked at a senior level for seven consecutive american

presidents. he isçç now in his 80s and the pictures that you see on his wall of the pictures of the great people in history. çhe helped eisenhower ride the nuclear test ban treaty and he was there when kennedy signed it. he was the guy that lbj turned to to lead the alaska earthquake recovery. if all of you remember, it was the biggest earthquake in north american history. the white toldç mexd that he ws watching theñr newsç and he sad that he felt sorry for the personçxdqt( who was 4 1/2 to s thing back togetherç again. two days later, he got a call from lbjkt(ççççççzvw3is ñrqhe was inç chargew3çççt(w

reform for jimmy carter. çdçi]çw3çççronald reagant him in charge ofk shutting down the first federal agency to be shut down in 50 years. it was not aç pleasantç task a civil servant, but he got the job done. okxdhe was even kidnap once by colombian drugçóokçóçççç loe leading the war on drugs. the suit after he retired -- one story i love aboutç white is tt was first elected and they did not have the nationalxd security council completely done, so what wasçko sitting in on a treaty. i]w3ççóççw3w3in (1qq meetinr schlesinger wasç there and he s the president's historian and was close to theç kennedy fami. white was arguing forçç the tt ban treaty and sausage or was

arguing against it and they got into a heated argument and why whençq back and tender his resignation. he figured thatç the kennedys are one to want him around anymore. this hold over the has been arguing with someone so close to the family. the funniest thing was, during this meeting, who was looking -- bobby kennedy looked over and he was watching this and sodalite said that he wasn't so much trouble and he thought he would have to have another career. . . ;

. >> it is a pleasure for me to be invited to this event. as a guy who works in this liberal city i am sincere because it is a pleasure for me to be invited anywhere. it does not happen very often. [laughter] [applause] to give you an idea of the strange existence a conservative has in the city, for the longest time, the offices of "national

review" was located above a rap music studio. the most interesting part of this juxtaposition is when the weather would get warmer and we would open up the windows, this unmistakable odor would waft up and i regret to tell you that " national review" has been produced in a haze of marijuana smoke. thank you for being here tonight. bill buckley said it was a remarkable stylistic performance. pretty much everything he does is a remarkable stylistic performance. he can knock your socks off with a one line e-mail. please look forward to an

extremely elucidating and entertaining evening. thanks for being with us. let's start off and go through the narrative flow of the book. >> my family discovered him in the late 1960's. the first means of it was television. he hosted a tv show called firelin"firing line." through most of its life it was an hour of political talk. it was a very simple format. two chairs and a table. it was a simpler day of television, no bells and whistles. now top 10 lists or anything. it was just him and one guest

and he would give them applied introduction and it would go at it. we first watched it as a sporting event without attending to the content so much. we also got drawn into that as a result of seeing the -- we also got into that. as a result of seeing the television show, we subscribe to the magazine. we bought a copy of his third book. every issue. it had come out in 1959 so this was a reissued paperback. we have seen him and read his book. -- before 1969 before the idea came to me.

i had written a letter to my brother about an interesting day in my high-school and what this was, there were vietnam war protests in 1969. it was called the moratorium against the vietnam war. this was mostly a college thing. there were going to be teach- ins' and kids would cut classes and so on. we decided to imitate this and -- some kids decided to imitate this and i thought it was wrong. i wrote him a letter every weekend, mostly what happened during the week. it was mostly high-school plays and basketball games. this time i wrote about moratorium day. he said that was a funny one. my father said why don't you send that to the national review?

i changed the letter a little bit and i sent it off. we were completely uninformed about journalism. we knew note journalists or anything about journalism except we concerned it -- we consumed it. i assumed they did not like it. they did not -- teacher it away and this is what magazines do. i got a letter from a man who was the managing editor. i just cleaned off my desk and found your magazine and i learned that is what magazines do. >> nothing changes. i read it and i like it, he said. we would like to publish it. that was great. it was like a rush, you know. who would have thought -- i must

have thought because i sent it off. i did not think, what really happened, it was like, my god. >> when it entered your mind that you might become a journalist? >> i think i always wanted to be a writer. i thought i would write fiction. that is what i read. we all read fiction in school. we read the traditional novels that are assigned to kids in high school like "david copperfield." i also read on my own and most of it was fiction. i thought i would be a novelist. instead of doing that, here was something else that i had actually finished. it was a completed thing. someone said i like this and

they published it and they paid me for it. so then, i guess maybe -- >> but not much. >> $180 is what i was paid. i did think to myself for many years that "national review" was in violation of the 19th amendment which prevents indentured servitude. it is $180 better than nothing. i was 14 or 15 years old when it came out. i never got paid for anything apart from mowing the lawn or selling lemonade. $180, that was cool. that certainly was the beginning of thinking maybe this is the real thing to do. not writing novels. how did you stay in touch after that? >take us to the next step.

