robert kagan. at 9:00 p.m., british prime minister david cameron. and at 9:40 president obama. also israeli president shimon peres speaking at apac earlier today. .

almost entirely by american power and influence after world war ii. it is different then proceeded. if the united states decline, we will have a different world order again. >> it takes a lot time to write a book and get it published. when did you started? >> this is pretty quick. i started it in the spring of 2010 or spring of 2011. i submitted to the publisher in november of 2011. they turned it around quickly. >> the first time we heard anything about it i think was in this new magazine. you are the cover. there are lots of pages devoted to its. how did it get into this before? >> your friends i have been talking to him for a while.

he wanted to run with it in the new republic before the book came out. i was happy to do its. it turned out to be a good idea. >> why did he wanted? is in the liberal? the liberal? >> i do not know what to make of these any more. what the u.s. should be doing, i do not find distinction between my own views and his. >> what do you have in this article that got the attention of the president of the united states? >> he went through methodically. i heard a story that they wrote about this in a meeting with news anger setting up for the state of the union. he wintered argument by argument, paragraph by paragraph. he appreciates somebody making the case that we're not in

decline. that seems to me what struck him. >> what did you find out? >> one of the people who was in the meeting and told leon what happened. leon told me. the next thing i know he got to the public. >> what difference does it make that the president has a knowledge this? >> if you're a lot of attention to the book. i am an adviser to mitt romney. i have been trying to balance in between the president making this point but people saying where does this preview in relation to mitt romney? views andromney's minor consistent. >> the wall street journal

published a huge piece. i want to read the notes and give you to break this down. robert kagan's new book is finding an eager readers among prominent members of both political parties. around the time of barack obama's state of the union, washington was abuzz -- how you like that -- with reports that the president had discussed it with new anchors. did you ever get a follow up? >> not much more than what you are reading. >> his security adviser discuss this on charlie rose after. mr. kagan surge on the foreign- policy adviser board of hillary clinton. more notably, is the policy of mitt romney. what about the first 1? >> secretary clinton set up this

foreign affairs policy board. it is a bipartisan group. it is modeled after what they had at the pentagon for many years. it meets with the secretary of defense periodically. i think we need to the secretary of state maybe three or four times a year. we spend the day thinking about issues. we talk to her. it is a lot of fun. >> you what to say is there a dime's worth of difference? seasons are whenund' people try to sharpen the views. i have been writing that there is a lot of continuity, more than we expect. there is a broad consensus. what you are seeing is the kind that exists in the foreign policy committee. on the extremes, there are differences. it does matter who is president.

there are decisions that it made. american for policy has been remarkably consistent over the decades regardless of democrats or republicans. there's a lot of continuity. >> what are the main point of continuity? >> some of it is a logical. americans have felt that they were the keepers of a very special idea about how human beings should relate to one another. americans believe that their idea is the only truth out there. if they do not accept other forms as being legitimate. they think they are transients. even the founders, they never thought that the united states would be the great power that would help defend and spread these ideas. since world war ii, there has been another consensus that is a

project of it that the united states has to play a central role in the international system. there are people would disagree with that. the united states has a vital role to play in maintaining this world order. >> this is only 149 pages with the index in the back. it sells for $21. there are people that spent 20 years on a book and ask $40 for and got thinot give this much attention? >> i have done books like this. i live this long essay form. it is long enough to elaborate an argument, support an argument. it is compact enough that it is fairly easy to digest the argument and not get to lost in the details. it is a lost form of it.

some of the great english essayist wrote these long essays in previous centuries. i think it is a good form. >> another thing that has happened, you are with the brookings now. how did he make that shift? >> i have a wonderful time. i was there for 15 years. i worked there. she is terrific. i have known him for many years. my wife worked for him for seven years. i have a lot of friends there appeared at some point it seems right to make the switch. it is not a big geographically. >> you have been known as a new conservative. is that there? >> i do not know what it means any more. >> you are a brookings now which is known as a liberal think

tank. >> i guess. that is what they tell me. >> your wife is a spokesman? >> yes. it is bipartisanship run up. >> how much are you advising a romney? >> i met them several times for hours. he has been on the campaign trail. i am one of 40 or so advisers. when we are asked for input, we provide it. i had the good fortune as spending time with them over the past year. he is very impressive. he really knows that. >> what do you see up close that we do not on television? >> i certainly see that he is an extremely thoughtful open-minded

and a list of world affairs. are the core principles. he talks their particular problems. he is very interested in problems. he is not problematic. his practical about dealing with issues. >> i want to show this. i think it is meant to be humorous. it was treated by the huffington post using available video from a lot from archives. to show at the washington press club dinner. -- it was shown at the washington press club dinner. it is three minutes long. as the jury action. >> -- let's get your reaction.

