the ruling of the the brownback administration decided not to appeal, which was not surprising, and in some ways we saw a victory for religious liberty based upon the proper application of our own state constitutional standard, which is much more in line with a compelling state interest standard. that interest along with other issues happening at the local level in kansas led led to the discussion about the possibility of some legislative action to further heighten the protection

of people of faith in a variety of contexts. this led myself along with others to draft a couple pieces of legislation, and the primary point i wanted to make here is in regard to those pieces of legislation. one was a conference -- conscience protection provision for health care providers. that particular piece of legislation made it through the entire legislative process. the other bill was a statutory provision which made it through the house, but then ultimately did not receive a vote on the senate side because there was concern about whether we could get it to the process. it struck me in reflecting upon reflectingtwo different pieces of new legislation, but concern with the issue of religious liberty, one that was successful in the process and one that was not successful, and there were a whole host of reasons that could be pointed to as to why things played out the way they did in the particular context of the kansas ledger --

kansas legislature. when of the things that struck me, one of the issues was clearly viewed by members of the legislature and members of the public in general as having a very strong specific pro-life overton stick it. with respect to that bill, there was a very mature, well- organized, and fairly sophisticated institutional presence within the state of kansas of organizations and entities that are used to rallying behind that type of legislation, providing it with support so you have a plurality of voices speaking to the media about the importance of this legislation. you have a conservative presbyterian church in kansas city. there is a methodology that

conservative folks of fate in their churches are used to seeing operate to spread the word with respect to those types of bills, to say contact your legislator, let them know what you think about this. that bill passed. the other bill that was more narrowly viewed as a religious liberty bell, which bumped up against different types of opposition, did not enjoy the same type of institutional support, not because many of the people who were supportive of the other bill were not also supportive of it, but because institutionally, structural it, they were organized to advance an important cause, the cause of defending innocent human life. they have not fought so carefully organized themselves in a way to think about, discuss, and advocate for legislation that is more

narrowly focused on the issues of religious liberty. one of the reasons i am excited about this conference, excited to hear about the possibility of caucuses beginning to form, is what i think is a very strong need for people of faith and those who are sympathetic, even if they are not people of faith, to the importance of religious vividly -- liberty to develop a framework within to pursue the to the policy goals. what the reality is, all of that philosophical underpinnings for the importance of religious liberty that we have heard about today are absolutely crucial. but there is a practical reality of the ability to move the political process with those ideas, so i agree ideas have consequences, but those ideas require an institutional framework in order to have the kind of impact that we need to

have even in a small pool like the state legislature of the state of kansas. i would conclude by saying my hope is that today begins with this conference and with the work and some others the beginning of not just thinking about what the theoretical underpinnings are for advancing the cause of religious freedom, but also thinking about what institutional structures need to be developed in order to be able to advance that ideal in a fashion that is politically successful. and so thank you very much for having me here today, and i look forward to the discussions we continue on this afternoon. [applause] >> i'm here to talk about legislation that was enacted in virginia earlier this year, providing conscience protections for child placing

agencies. we're talking about adoption and foster care services. there are a lot of organizations involved in the passage of the legislation. i want to note the central involvement of the family foundation and also our bill patrons in the house, senate. bill had the support of the mcdonnell administration and was signed by governor mcdonnell after it passed. the bill, as far as what it does, two things -- it's as basically that adoption and foster care agencies are not required to participate in place since that would violate their moral or religious convictions, and secondly, that they would not be punished for refusing to participate in those types of placements, so they could not be a license, they cannot be denied state funding for an opportunity to participate in state contracts, and they cannot be sued for refusing to participate in placements that violate their beliefs.

the genesis for the bill being introduced in 2012 was actually back in 2011, when our state board of social services was debating new regulations that would apply to private child placing agencies. within that debate, there were some that wanted to say that agencies, private, including faith-based agencies, which have to provide services without regard to sexual orientation or family status. our viewpoint against that sort of provision eventually prevailed, and there was overwhelming -- there was an overwhelming 7-2 vote in favor of provisions that we found acceptable. but nevertheless, after having gone through that process, even though in the end it was

favorable, we did not want to wait for that conflict to continue to of rise, say, with a future administration and having to go to that conflict over and over again. by the way, the provision that ended up being adopted by the state board of social services was that virginia follows the federal law, and agencies cannot discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and those are the federal standards, and that is what the state board of social services adopted, and again, with our strong support. we did not want to have to go

through that regulatory debate over and over again, so we sought legislation to try to codify a explicit conscience protections for private trout- placing agencies, including others that are faced pressed eighth base. we learn some positive lessons from north dakota. north dakota was the first state to pass this law, and virginia is the second. north dakota provided a good model for us. some of the key arguments that we used and seemed to be effected are as follows -- one was that we were not breaking any new ground. all we were doing was cut find the status quo, and we were really making explicit what was already implicit.

