in quiet mode. let me get started by thinking -- by giving thanks to a special partner with the public affairs council that has worked with cq since 2002 to put this event on. douglas is also a panelist today. thank you very much, douglas pinkham. also, austria and united technologies, who are recently learned does more than aerospace and defense stuff. they are actually in the elevator business. somebody outside gave me their pitch this morning. there are a lot of these kind of post-election events going on around town.

today's event is by far the largest. i think that we have a great day ahead of us. i think that guiding us through the day will be a guide to the new congress, which some may argue is the real reason why we are here, to grab a copy of that. it is the first complete look at the freshman class of the new congress available anywhere. it is an awesome endeavor that cq put together. i realize i did not introduce myself. i am mike mills. i am editorial director of cq role call. we put this out in unbelievable

breakneck speed. how they do it is that the races that are too close to call, we write profiles for both candidates and we press the right button and a winner is declared. i think that this guy is a terrific on trade -- on trade -- entree they are available for bulk purchase or singles. as you all have probably heard, this has been a very historic and unusual election cycle. this is a huge freshman class. one thing that is interesting about the guide is the demographic breakdown that we can do fairly quickly with our software.

we find some interesting points about the incoming class and the new congress in general. the democrats in the house will in large be more liberal while the expanded gop will be more conservative. the new congress will have slightly fewer women, fewer house members will have advanced degrees and there will be fewer lawyers and more business people. these and other insights can be found in the guide and we will be exploring the in the panel as well today. as you may notice behind me and around here, today is a pretty big day for cq role call. we have our new branding for the new group. we could not be more excited about it. as we introduce the new congress

to you, we are all to no -- we are also introducing the new company. we are also unveiling our new web site and a newsletter that is free and you can subscribe to it in the lobby. if you do subscribe to the newsletter, which is called the "cq roll call daily briefing. you can register to win an ipad. in the lobby, you can take a tour of cq products. without further ado, it is my pleasure to introduce the first panel, which is aptly called " what is the mandate?" presumably, there is one. i would like to first

introduced david chalian who is the political editor for pbs newshour. david direct the political coverage across all platforms in addition to campaign politics. he joined the newshour in the beginning of july. prior to that, he was political director for nbc news. he won an emmy as part of the team that produced the inaugural coverage in january 2009. welcome, david. thank you for joining us. >> kevin doherty -- carroll doherty is responsible for research projects and editorial output including local analysis.

recent reports have covered the role of the manila -- of the millennial. i have known carroll because he is a former senior writer of congressional quarterly where he spent a decade covering politics and foreign affairs. he also served as a commentator on president clinton's impeachment proceedings for npr at that time. he is currently an off air investigative reporter. thank you for being here. bob benenson is in his third cycle of election coverage. he is an analyst for cq roll call. policy editor from

1998 until the merger in 2009 and has been with cq since 1981. bob is one of the sharpest political minds out there and he has encyclopedic knowledge of congress and politics and it is greatest's roll call's asset. he started with cq after a stint in radio. >> then i went to the finest academic institution in the united states. >> as to die. but enough about michigan state. [laughter] last but not least, doug pinkham with the public affairs council. the public affairs council is the leading international association for public and professionals. it is a non-partisan, non-

political organization that provides training and development for public affairs. prior to joining the council, doug was vice president of communications for the american gas association, which is a major trade association in town. he has authored many articles for trade and professional magazines around the world. we are looking at a very interesting day to day. we are taking it off with a terrific panel. join me with a round of applause to look on the panel and kick off the event. [applause] david, you will moderate a panel. >> thank you. it is free to be here. i am going to let each of our panelists make opening statements. we are to start with carroll. with the title of our panel,

there is always some kind of mandate for message that the voters send. the first question i want to throw your weight if you can work this into your remarks, is the basic question of who showed up to vote and why did they both with a did? >> who showed up to vote, according to the exit polls, obviously a more conservative, older, more affluent electorate than in 2006. 41% were conservative. that is the highest percentage we have seen in probably two decades. it is up from 32% in 2006. nearly one-quarter were 65 and older. you will not see that in a presidential election, obviously. there was not a drop-off in the percentage of young people. the exit polls are a little rough at this point.

we will know more later. there was not much of a drop-off in minority the dissipation so far as we have seen. it is just a very conservative electorate. >> compared to other midterms? >> compared to other midterms. i think that the striking thing is the conservatives. in terms of messaging, i think that anybody who spent five minutes watching television tuesday night the that the voters were in a surly mood on tuesday. they were pretty clear about what they did not want, starting with democratic incumbents, by and large and moving on to the economy. a couple of numbers, and i will try not to throw too many numbers that you even though there are a lot of numbers.

the real message was no more expansion of government. that is certainly something that came through loud and clear. 63% said that government is already doing too much to businesses and individuals. 43% said that in 2008. there was a broad rejection obama policies. going forward, that is the easy story. what do they tell us about what they want going forward? what are the voters saying about that? do they really want a contraction? like what the u.k. is going through right now. the exit polls -- there is not much of a message from the exit polls in terms of what people

really want. we did a poll a couple of weeks before the election that was very revealing. we tested a lot of the gop proposals. they were divided over almost everyone. in fact, below 50% for most of the poles of retested. -- proposals that we tested. the freeze on government spending, there was more opposition that support and we did not get into specifics about what that might mean. the idea of health care repeal got a little more support and opposition, but hardly overwhelming. issue after issue, social security reform on down, you had a divided opinion about these

initiatives. that was a bit of a clue as to what we could expect in the months and years to come. voters were not very clear about what they wanted going forward. we are talking about the possibility for compromise as well. but i want to talk a little bit about compromise and what we have been finding on compromise. we tested the general proposition of compromise a couple of months ago. it was well before the election. well before the tea party victories. at that time, 54% of democrats said that they admired political leaders that compromise with people they disagreed with. republicans hold the opposite 62% preferred political leaders that stick to their positions. the voters were saying that they

could not even agree on the general proposition of compromise. we are off to a bad start there. you get a sense of how difficult this was. i'd like to mention one more thing about who showed up on tuesday. the profile of the republican voter is just fascinating. this is why -- these are the voters that propelled the republicans to victory. 67% conservative. 67 percent age 60 and over. 67 percent said sunday were -- said they were deep party supporters. 63% want the extension of all the bush tax cuts through one more number that i will throw it to.

the views of the republicans among the electorate were not all the positive. it was more negative than positive. 43% unfavorable. even among those republican voters that showed up on tuesday and support of the republicans had an unfavorable view of the republican party. this group of republican voters is very conservative and exceedingly not much in the mood for compromise, encouraging their leaders to compromise. i will quit right there. i will turn it over to bob. >> thank you, carol.

>> the title of the panel is "what is the mandate?" if you go back to the 1990's, he would be more proper it to say "who in the heck gave you the mandate?" we have had an extraordinary number of them over the past 20 years. we have tended to have rejectionist elections. people deal with the economy and the iraq war was a big factor in undermining public support for republicans and president george w. bush in the past two elections. voters have tended to go out and vote against, to send a message just as they sent a message this year. to much spending, too much back room dealing, too much

corruption in washington. we want change. they are voting for change as a principle rather than for specific policy changes. the problem for the party that won that has had this big surge is that the fallen to the mandate trap. they tend to interpret their victory as an affirmation of not only their agenda, but even the most controversial parts of their agenda. we saw yesterday, someone said that the first priority is to put legislation on the floor to repeal the health-care overhaul bill. one of the ex-what do the exit polls tell us? 40% of the voters -- mind you,

this is a very strongly republican electorate that showed up on tuesday. a 48% said that we need to keep the way it is or expand it. you do not get a more even split them that. even more fascinating was on tax cuts. 52% of the voters in this republican wave that year said that they do not what the bush era tax cuts extended for people with incomes over two hundred $50,000. -- to under $50 -- $250,000. this suggests that we need to cut the budget deficit and you cannot do that without taking

this action. when you ask the two hundred $50,000 threshold, a third of the people that said that boater republican. go figure on that one. the question for the republicans going forward is, "who are the coin to be listening to? whose agenda of the board to be subscribing to? there are two main forces behind the republican success. one is that they have a conservative base. it is much bigger than the tea party movement. these are people who pay -- who strongly opposed the election of democrats. they opposed the election of barack obama as president of the united states. they do not want that liberal progressive agenda and they were very interested.

-- very energized to get out and both a share. to win, they needed to get a big swing amongst the defended boaters. -- independent boater -- indefinite boaters -- independent voters. one-third of the country, on each end of the party spectrum, republicans are about one-third and democrats are about one- third, and then there are some independence that vote one way or the other all the time. they are in the middle. it is hard to quantify exactly how big it is. it is a group of unaffiliated voters, many of whom became convinced a long time ago that neither of the major political parties are on their side and is doing what was right for the na.

you see this extraordinary swing amongst independent voters between 2008 and 2010. in 2008, i will specifically picked the house results to make apples to apples. 51 to 43 among independent voters. this year it was 56 to 38 in favor of the republicans. that is a 13 point swing through the that is extraordinary. it offended voters to not necessarily subscribe to the ecological agenda of the conservative republican base. when the republicans take

office, but will be looking at their political base been saying that we have the mandate to pursue a strongly conservative agenda. that is what the liberal activists thought and demanded after 2008 when they elected a democratic controlled congress. the democrats acted accordingly. it is interesting to see which waco. mandate at your own risk. the republicans are born to face a fairly tough choice. one last thing i will give you. it is not from poland. going into this election, there were 43 districts that we called mccain-democratic. they voted for john mccain for president but elected a democrat

to congress. this is why the democrats were so vulnerable this time because they knew there were a lot of republican seats. for liberal activists that said the problem was the conservative blue dog democrats, they do not have that problem anymore but they do not have a majority anymore. on the other side of the spectrum, there were 30 mccain -- obama republican districts. they voted obama for president and elected a republican to congress in 2008. that is up to 54. a lot of those members will be in the same kind of swing district quandary that a lot of democrats were going into this election. if the republican leadership decides to fully-to follow the strict conservative agenda, they are going to put a lot of

members out on a limb and a better hope that they get the major public support over the democrats or they will face another huge the pendulum swing in 2012. make no assumptions for 2012 based on tuesday's elections. >> over to you, doug. ok. ok.>> i want to talk about the dangers of band-aids -- of mandates. a lot of issues related to hiring and jobs are to take place and people are curious as to what impact will be a corporations. we will talk about that. first, a quick word on mandates. i agree with what bob said. yet to be careful when you declare mandates because very often you are wrong.