>> everybody at "national review" i dealt with was very encouraging. i got a letter from one of his older sisters and she was the managing editor. i got a postcard which was a three by five postcard. it had scrawled on it hardly legible something like nice job. as you know, everybody who wrote anything for any issued -- and the issue got those cards but they were very nice to get. it was a nice courtesy. that encouraged me. i sent other pieces when i was in high school.

some were rejected but some are published. there was one occasion when i sent a letter when i was in college. i sent him this letter describing some [unintelligible] i got a call from my brother who was in high school. what he had done was writwrote a column and said i want you to read a letter i got from someone in college. >> if you would write me a letter of 650 words it would make my job easier. >> as i had gone on in life i see the self-interest in that generosity. it was -- this was a surprise

attack of approval. attack of approval. then i learned there was a young going to law school. it was the defaulting. we would all go to law school. i took the law boards and i have no gift for law. none at all. now interest. i was on that track. i was corresponding with

priscilla. she said what are you put off law for year and come to the "national review". and that summer has gone on longer. >> what was national review like at that time? >> among the causes was the defense of capitalism. which we did very intelligently. the bill was very savvy about economics. about to as well as a layman can. we were a pre capitalist institution. it was like buckleyland and the ruler was bill buckley. that was clear to everybody. he was a benign ruler. he was certainly an unchecked

one. there were no checks and balances there. he ruled that by charisma. and by generosity and geniality. he made it fun to work there. he did not rule it by paying people a lot of money. i do not want to poor mouth it. it was a little magazine. it was not like working for conde nast. the offices then, you remember them. there were at 150 east 35th street and the polite word to describe them was dickensian. they were kind of ratty. it was billed as an apartment

building. i do not know of had been used as an apartment building but it had small rooms, lots of bathrooms. little rooms. >> it was like working in an escher painting. >> one shortcut which bill and priscilla made use of, there was a dumb waiter that ran between her office and bill's office on the third. they used this to send manuscripts and notes to each other. i remember priscilla had a bell on her desk that was shaped like a turtle. when she had something for bill she pressed the head and it rang. she would send this thing up in the dumb waiter. >> you cannot make this stuff up. >> he would send it back. there was something very honey about it -- homey about it. bill was a star. he was a celebrity. that is something that happens.

one thing that happens when celebrities died [unintelligible] and bring them back. if they exist on film as bill does, the television shows, you can youtube them and hoover institute is reissuing them. that makes it easier. also, memoirs are coming out. mine is not the only one. there will be probably several shells of william buckley books in the next 10 years. he was just a star.

comics had imitations of him. you also got the kind of aura of that i've been in his presence. if you were walking along the street with him are getting out of his car with him, there was -- people are looking in our direction. there were now looking at me. there were looking at him. you still got to -- i am walking with him a sort of feeling. it was exciting. >> you say there were not checks and balances on his benign dictatorship. who were the other key players at that time? >> the two people he relied on to make his career go were his sister priscilla which was the managing editor and his

secretary and assistant francis bronson. france's bronson was the regular of his life. she made sure that everything there was supposed to happen happened. at the peak, there was hundreds of things. the tv shows he did, all the writing assignments he had, the speeches he gave, the appearances, the parties, this, that, and the other thing. she told the story many times that there was one phone call from bill fenty have a list of things she should do. it was 13 things and then when he got to the 13 he went back to number one and said has that been done yet, not realizing they had not high up the phone and given her the chance to do it. she made that happen. he relied -- priscilla had real

world journalistic experience because she worked for united press in new york and paris. a lot less intellectual types that the magazine had not really had. she knew some nitty gritty things that maybe bill did not. she also shared his views and his tastes. he could safely go to europe every winter to ski and write the book and leave the magazine in her hands. he knew she would not do something crazy. he could trust her. >> in terms of the political context of that time, how would you characterize the general tenor of things at "national review"? was it joyously in battle or optimistically embattled or we are doomed? >> the mid to late 1970's were horrible. i think they were a horrible time. >> we know the feeling,