our agencies were already allowed to not have to participate in placements that violated their beliefs, and we wanted assurance from the legislature that that could continue permanently. secondly, we were helped by being able to demonstrate that the threat is very real. we were not overreaching, we were not imagining that there was some sort of a threat. we knew from the debate that was raised during the state department of social services that the threat was very real, and we had opponents that were trying to force agencies to have to participate in placements that violate their beliefs. secondly, our opponents, during the general assembly session, actually introduced a bill that said that if our agencies were to be able to take into consideration things like sexual orientation and family status, then they should be denied state funding. we were able to point to that bill and say here is an example of why the threat is real.

on the state funding issue, we were able to turn the tables and use the fact that that bill was introduced to our advantage. our primary argument was that our agencies were falling all the federal and state and local laws. if that is indeed the case, it seems to beg the question, how are we discriminating if we are following all the state and local and federal laws? our opponents' assertions that we were engaging in discrimination by taking sexual orientation and family status into consideration is nothing more than a bald assertion, and we were able to turn that around and say where is the discrimination? we are following all of loss. if indeed we're following all

the laws, what our pundits were doing, they were the ones that were promoting discrimination. if there bill would have pass, it would have imposed the governmental scheme of viewpoint discrimination on faith-based agencies. we used the introduction of a that opposing bill to our advantage. i think also it was important that we raised the fact that this impacts not just institutions, but also individuals. there is a growing trend or strand of thought that if we have the rights of institutions pitted against what is perceived to be the rights of individuals, the then there is a growing tendency in the debate to say that the rights of institutions have to yield.

i think to counter that, we were able to say this does involve individuals. there are birth mom's and prospective adoptive parents that want to be able to work with agencies that share their values. that was an important point to be able to raise. the arguments i have listed were part of the success of the bill. it was also important that we were able to bring that heads of various agencies that provide these services directly to the hearings, and they were speaking directly to elected officials. we were able to see these community providers were being directly affected. also, within that same vein, providing statistics that showed the dow you that catholic charities and many other adoption of foster care agencies, providers of services, the value of them to the state,

which were able to aggregate numbers of how many children and families they served and the good work they do. i will just end up with some challenges that we face, and that may surface in other states as well. some insist that the bill would be a trump card that would allow us to circumvent existing laws. nothing could be further from the trip. it is a narrowly tailored bill that say we do not have to participate in placements that violate our beliefs and cannot be punished for that. it does not say that when we do participate in placements we can ignore state laws. that was how it was portrayed by some of our opponents. the other challenges was no matter how thoughtfully we explained the bill, a common storyline was still that what happened was that the general assembly allow agencies to discriminate.

as i explained the four, the very opposite was true. they would impose separate roles on us even though we follow the law. would have been the ones that were victims of discrimination. those were the arguments we use, the challenges we face, and i would end by -- it could be worth this. we note the threats are at a national level. this is a national movement to force the adoption agencies to provide services that are against their beliefs. it is well worth considering trying to lock keys into place all there is an opportunity to do so. [applause]

>> that afternoon. it is a blessing and honored to be with you this afternoon. our mission is to protect and defend foundational principles. religious liberty is the one i consider would be the greatest threat to what is going on in our country today. and arizona, churches rely on us to see if it is going to impede what the mission is. we very much sir that role and work with them groups as well. in arizona, we have real-world issues. what i see is this an increasing trend that you hold certain religious billy security

should not enter certain professions whether it be a attorney or counselor. this is what we see from our opposition. it can be more expedient to pass a state law than to try to litigate a case in the courts. in arizona, we no longer ou have janet napolitano as our representative. and the last four legislative sessions, we have had seven different state laws passed relating to religious liberty. we will give you a quick rundown to show you e-mail able to do in your state. we are part of the council network. each hinckley on state groups and find out who might be there to help you with some of these issues.

in 2009 we have a situation where a young girl had a picture of jesus on her notebook. she was sent to the principles office. remember when they would get seven for chewing gum? that led to us passing out a religious liberties act. a lot of the law was codified in state law also very easy to reference. here is what you can and cannot do in the public school. we read able to pass this after the federal law. we had a church or the city denied a use permit after the church bought a building. they wanted to use it for entertainment. a lawsuit was filed. it will lost a round in court.

discriminate against the church because of our state law. making a real difference. in 2011, it is the freedom of speech. we had a one of those where they had some issues on whether they would be recognized because of their religious beliefs. that was settled out of court. it says they cannot discriminate against events on basis of their viewpoints. a fairly broadbased tax.

in arizona we have been able to take care of them for protecting their religious liberties. in 2011, we had a simple bill passed that said when a church speaks out on a ballot measure that they cannot be required to register as a committee. a few years back a church was asked to register as a political committee. they could do this without having to sign up as a political committee under state law. this year we have had to devi of critical bills get through. the center is with us today. -- the senator is with us today. this has several key parts. it says this has to be licensed

by the state. the government cannot deny or revoke bac license because he declined any service. if you say i am sorry because of their religious belief, you have the client service. also protect religious organizations. i encourage you to look at the senate bill. we had some issues in arizona. i am a licensed attorney. we have tried to enact provisions that would prohibit me from discriminating on a basis of gender expression. that type of provision would violate my religious beliefs. it was able to do this, you

cannot go forward in that area. we also have a situation where an individual had been appointed. during the public hearings, one of the commissioners said i think this person is too religious. it says there's not a religious test. we had to clarify to make sure. that is a key to have to go beyond the health-care industry. licenses for doctors have been fairly well established. we also have the issue of the mandates.