by the time barack obama was elected in 2008, i think he was elected because people were in love with barack obama, not necessarily supportive of his agenda. i think he misinterpreted that in thinking that they supported his agenda. looking at it permission from the summer and early fall of 2008, i want to show you how quickly attitudes change. the warning here is that your mandate is a moving target. even if you think you know where the electorate is on key issues, they change their mind based on economics and other circumstances. in the middle of 2008, 57% of the public, including 64% of republicans favor the wall street bailout -- favored the wall street bailout. 71% of the public said that

there was solid evidence of global warming. in addition, a little more than half of the public felt that there was no place for religion in politics. isn't that interesting? looking at that datapoint pummel barack obama was well positioned to win the presidency, not only based on his charisma and intelligence, but based on a lot of these core issues that were part of his agenda. as the economy with over the cliff, public attitudes change their it is not necessarily that people became anti-a vermeil, it is just when you are worried about your job and your mortgage, certain things go off in order of importance and certain things go by the wayside. politicians have to recalibrate. there was a piece that talked about this threat that is the initial warning about mandates. we need to realize that there are a moving target. now, the election on the

business community. the first thing to say is the american business community is by no means monolithic there is often talked about this is what corporate america thinks. most major public policy battles are between different segments of the economy. if you look at major issues that we have been talking about the last few years including health care reform, financial-services regulation, climate change, companies are all over the mouth. in financial-services, you have banks and credit unions. you have agricultural companies and credit-card companies. these companies in sectors do not necessarily agree. it makes it that much tougher to say what a new congress would do

as an impact in general. as executives look at the way they run their businesses and a look at their operations and their marketing and how they raise capital, the political world is a conundrum because it is so unpredictable. uncertainty, which politics can create, the >> to rest. when there is a higher sense of risk, that is when companies do not invest in new and equipment and that is when they hold off on hiring even if they have had a good quarter. they say that they will wait a few more months to see if consumer confidence goes up and there will be a market for our products. a change in government creates rest. there are probably more were public and corporate executives then democrat corporate executives. any change creates rest-rest --

creates rest. especially in the case of health care reform were a drag on forever and you do not really know where it is one to go and you are trying to make decisions. financial services reform, which went in several directions and people did not know how it was one to end up, that uncertainty makes people stop and think before moving forward. i also want to point out political rhetoric that creates a sense of uncertainty and risk. one of my concerns over the past few years is that the democrats were perceived as an unnecessary demagogic approach to companies. there is one thing to talk about corporate bad guys, but the major democratic leaders are out in public forums talking about the evil financial- services companies and the evil

of insurance companies, you hear these things and if you think you are running a well-run organization, it makes you pause and think about whether or not he means that. we should discuss that. look rhetoric causes uncertainty. there are probably some companies who like to see health care reopened. probably many would just as soon not have it reopened. it may come out worse than when they started. if you are trying to rectify the winners and losers in the business community in an election, if you look at those little reuter updates and bluebird updates on your smart phone -- bluebird updates on your smart phone, -- bloomberg

updates on your smart phone, it is a huge leap. clearly, of are against that happening. certainly, how can you possibly predict who the losers and winners will be in the corporate sector based on the far-flung potential in existing law. here is the actual impact. i think gridlock probably decreases rest because it will be harder to get big pieces of legislation passed. perhaps that will help the private sector take a breath and decide that there will not be any more huge changes run away, in which case they will start moving forward and do some hiring that needs to be done. one area where i hope we can have an adult conversation is trade.

trade is not just about shipping jobs overseas and about making sure we have fair trade. absolutely, you want to keep as many jobs at home as possible, but it is about business growth, growing the economy, improving employment, improving economic growth, and if we can have more adult conversations about trade agreements and the ability of our very capable of manufacturing sector to supply products and get them in markets around the world, that would certainly be a good thing. some of the challenges for the business community is the republicans are not -- republicans and tea party members are not necessarily pro- business. a lot of moderate republicans and a lot of moderate democrats can be pro-business. there are not a lot of moderates right now in congress. in addition, among a lot of the tea party activists, there is a

real strong anti-corporate sense. all of these outrageous wall street bonuses and see a compensation bonuses and so forth, the loudest and harshest voice on that was not from the left, it was from the far right. that is certainly a concern for companies. in addition, there is a big question about what will happen with corporate tax rates given the concerns of the economy. will they go lower to spur investment or will they increase because of the revenue shortfall? the hope is that the business community can work more closely with government going forward. a number of areas over the last 10 years where the public and private sectors have worked very well together, many of you know what i am talking about if you work in the federal government. there were many programs that started under, and that have continued. a lot of companies provide excellent support in areas of logistics and i.t..

certainly in disaster relief starting with katrina and dealing with other u.s. and global catastrophe is, the corporate world has played an important role. it wants to continue to do that. i hope it will continue to open the door to that. one final point, the business community shares a common problem of politicians and it is that very few people like them. members of congress have an approval rating of less than 20%. well less than half of americans, according to any poll that you read, do not like federal government or corporations through the there is this huge trust deficit that is something that all of these major segments of the economy have been common and all of us are going to have to work to try to undo that if the country is one to move forward. >> i want to pick up, and i apologize.

keep your answers to my questions brief. i am told that there are microphones. no? i will repeat them out loud. i want to pick up on what you said when you were speaking about trade. the president is heading to asia on this trip tomorrow. at his press conference, he specifically spoke about his relationship with the business community and the grandeur is not a monolith and i know that you cannot speak for the entire corporate community but i will ask you to do so nonetheless. yesterday he said -- he gave the impression that he needed to show the american people that he does consult with business executives all the time, but if this happens behind closed doors. he needs to give some sense to

the american people that he does have a concern about his policy decisions and how they reverberate through there. i guess my question is, is he going to find partnerships with the business community after the populace rhetoric to join him in this front to become a new joint mission moving forward together with the mid-administration and the business community? >> one thing you can say about business executives is that they are pragmatic, not a logical. if you're trying to move the economy forward to work together on trade, he would definitely be a willingness. there was a great interview with obama in business week where they approached the entire issue of it he was anti-business. one of the things of the president does not get is that words matter. on one hand, he says that he is

willing to deal with this and he is open to the issues and he realizes that most of the jobs cannot come from the public sector. but then he goes out and publicly demonizes a lot of corporations. people pause. that is the advice of a lot of executives would give, is to tone down the rhetoric and work together on issues. >> each of you guys have been the tea party elements and the challenges brings to the republican party. going forward, mr. obama will be doubling down on this notion that his major priority is to defeat obama in 2012. you see, in john boehner and

mitch mcconnell that we will have to -- mitch mcconnell will have to introduce senators. i want to get a sense of how the republican leadership, having embraced the energy for electoral gains, can manage these factions for governing. >> the republican party strategists in leadership decided early on that they saw this tiger roaming the landscape. they decided that they were born to ride that tiger. -- going to ride that tiger. they took some bruises themselves and a lot of them -- a lot of those primaries. -- in a lot of those primaries. people ran as tea party canvas

or on a very conservative agenda and tried to ride the moment and created by the tea party. they are to be there and they are going to demand that the tea party pay heed to their agenda. this is why we voted for you. we want what is coming to us. brand paul -- rand paul got elected by a lot of tea party motives. before the election, and i kind of wondered, mitch mcconnell this kind of in an enviable position. he is not responsible for actually running anything. why mitch mcconnell would want to be the majority leader, he

will continually try to call them out whenever they try to compromise. that is an interesting factor. the party base always wants to be heard. you can see it in what happened in the last couple of years. amongst liberal activist democrats, they got all of these things passed. health-care overhaul, financial regulation overhaul. and yet we have a lot of people in the activist base that said that it was not enough. where is the public auction in health care? the financial regulatory bill is full of loopholes. if the republicans come in and sit have to do something more reasonable, the only one with a little more than half the country.

very quickly, about wall street, one of the interesting numbers was that they asked people who they blame most for the economic problems of the country. barack obama was named by 23%. george w. bush was named by 29%. there is an obvious partisan slip right there. 35% said wall street. of those, 56% of the people that sent wall street republicans. >> no end to the populist rhetoric any time soon? no end. -- >> no end. they need to bring down that financial regulatory bill. >> i do not know if you can find it in the numbers, but i know that your knowledge of the electoral history might help

answer this question. we have been talking about the volatility. this is not the norm, though it seems to becoming -- it seems to be becoming the norm. new leaders come to tehran in the obama administration can see some signals that they can see a settlement in of the electorate for some time to come or we want to be in a period of volatility for quite some time? >> the message is to watch the independence. -- the independents. there are mores mores than any time in 70 years. they voted for republicans 55% on tuesday. they are almost -- almost

identical numbers in 2008. for the democrats. independent support for the activist government drop off significantly from only two years earlier. this was before the health-care debate. this was a clear warning signal about where the independence were heading for the independent -- where the independents were heading. for the first time, we will be able to analyze tea party supporters and i am really interested to see where tea party people come down on this. on the one hand, they are free markets supporters and on the

other, there is this sense of no foreign involvement and skepticism if not cynicism about foreign countries. >> perhaps, if the news today about michelle bachman goes for republican conference chair, perhaps we could have the debate. i would love to open this up in our final 50 minutes or so for questions out there. we have a couple of microphones. just raise your hand if you have a question and we will get a microphone to you. any questions? >> mr. dougherty, may i mention briefly something about offshore drilling?

i wonder if you could expand on that comment? >> we were testing some possible gop policy proposals and that was the policy that 55% of all voters approved of. it is a very interesting trend on offshore drilling. it really fell of during the gulf oil leak. the republicans never wavered on the drill, baby drill philosophy. we see that his very strong. the majority of the voters that we pulled were in favor. >> say your name?

>> hello, i am kevin navarro from the reagan group. who were some of the new republican congressman that were collected two nights ago that were from obama districts? i was wondering about that one. >> was elected to a dramatic reading? >> this will kill the last 50 minutes of this panel. one obvious example the long term german. that was a longtime democratic stronghold. charlie bass made a comeback in western new hampshire. he is ostensibly one of the more

moderate republicans from the republican class of 1994. that is a district of 12 to 6% 4 obama. with a lot of these people, the electorate snaps back to where it was in 2008. it is a fair comparison to compare 2006 to 2010 because it is apples to apples. the electorate in 2008 was very different. a lot of young first-time voters in a lot of first-time minority voters. they did not come up this year. if the electorate is more like 2008, the democrats are to be a better footing and they will have a greater appeal to independents. just to run down some others, there were three candidates in

illinois that were picked up. kissinger, old grand -- holdgren, and shelling -- schilling. he was one of these great balloon animals. this is called rabbit on a skateboard. illinois is full of them. not all of these are direct credit decisions, but they are swing districts did -- not all of these are democratic districts, but they are swing districts. independence go back to the democrats and have a little more of their unlikely, voter turnout

like they did in 2008. you have a whole different electorate. one interesting thing, i am looking at this as the end of the 9/11 decade. there have been five national elections since the terrible terrorist attacks of 9/11. this country and its people took incredible body blows over those 10 years. it is one major thing that has shaken people's confidence and make them worry about the future. you had an economic recession. you had 9/11. we found out this was built on enormous amounts of debt. it collapsed in 2008. we're just now trying to recover from that. you have oil spills and everything.

the democrats, despite what happened on tuesday, the democrats are in better shape in terms of us holding -- in terms of office holding them the work. -- than they were. the democrats managed to maintain control of the senate. the house has swung back to almost exactly where it was after the 2002 elections. this shows the enduring power of redistricting. the attention to the next redistricting cycle that is coming up. in the states where the republicans made their biggest gains the other day, new york, pennsylvania, florida, michigan, you either have a situation where the republicans drew the map because they control the process or say districts are drawn for both the press and republicans.