unfortunately. >> worse. it was really worse. nixon, who we had never wholeheartedly supported but supported to an extent had come to the ending that he had come to. ford we felt was weak. carter we felt was weak and bad. the soviet union seemed to be picking up, they were getting park place here and hotels and assets, it was like monopoly. cuban troops were running the portuguese empire in africa. that is so weird to say that now. it is likely colonization. cuban troops took over the portuguese empire when the portuguese gave it up in the mid-1970s. energy shocks, stagflation, all

kinds of stuff. i think the mood was embattled. the mood changes when ronald reagan wins in 1980 but those first few years were grim. >> when you were asked "national at "national review" in those years you were experiencing his full charm which is a mixed billblessing. talk about that a little. >> the biggest blast of it i got, the biggest bolt was one day when he took me to lunch. i had been at the magazine a year and i was 23 years old. he takes me to lunch and he says, "rick, i have decided you will succeed me as editor. he also said when that happens you will all the magazine.

-- own the magazine. i was flabbergasted. there was no preparation for this. no hands or anything i picked up. i had older colleagues. i asked him one of this one or that one and he had various reasons. he said it is going to be you. so and then to reinforce this a year later, he took me, he said, "let talk." and that that were going to lunch but instead we go to mexico city. and then to tasco. that was his idea of going around the corner. then he sort of emphasized the offer. it was a way of underlining the offer.

this was to be the plan of my life at age 23. i accepted it. i was very young. i accepted it without demur. that was how young i was. that was the framework for everything i did for the next nine years until i was 32. i was managing editor by this time. i came back to work after lunch one day and there was a letter addressed to me from bill. it said confidential. i opened it and he says, i have decided you are not going to succeed me. you do not have executive flare. and then he went on to expirexpn what he meant. i thought i had torn up that ladder. i have a vivid memory of tearing up that ladder and the waste

basket. i could have sore right toward up. when i was getting ready to write the book, i have folders and paper sitting around and i found it. i found the original letter. my memory played me false. so then -- i have to figure out what am i going to do with my life now but i have to figure out what do i do with this man? who has been my -- the man who attacked me and has untapped me, so how do i relate to this guy? >> how did you relate to him? tell us how you process your view of bill in light of this information about him, what you had gained in what would strike most people as a tremendously cruel act in some ways?

>> certainly the way he did it was. i think he was largely, maybe even mostly right in his judgment. about executive flair. i think i have some. >> every time i hear this story, do i have executive flair? >> my wife helped. she was a sex therapist. she gave him a were shot card. we had them for dinner. -- she was a psychotherapist. she gave him a rorschach card.

she believes it is a useful and powerful diagnostic tool. she brought one card which she showed to both of them. and i do not remember what pat saw although he said she was wrong. she saw two things and she told him one. he used teh whithe white space. which is rare. she said, that means oppositional temperament. he was confirming in how he read this card.

what she did not tell him was he did not use the color at all. just did not use it. that means detach from your emotions. or can mean. which bill could be. not always obviously. he could be. i had@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d

success himself so he was always looking for other people -- young people. there is a list of them. he was very good at finding them. i guess that made he relive his own youthful start. it was generous and it showed his eye for talent. he could see you're going to be famous may be and pick you out. -- famous maybe and pick you up. my wife and i went to india and i got -- they thought it was malaria. i was just so sick when i came back. i had to stop in london and go to the hospital for tropical diseases and it turned out to be some bug that was easily quelled. when i get home, i find this big box in the lobby of my

apartment building and it was an electric piano that bill had said. i called him to thank him and he brushed past the facts and rushed past and said this is a really fine piano. it really sounds like a piano. he started talking about the technical details. he was saying, do not go away. i know you are pissed so i do not want to lose you. he made this the way he made his efforts. the where i made my efforts as i stayed and stayed writing for him. i shared my riding with him -- writing with him. that is how we inched back together. >> to pick up the narrative, you talked about how horrible the mid 1970's were and then we had reagan. when did you -- did bill realize