she led the charge in arizona for her law. it said if they business provides health insurance, you have to change family planning. what did now says is that if you are an affiliated employer, you are exempt. how we define this is that the articles it incorporates say the eu your religious beliefs are essential to the principles.

we assign them into law. we have all the flak you see. we had a number of us that not have a religious belief on contraception. the government cannot compel anyone to act against their religious belief. it does quite the debate. the other bill that did not get a lot of attention was to protect the religious abilities. they cannot be higher because their religious or political beliefs. it has significant support. some of the lessons is that we were very closely.

we strategizing together. we see what are the issues and needs. we provide the drafting. i do not think that any of the bills we have worked on had been introduced without having some on this. if you want to see what is going on with religious liberty, simply look at the best of cases they had. you will see the threats. we are looking at what is going on in their litigation efforts. what can we do? make sure you have the legal input. they know what needs to happen. this has been huge. when you're gone to the legislative caucus, this is your ticket to get something through.

we certainly have not had this experience in arizona. we were closely with our gunners so we do not get a surprise. we tried to build a consensus. once these are passed, we get ahead to make sure they are signed into law. [applause] >> thank you. in looking around at the activism that is already existing with respect to religious freedom, and that is something that has been said. if you were to make an all-star team of state legislators this

of be on the first team. debbie has already been mentioned. they both said something that was interesting. he said i need help. one of my bills passed. one did not. the difference was i did not have the infrastructure to get the second one across the finish line. you may have heard him stand up and ask a question. she still said i need help. these all are the all stars. they are still saying that they need some help. that is acknowledging the fact that there are groups out there doing work. you helped us put this conference on.

we think we need to do more. the theory is great. the theory is a necessary condition for success. it is not even close to a sufficient condition for success. we will have to have a durable architecture that allows us to succeed. this is why i want to talk about our state caucus strategy that they alluded to earlier. and what our thinking is that created this idea. serving the national landscape, and there has only been working done on religious freedom in about eight states. there have been pockets of bills introduced. only eight states have done anything in the 2012 legislature.

we have seen pockets of excellence. in general, excellence is off. this issue is in its infancy. it has only recently come into the national consciousness. the states are lagging in terms of knowing what to do. as i traveled to about nine states in the last few months and talk to legislators, what i've found is that there is a real interest in working on religious freedom issues. candor that people do not know what they are talking about. if they do not feel sure footed stepping forth, and the bills will not go anywhere.

we do not have what we need, which is about 12 of them in every legislature. the technology for cloning is not here yet. we have to do something else. we have also seen the success of various types of national organizations that bring legislators together sometimes in conferences or other ways and accomplish what they're trying to accomplish by information sharing among and across state legislatures. they see a bill that they think would be a good idea. the passes because of a recommendation. currently, nothing like that really exists for religious freedom. that is what we're trying to do. the idea of state caucuses is hardly a novel idea. probably all of you have some kind of state caucus in your legislature of some kind.

we want to build state caucuses that have to do with religious freedom. we want to connect with what we saw in some of the earlier panels. i think that one of the tasks for those of us in this room who share our broad view of religious freedom is going to be to give the community activated through actual doing. we saw the argument for direct engagement is really as strong as any public policy issue in existence. i also want to say, and we it

said it several times, we are planning on working several times with the existing resources that are the existing many states. recently, this has been an issue of high priority conferences. it is high priority for family policy councils. and they are doing excellent work. lots of other organizations. the public affairs committee, etc., etc. doing some great work out there. we're going to join the fight with personnel and other resources. i want to close and then move to the comments. this is a lot of theory that is really important. this is also going to be a political fight. there is going to be resistance. it is something that we're going

to have to go to the mat to protect. it is something we have to do in a sustained way. one of the things i have appreciated about the catholic bishops of coming fortnight for freedom is that it is obvious they understand the need to create a social movement surrounding religious freedom. this cannot be the issue of the week. we all go home. it has to be something we engage in with thoughtful action. we believe the state caucuses will be every pot is a tory -- will be a repository. it will allow us to protect religious freedom. thanks. [applause] >> i want to thank our panel members. i'm going to him by them to

remain here during a break or after. if you have questions, you can direct to them. we look forward to a robust pan on religious freedom. thank you. >> for the state legislators here, we have our meeting right across the hall immediately afterward. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we have plan to continue our coverage of this conference with live coverage of the archbishop lori. but it is getting started late. we will get on with our programming. we are covering the speech and we will cover it for you later.