the republicans suffered deep losses in those states in 2006. when the pendulum swung back, those maps went back to working the way the republicans plan them. -- planned them. that is an important factor that needs to be counted. it sets the tone for politics for the entire tenure. . >> i see someone in the back. >> i am allen hamilton. the old joke -- under the current circumstances, the house has flip, but can you see a scenario where there is a harder leadership challenge for john boehner where bills originate in

the house and then continue to go to the senate to die? knowing full well that they will not get through? >> you are absolutely right. for a while, the democrats have a filibuster proof majority. the biggest example is global climate change or the so-called cap and trade bill. the democrats were feeling full of themselves. a lot of their members from more conservative districts in places like ohio and kentucky they voted the party led these people

are out there on a very thin lemon and they got punished for it. a lot of it you can count for several members. john boehner and the republican leadership of the house will have to do that. the house botched the republicans will do whatever they want. they can push it everything they want. -- they can push through everything they want. they can test drive an entire conservative agenda until 2012, but if that turns out to be not where the majority of the public is, especially those crucial independent voters, if they push too far, too fast just like bill clinton did, -- like the obama

democrats who were the latest example. if they force some of these obama republican district numbers into voting for stuff that is not popular, they will find some kind of dynamic. they are going to have to decide what actually has a chance of at least getting a hearing that they want in the senate. they're in a position where they can send a policy flares -- send up policy flares. the other problem that they have is the one thing that the

democrats fail most at which is trying to keep the focus on tour to the bush -- in georgia in the bush. more people blame bush for the country's problems -- george w. bush. more people blame bush for the country's problems. if the republicans get in there and start pointing fingers, they can say they have a perfect policy agenda, but it is those guys that are blocking it. i do not think that will play any better for the republican senate before the democrats. >> i see somebody all the way of the back. -- all the way in the back. >> thank you come in from the suspect -- the hispanic association of colleges. can you say anything about the

turnout of hispanic voters? >> hispanics voted very democratic. it does not look like turnout went up or down from 2006. that is what we were looking at. it does not look like there was much change. 8% was the number in the exit polls and 60% of hispanics voted hispanic -- voted democratic. there was some impact in the

margin. >> yes, a few of the house races barely pulled up of the fire. >> does anybody want to be brave last questioner? itch.am brad fetc was a roll call with a pulled together a bunch of surveys. a vast majority want compromise and what the two parties to work together. -- and want the two parties to work together. if you could say or whether would be compromised, where would you say is the area of potential compromise in the hundred 12. and -- in the 112th.

>> i do not see them finding common ground of the titans -- grounds on entitlements. perhaps energy will have some agreement. >> i agree on the energy possum- energy policy. -- energy policy. we do not know exactly what the issues are to be. we do not know what is coming up next. if there is more evidence of global warming or global climate change, and that becomes an issue again, or if the economy improves, that is the bottom line of everything for it if the economy improves, that a lot of the issues that democrats are being knocked around for pursuing the and it comes out on

the other hand with some of the social issues. people will be focused on the economy and do not want to hear about abortion and gay marriage. that will reappear. the economy is over everything in american politics. . . host:

>> that afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i'm a member of the national board and also on the board of the colorado springs council. i welcome you to this panel discussion. this discussion in case you might've missed it, we have elections this week. as we already have heard that this comp trends, those elections were about the economy. they were not about foreign policy. they were not about america's role in the world. but then again, it had everything to do with american foreign policy and america's role in the world. we have an outstanding panel for you this afternoon with people that you've read, seen come you've read them on blogs and newspapers and on websites.

you see them on numerous television programs across the political and media spectrum. so when we get right to the introductions and i commend you as well, the introductions in her booklets are in more detail. our moderator for this panel is doyle mcmanus, washington columnist for "the los angeles times." for 35 years he's been an award-winning foreign policy and it for the middle east including iran, iraq and afghanistan in europe and latin america. he's also covered six presidential election and he's only 25. last back you can read his biweekly column in "the l.a. times." and you're likely to see me on pbs's washington week among other programs. also on the panel is gerald site, directed at washington editor for "the wall street journal" before 2007 he was washington bureau chief for the journal. you can read his biweekly, capital journal in "the wall street journal" and you're also likely to see him on fox

business news, on abc and on cnn. also please do it with us cushier freelanced whose global editor for that reuters corp. and i want to recognize and give a special thanks to thompson writers for their important support of this conference and for lending to us not only christie this afternoon, but paulo dabrowski yesterday as active participants in the conference, so let me pause here and ask you to join me in 19 thompson writers for their support of this program. it's very important. as global editor for thomson reuters, christy breland is key to its new financial video service called reuters insider. she is their on-air person for external broadcast partners and she's also the senior contributor to reuters.com where she writes a weekly column on business and politics in she doesn't get a day off. last but not least, ronald

brownstein is the political director of the atlantic media company, the columnist for the national journal and leave the editorial strategy for the national journal group, which includes the national journal, congress daily, almanac of american politics in the global security newswire. he doesn't get a day off either. you can read his weekly columns for the national journal and elsewhere. he can also see him i'm not msnbc, hardball, morning show, "meet the press" and this week with george stephanopoulos. so this is an incredible panel. we thank them for being with us and i'm going to shut up and turn the floor over to doyle mcmanus. thank you. >> thank you, sky. thank you off for being here with us today. it's a humbling and challenge the gene experience to talk about foreign policy or american politics in from of a group of

people who are active in the world affairs councils because we know you're about the most erudite and engaged people -- civilians in the country. so that's my way of saying please hold us to a low standard. we have here a panel -- my own exceptions, very distinguished journalist, all of whom have worked at one time or another as foreign correspondents in places like london and iran, moscow and kia and at kabul, but whose current distinctions in the recent word out of you today as we have been rave off to adventure to places like cleveland and las vegas in the suburbs of philadelphia. here's what we are going to try and do today. i'm going to ask each of our panelists to do a very quick three to five minute sketch of some high points on his or her

topic. the panelists will be looked away in a disagree on that. we'll try and keep that to a half an hour or so at the top of our session. but we do want to get as quickly as possible to your questions and comments so we can engage with you that way. so will first ask ron to talk about what happened in this election. jerry to talk about what it means for the white house congress. i'll say a few words about foreign policy per se and christian will talk about the economic and trade agendas and the impacts they are. so rob, what just happened? >> thank you. and thank you for elevating these divine correspondence. i only had about four months were not quite in the same class as the others. what i do with that cover american politics and let's first take one step back and say cheers to go this time barack obama was the most insightful

victory for the presidential candidates in 1964. first democrat since johnson only second since world war ii to get the 50.1% of the vote here through six electoral college votes, when i say vote for bush ford. seven voted both times. for that voted democratic more than once. that was where we began this cycle. and by the way, democrats in the sack with larger majorities in the house and senate than the republicans achieved a pointer in the 12 years of control from 94 to 2006. what we experienced was about as close as we can get to the u.s. to a parliamentary election i believe. you know, congress is functioning more and more like a parliamentary institution. the levels of partyline republicans with democrats in political science to attract this over the long term cost levels of partyline voting were

the highest since reconstruction and we saw on vote after vote, essentially one governing party opposing the agenda and an opposition party resisting. so at the end of the cycle come perhaps not entirely surprising we end up with a parliamentary election, particularly in the house. president obama, whether he can pander stayed away lose heavily over the results. 85% of voters said they approve the president, voted democratic. 86% of those disapproves voter republicans. very similar to the patterns and 94 and 2006, which also were both on a quasi-parliamentary election. those who disapproved voted nine to one republican. and as a kind of take that brought him and see how it plays out within the actual context, there are 125 house democrats on election day in districts where, treat at least 60% of the vote

two years ago. none of them lost. .. thirty-six of them have lost. three-quarters of them were defeated and these tended to be blue-collar, i will come back to that in a minute. but bottom line, districts where obama was over 55%, only six of 173 lost, under 55%, 67 of 83,

more than two-thirds of them were defeated. in the senate there was a little more capacity for candidates to achieve subornation. in nevada and west virginia. wanted to despite the lower approval ratings for president but even there the relationship is jury strong. apart from nevada and west virginia democrats lost all of the contested senate races in states where obama was at 46% or below. arkansans, florida, indiana, kentucky, missouri, ohio, wisconsin. where he was 47 or above, california, colorado, connecticut, delaware and washington. the only exception to the pattern or illinois, interestingly, and pennsylvania. the only two states where obama is at 47 or above, the democrats lost in that -- in that. the reason they lost was particular in both cases. overall, what we saw in this election was not necessarily

collapse of obama's coalition, but an erosion of it and a definition of their turnout, and then a really sharp movement away from the democrats among the voters. voters who were cruel to him in the 08 became ice cold in 2010. the heart, i will try to be quick, the heart of the democratic coalition was elected obama and what i call the collision of the defendant are young people, minorities and college-educated voters particularly women. dak rats led the group in 2010 but they didn't win. they still won two-thirds of hispanic and hispanic saved michael bennett and especially harry reid where sharron angle backfired. young people, 57%. college-educated white women wavered. i will come back to that but still in the high forties. the turnout was down. the rest of the white

electorate, and by that i mean blue-collar white men and women and college-educated white men all of which tend to be skeptical of government and the move sharply to the point where according to the exit polls the republicans won 60% of the white voters. in the history of the exit poll this goes back to 1982, no party had forgotten 60% not even 1994. there's another data set that goes back to 1952 which does the national election study of the university of michigan, and in that only twice in the party had gotten that high, 1974 and 1964 for the democrats. the erosion was the greatest among of the blue-collar voters who had been skeptical to begin with and had been hit hard by this recession and also tend to be the dubious the government will do anything to make their lives better. democrats only 134% of the voters which is an incredible number. the white collar voters were a little more diverse. the women were better than men

and the most interesting pattern, and i will close on this point, was we saw a really stark distinction in the way upper middle class whites behavior on the coast and in the heartland. you know, the biggest thing that's happened in the last 20 years that made democrats more competitive in the 60's and the 80's was the minority population has been growing and the upper middle class white electorate particularly among the coast had switched from the predominant republican to predominantly democratic. in this election, by and large in the coastal states, democrats still did pretty well with those voters. california, connecticut, colorado functions as a coastal state, places where the upper middle class is more secular. in the middle there was no difference between the blue-collar and white-collar. they voted almost as heavily republican, and as a result, when you consider the demography is less so, it is older, it is wider, fewer minority college graduates to begin with and they

are voting republican. you have a wipeout in the middle. other than vermont, ytoy and mexico after this election there is no state that doesn't touch an ocean in which democrats have a majority of the congressional district, the representation. just those three. so, the only kind of silver lining for democrats is that this continues and i will close on this point, this continues a period of volatility. this third consecutive election were of least 20 seats of back-and-forth between the party, last time that happened was 1948 to 1952. obama lost unified democrats had unified control of government, obviously in 2009 and lost after two years. neither party has been able to sustain control of the white house and the senate for more than four years since 1958. so, and obviously independent voters who moved sharply to the democrats and 06 basically stayed there in lesser members

and 08, moved back to the republicans. neither party has been able to achieve allegiance, lasting allegiance in part because neither party has been able to solve the problems which is going to be the subject of an excellent book soon. [laughter] and that, i believe, is kind of a silver lining that for democrats would be if there is a message for republicans don't on pack everything. that's what i would say. i will stop there. [laughter] let me ask a question. one is reminded me -- you mentioned and the democrats only win in the maritime states except for vermont. as i recall, you had an earlier version of that rule some cycles ago which was democrats cannot win any state where cattle out number people. >> that's true. [laughter] i like to say -- i said, and this is true again, in 2000 george bush won every county in america with a ciw exit vermont where you have the cows the work for ben and jerry's.