>> i'm talking about what makes america great. >> what makes america great. >> what has made america great. >> what makes us great. >> our cause is what made america great. >> it was the centrality of family, hard work, risk taking. >> what makes it great is the fact that we are willing to give what we have to give a. >> what is great is that entrepreneurial. . >> the reason we are willing to compromise is because that is what made america great. >> it is the sense that we're all in this together. >> we are going to restore the principles that made america great. >> i want to restore the principles that made america great. >> america still is great. >> we are convinced it was the

american military that made america great. it has to be the system of government. >> one of the things they say america great is that anyone can run for president. that is man's best friend. >> it always made america great. >> seniors made america great. >> wall street banks making america great again. >> if i look around at what makes america great, it is never something that comes out of this united states council.

>> puppies, they can. >> wrestling. >> my next turn neighbors to dogs.two >> music. >> the second annual like a chocolate festival. >> if i decide to run, our country will be great again. thank you very much. >> a creation of the huffington post. there is a message there. what is it? why do you want to tell everybody we are great? >> americans have a sense of their ex factionalism.

-- exceptional as an. we will travel to other countries. there is pride. no one talks like that and other countries. it is quite striking. there is this kind of constant self appraisal, this constant sense of greatness that we've now heard 5000 times. it is really remarkable. one thing i point out in the book is americans are constantly talking about our way of life. if you ask an american soldier what they're doing overseas, and they frequently say they are defending for our way of life. that is another thing that distinguishes the united states. no other country would speak of doing things for our way of life. they would say they're doing it to defend their borders are the nation itself. there is the sense that americans are transcendent. they transcend the national boundaries. >> do wii?

-- do we? >> certainly in the power of the terms that americans have exercise. certainly in terms of the ideas of the united states. they came to an body of this first. >> what is your reaction when you hear a politician stands in front of groups and they do it all the time, this is the greatest country in the world? >> it is more to that point. the 90 states is really above other countries in terms of what it believes in and what it is capable of. i remember madeleine albright once said when she was being somewhat critical of europeans were not taking actions, she said the united states stands taller and sees farther.

that is a common perception. you can find the same kind of thing. 11 said the united states in the great course of mankind, is a locomotive. we can go too far. it is a very deeply felt sensibility. >> you have been on the circuit. you talk to a lot of people. what part of this book are people not asking you about? >> there has been so much attention paid on the argument that the united states is not in decline. there has been too little ascension paid to what the book is talking about. there's always the danger that we could leave ourselves into a decline of what the cost would be. i want to look at ways to emphasize that we can sort of will ourselves into decline. we can take actions that we've

ourselves. it is a fairly strong one. >> wire you so optimistic? -- why are you so optimistic? >> i am optimistic and concerned. i think a lot of this since the decline is that we're in the recession. in the great depression, people thought the democratic system itself was going down. it was normal. we tend to have a very rosy view of our past. americans are always looking back to their past. they're always comparing the present to that. when my favorite quotations is pastor can racing that the united states has really fallen from the. of liberty that we had. his party looking back on the on the youth of america.

it is part of our constant regeneration. if you really go back and look at that path, even after world war ii when we're supposed to be the strongest, we forgot me cannot get things done that we wanted to. we had strategic setbacks. the soviet was getting a nuclear weapon. it is very difficult to influence the world. it has always been difficult. >> early on, you talk about order. you talk about the egyptian order. a roman order. an islamic order. i cannot talk anymore. there are many others. they view this. sonny have to view as an

american order. what are you getting at here? >> i'm trying to get at the notion that the world we live in today is a creation. it is not a product of evolution. there is some scientific evolution and some knowledge. what we have today is treated. if you like the basis, the widespread democracy and the absence of war, it is not just here to stay. it has to be defended and promoted. we will move on to a different order. or we will have a collapse of order which happened in the first half of the 20th century. >> one of the most powerful

influences still think of themselves as aloof. >> they are apart from the world. it did not want to be too involved. >> passive? >> they did not do things to people. >> self-contained? correct all that matters is what occurs with in the united states. >> and generally inclined to mind their own business. >> americans generally think there minding their own business. they are surprised and others take it into what they are doing. we do not frequently realize how large our presence looms and other parts of the world. when people react, we are surprised. >> you're saying that people in america are not paying attention. >> the american self image, you