>> wisconsin voters will decide punching but whether to recall scott walker two years after being elected. smarty debates his democratic opponent, tom barrett. -- tomorrow he debates his democratic opponent, tom barrett. wichita of to what's kansas. we have a heck of a start.

we will talk about the problem they're having in a city with taxicabs. >> june 2 and third, discovered the heritage of wichita, kansas. >> what it contains is an alphabetical list of the members of the senate and house of representatives in 1831. i believe this was issued only for members immediate use only. there were not supposed to loan this out. as you can see, it can tell you exactly where everybody lives. >> watched for this in ouachita on june 2 and third on c-span2 and c-span3. >> the state department released

the report on human rights practices. the no, report examines the status of human rights in countries around the world. in presenting the report, hillary clinton spoke about recent developments in the middle east as egyptians a vote in their first free presidential alexian this week. this is one half hour. -- elections this week. this is one half hour. i am very pleased to be joined here today by assistant secretary posen are to release our 2011 reports on human rights practices. these reports has made clear that we are watching and holding accountable. they make clear to citizens and activists everywhere that you

are not alone. we are standing with the. mike and his team and the staff at our embassy has worked tirelessly to produce these reports. i want to thank each and every person who has contributed to them. this has been an especially tumultuous and momentous year for everyone involved in the cause of human rights. many of the events that have dominated recent headlines from the revolutions in the middle east to reforms in burma began with human rights, with the clear call of men and women demanding their universal rights. today in egypt we are seeing in real time that those demands are making a difference. egyptians are going to the polls to determine for the first time

to their leaders will be. whatever the outcome of the election. the egyptian people will keep striving to achieve their aspirations. as they do, we will continue to support them. we will support people everywhere who seek the same. we will defend their rights, not just on the day of the issue these reports but every day. i have worked with my superb team on advancing human rights in the 21st century landscape focusing on new frontiers even as we stand up against abuses. where women have been and continue to be marginalized, we're helping them become full partners in their governments and economies. where lgbt people are mistreated and discriminated

against, we're working to bring them into full participation in their societies. we're expanding access to technology and defending internet freedom because people deserve the same rights online as off. and we know that in the 21st century human rights are not only a question of civil and political liberties, it's about the fundamental question of whether people everywhere have the chance to make the most of their god-given potential. so we are supporting efforts around the world to give people a voice in their societies, a stake in their economies, and to support them as they determine for themselves the future of their own lives and the contributions they can make to the future of their countries. we think this is the way, together, we can make human rights a human reality.

now as these reports document, there is a lot of work that remains to be done. in too many places, governments continue to stifle their own people's aspirations. and in some places like syria, it is not just an assault on freedom of expression or freedom of association, but an assault on the very lives of citizens. the assad regime's brutality against its own people must and will end, because syrians know they deserve a better future. these reports are more than a report card, they are a tool for lawmakers and scholars, for civil society leaders and activists. we also think they are a tool for government leaders. it's always been bewildering to

me that so many government leaders don't want to make the most of the human potential of their own people. and so i don't expect this to be reading material everywhere, but i do hope somewhere in the corner of my mind that maybe a leader will pick it up and say -- how do we compare with others, and what can we do today, tomorrow, and next year that will maximize the potential of more of our citizens? this year we've made the reports easier to read online, easier to track trends across a region, easier to follow the progress of a particular group, easier to find out which governments are or are not living up to their commitments. now, every year that we issue this, we take stock of ourselves.

we say -- what more can we do? where have we succeeded or are succeeding? where are we falling short? and we know we have to recommit to the work of advancing universal rights, building the partnerships that will move us forward, helping every man, woman, and child live up to their god-given potential. and we know we have to be able to speak out and speak up for those unable to use their own voices. but this is at the core of who we are. this is central to what we believe. and this is the work that will continue administration after administration, secretary after secretary, because of its centrality to our foreign policy and national security. now i'd like to turn things over to assistant secretary for democracy, human right, and labor mike posner, who will speak further about some of the specific findings in this year's reports. thank you all very much. thanks, mike.

>> thank you, madam secretary. i want to say a few words about the report and what is new this year. as the secretary noted, 2011 was a very dramatic changes with historic changes led by citizens in the middle east, and elsewhere. these reports documents situations where human rights continue to be violated, including iran, sudan, and syria. there continues to be a range of human rights challenges and places like russia, china, pakistan and other nations where the u.s. has a port policy

interests. egregious human rights violations continue including torture, arbitrary detention due process of law and extrajudicial killings. all of which we document in detail. they cover the other disturbing trends. we see flogged elections, restrictions on internet freedom, media censorship, it tends to restrict civil society groups. such restrictions stymie the efforts of citizens to change their own societies peacefully from within, which the secretary has spoken so eloquently about. we also report on continued, and in some cases, increasing persecution of many religious groups, including the ahmadis, the baha'i, tibetan buddhists, jews, and christians. the reports have a separate section documenting anti-semitic acts.

we document discrimination against other groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, women, and the lgbt community, which continue to face criminalization and violence in many countries. but there are also a number of encouraging developments in 2011 starting with the burmese leadership, which the secretary has mentioned. much more needs to be done, including releasing all remaining political prisoners, working to end violence against ethnic minorities, but we will continue to encourage that government to keep making progress on those issues in the coming year. we also saw positive developments around the world in 2011 in zambia, where they held free elections that were credible and orderly, in tunisia, where they held free elections for a constituent assembly, a body that's now rewriting the constitution.