[laughter] and that is -- that is sort of where we ended up here again. this map, if you kind of look at the congressional district map it's kind of a throwback to the nineties when we talk about the democrats as a by postal party and having this tremendous difficulty in between exit proportions of the upper middle west. and we are kind of back there. i mean, this was a wipeout of enormous proportions in the center of the country. if this was a parliamentary system, like 94 in 06 this would have been a vote of no-confidence. >> let me ask a different question. to summarize what you just said, two things happened to the democrats. one was the shift of white voters of independence and the other was turnout didn't happen. turnout was foreseeable in the midterm election. this is a different way of asking what does this tell about 2012 if democratic turnout among young voters and long white voters have somehow been equal

in this election to its levels in 08 what would we be looking at? >> that's a really good question. so, both the u.s. and minority typically falloff in the midterm elections. if a lot more than usual particularly the minority turnout. the huge turnout average 12% in mid term, 18% of presidential since '92. was 11 this times what went down a little further. the bigger fall was in the minority share of the vote went down from 26% in 08 to only 22%. that will go back up. i mean, it will not only go up to 26, it will probably the past. it will probably go to 28%, based -- data on the rate it has the last 20 years minorities will be about 28, 29% of the vote in 2012, which means that mathematically if obama holds them at the same rates as the democrats have been doing, he could lose 60% of the white vote and get elected, which is the least of the national popular vote. the problem is -- this problem is that, you know, where the

collision was available to democrats, with the exception of pennsylvania and illinois. mostly because kirk was suburban white voters than republicans had, and which the suspects probably should have won that race and he woefully under performed in the philadelphia suburbs even though he was from there. he held his own elsewhere. he didn't collapse. leaving aside those two states, where the basic space collision, where there are enough of those people they held on. corydon, washington, connecticut, california. the problem is in the middle of the country that coalition by yourself, even if it shows up, it's not enough to win with. and you have to be at least -- you don't have to win most white voters but you can't get -- lee fisher, the can dig in ohio, won 29% of white voters according to the exit poll, and, you know, the question for obama is how much of this is permanent and how much is recoverable?

i think there is more a recovery in the upper middle class that is available to him than there is -- and again, we can defer in a second here. i think he won 40% of working-class whites in 2008, which is not a good number, but he will be very hard pressed to get back. i would be amazed if he gets back to that event. so i think there is a path to victory, but it may require a think it's right to be hard to win the kind of bending states that he won last time, and i think it may be for example in arizona eight diverse state that you may have to kind of look to patch together the 270 abs in the bigot economic recovery. >> in the burning questions for the chief -- chiefologist? >> we will see this before is telling what it means for congress to revive from kansas and the distinction between political preferences of the

week states and the corn growing states and those that farm thailand verses irrigation -- [laughter] that's good. you know, i think ron has done a very good job of describing an extraordinarily volatile not year but period in american life we are living through and that is i think what we saw further proof, and was the result of a bad economy obviously, that is the office also a kind of national mood, and i thought as we went through the year and as we did "the wall street journal" nbc news poll which i helped organize the there were two numbers i saw during the year that illustrated the mood as well as anything i can think of. the first one was we asked several times in the campaign whether if the voters were offered an option to check one box on the ballot and for what everybody in congress with one vote would lead would or not at all three times we ask if 50% of people said they would do so

which if you think about it is pretty astonishing. toward the end we ask a different question we said if you had a choice in the vote for the representative from your district in the house of representatives between somebody who had ten years' experience in congress and somebody who had no experience whatsoever who would you vote for and 50% said i would vote for the person with no experience whatsoever. so that's the mood that produced the result that ron described. now often, perhaps incorrectly that was described as a motivator. i think that is a little off. i think somebody from ohio lecture on this and the more i thought about the more he's right is a mood of fear. this is fear the country lost its way, fear that the country was slipping, fear the country was leaving kunkel with its own destiny and the economy was a big part of that obviously, but it was a little deeper than that and so that is what i think produced the election results and the question we all ask

ourselves and i will address briefly is what does that do to the agenda in washington and in the congress that will now a writer of the lame-duck session next month and more importantly to start over again in january, and i think the overall effect of the vote will have been in the words being read by republicans in particular to narrow the agenda in washington down to a few core subjects. the economy obviously which means job creation, spending, debt and deficit. i think republicans are looking at this and saying that's what the agenda is. now they will also say repeal of the health care bill is part of our mandate, but they don't actually i think believe that. i think -- has the believe the people who sent them here on that to happen by and large, but they also recognize it's not going to happen. so i think the house will pass some votes to repeal the obama healthcare looks stock and barrel. they will die, those votes will die in the senate or maybe they will somehow be a collision that sends us to president obama's

desk to die and they will go back and try to defund parts of the health care bill and stop parts of it from being put into affect and i think that is an important thing politically but the core issue of republicans is spending tax levels and that is i think the overall and first effect of the vote is going to be reduced the agenda in washington to the subjects of particular which isn't going to be pretty the way because those are the core questions in the political system which is what is the role of the government and the 21st century. what is the role of the government in americans' lives in the 21st century. that is really what the 2008 election was about and people felt maybe it's this and no, no, another election maybe it's moreover in destruction but i think the country, and i don't mean the political, and in the country kind of results in a general way the question of what is the role the we want a government to play on the 21st century i think we will have a lot of swings back and forth and

meanwhile in the next two years a lot of ugly debate about issues surrounding the question in washington. sliding toward going to have, you know, a lot of discussion about which government programs can go, which government programs can be cut in half, which defense programs are we willing to seek out the door, are we willing to attack entitlements or not, but i want the jury going to have a lot of resolution of those questions. republicans like to say they are prepared to cut $100 billion of spending right now which is fine. my question and response to that is where do you find the other $900 billion of spending the you're going to have to do to attack the deficit. so even $100 billion of spending cuts gets to the low hanging fruit, not the high hanging fruit. there will be an exercise in december in which the deficit-reduction commission of president obama that is bipartisan and bicameral will either produce or not produce some kind of a report saying what might be done to attack the deficit, but i think in this

environment is likely to be minimalist in scope and probably short-lived on this debate. i think there's a more important political date coming up early next year and a chill of the conversations will crystallized and it is in the march, april, may time frame there is a need to cast a vote in congress to raise the federal debt level. this is already emerging as sort of the flash point in which the tea party people in particular and their friends and congress, people elected by the tea party explosion and enthusiasm if not actual tea party candidates themselves are saying essentially no, we are going to draw the line. we are not simply going to do what washington does and vote to extend the debt ceiling. we will extract a price from the ad ministration for doing so, and the administration is likely to say well, you can shut down the government if you want, but that didn't work so well last time the republicans tried that and i think a lot of democrats

in congress are going to say you want to extend the debt ceiling fine, you vote for it we are not going to. this is what you get when you get power you get to make the tough votes. i think it's going to be -- it's going to begin moment in which some of the questions are how much are you willing to cut to the front of of line because republicans are going to try to say this is the price for extending the rates on the debt ceiling. you agree to this package of government spending cuts and i think democrats are going to say not what we read in the election. so i think that is the core of the elite. it raises the question about some other issues. what happens to them along the way, and some issues that are particular importance to this group. so let me tick off a couple of those and then we can move on. but you're going to talk of free trade i know. i think actually -- free trade and things like desultory and free trade agreement probably get a little easier to deal with in the new congress versus the old clunkers. will be interesting to see with the tea party caucus says about

free trade. the are not free traders by instance, and some of them are somewhat isolationists. we will see whether that is an over all dread. you also have new republicans like rob portman, the senator from ohio, who ran on in a difficult environment in an industrial state a platform of explicitly saying free trade is good for my state, it's good for a while, it's good for industry in the u.s., and he wondered 17 points? something like that. he won easily. and by the way, his running mate who ran for governor also was attacked for being a free trader. he also defended the free trade position and he also won. so we will see about free trade. immigration reform i think is less likely in this congress again that he party influence is somewhat nationalistic and not for immigration reform. both parties have the political need to deal with immigration, but they don't have the environment or the votes to handle a very well. the business community to give more h-1b visas is not offset for the republicans. the price of the political and immigration bill that has

something somebody can call and mystique, so i think that gets more difficult. i defy anyone hear me you know i can't remember the ad i saw this year in which a candidate said something pro or con about ratifying the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. [laughter] maybe i missed it. maybe in vermont. [laughter] i assume because it can slip under the radar screen it may be a little easier to just get it done in the lame-duck congress but i could be wrong because it's one of those things i think republicans probably don't want to take a stand on. they don't want to spend a lifetime are doing. it wasn't the easiest thing may be to move on but i'm just guessing because i've got to tell you, i haven't heard any discussion about it although there should have been. there has been a lot of discussion about another issue that i think will have consequences which is the demonization of china. this, you did see an ad after ad after ad this year that china is the enemy, china is destroying

our economy, china is the problem. it's overstated in the campaign ads as everything is overstated in campaign ads but it's the kind of rhetoric that has consequences in the long run. what consequences? i'm not sure exactly but i don't think figuring out a rational approach to do with china the next ten to 20 years because an advance in the campaign. finally, energy. it's interesting. i did an interview with mitch mcconnell the other day and asked him twice, i guess twice because i'm a little slow and wanted to make sure i heard it right, i said what can you agree with president oh-la-la on? and both times he said there's some energy things we can agree on. he said clinical technology, nuclear power, electric cars. those are things we can agree on. we can't agree on cap-and-trade crothers energy things. and white house people will say the same so i think energy is one of those areas there might be some possibility if everybody wants to show that they are responsible adults acting responsibly than maybe something would happen. but that's been it and that is the agenda the next two years, and i really do think much of

what we have had and much of what rahm described sets up in 2012 it has forward for the political system. >> let me ask you one question about the numbers in the house. back in september, congresswoman michele bachman from minnesota announced that she was sitting up called the tea party caucus. there was nervous laughter and no one was quite sure if anyone -- in overtime, a very short amount of time, something like 100 members of the house conference joined the caucus. if you look at the house republican conference in january, is the tea party half of that conference? is it a dominant part of that conference? >> i don't think it's have the caucus. i think it's less than that. i think it's influence on the caucus is much greater. by the way, i also think it is an influence on the remaining laughter democrats and there's only about 23 or 24 of those that's going to be enormous, and more importantly, its influence

on -- there's a group of senators, 23 democrats run in 2012. they come from states like nebraska, west virginia, montana, colorado, florida. if you want -- if you're a democrat running for reelection for the senate seat in 2012 and want to decide the tea party, good luck with that so i think there is a tea party influence that transcends the numbers but i would guess that the party caucus stands at 100 notes probably 150 when it settles next january. >> which side do you think, if either, has the senate try to find agreement or do they both mostly feel they are better off sharpening differences and heading into 2012? i kind of feel like the deals in washington happened not so much because of the specifics of the policies that both sides made the fundamental calculation they need to reach agreements. does either side of the impetus?