this is going to happen? we were going to elect our dream cast it -- candidate? >> i did not think we knew until the second ave with carter. it looked like it would be a close election. up to that second debate with carter went reagan said there you go again. i did not know what -- that was the game changer. i made a bet on what the electoral college vote would be and i thought it would be close. then when the white about victory in the electoral college happens, there was great elation. we bought an ad in the new york times fo, for "national review"t

was a mind-boggling extravagance. we have this picture of reagan reading "national review" on an airplane. let's say i got my job through "national review". [laughter] we had to learn that this was not the millennium. reagan would be unable and sometimes unwilling to do everything we thought he should and we had to live with that disappointment which is realism. but we have to live with that. i remember there was -- reagan cut taxes and then he had to in his second year or second or third year, he had to raise them back up because there was a bad recession and there was a political -- politically, it was necessary to raise some taxes.

we thought this was wrong. he should not do it. there was a meeting between james baker, the -- was the chief of staff then? and bill and the editors. and it left a very sour taste in my mouth. here was bill, the public man i had admired most in the world and was close to end here was baker who was this operator. he was not listening at all. this was just stroking. i am not so politically savvy but i could tell that's what this was. it was good to see that. to see that is how things are sometimes. >> you will hear it said that in the 1980's, once conservatives took power, the magazine lost

some of its intellectual oomph. is there something to that? >> it would not be because of people taking power. as people age and retire and die, they always have to be replaced. there're always moments of transition where we are mourning the people we lost and we do not yet realize that the replacements are as good as they are or perhaps they are not as good as it will become. james mbyrnum, one of his right hands and he had a stroke before reagan took office and that was a serious loss. byrnum the very serious column

about the cold war which ran in every issue. he just had all level of analysis and also imperviousness to fads and panics. you know how powerful those are. he just would not feel them. it would just roll off his back and he would keep his eye on the ball. and losing him was a great loss. it is always wrong to look for the replacement. because there never is. never an exact replacement of anybody. you have to find other people who do very different things or somewhat different things. there is always that kind of -- you think what would the perfect "national review" be? yupik people from the perfect era. -- you pick people from the perfect pair of. >> we have 10 or 15 more minutes

of us chatting. i would like to hit some particular aspects of bill and get some thoughts on political figures and we will end our discussion on some of your thoughts on the current political environment. you mentioned pat buckley. what role did she have in his life? >> i think she helped him gain entre to a certain society. buckleys were a rich family. she was a stylish woman who was a figure in new york society. she was also quite a lively person. one of my favorite memories of her was towards the end -- >> that is a way of saying she was terrifying.

mayor bloomberg came to an editorial dinner. he was in full campaign in smoking in public places. pat's was one of the glass tables in new york that had monogrammed matchbooks. this will soon be a crime. she had these. she did not blow a puff of smoke into the mayor's face but was pretty close to the mayor's face and, mr. mayor, man spoke in my own house? that is a mild example of what she could do. >> talk about bill as a writer. you have surprisingly mixed things to say about him as a writer. >> i never liked his fiction

particularly. i just never did. it was john r. fiction -- genre fiction. i think some genre fiction is wonderful. certain things i love. bill's spy novels ever did that for me. bill was a mster o master of th syndicated column. he wrote a lot of them. if you get the best of those, that is a murderer's row and they are so varied. they can be analytical or appreciative or on the attack, they can be melancholic, he had a lot of different voices that he could summon. he could also do lager essays

very well. but i remember one -- it was about the effective end of the latin mass in the catholic church and how that paid him. it was a very moving column. i was reading this from the outside. it was filled -- it was a mournful column about this, very powerful. he could do essays. about truman capote's black and white ball. bill did that and he was a guest

but he brings it alive. here is why everyone is talking about it. >> talk about bill as a new york figure. how important his run for mayor was and how important his new yorkness was. >> his run for mayor, it was in part a stung and tt and to get e brand out there. the brand of himself. he worked in the city. he had an apartment in the city. he lived a lot of his life here. the way the city was in the mid- 1960's was the beginning of the long decline that really went right up until 1993. he just said, this is lousy and it is not inevitable.