can read hundreds of u.s. textbooks and say that the basic form policy of the united states is isolationism. then there has been times of the world has required us to depart from that isolationist tradition. the we go back to our basic isolation. my reading of american history is the contrary. the united states has never been isolationism. >> i want to go back to 1995. a man you will be familiar with talking about why he dedicated his book to a couple people you know. let's run this. >> bob and fred are my two sons. bob is the older. he is a very interesting fellow who went to yale. then he went to the school of

government at harvard. then he went into the government. he put in years working mostly in the state department. >> a political job? >> yes. for president reagan. he has taught me so very much that i would never have known otherwise. as a practitioner in the world of international relations, foreign affairs, he has brought the real world home to me. he taught me an amazing amount. i wanted to express my gratitude. >> is it fair to say that the kagan's write a lot about war?

if so, why/ >> my brother is an expert military historian and was an adviser to general petraeus. i write more about what happened before and after the wars. i think the reason is a, and my father has been making this point for decades, people constantly believe that war is an aberration and peace is the norm. human history tells you that war is a constant. it is always looming. if you do not take or seriously, you are not understanding how the human race operate. secondly, if you do not understand that war is a constant, you do not know how to prevent it. my father's efforts have been devoted to trying to teach people how to pretend war by understanding it. my brother has been devoted to

making sure we win wars rather than lose them. >> before we go any further, here is your brother's wife, talking aboutgaiagan, war. >> our ships were still arriving in iraq. they were establishing themselves in positions in and around baghdad and around the support towns that al qaeda was using in order to film the spectacular attacks. on june 15, the court had headquarters in iraq. they lost a series of this in order to attack the safe havens at once. if you look at the violent

charts, you will see that the level spite for a week after that began. then they start to decline rapidly. >> here is your brother's wife who got attracted to each other over ward? >> >> i do not think it was over war. she is an expert in military affairs. she ran an institute that has now become a source for all kinds of newspapers and journalists. >> let me ask you. he instituted these city of war. it is called the institute of peace. why are we spending that kind of money on something called the institute of peace ta? >> is a perfectly good

organization. it is basically another think tank. i do not know why the government spends a lot of government funding on another think tank. it is true that the u.s. military has led to the institute of peace to help them on some issues where they were able to do some transitions between civilian and military issues. there's no question that they have done some good work. >> how do you rate the iraq war and the afghanistan war now? >> it is too soon to tell. i was very optimistic about iraq. up until recently. i've been happy to see the president and the obama administration decided to withdraw all troops completely. it vows never the plan. -- that was never the plan. the premise of the several thousand troops behind. i am concerned about the fact of this rapid withdrawal is going

to be on iraq itself. i've seen people like george make the argument that what does it mean if when we withdraw troops iraq begins to fall apart? that is not true. we mean troops in countries in decades. in europe and korea. we still have american troops in bosnians. it is required to maintain these forces at a very low level in order to maintain the stability and maintain the victories that have been accomplished in iraq. in afghanistan, i feel mostly for political reasons, the obama administration deciding to drawdown too quickly to put a finite and on this conflict, which is encouraging the taliban to believe that all they have to do is wait us out with negative consequences. >> we have troops in korea and japan. we will have 2500 in australia.

we have a lot of troops in germany. what would our reaction be if china sentence thousand trips to cuba? >> to be very unhappy. -- sent 10,000 troops to cuba? >> we would be very unhappy. with the benefit of american leadership -- one of the benefit of american leadership is we do not have a multi war world. i talk about how remarkable the rest of the world except this global military presence by the united states. the united states has troops and over 100 countries in the world. the rest of the world is fine with that. it would not just us that would be upset. or if the russians were back to putting troops overseas. many other countries would be upset, too. one of the great stabilizing element of the international

system is the fact that there is this one power that everyone basically accepts is going to be maintaining the peace. the minute we move into competition over that, we move into a different kind of system which is more dangerous. >> you have history in this book. i want you to describe what springtime of the people's was. >> that is what they called the now forgotten revolution, democratic and liberal, that swept across europe in 1848. they pretty much toppled almost across europe and to the into the german principalities. then this springtime of the people's was uprising of liberal and socialist forces which crashed partly by the russians aczar.