>> this is where i think the interesting anomaly on which the house changed hands but the senate didn't, and that's unusual item because it's important. of the senate had changed hands, i think would be much more important to the republicans to have an agreement than the current circumstances which they can shoot free throws in the house and pass whatever they want, they know what will body in the senate or under the veto of president obama and they don't have to take the blame. republicans in the senate don't have to take the blame for it. i'd think the republicans view that nothing has to happen next year with in a sustainable one of the get full control of congress but they don't. i get the bottom line to me is that it's probably more important for president of, but also more difficult for president obama. >> am going to ask chris to speak next because one thing we establishes this election was about the economy and it wasn't about foreign policy, let's stick for the moment to the election was about and i will finish up with a few things and it wasn't about at least not

directly. >> okay. well, thank you very much. pleasure to be here. and i just want to respond to one thing that ron said, and canadian by the become your moving toward parliamentary system. you are making it very bad [inaudible] [laughter] and in actual parliamentary system if you actually control the legislature you can do what ever you want. and -- >> as opposed to doing nothing at all. >> right. i recently príncipe added in a conversation between paul martin, the former canadian prime minister and paul brolin, and paul martin probably as big accomplishment in canadian politics and was to balance the canadian budget and he did that having it on the back of a big conservative accomplishment which would introduce a value-added tax. and it was obviously difficult, you guys are now aware of the

sort of national balancing the budget, etc.. anyway, quite recently paul and bald were talking about this, and reminiscing on what it was like, and apparently the day after the crucial vote in parliament to balance the budget paul martin was the minister of finance, and bob said to him how did it go? how many months of negotiating did it take and paul said you don't understand. we control the party. it took a year. this is the budget and they voted for it. so i said you still have a long way to go. [laughter] which is not a bad lead into what i want to talk about which was the implications for the economic parts of the foreign policy of the midterms and actively i know that jerry's point about s.t.a.r.t. not appearing in the campaign is an important one that the foreign

policy right now in so far as it figures and people thinking about their domestic policies in the u.s. is about the economy. so i would like to pick out four big issues i think will be of concern to america and the rest of the world. the first one jerry e. loaded to already which is china and trade, but i would ephriam it in maybe a more complicated way. which is both financial and balances. i think it is a really big question, and if nuclear arms negotiation were sort of maybe the dominant issue of the 1970's and 1980's, the big framework for the international discussion, looking for a big framework for the international discussion for this decade is going to be to giving out a global financial and balances. and that includes figuring out what should the exchange rate become the right framework for

figuring out the right exchange rate, but it also includes a something a lot more complicated and which has never really been a subject of international relations between states, which is what should be a country's level of savings in the country's level of consumption, and we already see this with of the treasury going out and saying particularly for the chinese and for the germans we think you are not consuming enough and you are saving too much. this is actually quite remarkable. but in foreign relations we would be talking not only about how many guns people have pointed at us and not about the control of the defeated islands, and not even about international standards or about the collective international states. we are now in what i think are the most important discussions between countries talking about what is your savings rate. the chinese are seeing what is your national health care system you guys have to improve your national health care system,

kind of rich coming from americans i would say, in order that your people don't have to save so much money so this is i think you really important really complicated issue, and i think really, really difficult because we have no idea how much tolerance national populations germans, chinese, are going to have for the global discourse starting to have some bearing on these sort of intensely personal intensive domestic issues. second sort of big issue i think these elections will have a bearing on in the global discussion is u.s. inflation. in some ways we are here talking about the midterm, but i think you could argue that the most important political event this week was ben bernanke and the huge quantity defeasing program

that he announced, and that is sort of fascinating because from what from injury described i have come to the conclusion there is going to be durkan good luck and jerry i thought had a final analysis of the motives of the two parties, so the elected politicians are not going to do anything. meanwhile, we have the on elected head of the central bank announcing a quantitative easing program which is almost as big as the stimulus was to read its huge. and it is hard not to conclude, particularly if you are a foreign observer of u.s. policy that there is this kind of unspoken consensus that won a politically less painful, and actually economically not so bad to start unwinding this problem of a huge foreign debt used to print some money.

it's nice if you're issuing debt in your own currency to read actually you can just pay the money back by printing it and getting it to the chinese and that is what we are starting to see happen and just as much as you have in u.s. politics the demonization of china and undervalued chinese currency was the culprit for the u.s. economic. i think you are already starting to see in life and you can see much more dynamic outside of the united states of other countries starting to accuse america as being an unfair economic player particularly if you see a lot more quantitative easing and people say come on, you guys are just plain unfair. the third point which will exacerbate the second thing that has happened is what happens with the u.s. economic recovery.

and oddly enough, the biggest concern that the rest of the world has about the united states, the biggest source foreign policy issue the rest of the world has about the united states as well the u.s. economy recovered, and everyone is hoping and praying as intensely as americans actually that it does because this great, you know, burst of global prosperity that we've had for the past two or three decades has been a very considerable degree powered by the u.s. consumer who isn't consuming that much anymore. final point on sort of big foreign policy issues. i think -- and this is something i think is already evident in u.s. politics but will be more so globally is one important thing we are seeing as we have been talking inevitably since the election about the partisan divide, and i think a really

important split that we are starting to see is the tale of two cities when it comes to globalization and technology revolution. we actually see some parts of america, some of the big multinational corporations, but also some of the smart entrepreneurial business people. need particularly in technology and finance but also some manufacturers for whom the global economy, the technology revolution are absolutely fantastic. this is a time you can build a company, built a branch almost overnight, and the global economy offers huge success to read it also means actually that your fate is much less tied to the fate of the country overall. that old line about what is good for general motors is good for america. it is less and less true and for more important data point is the

idea through the quarter results that were about ten days ago where ibm reported that the economy in the first three quarters of this year the profits have gone up 29%. that's kind of amazing in a crummy world economy, and what was i think even more interesting was part of what is driving it is this huge shift in just less than a decade of ibm from being an american country to a truly global one, so in 2003 they had 7,000 employees, now aged 75,000. and over that same period, the same seven years, they have reduced the u.s. workforce by 40,000, so it's now around 110,000. not that much more than the indian workforce and this is ibm, this is a u.s. corporation. so that split meanwhile i think

a lot of the heartland of voters who ron was talking about our having a very different experience in the impact of the globalization and the technology revolution, and i think this -- fees' conflicting results of what is going on are going to be driving kind of the process within both parties actually because i think both parties have a little bit of support for people on both sides. and then my final point on one thing we should be watching as this may be a little bit out of my -- i may be venturing outside the resolution, there's kind of the national debate in america decides its government, and one country that americans should be watching very closely which is britain. britain had that debate before the election and they made an incredibly radical choice. i asked economists when we would

start to see if that was working or not. i called the nobel prize winner and he said of 15 years -- incredibly useful for policy-making. i think it could be sooner and it could even be really bad or really good, and i do hope that americans, maybe it's not going to be in the campaign ads but maybe washington can watch that quite closely because it is an experiment in what happens when you cut the size of the deficit but also the size of the government really sharply. >> say one more word about the british experiment. if you were to try to translate the british experiment into an american program what would it look like? >> well, what the of fun is just under 20% cuts. in the government services apart from health care and education. and that means about half -- it means about half a million jobs

lost. that's a lot for the british economy, just like that. british populations at 55 million. >> but also means big defense cuts. >> absolutely. defense we have not shielded all. the only areas the have been concerned about is health and education that had kutz but much smaller. the big -- there's an economic question, which is by throwing that many people out of work so quickly in a week to veto weakened world economy, are they going to do with britain into a much deeper recession or the argument which is everyone will suddenly feel confident the british budget is back on track and the private sector will win. so we will see. >> we will see if that changes were not shortly. >> i think you will be less than 50 years, but somebody is trying it out, so we are kind of lucky we are not british --

[laughter] we can see whether it works or not. >> will you send us an update? >> i think other people will be watching, too. >> thank you very much. that's terrific. now, even though we said at the beginning of this session and even if repeated that the election wasn't about foreign policy, and i know that hurts me and almost everyone in the room to think about that because those of us to spend a lot of our time thinking about world affairs and foreign policy in a strange way would like every election to be about foreign policy, i'm not sure -- a cui should be careful what we wish for. but, clearly this election will have an affect on foreign policy. and it's also worth remembering that 2012 presidential election will be partly about foreign policy and this election will lead us into that so let me say a few words where we've been on foreign policy and seek the immediate effect swear that will put us in 2012. >> oddly enough although it is

not almost unnoticed, the first 18 months of the obama administration were in a sense a period of a lot of bipartisanship in american foreign policy. it wasn't the sharpest point of disagreement between the two parties. far from it. yes, there were republican critiques of the obama administration especially the decision to set a target for the beginning of the drawdown in afghanistan. but compared to everything else that is going on, president obama got a pretty free hand for his policy of engagement on iran for example, which if you remember that 1908 campaign he was derided by the republican conservatives as hopelessly naive to think you could negotiate with the leaders of iran, north korea, and who was the third of the axis of people with the time? thank you. venezuela. >> cuba. >> that's right, castro may have been part of it.

the president got a pretty free hand on, even on pressuring benjamin netanyahu on selling israel that it immediately ran into trouble. it didn't work. i was bundled and that -- is essentially the president has gotten pretty wide praise for the way he's handled the drawdown in iraq. now, in an era -- in the earlier era we would have thought this was the normal tradition of bipartisanship, but we really haven't seen this for a while. why was that the case? in large part it was because barack obama moved pretty smartly toward the center in foreign policy. his withdrawal from iraq at the end of the combat mission was supposed to happen in 14 months. the deadline got kicked out. in afghanistan when the military

can and asked for more troops he gave them more troops. when they asked for more after that he complained about being asked for more troops and gave them more troops. we will see what happens if general petraeus comes in and asks metaphorically for a feared bite at the apple as july approaches and request for more troops it will be for more time. i think that will be tough. but i would argue that one of the affects of this election we just had, and the new calendar that leads to a presidential election in 2012 will be -- what you might call the real polarization of american foreign policy. there is now in the next 23 months every incentive for republican critics of the president's foreign policy and there are plenty of them out there for plenty of good reason to sharpen those critiques.

reasons for substitutes and political, and i think we are going to see that in two or three areas. one of them will clearly be the most important decision that's already on the calendar and that is the decision in afghanistan. well president obama decide to pull the trigger on the draw on that he promised we will begin in july? if the answer is yes. the answer is yes for substantive reasons. he's been a long time coming to the decision, and as far as we can tell he believes in it on substantive grounds, and the second is political. the main pressure on obama on afghanistan at this point is not from his right, it's from his left. his main danger between now and the election of 2012 is an anti-war democrat will render the primaries. it's folly to predict an

election narrative two weeks in advance but it's the most dangerous thing for any sitting president to have a challenger from the base of his own party. he wants to head that off. the easiest way as to do what he has already promised to do. but he wants to thread a needle. he wants to withdraw some troops gradually without creating chaos and prompting david petraeus to walk. that isn't a possible threat but it's the dilemma she faces. issue number two. iran. a crisis, if it occurs, if iran gets to the point of deploying a weapon, building a weapon or announcing the capability of building a weapon, but i think will instantly be the defining crisis of barack obama's foreign policy the next two years and how he handles it will in many ways he is defining moment

certainly as a foreign policy leader before the american electorate. it would be folly to predict how that might happen except i would note the administration's own people working on this believe that the iranians won't get their in the next two years. they say they are working assiduously to make sure they don't get their the next two years and when one of the white house top people was asked do you really mean your goal what this point is just to kick the can down the road to years, his response was in the business of non-proliferation taking the can down the road is a pretty major victory. so i think we can expect the can to continue to rattle down the road and the other unlikely outcome would be that iran might buckle in the face of the economic sanctions that have been ratcheted up and affect sue for peace. i don't think we need to spend too much time on that unlikely

that barack obama and the rest of us should be so lucky. the last major issue again in the "we should be so lucky" category is israel. at this point it is tough to see conditions in israel and the negotiations with the palestinians getting to rightness. if they did get to right now is that would be a dilemma for president obama. there are risks inherent for any president in investing a lot of time in trying to negotiate peace agreements in the middle east. not just the obvious risk of putting pressure on israel and irritating the supporters in the united states. among them the conservatives who have moved over the last 20 years from the democratic party, jewish conservatives from the democratic party and republican party, which has made is of the american party of lahood as the

democratic party remand the party of labour. but there is a somewhat more subtle danger for a president and that is when the electorate is asking him to spend full time on the economy negotiating peace in the middle east we already know it takes in the endgame weeks and weeks of concentrated presidential leader. every actor in the middle east has gotten used to having quality time from a president they are going to get there. none of them are going to agree to sign a peace treaty if all they get to talk to is the secretary of state or the national security adviser or even the vice president. joe biden would probably be very effective weapon to get them to finally sit down and sign a piece of paper. [laughter] so in a strange way i think the -- it's a terrible dilemma president obama me face that if middle east peace looks like a possibility, can he spare the time and energy to do it? it is an unlikely choice.