in colombia, the government continues to strive to improve justice in human rights cases. progress towards human rights is neither linear nor guaranteed, but we're pleased to note these important landmarks. now, let me just say a couple of words about the report themselves. since the 1970s, this is has grown into a mammoth undertaking. this year we have 199 reports covering every country and a number of territories. they reflect the work of literally hundreds of people here and around the world who collect information and edit, review, and fact check to make sure that these reports are accurate and objective. i want to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the people who've worked so hard to make these reports the gold standard for human rights reporting and fidelity to the truth. i want to especially thank stephen eisenbraun, who's our

commander in chief and chief editor, and he's done an outstanding job over the last six years in putting these reports together. last year, the report was viewed by more than a million people. as the secretary noted, consistent with her leadership on 21st century statecraft, this year's we've taken a number of steps to make the reports more concise, more accessible to a broader spectrum of readers, and easier to search. this year's reports are more shorter and more focused, and each country section now has an executive summary. we've used the latest technology to make the reports fully searchable as well as searchable across countries by topic. the public can share these reports on social media, and so they can have their own conversations about human rights. so i invite you to explore the

reports online and to look at our website, a year old now, which is humanrights. gov. now, let me take any questions, please. >> let's start with arshad. >> two things. one, could you assess for us the respect for human rights, particularly in those countries in the middle east where authoritarian regimes were toppled last year? so specifically, i would include egypt, tunisia, and libya. could you also comment broadly on your assessment of bahrain's implementation of the bici report? and finally, i couldn't find it in the report, although i had little time to read through it, and i may have missed it, but i didn't see a reference to how the libyan authorities handled the death of colonel qadhafi.

and if i missed it, that's fine. but could you give us your assessment? i think at the time, toria described it as an opportunity for the libyan authorities to do a thorough investigation. how do you think the new libyan authorities handled his death, any subsequent investigation, holding anyone accountable for what some people might regard as an extrajudicial killing? >> you got three in there. >> yeah. okay. let me take the first question, which really is a broad overview of changes in the arab awakening, in particular with regard to egypt tunisia, and libya. i think it's first thing to say is that we recognize that change in any society that's been stuck is going to be a process. it's not a linear process. and so in each of those countries, we see both fundamental change in terms of leadership, but also a range of challenges that remain. as the secretary noted in egypt, we now have today yesterday and today presidential elections,

which seem to be going lots of people voting. the process seems open. but we remain to see what happens going forward. there's likely to be a next round and then a transition over the summer. there are a range of challenges that are still to be faced writing a constitution, figuring out the relationship with the parliament. so we are we're in a journey here, and i think our recognition is there's lots to be done, but we stand with the egyptian government and people as they move forward in that journey. tunisia, i think there is certainly a sense, as i said in my opening comment, that there's been a good deal of progress certainly in building the infrastructure, including the moving forward with a constitutional process that will set the framework for what needs to be done going forward. and libya, huge agenda coming

out of 42 years where essentially all institutions were destroyed, beginning to develop some stability, still a transitional government, hopefully in the coming months, an election, and the beginning of a process of regularizing the process of governing. on the your last question relating to the qadhafi killing, the government, i think, has such a big agenda right now. i don't think it's reasonable to expect that they're going to be dealing with every aspect of that. they still have thousands of people in detention, many militias that still need to be brought into line. i actually plan to visit there shortly and will look into all of these issues. and in bahrain, finally, as we said several weeks ago, we have an important security relationship with bahrain.

it's in our national security interest to continue and maintain that relationship. but we've been very clear, very explicit the secretary was in her meeting with the crown prince that there are a range of very serious human rights problems. there is an increased polarization in the society. we are eager for there to be a process that is a serious negotiation or dialogue that brings people together. but there are a range of issues on prisoners still in detention, accountability, police practices, so we continue to push it. >> did the libyans ever really investigate qadhafi's killing, to your knowledge? >> i'm not going to i'll answer that better, i think, when i go there and have some of those conversations. >> elise. >> just kind of more broadly on bahrain and other countries, i

mean, amnesty international coincidentally came out with a report its own annual human rights report and said that while you have been a leader in human rights, it's kind of you're not always that principled when it comes to economic and national security priorities. sometimes that is taking a front seat, particularly on bahrain. and also, on syria, where you haven't exercised the sufficient pressure on russia and china because of other issues in the relationship to go along with more robust action at the united nations security council. could you respond to that -- >> sure. >> -- and talk about a little bit in general about the balance that you're trying to strike between economic and national security priorities and american values of human rights? >> sure. so in the broader sense, president obama has talked about, and secretary clinton, principled engagement. we engage in the world and we recognize that there are a range of interests. we have security interests, as you say, economic interests, political, diplomatic. but human rights is an essential part of what we do across the board. and so it is always going to be part of the discussion. secretary has been great, and