i talk about it to illustrate that there is nothing inevitable about democratic change. 1848 could of been a moment when your mood at a much more liberal direction, particularly in which germany could have moved in a more liberal and democratic direction into the moving toward this militaristic approach that did mark autocratic militarism and how different the world would have been and why didn't the revolution succeed? the major reason was the balance of powers among the great powers was sort of evenly is o liberalween tw powers and autocratic powers like russia. the result was the balance of power did not favor democracy. it is how different things were in 1989. the democracies were much stronger. the other side was a week and

collapsing. you have a successful springtime of the people's in 1989. it is going to be interesting to see that we have another springtime and how it turns out. i would say we have seen signs that would argue that there is greater success of toppling autocrats because the democratic forces are strong. if the united states were to decline, at the balance which shift again. you'd see democracy more under siege in democracy having more defenders. the he might like it the hope you paid for. >> what did you think -- you might not get the hopi paid for. >> what do you think of the arab spring? >> it is too soon to tell. i'm cautiously optimistic. some people who think there is a

choice that united states could have continued to support mubarak or a left gaddafi alone , i think they do not understand how powerful this demand for individual dignity is. what course of these revolutions take? there's plenty of reason for concern. my instinct is that over the long run this will be of advantage to the united states partly because it will serve our transcended interest in the world order that is predominantly freer. >> you point out that we have gone from something like five .emocracies back in the 1800's >> now does about 1500. >> the freedom house has noted a decline in democratic

governments, a minor one but a steady one. what have look like the democratic blossoming and has retreated. i would say russia has certainly retreated. i'm not sure it is ever fully qualified. . even right now people are worried about what is going on in hungary. it is further to the point that democracy is not some inevitable evolution. it ebbs and flows. even though you can say they're written democracies in 1900 and now there are 1915, it was not a steady decline. it went up to two dozen. the winner back down again. it adds inflows depending on what the great powers are doing.

>> you write that the global free market that we know today was greeted by british power. when britain faltered, the liberal economic order was not passed smoothly onto a new group of supporters. what happened to the british empire? >> the sun never sets on the british empire. it was massive. the british enjoyed looking at maps for the territory was covered pink all the way across asia. india was the jewel of the crown. also, africa. i do not know exactly the number. the british ruled hundreds of billions of people at one time. the larger historical benefit was maintaining an open economic system which helped increase

overall global prosperity. it did so by being a dominant navy with an interest in an open system and the ability to protect that system. when the british empire declined as a result of rising powers in it lost that ability. there's a greater multi- polarity. it is only restored after world war ii when the united states took britain's place and became the dominant power with a dominant navy and an interest in an open economic order. that is rare. people think that the global economy is a product of impersonal revolutionary forces. that action sella's that it is rare. it is supported by one kind of country that both cares about

them benefits from a free and economic order and has the dominance to sustain it. that is a rare combination. i'm not sure who would pick up for the united states for it to lose the dominant position. >> how does it work and that you are married to victoria nuland. how does it work that i will show you a clip of her in her most recent job. >> we have concluded that we need to suspend operations at our embassies in damascus in light of the fact that we have concerns about the safety of our personnel. we have been working many weeks with officials to try to control access through the facility. we were not able to come to appropriate arrangements there.

they were not made to suspend operations. the remaining personnel departed the country. the flap has been taken down. the spokesman at the department, outsiders say how does this work? >> she is the face of american foreign policy. not me. that is one good thing. i think people outside washington perhaps have a more cartoonish you of things than those of us who worked in washington for a long time. my wife and i have both been in washington since 1982. people who really make foreign- policy their profession, it is a community. it is a small community. my wife is a dedicated foreign

service officer. she is been here her whole adult life. she joined when she was 23 years old. she has a democratic and republican presidents. the issue is a top advisor to the clinton administration. that is your job, to work for whoever -- that is her job, to work for whoever is in office and help them make the best policies they can. some stay short for this person and that person and i do not understand. -- some say she worked for this person and that person and i do not understand. >> connecting the dots, there is a little note at the bottom of the first page of your article. you have a lot of pages in that new one. it says robert kagan -- at the end it says the publication of this essay is supported by the fund for policy analysis. were the supporting new?

you? >> he is a very significant philanthropists. he supports a lot of universities are round the country to study grant strategy in for policy. i can only assume that leon got that support. >> outsiders looking at this process, would you be concerned that everybody knows everybody and there are different parties working behind the scenes? >> paranoia is the great quality in america. i think it is good. i think the fact that people of different parties, people who are concerned about for policy talk to each other, work with each other and tried to formulate policy. people come into washington as presidents or a secretaries of state or secretaries of defense from all over the country. they're not part of the project.