mcginn key and we should be so lucky, but i would be one of the problems he could face. in a more immediate sense of frequently, we will face a challenge, the administration will face some dillinger as i should say in the new congress. beginning with the s.t.a.r.t. treaty that jerry referred to on energy, trying to reassemble some kind of international energy, international climate change policy with cap-and-trade taken off the table was a possibility, and finally, the administration and the democrats in congress have been painfully trying to move step by step toward new openings and exchanges with cuba under howard berman who was the chairman of the house foreign affairs and the last two years the new chair of house foreign affairs is of course going to be a cuban-american from south florida who has no interest in relaxing the embargo so i think that one is off the table. now, this sounds like a dog your

picture. i will close by saying that paradoxically in a political sense it may turn out to be a good thing for president obama, a more polarized debate, sharp focus on foreign policy, actually allows a president who hasn't done a half bad job. you may disagree or agree with his policies that there have been idled agree no major disasters on his watch and that competitively speaking as a pretty good record. that will allow president obama to highlight his stature as a president who can operate in that view and to bring his opponent's qualifications and to the question and if he's looking and carries out his yacht on in afghanistan and have to withstand reasoned sensible conservative counter arguments against him and his political lieutenants will do their best to cast them as the party but

wanted a long career, bigger and tougher war and as he knows from 2008 that is not a bad platform to run on in front of the american electorate. >> i was struck and around the country to follow campaigns at the ambivalence and many conservative republican candidates about afghanistan. on the one hand, particularly in the tea party candidates there is a clear pullback from the bush vision of the u.s. kind of investing the treasury to make the will receive for democracy and on the other hand national republicans need to take a democrat is often the defense and every serious candidate opposed the idea of time limits for withdraw. so i'm just wondering if in fact petraeus and the pentagon do resist the drawdown obama envisions do you think there's a chance the white house gets

caught in a squeeze between the republicans on the one hand and the pentagon on the other basically raising a lot of barriers or resistance to him executing the plan he's laid out riss too there is a chance but it's not impossible to thread the needle. it's not impossible because the pentagon isn't a monolithic. it is not accept the tea party in the pentagon, but there are generals and bob woodward's baquero colin powell says to someone in the white house and mazie to barack obama you know, there's more than one general in your pentagon. you don't have to take the first piece of advice that's there putative if obama and his crew handle this badly, and it's

possible. we don't know. we may have a different secretary of defense of the pentagon. -- there's an x factor. >> you could have some kind of split on those lines and that would be dangerous. i will leave it to you whether in the electoral terms to be on the small or mac side rather than the large war side of your argument, but it is dangerous. >> i have a question, too which is to what extent do you think the economy will dictate as the decisions and afghanistan, to what extent does it become really hard to sustain a lot of planning in afghanistan at a time the u.s. economy is -- >> that is a terrific question because it has been striking how often, how blunt and how openly president obama talks about the economic cost of the war, and the opportunity cost of the war, to the many of us who covered

the 2008 campaign the obama argument that by downsizing of war in iraq and afghanistan we would have enough money to fund energy and education and health care seemed like a tricking talking point and it may have been, but there is no question that the enormous drain on the budget of those war weigh heavily and i still think in a sense the most important speech he's done as president in the structure of american foreign policy is his speech back in december at west point when he echoed eisenhower and said we have to learn to live within our resources, and so in a sort of a concrete immediate sense know, they are not going to make the decision based on the dollar costs and difference options but in a larger sense, yes, the framework of the obama foreign policy is intended to he goes from a very expensive neoconservative nation-building democratizing model of foreign policy to a much more economic

model. a lot of good questions. >> my name is james me finish from alabama. i would like to ask christine, what is the end pediment to depreciate the dollar it seems to me to be clear this is the fed's approach currently and probably prospectively, so what is to stop the fed, and how can the rest of the world -- why would you expect that their best of the world would do anything but have to accept it? >> that is a good point, and it is what is happening. i mean, what we have seen as a result is competitive devaluation. so you know the real losers as the u.s. dollar depreciates didn't have an impact on china because the chinese link to their currency with the u.s. dollar, but the real losers are such as the other emerging

economies that are seeing their currencies depreciate relative to the dollar, so you have seen them starting to try to competitive depreciate their currency, too and the economic nightmare that's sort of the communist dream scenario is we achieve this great global pact to rebalance the global economy and china and germany starts consuming more and everybody's happy that the nightmare scenario is america prince lots of money to have little inflation come to appreciate the dollar and for the deals starts trying to see the same thing. >> there is one other danger which is people could start to build barriers to capital flow, not trade but capital flow. and which others are starting to talk about doing. so, when -- people who worry about a great depression like the downward spiral, which they attributed to protect and worry about the analog barriers, not

trade barriers. >> it's hard to blame the brazilians to much because trade is directly in recent memory was the yen when japan was caught in a similar economic situation to the u.s. interest rates incredibly low and so the smart thing to do was moving quickly to another and made lots of money magically. people are doing that now with the dollar. >> exactly. >> i'm from naples florida. i'm sorry, my name is herbert from naples florida. as the agenda unfolds under the months what is going to happen in washington, what is your prediction for tax policy? >> tax policy? well, first of all i don't have one because of rebuttal negative asked has given a different

answer. nobody has a very clear in hansard i think the only option that actually accumulates the votes in the lame-duck session is one that takes the can down the road to use your metaphor and that is i would think democrats would settle for one, republicans would demand to. extension of all the bush tax cuts which doesn't need anybody but everybody will have to live with. and it's not because that's the one that has gathered the consensus, it's because the fallback option for everybody and i think this kind of where we are at. republicans want to extend them all, democrats want to extend three-quarters of them or decouple the two. i don't think that there is a center of gravity on any of those solutions, so i think taking it down the road for a year or two is the most likely outcome. >> this is none of those times you get to say the sentence to read a couple, two weeks ago we interviewed the president and asked him about this and key in that conversation through a very

hard line against extending all the tax cuts and said if the republicans want to extend the earners have to show where there are going to make up the $700 billion. yesterday tom was a bold different in a press conference. in this press conference and also in the indigenous comments about this idea of maybe just kicking the can down the road. i do not think that would be his first from second or third preference. i think he would rather stand and fight as al gore what say about stopping the extension of the tax brackets. but there are going to be a lot of shell shock democrats in 2012 and he doesn't have the horses with him. >> you know, i think that is a stalemate. you take that issue into the new congress and redefault this package was some other things. there are trade-offs to be made.

if you're a democrat you wouldn't want to make them in the lame-duck session you want to make them in the new congress. so i think that might happen in this horse trading that is going to have an edge in the ceiling and other types of things in congress. the overall lame-duck i think our reporting is the democrats of a little incentive to help republicans results almost anything in the lame-duck. i mean it's just kind of you to put $100 billion, here you go. we will fund the government said january and you take it over and i think they want to kind of makes them confront the implications of their campaign agenda. >> the chamber of commerce helped a lot of republicans who have a position on the interest the chamber wants to see the world want to see it go away. but i think next year. >> next question to respect my name is gail stevenson and i'm from vermont so thank you for the -- my question is about the budget and you specifically mentioned cutting 100 billion was the easy part, and my

question is one of the easy part's the function of 150 international affairs budget so it's not so much about any one foreign policy but about the ability to have a foreign policy and executed all, number one and number two if so is it an omnibus reconciliation process? >> good question. >> i would encourage you to go to the defense department website and read those speeches over the last year. he has said quite explicitly not to very many people are listening i understand we are going to have to get at the office, and here is my plan for doing so. and in august he actually said in may and then again in august he took his building you have to give me $100 billion in defense savings over the next five years so that i can go to the omb and say here is to% of our budget. i'm getting it back to you. you give me a return of 1% increase so that i can keep the force levels at the level they are at now. and he is about to set out to

make that happen. so, he's trying to get out in front of the train that you correctly identified and do it the way he wants to do that and what i think rational people would say is a smart way. we will see if it pulls it off but it's not going to go on skates, and i don't know if republicans are going to think that bob gates, who is none of the above, i think it is inevitable. ..

its own separate category in the budget so it would not be counted. as for an eight, a prospect that horrify some of the folks at aipac and other supporters of aid for israel. so that will be -- that will be a fight. third? >> keeping in mind that miserable fiscal condition of this country and energy as well, do you think there's any likelihood for a major excise tax on fuel, for example, $3 a gallon for gasoline? >> know. i'll stop there. [laughter] part of the challenge going forward is that opposition for new taxes has really become a litmus test for republicans, so that the pledge and americans for tax reform conservative group puts out every senate once been a once and into post-tax increase under any circumstance, virtually every house challenger. think all but one house challenger find it.

and it is just hard to see how you get past that in a variety of areas. social security is another worth imminently possible to imagine a yield that would involve some benefit reductions raising the retirement age or linking retirement age longevity. but the political play to getting them to sign him for that benefit reduction is a revenue increase. really hard to see how republicans get there after a cycle in which you had two sitting senators denied renomination. i think they're going to be pretty leery of going in on those kinds of things. >> we've taken our time. so we'll take questions from anyone within six feet of a microphone. >> okay, if i may, i'm david brooks from santa fe council of international relations. this is a political question and not a firm policy question. as i understood the jim demint analyzing the election results say that when analysis that had been observed was that

upper-middle-class whites were moving from republican to democrat. >> in the last one he wears. >> i think i observed anecdotally. to what do you attribute that can be expected to continue? >> the democratic improvement among those voters -- by the way, we end up even as they best way for democrats with close to a 50/50 split. if elected predominately democrat. but they've gone from being predominantly democratic do outside of the thought obama carried a majority of white voters. while the user is partially foreign-policy impartial cultural issues. primarily, the flipside of what is moved blue-collar voters toward the republicans over the last 40 years. there's a famous book, with matter with kansas in which he

argued republicans and from that commends blue-collar voters to vote against their economic interests like getting them to focus on cultural -- [inaudible] >> thomas frank wrote that. by focusing on things like abortion, gun control and. as does become more prominent as the upper-middle-class communities where they are pro environment, pro-gun control. and also meaningfully in foreign policy this meanness attitude in foreign policy. by and large, it's the chilled in working-class america is sort of unilateral action and peace through strength of the best way to safeguard america's interests in the world. and upper-middle-class, white collar america in the polling tells much more towards diplomacy and alliance as the best way to save america's interests in the world. so i set off in foreign-policy functions in america politics at a social issue, like abortion really. it divides country on the saline

abortion as other than than the economic issues. so a full set of concerns becomes more prominent, democrats have long with those voters. and she sang twice though, what we'll see in 2012 is a lot of fun improvements happen under bill clinton, was moderate -- liberate tomato and foreign-policy issues. under too liberal on social issues, besides the era of big government is over. now coming into suburban upperclassman awaits her bill clinton democrats will see also barack obama democrats. the men in particular -- you tend to be leery of the big activist role for government. there was some erosion on that front, clearly in this election. >> and an end to our panel. please join me in thanking them very much. [applause] thank

>> i'd also like to thank the

accommodations for their interest. our moderator is david. he is a visiting scholar and professional. he's written many writings on this issue. and we have a research fellow and associate professor. next we have doctor steward patrick and director of the international institutions. and finally senior research fellow of the new american foundation empires and global. please help me welcome them.