i've been part of many discussions with her with strategic, economic allies where these issues are raised with a clear voice. we raised them in bahrain. to cite the two examples you've raised, we raised these issues in bahrain recognizing that that society is at a turning point. it's at a critical juncture where there's actually been a greater polarization and more street violence. we're concerned about that. we're concerned about it because we know that it's in bahrain's long-term interests and the interests of the bahraini people that there be a coming together and a serious addressing of the human rights issues there as part of a broader path to reconciliation. we're not shy about that, and we raised it consistently. and in syria, i would say we have been as focused and as active as any government in trying to get more a more unified international response

with the russians, with the chinese, with others at the security council. and we have a multifaceted response. we pushed for the monitors to be in place the annan plan. that's clearly not enough and it's frustrating. we've pushed at the g-8 for there to be a plan for transition. we're part of the friends of syria trying to build up and strengthen the opposition. we've been absolutely clear for months that assad must go. and we've pushed for sanctions and we've enacted sanctions and gotten others to do it. it is a very tough challenge, but it's not for lack of commitment or lack of clarity about what we're trying to accomplish or how we're going about it.

>> michele kelemen. >> thank you. i'd like to ask about china and the case of chen guangcheng. i wonder, first of all, how concerned are you about his network of friends who helped him escape? and then secondly, more broadly, i wonder, the way you resolve this case with the chinese, whether you see that as a defining moment and new approach to dealing with these issues with china? or are they so angry with you that they're never going to do this again and deal with you in that sort of way? >> well, let me say, first of all, about chen guangcheng's family and friends, we are closely monitoring what's happening with his immediate family his brother, his nephew, the lawyers who have undertaken to represent his nephew, others who assisted him. we have and will, as i'm doing today, raise these cases and our concerns with the chinese government, both publicly and privately. we'll continue to do that.

we'll continue to have contact with mr. chen and get his input. so there are these are things, as there are many human rights issues in china that we're paying attention to. as we've said previously, in the last several years, there's been a closing of space for human rights lawyers and activists in china. those are things of concern. we're concerned about other cases like gao zhisheng, liu xiaobo. those are cases we'll continue to raise. in terms of the relationship, we had, obviously, a dramatic few days you were there during the strategic and economic dialogue. what was striking to me is that we had a very successful meeting while a human rights issue was being played out. i think the relationship is now so important to both countries that we have found a way, and we will find a way, to talk about our economic, political, strategic interests. and human rights is going to be very much a part of those discussions. >> can i -- >> here, please. >> -- follow up on china? >> here, please. >> my name is tara mckelvey and i write for newsweek and the daily beast, and i have a question about egypt. you talk about the elections as being open, and i'm wondering if you're concerned about the fact that there are going to be

fewer monitors or it'll be harder to monitor those elections? >> well, let me say first of all that the election process is ongoing, and so at this stage we wait and watch, as egyptians are doing, to see the final outcome, how the votes are counted, what happens in what is likely to be a second round, and what happens in what we hope will be a successful transition to a new civilian government in july. we also recognize that this is an evolutionary process. there are some witnesses or observers there, not everywhere. but it is from the initial accounts, lots of people are voting. the process seems to be moving forward. but there's a big agenda beyond the elections, and as secretary clinton has said often, a sustainable democracy requires a vibrant civil society, a free press, strong legal institutions, et cetera. so we have there's a lot to be done, and this is going to be led by egyptians. this is what the egyptian people want. they want a stake in their own future, they want economic opportunity, and they want a stake in the political future of their country.

>> here, please. >> is anything else more about colombia in this report positive aspects or negative aspects, for example? >> well, the santos government has undertaken a number of things that we regard as being in the right direction in terms of addressing some of the longstanding human rights cases. as you know, colombia has faced decades of political violence. trying to make the transition in a way that both addresses accountability issues in a reasonable way and also moves forward in reconciliation is a challenge. but i think the attorney generals office there and others have been very mindful of the need to strengthen the judicial system, to move forward in a way affirmatively to build institutions that will protect all colombian people. and we are with them in trying to address those issues in an

important strategic dialogue we have with them and in other ways that we can be helpful. >> well take indira and then two more. >> thanks. i wanted to ask you to highlight in iran what you feel is different in 2011 versus previous years, and particularly compared with the green movements start in 2009. and id also like to ask you about eritrea. am i right in reading this as if eritrea is really the bottom of the barrel here? are they the 199th on this list who youve been reviewing? >> well, first -- >> well, who is if theyre not? >> first of all in iran, sadly, 2011 was a continuation of many negative trends, intolerance of dissent, particularly a crackdown on demonstrators in february, free speech restricted, internet freedom restricted, political participation severely circumscribed, unfair trials,

amputations, floggings, lots of death penalty, including some this year, many held in secret. so its a very grim picture. and i want to in particular single out the case of the seven bahai leaders who were sentenced to 20 years in prison. the sentence was reinstated last year. theyre now in may, they marked four years of a 20-year sentence for basically practicing their religion. it is a human rights situation that is very disturbing, and well continue to call it out. eritrea likewise is a situation where there are a range of very serious problems. its a government that restricts any kind of dissent or openness. i wouldnt we dont rank countries. unfortunately, there are a number of countries that have consistent gross human rights