they have the policy to hire and fire whoever. they look to the foreign policy group of of both parties for the experience that they have and use them. especially people like my wife. >> most of what i have seen the you have got from this book is all positive except for one place. >> you cannot win them all. did yowhat you know what i'm talking about. >> thank you for bringing it up. >> of what you do have a chance to answer. has she ever review before?thi >> she said some nice things to.

she says it is in the scattered fair. it undermines the more potent arguments with debatable assertions and self important declarations of the obvious. what do you say about that kind of characterization? >> you should not argue with book reviews. i do not really want to get into an argument. it is not the most people who have read this book. i have shown this book to a number of people who do not agree with my take on the world, democrats and republicans. in none respond with that kind of criticism. they had more policy criticism. i do not know what to make of it. they are entitled to their opinion. i do not begrudge her opinion. >> she's got in the system. >> i would say her reaction is a little cartoonish. she sees the world neatly

divided between new conservatives and in the good people. the book is not above criticism. i am sure she thinks it is legitimate. >> sometimes shaky reasoning is combined with the failure to grapple commensurate with the crucial problems facing america today. it goes on in that vein. how much did you deal with today's problems? the other side is that we owed the chinese $1 trillion. they hold our debt. >> i had two major goals in this book. you cannot write a book that does everything that everybody wants it to do. that book is not 149 pages. the book she wants me to write about 149 pages. i felt people were looking at

everyone was relatively complacent. there was a general assumption that the united states can decline but you get the same kind of world order that we have. there is less concerned that i think is warranted about what the actual consequences would be. the bulk is an attempt to explain how unique the american role has been, how much this world order characterized by an open economy, largely democratic and an absence of great power, how it depends on the united states and when not survive if we move into a post-american world. by the way, i do not think we are in a post american world. i do not think we are in decline the way people talk about. those are my two objectives. i tried to focus on that and not the other directions. in terms of whether we are

actually in decline, you mention the billion dollar debt, i address in some detail how to think about the united states by the growth of the united states economy. what i make is that of course china is a challenge because of the growing economy. they face challenges, too. they have significant hurdles to get over both domestically and in terms of their international situation before they can become anything approaching what the united states is right now. i think i addressed the problem soberly. >> what is your reaction to what it was like in this country before in 1972 when the president went to china? everything has completely flipped. they hold our debt. we still have the largest military in the world by far. now we're getting concerned that they're starting to build their

military. why don't they have a right to protect themselves? >> they have a right to protect themselves. the have a right to expand. there is no justice system in the international order that says everybody gets to do with the want to do. everyone has a right. it did a been a bit to american -- is it a benefit to our primary concerns? is it a benefit to the world that as china increases the military voice, -- world? as china increases the military voice, we have seen the effects. everybody from japan to india to the philippines have come to the united states and looked for reassurance that the united states is still there. setting aside the right in the they have a problem.

they look to the united states for support. that is an obstacle that they may try to break out of. if you look at the germany at the end of the 19th century, germany tended to break out of that problem by going to war. the chinese know that history very well. they're trying to avoid it. china is a little box and carried it does not have the kind of sway that the chinese believe it ought to have in terms of their history and in terms of their growing economy. we do not want them to have that kind of sway. how this gets manage will be one of the great and potentially dangerous circumstances that lie ahead of us. >> i am going to go back to the review. you mentioned this earlier in our discussion. at want you to address this. she said the expectation of

global support for military intervention "is so great that in the iraq war, americans were shocked and disturbed when only 38 nations participated in the innovation or the post invasion operation of iraq." she says "such statements of the so-called coalition of the willing play down and just how controversial the iraq war was and how-lead the invasion affected the perception of the united states abroad." what i do not know whether she did not read on our did not focus, i am making the point that it was highly controversial. it did put them in extremely bad repute. the reason i talk about it is to then say "look what barack obama then did within a year of coming to office." he used force again to topple

another arab dictator, gaddafi. the world was not only support of a practically begging the united states to take action. the point of trying to illustrate was that even after the united states has undertaken a highly unpopular military action, albeit with quite a number of allies, even after that, in just a few short years, the world is coming back to the united states and saying "play that role." i am not making a political point. i am not saying they're for george bush is right and barack obama is wrong or the other way round. i making a larger point that transcends partisan politics about how the world looks of the united states. if you had said in 2006 that the world would be begging for the united states to use force in the middle east within three and half years, everybody would have said you are crazy. that is the resilience of the american position. >> i am not sure she is the one