it is because we're doing things wrong. here are the things we're doing wrong and we ought to do them better. he was taking -- it was a stunt but it had a serious court. he was saying my city does not have to be this way. if we just free ourselves from certain shibboleths we can figure out ways to do with our -- do with our problems. he was having fun. what will you do if you win? demand a recount. there were these jokes teammate. he was seriously advancing the case which, by the way, the attitude of most conservatives, barry goldwater said, why don't we saw it off and let it float

off to see? -- to sea? that was an example of bill's openness and flexibility. he felt it was a problem that ought to occupy him because this is where it was. he was not going to turn his gaze away. being built, he had a practical side. the city-state's. here is how to make it better. >> some thoughts about political figures, your thoughts on figures and their role in postwar conservatism. barry goldwater. >> he was -- what a handsome man. that was very important. he was the hero. the heroic -- i still use extremism [unintelligible]

terrible political judgment but what a great thing to say. >> richard nixon? >> when bill clinton was president, my wife is a liberal democrat. i would always tell her, nixon was my problem, clinton is yours. nixon destroyed himself. he destroyed himself. his hatred destroyed himself. and took a lot of conservative energy down with him to say nothing of southeast asia and millions of people. never forget that. millions of people. the first editorial i firstfo wrote for "national review", th ere was a jesuit that said the khmer rouge killed thousands.

that was a lowball. it was also nixon bringing himself down. it was the final piece of that. >> reagan. >> reagan, the two things he did, you cannot do many things. you can do two things as president. the two things he did was he stopped the economic slump and he did say, i forget now who he said this to. here is my strategy for the cold war. we win, they lose. and he set in place for the conditions in which that happen. >> jack kemp. >> it was so thrilling to be in his presence. he was so ebullient and energetic. i think he kind of went off some

of the rails with some of his ideas. he could also like the sound of his own voice. he could also think, i am the only person in the party understands the problems of black people and there was back patting, but what a high spirited man. >> george w. bush. >> i am going to say what i said at washington and lee shortly after -- just before he left office. i was giving a talk and there was a dinner with contributors. they were asking me not as a conservative but as a historian. what about this guy? very - group of people. i said, if presidents are stocks, buy george w. bush. if it moves at all it is going to go up. it cannot go down. i said more seriously, look at

grant. he was in the cellar for 100 years and he did not deserve to be there. he was put there by elite historians like henry adams to thought he used the wrong forks, he was put there by a completely converted racists who were the dunning school and they were southerners and it was "the birth of a nation" with footnotes. the insurgents one. i think bush, we will see. he made it possible for the insurgents to lose in his war. >> barack obama? >> i went down to the inauguration. i was doing that for "the

newshour." there was a historic quality to that which can never be taken away. it is one thing but it is a very important thing. the quality became more real because he was elected president. there is the rest of his term. what do we do today, mr. president? i think we're seeing problems that he has gotten himself into and i imagine we will see many more of them. he is in an interesting position after his afghanistan speech, which is that his supporters on that will be his enemies, and his opponents are his base. that is a tricky position for a

politician and we will see how that plays out. >> sarah palin? >> i will give you cole porter. you have got that thing that makes the birdies for get to get to sing. she has something. i was dismayed when she quit as governor of alaska. she is running -- she has had executive experience but why does she cut it off? why does she chopped off and foreclose a? because she is seeking the toughest executive job in the country, arguably in the world. how do you explain that? what are you offering that can possibly compensate for that?

having that thing, i do not think that is enough in and of itself. we're going to have to see more and we will have to seek a lot more because of the decision she made. >> one last question and we will open it up. we have seen one book written declaring conservatism dead. how troubled is intellectual conservatism at the moment? >> there are always winners and losers. in my other life as a historian, i spend a lot of time in the 17 nineties and the early 19th century, up to the war of 1812. some historians call that the age of passion. i have said that from this stage in a different context. if you really want to feel not so bad about politics now and level of discourse, go back and read about the 79 days and

1800's and 18-teens. they were foaming oat the mouth. jefferson thought hamilton was a monarchist and british agent. jefferson went to his grave believing that. the reason people thought that is they did not yet know that you could lose and then win. the constitution said what it said and everyone believed elections would keep going but you have to experience it before you believe it. and now we know. you can lose but then you get another shot. 2006 was a terrible beating and 2008 was another one. the world does not end so you do

the right thing and go back and keep coming back. >> great. thanks so much. [applause] do we have a mic? >> thanks. a follow-up to your last question. you mentioned hamilton and jefferson. there were towering intellectuals. what would william f. buckley think today about monumentally ignorant people like sarah palin and glen echo supposedly speak for conservatives? that is one of the most depressing aspects of the discourse today. the disdain for intellectualism and thinking that people like sarah palin and glenn back represent. >> palin is in a different