violations. they would certainly be on that list. >> catherine. >> im wondering about afghanistan. the report calls the situation of women, quote, marginally improved, but it also calls the gains tenuous. im wondering, looking forward, are you concerned about 2014 and what happens when we transition? >> we are concerned, and afghan women and womens leaders are also greatly concerned. women are critical actors in the reconciliation and reintegration process. they need to be not marginal to the political process. they need to be fully engaged and their rights fully respected. and we are very mindful, and having spent a lot of time with womens leaders there, i can tell you that there is a big a tall agenda in terms of integrating women into the political process and making

sure that women and girls rights are protected going forward. we are very mindful of the challenge. at the same time, there is a vital and vibrant civil society there. theyre more engaged. and so i think its in our interest to figure out how we can help them advance the agenda, amplify their voices, so that they can be more effective in the coming years. >> last one for goyal. hes been patient. >> thank you, maam. if i may go back to china, sir, this report, of course, we stand here and sit here every year. there are millions of people in china who are seeking freedom and democracy, especially those who are being persecuted in the name of religion, they cannot practice any kind of religion there. and also monks and buddhist and finally, as far as tibetans are concerned, they are still crying. and when secretary said that you are not alone, we are with you, they are still asking the united states that when will you be with us?

and finally, as far as pakistan is concerned, journalists and extrajudicial killings and women and girls are under attack in pakistan. >> on china, i would say this, there are a theres a long agenda, a big agenda on human rights. we deal with it in different ways. last month, harold koh, the legal advisor here, and i participated in a legal experts discussion where we discussed a range of issues, including the independence of the courts, independence of lawyers, detention issues, and the like. we were part of i was part of the strategic and economic dialogue, and this summer we will have a human rights dialogue where we raise these issues. so these issues come up in many different contexts with me and with other u.s. government officials. were very mindful of the situation of religious minorities the tibetans. were very concerned about the self-immolations.

were concerned about the situation of the uighurs in xinjiang and elsewhere. we are going to raise these issues as well as the individual cases, some of which i have mentioned. were going to continue to raise our concerns about labor issues and about a range of other things that matter to chinese people. these are issues that they are now increasingly debating within their own society. again, were going to amplify their voices and were going to try to be reinforcing of that. on pakistan, i would say youve mentioned the extrajudicial killings, which is certainly one of the things the report singles out. were very concerned about the violence in baluchistan. were concerned about the effects of those whove challenged some of the laws like the blasphemy law. asia bibis case continues to be a cause of great concern. we have a big agenda. its a tough discussion, but were going to keep having it. >> could i just have one on that -- >> i think we have to let assistant secretary posner

go. if you have additional questions, were going to take them and well answer them for you >> just one on mexico? >> please. >> one on mexico, and then well let you go. >> in the opening, her introduction, the secretary says that u.s. government is watching and holding accountable governments who dont perform in human rights lists. in your report on mexico, you said that security forces, especially the army and the mexican navy, are not fulfilling their performance of human rights. and the merida initiative funds 50 percent. its conditioned to the performance of human rights of the mexican military forces. i just wonder if what you said in your report is going to be applied on the policy on the merida initiative, because the mexican society is complaining a lot on the calderon administration. so far are being more than 50,000 people dead in five and

a half years. so what is your response to this situation, especially on the merida initiative? >> well yeah, just two points on that, one, as you say, mexico is a country where theres been endemic violence, much of it related to the drug trade and the governments efforts to curtail that. an aspect obviously, that government has the, not only the right, but the obligation to try to protect its own citizens. there are a number of reports and we document them in this report of abuses by or violations by the mexican military. weve had discussions. ive been down there several times meeting with mexican government, including mexican military leaders, about how to improve accountability for those violations. the longer term effort has to be to build a police structure

and a criminal justice structure that deals with these cases outside of the military. president calderon understands that and so does everybody else. but we are very attentive to these issues. were both working closely with the mexican government, but also consulting broadly with mexican human rights activists and others who are who share our concerns. >> and also just to remind you that assistant secretary posner is going to be available at the foreign press center at 12, 15 -- at 12:15 if you're not in the american media and you still have questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next on c-span, the brookings institution holds a

discussion on europe's economy and debt crisis. then, the weekly podcast "political gabfest," and sec retear of state hillary clinton presents the human rights report. >> life is incredibly precious and passes by far too quickly. during your time here, use all your unique, god-given talents to serve one another as that will be the true measure by which your life will be judged. follow the golden rule. >> memorial day week, watch commencement speeches on c-span. business leaders and political figures shir their thoughts with graduating classes, that's saturday noonened 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> aaron burr may be best remembered for his dual with --

his duel. but learn more about him. and then, victor chong, author of "the impossible state." >> you can tell them, you need to improve your human rights situation and their response to you will be and we've had this conversation at the official level, their response will be, you may think -- the united states has human rights problems too. that's not a comparable discussion. >> saturday night at 0k. also this weekend, marcus latrell details "operation red -- details operation red wing from "service: a navy seal at war." three days of booktv this weekend on c-span2. at the brookings institution, panelists discuss the european