to use, putting her in another camp. what are the different camps in this town? agree on mostgakagan's things? >> yes. there are a couple of different camps. they're not defined by parties. it is not a simple republican versus democrat. i do not like the term neo conservative. if you believe that america should be promoting democratic principles when it can and that the united states should play a predominant role, i would say that they have the top leadership if not more. obama himself, depending on which speech you focus on, has said almost exactly that. he said that at west point

couple of years ago. i know people in the administration you have that very strong view. what people call neoconservatism i call a mainstream by partisan view that has been dominant in this town for quite some time. everybody from dean acheson to john f. kennedy. another school i guess is what you might call "liberal internationalists" who want everything to be about institutions. they want to strengthen the united nations. the what the u.s. to support international law and are more worried about the united states running afoul of those institutions than they are about america exerting power. sometimes these people overlap. there were some actions that they favor because they think it supports a world order. that it's complicated. then there is the so-called

realists. i do not know that mean any more. they tend to argue that the united states needs to be more restrained. it is supposed to be about the exercise of power and what works. realists in town have called for a more restrained approach. on the final extreme, there is the genuine isolationism of the ron paul variety. depending on the issue, depending on who is in power, which party is in power, it is amazing how much flux there is. one of my favorite example is george will who is taking a pretty strong minimalist approach to american for policy. i remember when he supported the invasion of panama all under george h. w. bush arguing that it is right for the united states to support

democracy. people are all of the map. it is not as neat as a reviewer is may think. >> ito really bad that i have not introduced our audience to your -- i feel really bad that i not introduce the audience to your brother. here is fred. let at the end of the day, there's visible solution to the problems we face. -- there is no solution to the problems we face. we have experimented with simple solution like cutting pakistani aid completely. it is not clear what effect any of that behavior has. it is clear that in general terms of things do not go well for us when we simply decided to pakistan as an enemy. >> that was not good 2011 for the house, and security committee. -- that was in 2011 for the house homeland security committee. where did you all keep your

interest in this? >> i assume we had to get it from my father. >> where did he get id? >> that is a good question. i know why he fell in love with great history. that is a different question he fell i. he fell in love with democracy. he had a prejudice of democracy. for whatever reason, when he was a kid, world war two was the big one. maybe he is more conscious as many of people from his generation are. he took that into his greek history studies. he rode a four volume history of the peloponnesus and waian war. >> coming years has he been at war? >> 42 years.

i went to yell, of redwood to yell, his wife into yale -- i went tot to yale, fred his wife went to yale. >> what got you ready to be able to be in the brookings think tank and to be able to write for a living? >> there are people who dispute whether i'm ready to do it. might view is that i am a great believer in learning history. one of the errors we have made pedagogical a over the years is move more and more toward international ferry.

if you have some knowledge over how the united states has been paid and what country, and also what other countries are like. this international approach, they lose sight of this rich historical truth that nations have histories. they have characters that are vaguely formed by their esperance is. they have better judgments based on that understanding. >> a couple of things before we close. >> tor is my wife. >> why did you begin the book with frank capra and george bailey? >> that should be well was walking on the beach with --

that dedications struck me was walking on the beach with tor. i watch that movie every year. i cry like a baby. it seems to me the idea of trying to see what the world will look like without you is an intriguing idea. i let it off. i quickly moved into the book. it is so that americans could think about what the world would like without america. that is what decline means. i am trying to shape everything we take for granted about the way things are. it does not have to be that way. he was a failure. he had an opportunity to show this. we are not conscious enough about how differently the world to be if we were not here. >> this is a terrible simple

question. on theere little kagan's way to writing about this? >> they should not be burdened. the sins of the fathers and grandfathers to not be on the children. my daughter is 15. my son is 13. my doctor is more interested in law. -- my daughter is more interested in law. >> elaine a. kagan also has my daughter's name. >> the book is called "the world america made." your also the author of a "paradise in power." >>, have you written? >> 3.

>> is it on its way to being a best-selling book? >> i hope. >> thank you for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> free dvd copy, a 1 call877- 662-7726. for free transcripts are to give us your comments about this program, visit us at www.q-and- a.org. "q & a" programs are also available as c-span pod casts. next, david cameron at the house

of commons. them president obama's remarks at the american issue public affairs committee. after that, rick santorum at a campaign event in oklahoma. at 11:00 p.m., another chance to see "q & a" with robert kagan. >> tomorrow i'm "washington bruce bartlett offers ideas on how to simplify the tax code. stephanie schriock talks about the role her group will play in the elections. todd jacobsen details the president's $11 billion request for the national nuclear safety administration. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.