category because she is a politician. william buckley was never a politician. he ran for mayor of new york but he never won an office. intellectuals in office have a very mixed track record. thomas jefferson's presidency is a mixed bag and so is james madison's. woodrow wilson's was a disaster. they are different skill sets. we would not expect our politicians and mostly they do not perform at the level of discourse of our and intellectuals. glenn beck is another thing. the media always changes. when i started off, it was three networks and pbs. daily newspapers were important

things. i remember "lief"anfe" and "loo magazine. "time" magazine had content which it does not have any more. "the economist" is still recognizably what it was like in 99 -- 1976 and 1977. "time" and "newsweek" are going donw. th-- going down. the world of media changes. you do not have to track its every mutation. it is an attractive to wring your hands and say woe is us. the answer to the political

thing is do the right thing yourself. build it and they will come. >> another question. >> whichi havdo you agree with e will when he said [unintelligible] and there would not be a "national review" if there was not a william buckley? >> yes. >> what do you think about chris buckley? >> he is a friend an an editor -- and an editor of mine. i wrote for him and i noticed he

sent out 3 by 5 cards every time i wrote a piece and i thought, that is very nice to see that being carried on. chris was writing about his parents'deaths and i waparents'g about bill's life. two different books. >> i first read "conscience of the conservative" at 14. in the course of my life i watched conservatism ormorph and it reached its pinnacle with ronald reagan. would you agree that conservatism has changed in

appearance and is that a good thing or bad thing? >> i think there was a very depressing consequence of republicans who were most of them, not all of them, most of them taking over the house in 1994. and running the house till 2006. and the consequence was corruption. and it was just getting too used to be there and it was all othe k street connections. who was the congressman who strangled his mistress? >> mayor bower so many of them. -- there were so many of them. [laughter] >> don't strangle your

mistress. you can saw we should have known this might happen because humans are humans and men are men but it is good to -- you have to take them as lessons. they are disasters but you have to make lessons of them and to remind yourself, ok, these are the temptations. do not do it next time. knowing that many will fail. hopefully some rather than many. the big change which we are still trying to adjust to was the fall of soviet communism. i think you cannot best -- cannot underestimate what an organizing principle that was for so much. when it fell in 19901 -- 1989

and 1991, i thought i would never see that. when i looked at the national " herald tribune" and the headline was "communism's collapse." it was inconceivable. adjusting to that. what is our role in the world? how should we take saddam hussein? these became questions. and then 9/11. my reaction to 9/11 was, this is the rest of my life. this is the 30 years' war. i am not going to see the end of it. we could argue about that. that is what i believe. we are still trying to figure out what are the implications of that and what should the

strategy be. one thing jim did over and over was not just to say that communism is evil but how do we fight it? what is our strategy and we are still grappling with this. here is this for us. it is very different from the soviet union. the soviet union never killed 3000 new yorkers. it never did. it is different. how you wrap your mind around that? what do you do? these are -- i am not going to give you the answer now. no one is going to give it to me or anyone. this is a process of grappling with this. >> we have time for another question. let's go all the way back up here. i will add to what rick said. the political expression of conservatism is going to change. . .

>> he was very impressed much a book by claude brown. a lot of it was about heroin use in harlem. he came out when he was running for mayor with some very anti- drug statement or proposal, and he got a postcard from milton friedman. he explained why this was wrong.

this was something build lot about and wrestled with, and not just marijuana, he added an issue in the magazine called "the war on drugs is lost." it was a symposium. he was passing this judgment on the whole thing. i think his judgment was that yes, marijuana has that effect. they are not truly worse than alcohol, and we waste a lot of resources and generate a lot of hypocrisy and capricious law- enforcement by pursuing its offenders. this came into my life in 1992 when i had cancer and had to go through chemotherapy.