>> fortunate will, for all of you have solutions both. so take notes and by the time we're done you should be in great shape to go home. in any event, we have the plan that we'll go through a couple of rounds and then open it up as soon as possible to cover what's on your mind as early as possible. so think about you what to ask and get involved early as possible. there's sort of two parts to the title of this session. one is new rules and the other is america's role in the context of that world and i'll be very

literal minded and naturally the first question is are there new rules is there new systems? >> because of the way that globalization is effecting those in power but i think a lot of people con skend with the change. states have the ability to still send boundaries and important effects. but they're not as much new.

>> i'll eject a little bit here. you know, there have been some changes in the past few years. partly because of global crisis as a result of a sense that after a period here in the united states did not appear to be in collateral cooperation as new multi-lateral engagement. we've seen new roles in government systems in particular. et cetera and change this is the nature of a natural monetary fund and the balance of power on the international financial institution but i would agree by and large that it fundamental. lot of people expect that at the out set of the obama

administration to be thought tradition. have to receive that for a number of different reasons for that. one of them sits very difficult when you have an existing order of institutionses sort of the basic realms are. i do think and hopefully we'll be able to come back to this. one of the big challenge for the united states going forward is try to integrate rising powers for countries like india and brazil. come times come with the global issues with like trade. proliferation and rights. that's doing to be a challenge. >> if you look at the lay of the land right now, the - i mean

- but even a jewish boy from jersey can fix that. in any event, the if you look at the lay of the land. we're not in the by polar world. we're not really in a new any polar world. we're into something that's multi polar. we're not in the world of - well we're moving in the world of 20 at least. we're not in the world where the center of collection of gravity is over the atlantic but over the polar pacific. we're in a world in which nuclear capability is spreading to new areas.

lot of things different. we're all in inertia of what's new. it's not that we don't have new rules but we're on the verge of new rules in the system. we think that there are major changes that will stand and contrast to what we've seen. let me let go back to that. i know you think it's all actually very different. >> it's messy and difficult to see a pattern and i agree with his points a well that the rules are breaking down so some extent. meaning that predictability of state interaction. i don't mean to be this way about it but the rules were always overstated and if you look at the management of the nato alliance. presumably the place where american longevity was most pro

dominant it was always difficult and a struggle. with is soviets. it's difficult. we over state a golden age in which rules govern things and i think we're predictably in that. >> what's difficult i think is that we inherented created and aren't particularly in depth with problems today. so that we have nato but i think part of the nato is working on is stla te strategic concept. it's hard to know. we're not waiting. but it's - what is it's rational to move ahead. during the cold war at least

there wased so darety as a role. that now is - well the united states nations. over the last year one of the conversation has been pits interesting because in the walls of the united nations it's so relevant. remember with george w. bush when the united nations said prove the relevance and the things about how your is trying to suggest that it's relevant to the a lient and people inside the institution are asking those very same questions. they're changes and pushing the envelope on different things. there's nonproliferation

extremes that day di david ment are under extreme stress. it's hard to know where. >> you've written a terrific book which looks at the rise of the world and talks about some fundamental changes that are taking place. you have another book coming out if we look at this from another angle. presume blishgs you must be knowing about some new rules, correct? >> we wouldn't be talking about new rules and new systems in that we didn't have order. therefore i think it's beyond the level that we are in a new order of some kind and, the you any polar world. argument is very rapidly shifted toward as multi polar one. order doesn't have a problem. order is analytical pressure. what's the distribution of power

in the world. who is its on top of the hierarchy. distribution of power dissipating. that's why we can also talk about mult-nation corporations and national threats and all the things reaching something that's more unpredictable and somewhat more disorderly so far so. you can't talk about appreciating just how quickly the order that we think we view and still have is coming. in that when then think about what might come. system that we seem to talk about is multi lad lateral system. united nations or if your up to the moment, we'll talk about thega org-20. even that doesn't quite capture this new set of powers and players that you consider. so you can't talk about that.

that somehow reflects this that you're a customed to. taking on a whole different issue. then you can rule for that system, which has to be negotiated but a lot of them, so we're just at the very first phase of a very long period of renegotiating where the order lies, who has the power and what kind of system can possibly have and the rules that has. it's day one. if it is or isn't g20. >> is there been periods where the system is changed but the rules haven't? typically, what happens in those systems is, is equilibrium conflict. 20 or 30-year war. world war i or two. this happens because of power conflicts and

there's no attempt to resolve this effectively or providing stability. you think we're in one of those periods? >> i think that it's best like the time and possibly a thousand years ago. appear in history where we as western world think of as the dark ages and in europe the arab, islamic world all sort of flourish. they each call their own shots and their own level. that's what the world actually looks like today. we can't boss each other around. you look and see powers that be and so forth. so i think that's useful. that world is multiple ora-polar and that's much more accurate characteristic and yes, there's forces that we don't yet have a security counsel that presents

those powers therefore they all come tag. with their differences. things are very much ad hoc. according to rules that may not thrive whether or not they are or not. >> you know we talk about the g20 and that's a two-year event and so far it can't do anything meaningful. kind of the rodney king approach to world financials. can we all get along? but the g20 only deal economically, you look at the security structure. lot of the big players we talk about. rising up and trying to get into some of the others they don't want it. nato, struggled to go out in the

theaters in afghanistan and they don't want to stay there. they want to come back home. isn't there a particular void in that era in terms of security? >> not a particular void because i think that's all that's always been the case. we over estimate the extent to which the united nations were ever there and the extent to nato was always helpful in managing our problems. you think that president eisenhower and in 1954 the talk of nato idea having run it's course or the suez crisis. two of our allies. and this is always been there and i think that one of the rifts being intellectuals sitting around talking about it is seeing systemic patterns of

thinking institutions effect more than they do. there's a lot more continuity in the conversation. even part of your comments suggest about the model pause it seems to me as states what has always been true even in that high water mark of systemic cooperation. post world war ii american age it's always that leads one government persuading another one what it wants to do. possibility, economics on trade deal. the individual adds up to something greater than itself but the systemic order doesn't add up. working and managing. >> our history between equilibrium and disequilibrium. you get neither sometimes. i want to post a specific

question. you talked about emerging powers. we've seen an example of the role with iran and they got together and tried to cut a deal and we're immediately, and i mean about an hour and ten minutes under cut on something that was really uncomfortable with plan b. a diplomatic attitude that didn't go through washington. is this a sign of coming series of problems that we're going to have, or a set of issue? >> think it is. one of the main themes it has in documentations integrating rising powers. trying in effect let's bring the countries into the tenth and

will embrace this sort of western national order. i think what the end that brazil showed very quickly to the united states and obama administration that other countries have their own ideas about for instance, the situations that what may require and what they prepare them self as to. i they were taken by surprise. i think administration was clumsy. they should have probably tried to do a co-op. i think it's in the way the shape of things that could come. i disagree with korea little in the sense that i think there's are elements but i think as far as question, the world does risk a little being out of bounce or balance. i think there's been great

adjustments with g20. some and the financial institution even a couple of weeks ago in korea and adjusting the world bank i.m.f.. in the security council i think it's not necessarily dangerous, but the security council, but the fact that it does not have india and brazil arguably japan, at the same time is problematic so i to not think that is it. >> not having those countries makes it illegitimate? >> also, on a practical level those countries will not best the unites nations in terms of actual resources as much as we would like, they're not inside that body. there's a question particularly in big emerging developing countries. they do tend to want a free

ride. we're developing and we're poornd can't pay for this. like china. right. if you talk to the chinese. we all know that this is a constant, we know is that you know, wow, per capitol base. we have the same thing with india. in some way they have to decide if they're a voluntary member of the big development or am i ready to pull my own weight? >> we talk about multi polar world and a lot of time we talk about that. there's the admonition. we need to balance things out, but there's another component that we don't hear perhaps as much as of in the united states. europeans don't pull their weight the chinese don't. the indians don't pull their

weight and give you a perfect example. we have a whole host of conditions and for the first time ever. china senses there's no way that iran will back off. china central to pakistan and central asia. they don't seem to want to help out or take a stance on terrorism or weapons of mass destructions. that sustainable? and what for consequences. i know - how can i take that particular illustrations of the roles of emerges powers and they playoff? - >> not taking a stance or laying low is a stance. can you help us out and saying that. what does that mean? does that mean they sign off on

power and if they don't, that doesn't mean they're not - well - their long-term goal is with the notion not playing a global role. our vision is not exactly compatible. they're doing a lot. finance vision as well is to say, well you know, united states is going to be bogged down as part of the world. for a very long-time. and practically will be able to have more information and that's what happening. patrick mentioned earlier countries have a mind of their own and to me, all of them are rising powers and you see the - that addition of the regional

level. at the same time you see brazil very active in climate and even with respect to iran, they're also building much stronger (of leadership roles and institutions and you see this happening in europe. bogus on how and why at the same time it has grown with countries in it. and really stages. china has been working on developing corporation and central asia as well as summit type things so when we look, we come straight at the national level to the global level. we have this higher set of activities we miss that are going on that an extremely important. and they want to abandon their own relations and i think that shows really, how, if countries

like china and brazils can become part your going to see them step outwards. >> it seems to me that you under estimate the difficulty of getting from where they are to the origin of where they might be. china for example. looks like to me that they're intention is to free ride and a lawt united states to extenned all the systemic energy and pick up opportunity where you can and that kind of stuff and that's terrific near thing. maximizing their prospects but to me it's that long term approach, but as if you were not investing in making world a better place and helping them work through difficulties eventually the love for china as

it is to us. if was in the chinese government i would have to raise the history of central america because they're basic approach to investment looks a lot like american multi corporations in the 1980's and that didn't workout very well as we tried to establish our role in the world. i think there's a lot more difficulties associated with what they're trying pull off then as we sometimes write them off. >> i want to open it up for folks to think about your questions. about america and so forth if we have time. maybe the chinese are candid in fact, any country that's grown for 48 years at 67 percent a year and has risen. they've avoided a lot of pitfall as long the way. one of the things their best at is figures just how far they can

get negotiations. they're really good at that and one of the ploys a lot of countries have is, well, kind of like the old original. you know. in case they think well let's let the united states take care of sovereign problems carrying the weight o of security and that seems a pretty good strategy because thus far the united states has stepped up and terrorist something a global problem. we took it upon ourselves and so forth and i think that we're how long with that go on and more

importantly. how long can we go on playing the role that these we've been playing figuring out some. or we're just going to go bust or perhaps we're going to go more bust than we already are. sign of domestic political situation for the united states. which i guess is a grand strategy. i think that

i think that, the congress that we'll be facing will be quite equal to, issues of not least information remember aid spending and what we call 100. based on the international account. i think people will look at that and even the defense budget notwithstanding that it's been addition this way and the defense budget has to be looked at. all that suggests we'll be moving not into necessarily isolationist but there will be real constraints on where or what the united states can do.