chemotherapy always always -- almost always creates nausea, and i found myself using marijuana to deal with that. i think bill's wrestling with this issue helped me indirectly. it prepared the intellectual grounds for it. i know i certainly had no problem writing about this, working for "national review." bill wrote a column about it. the only time it affected my worked, you will remember dan quayle was the elder bush's vice-president. he had gotten off to a very bad start, it never shook the reputation that he was not smart. the 1992 race was heating up, and people were just in despair and panicking. a crazy idea was running around, bush to dump quayle from the ticket and pick somebody else and that will revive his

fortunes. i thought this was a crazy idea, if for nothing else, that seeming desperate is worse than desperation. for that reason alone. i had just come out of the hospital and i was still in mind marijuana haze. i was in the state of mind where this donor just kind of observe the world -- where the stoner just kind of observe this the world. maybe i could have put in a [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

on the obama family's holiday vacation, and a look at how and where priest presidents have vacationed. >> in the mid 1990's, "newsweek" named omar wasow one of the most interesting people to watch. sunday night he talks about his current studies at harvard and what's ahead on c-span's q & a. >> friends and colleagues of late senator kennedy joined at the library to discuss the senator's legacy. they were joined by the senator's widow, vicki kennedy.

this is just over an hour. [applause] >> that evening. -- that evening. on behalf of the chair of the kennedy library foundation board of directors and the chair of the board of the edward m. kennedy institute, i thank you for coming to this very special forum and thank those watching on c-span or listening on the radio. for me this fall will forever be a sacred space, the site chosen by senator kennedy himself and then duly consecrated by the tens of thousands who came to pay their last respects to him while he was lying in reposed in the center of this room.

it was an honor for all of us associated with this institution to work with the centers legendary staff, many of whom are here with us tonight, and to be part of those hallowed days in august. when people ask me how we did, i give the credit to senator kennedy's wife vicki. restrengthen dignity and the indefatigable graciousness year extended begin extended emboldened all of us as a grieving nation. [applause] miers rolle this evening is to explain how the forum and book signing -- my role this evening is to explain how the forum and book signing will unfold.

the lowell institute and the boston foundation. our focus this evening is senator kennedy was the legendary life, extraordinary career, and enduring legacy, especially as told through his best selling memoir, ago true, was." mrs. kennedy has -- his memoir, "true compass." with such an outstanding and array of speakers to hear from, i will be brief in my introduction. additional by graphic liberation is listed in your program. doris kearns goodwin has endeared herself to this library and are wider audience would prefer groundbreaking history, her many appearances on this stage, discussing her most recent book, honoring arthur

schlesinger, or moderating a conversation with her husband, richard goodwin, who served in the kennedy administration. as a lover of personal memoirs, it is the image of her childhood to which i am drawn in those bleak october days when the red sox fall short, recalling the heartbreaking season ending losses she endured as a young fan of the brooklyn dodgers. as her title suggests, are riding in historical commentary are refused by our own balance optimism weather in baseball or of -- or politics, she leaves us with hope that we only have to wait until next year for another chance of winning season for the advancement of a political ideal.

they invariably find that michael knows more about the subject and they do. michael said, now you see why i am so much fun to in addition to being an author nine books, he has served this institution as a member of our profile in courage award committee. there was an anecdote where he maquette a massachusetts attorney. he explained he could see the gears turning in wells' mind. he said he reappointed my mind to the board of the community college. in the same manner in which tim russert's childhood in buffalo and used his career, e.j.'s

career is informed by his past and present connections with fall river, this commonwealth, and its people. when ken burns produced his monumental documentary on world war two, we turn to my barnicle to facilitate his conversation with mr. vernes. -- mr. burns. might not only brought out his best, but closely capture the close of the shared sacrifice that defined that era. when assembling this panel, we knew he was the perfect choice to serve as moderator. on behalf of everyone at the library, the institute, and members of the extended can be -- extended kennedy family, we are deeply honored to have you here this evening. we will hear closing words from the new chairman of the library

foundation board, kenneth feinberg. he is a former chief of staff for senator kennedy. he currently serves as special master for carpet executive compensation -- tarkentop 8- compensation. important votes are scheduled this evening, precluding his being with us. the panel discussion will begin following remarks made by mrs. kennedy. a member of the kennedy library foundation board of directors, a dear friend, colleague, and soon to be next door neighbor. [applause]

>> thank you very much. it is mentioned in the book -- the tom mentioned that the book is on sale at the bookstore? senator kennedy wrote about his mother having him at st. margaret's hospital, just up the street. it is a very important institution. a couple hundred yards from here, the bethlehem community health centers -- it was the first in the country, and senator kennedy was a major force in creating it and all the other health centers. we will be beside the john f. kennedy library where senator kennedy wanted to be. an important part of the university of massachusetts at boston, senator kennedy said if you want to see