i don't know if you call tit a nixon doctrine or sort of starting to look around at regional players or allies. we'll start to see partnerships with india, for instance o on how to rank order to the indian ocean and that part of the world. trying to look at different regional anchors and we're at on things we'd like to do to pick up some of the slack. certainly we're exhausted and with spend a lot of money a broad. and we want to invest. from this week. we're going to go to you guys.

he's facing a conundrum that seems an whole family that's associated with what we're talking about. i wonder how that will play out. >> us having to realize that it's falling on what patrick said. not about the u.s. needing to find regional anchors caring for it. it's really about those countries rising and decided what they want to play and hopefully there's some synergy

there. we're not able to call them as much. during a period when america viewed them as an important counter balance to china. ethiopia wasn't looking at china that that way. they were trying to have summits to- declare a multi polar world is coming and china and india together will usher in that era. it's not that america wanted it here. now things have changed a little bit and india wants to be much more naval power. and that is something that they see much more as their role. they really played along with this seems so simple but the u.s. and australia will balance and try to workout that way. india is seeing itself much more again having this central presence overseeing the growing

come pensionty of commerce trade. if the united states wants to be a part of the role in that. india welcomes that help but it's not the way i think you were sort of raising it. ah, america would like to see stability and therefore let us sponsor. india sees itself much more centrally. and then you can apply that to any other pressure. not not, somehow brand new. >> what should their priorities be. should they sign on to the i.e.a

of the sanction or not? should they stop. if they don't see it they aren't suppose to do that. >> there's also the opportunity and the opportunity is the united states if we're willing to go along with that then they have been in the past so. one of the mistakes was made. in the terms of the individual. india doesn't get along so well with anybody knits neighborhood. brazil does but views it's a ghetto. russia and china have a when he will different set. all the countries pull in different directions are you standing because you have lower back trouble? or because you have a question? all right.

[inaudibl [inaudible] >> i'm just very conscious of where i stand at the moment. at any rate, if i could talk about something that i'm hearing in this discussion. number one, rule, rules, rules. new microphone. okay. so i'm hearing, rules, rules, rules and i've heard institutional inertia. now yesterday we heard a great

deal about strategies for killing people that don't like us. um... and we've heard just a little bit about possibly our behavior might have something to do with why they don't like us. is there a possibility for us to embrace the polar world. stop throwing our weight around. stop demanding rules to try to keep the u.s. in the lead and on top and controlling things? will we be capable of operating in the multi polar world which is an effect on the ground and we're not frankly, successful enough to change it? >> maybe sometimes rules

deserve the opinions of others. how about it? >> it's a fact that it's something you can't roll up and convert. when we try to set rules. they also suffer from a great deal of ier sha. each as we may be able to sustain leadership with certain institutions there's human things going up over years. i mentioned the shanghai corporation and you have different views. in one of the under analyzed aspects of policy today is inner regional relationships but america and inner arab countries. china and african areas have summit. europe and asia have a summit and there's tons of agreements

that go on there and they make their own rules and we would not call it global. it's every bit as important because they are from the bottom up writing some of the rules on a regional level. >> either one of you. i sort of do believe we're at that present point that i'm at simply pause there's two kinds of institutions in the world. dysfunctional ones or ineffective ones and within the context of those institutions and they overlap a lot. but you know, we have within the context of the others have to reinvent them or have to create new ones and the security council needs it. and the i.m.f. needs it. there's no climate agreement. again, we sort of need them and if their not.

and so forth so. doesn't that create a great moment of opportunity to refashion a more balance perhaps? >> i have some sympathy with simply u.s. throwing it's weight around. on the issue of are rulesness. i think there's a moment of opportunity here. there's rules that we do basically count. we to need rules. we do need rules about how to those that are not that necessarily. we do need rules about whether or not we do certain things. we need rules about what the balance should be. those that have been historically responsible for global greenhouse gas divisions

verses those that are see currently involved and new rules. there is an element - there's certainly an element there. on the question of whether or not u.s. should be throwing it's weight around, you know i think there's a major debate as to whether or not the pursuit of privacy. can continue to compete. basically the core aspect of foreign policy. think i think that add justing would be hard psychologically for the united states. fair enough. >> okay. i think that you know it's a major thing psychologically as an adjustment for the united states. part it will be, how do we coordinate cooperation among

countries that aren't necessarily like-minded. we need to cooperate and say that here. >> do we. yes. there we go. you want to finish early. perhaps you should. um.... there was some discussion. i think doctor patrick mentioned the idea that would be with a new congress. intention pressure to pull back internationally and seems to me that - um... given the new congress that the patrick at both the state department level and foreign stance level, do you an also anticipate more

pressure. >> i'll take the first crack at that. it seems to me, more likely that the expansion of (202) 737-0001 presentation in the house will give the president more time on the clock and i think he has written off the side that time. basically all of it i believe it should so. no, i don't think there will be pressure on the president to wrap up the wars more quickly than he has. i do think there will be pressure. this one said it to the earlier question, which i would like to take a quick stab at it. it does seem to me that you characterize american power in the international order principally as a mi military

horse. the american order such as it existed for much of the last 60-70 years is a small liberal order. it's an order about free markets. prosperity. represented government. sor sort of emerging culture. that's actually the definition of that and one more thing about that. it's voluntary. we mostly don't force it. we don't force the friendship of of forcing people to into the american order. one thing most countries realize is it's quite difficult to be prosperous outside the american border and the enforcement makes american more sustainable and cost effective in the national order than others.

>> and you may want to talk about that a bit. but regard to the last question, i don't think the president of the united states needs any additional incident from the republican congress to want to get out of afghanistan quickly. i think 2012 is plenty and i think you will see the pace continue roughly as it's been from that i'm going to go heres. that a microphone in that stand? go ahead. >> karen wilson first from western massachusetts council. and just wanted to correct one thing. i've been with the world affairs council for seven years and i never heard once heard one speaker talk about that. want to make sure that's the same. the world affairs counsel? i have a tough question for the

four of you and i'll make it through this. we've been challenged to come up with a two-year program of structured debate on the six most important issues of national security. would you please, put those in order for us? what - in order - what are the top - wait a minute. let me get my question. what are the top six - the top six issue us of national security in order. this important group has the ability to take this to our country? >> let's start here. >> managing rising powers. >> [inaudible]

>> climate change. >> managing rising powers and cost-effectiveness of our strategies. >> domestic importance. it's going to be economic stability and we'll view foreign policy through the lens of the impact on our policy. more than any other. take that in line in terms of real security implications, it's probably either a race of weapons of mass destruction. that poses a possible threat of the greatest nature or the subject of the panel which is how you focus a multi polar world. what kind of infrastructure you need to it to and what kind of component. one of the interesting semantics of going into multi polar world is diplomacy. that whole big building at foggy

bottom that has sort of drifted away from the center of american foreign policy for several decades has got to come back to the middle if you have eight or nine or ten powers, diplomacy is the way to do it and we have to learn how to repractice that art. i think that's there. yes? >> what rich said, bits in keeping with what we have here. i see a disconnect. very much as center of what this is was the focus that the world accepted american leadership. that american leadership has to be at the core. yet what we've heard here is that not necessarily is the case. there's rejection not needing american leadership. i remember a recent gallop pole that said sung europeans are not necessarily looking to the united states as leader of the

free world. so withha said. how would have changed priority that the secretary issued today for dealing with this new world? what would be different if americans is one of equals rather than number one? >> each one of you take the answer of that and with 60 seconds. and if you don't know what the secretary said and that's not pertinent to you, you don't belong in washington. [laughs] it's a slick move though. so 60 seconds. go around. >> - importance of the question. yeah. yeah, um... but - [inaudible] >> that's question you wanted to answer any way.

>> if you look at the countries that want close relationships with the united states. they are countries that have worries that they want our help with and problems they want solved. that 20-year-old western europeans don't feel a particular need for american friendship and a the relationsh a happy adjustment that they don't need help with problems. countries that are pulling in closer relationships with the united states for the last couple of years. asian countries worried about china's rights. countries as a whole and other parts of the middle east worried about iran's behavior so i think it correlated less with the united states - well, i would recharacterize the question that when countries have problems, americans still feel

extraordinarily powerful to them and i think that's my answer pretty much. >> what the secretary has said - it's very difficult for a city has officials in charge of american policy to somehow be a global leader. that would be a very short part for that person. not understanding that will realism or geological context. i think that administration would be wise to think about ways of coming up with a concept of collective leadership that takes - it takes, as it's point of departure what other countries. how they actually see the world and tries to come up with strategies to actually define some common ground on particular issue here's.

i think you'll find rather than everyone signing up, to u.s. preferences across a wide range of global agenda, i think you'll find a modular approach. in kreezingly it's not going to happen just through international solution but as a direction. i think about this in other times in appreciation that there will be different framework not just the united nations, but smaller coalitions. that's the way i view it. i would like to see that corrected. >> each country views itself as center of it's own world rather than deferring to the united states, that's accurate. i think that's basically the case. their first priority is not necessarily to have best relations from the united states but to gain vak from whatever they do have.

it's for they're benefit. the corollary, the way we see ourselves is relatively equal no one above the other means that they're going to get some benefits from the united states and get whatever they can from the europeans and deal with the chinese and so forth and these may be very fluid sort of relationships and that's what we see emerging, if you analyze foreign policies like brazil or russia, you see this playing all sides as much as possible, because they know they can get away with it and whatever united states does, is not sufficient that they should change this multi alignment behavior. at the end of the day, it's going to be the environment that we can't assume alliances are so

san gie soso santh. >> let me conclude by saying you post a question, and i think while there's some disagree movemmov disagreements about this we're clearly in a period of transgression and period of change. the old approach to the united states and the old forms notify and what is - except for some people that disagree with that. but compliment to you and everybody else. keep quiet. and the way that we're going to cope with those things is that rethinking and not the same old people saying same old stuff. and you guy with all your world affairs councils, have a great opportunity in getting new voice like these guys and listening to those new voices because they're the ones that will be the

architects of these changes where in this case, architects of this lack of change, but in any event, that's the future and that's what listening to panel like this is so in testing. thanks very much for taking time. [applause] >> today on c-span two. the national oil spill commission is holding a two day opinion luck hearing on the cost of the rig explosion on april 20th. also a look at preliminary finding on bp's blow out. watch line coverage at 9 am eastern on c-span 2. to day, texas governor rick perry talked about his new book, fed up. our fight to save america from washington. it's part of his book tour. watch live coverage at 11 am eastern, here on c-span. tonight, on the communicators.