union's challenges and france's newly elected president and government debt in spain and greece. this is an hour and a half. >> european vision of the crisis, i must say that i have my work as moderator of that panel cut out for me because of all the news we have, we have been having in the past few days. indeed, right now, as we speak, the extraordinary dinner or the extraordinary european meeting in brussels is nearing its end

and leaders are discussing the ewe ro zone crisis and -- eurozone crisis and greece in particular. in greece, what we've seen in recent days is the normally very indesites i -- not only the very indecisive leches of may 6, but a couple of papers noted the raids on hardware stores to keep houses safe, underliing the severity of the fears that there could be a switch back to the drachma. yesterday as you may have heard the oecd warned that the 17 countries that use the euro risk falling into a severe recession. indeed, more than 10 of them already are in a recession.

the oecd called the governments and european central bank to take decisive action to avoid having a situation in which the european slowdown would draw down the global economy and yesterday, as you know, the german government reiterated its position to the crowation of -- though it is supported by most european governments and brussels and the i.m.f. and the oecd, underscoring the crucial nature of the talks of tonight in brussels and the negotiation which will be under way not only on a knew growth package to complement the fiscal treaty but also the more fundamental question of whether to create ewe row zones and -- euro zones and whether to let them intervene more decisively, in

other words how to put a sort of become talk snow markets would cease doubting the determination of the europeans. but of course in our discussion this afternoon, we don't want to limit ourselves to the very short-term, to today's or yesterday's headlines and we don't want to focus exclusively on economic issues even if they are central to the current crisis. we want to start from the current situation to take -- to tie to take medium and long-term look at the -- at how political and economics interacts in europe to shade a new situation and what, of course, the implications for the united states may be. to discuss this shotgun -- to discuss these issues we have sort of a dream team of journalists and editorialists with us. i will introduce them in the order in which they'll speak and will only provide very brief introductions, you can

read more about them in the program. he started his career as a civil servant in the treasury. before joining the economist in 1986 where he's held a number of positions either from london or from brussels, washington, and other places that included health correspondent and business editor before getting his current position of being the europe editor. and the edtorial editor of "le monde"," she joined a year after -- joined that paper a year after john joined "the economist." they both have long careers with their respective newspapers. after working with the i.f.p. agency. at "le monde," she held positions as foreign

correspondent in various places, including the u.s., both in new york and washington, and southeast asia but she also held executive functions at "le monde" including as executive director of the newspaper in 2010 and 2011. lastly, martin clink is the washington bureau chief of germany's weekly leading national newspaper. he worked in other places, including at the north german broadcasting corporation. he has reported from various countries and on a large range of subjects including the balkan wars. he's also a very good expert of germany and german low, in particular having had various teaching experiences, including at the center for european studies where he lectured on aspects of germany rios --

germany's reform. i leave the floor to john pete and ask him to draw us a pigture of the crisis where we are right now. >> thank you very much for inviting me. it's nice to be back in washington and back at brookings as well after many years away. i'm going to speak about 10 minutes, if i can, i'll try to compress everything into 10 minutes, and i'm going to make about 10 points so roughly one minute a point. the euro crisis is sweeping everything else aside in europe. it has become an existential crisis. it's an existential crisis not just for the euro but possibly for the european union as a whole. given that, almost everything else that is sometimes talked about in brussels has been pushed and i included, for example, foreign policy, which you and i have talked about in the past, the efforts to form a common foreign policy and the

role of asherton. i think the fact of the -- the fact of the euro crisis has made talk of further enlarging the european union not go further. even things like further work on single markets, trands atlantic relations, everything has been pushed aside. so this is an important moment for the future of europe. i think to pick up on the comments yesterday, it's become critically important for the world economy. if anything could hit the re-election hope the euro cry sess would be high on that list. if it does create a deep recession in europe and possibly the world economy, the implications on this side of the atlantic are also quite serious. this is really a big problem. the immediate focus today and

for the last few weeks is greece. i would say that the election on june 17 is still not a foregone conclusion. the election on may 6 was very unhelpful. it wasn't an enormous surprise. i would blame a lot of blame for that on the new democracy leader. it would have been better if greece had conditioned with what it was doing, but every now and then democracy rears its head and you have to put up with the results. and that's where we are. i do think that in greece itself, and even more in the rest of europe, we are seeing over the last week, two weeks, a gradual shift toward the acknowledgment that a greece exit has become quite likely. the implications of that haven't been worked out but across europe and increasingly

in greece itself, the recognition of a greek exit high on the list. it's certainly much, much more likely now than it was a month or two ago. and obviously, when you start talking about a greek exit from the euro, this is moving on to my third point, the rest of the euro zone immediately starts to worry. if greece were somehow or other to fall out of the euro, that is a cataclysmic event for something that was supposed to be an irrev cobble currency union. and it will forever cast a shadow over the euro, even if the euro lasts another 100 years without using anybody else. the fact that a country might have been able to fall out of a bit will cause a serious problem for the currency and some of the particular countries that are on the edge in it. and i include in that group

especially portugal. portugal is very much in the firing line if greece falls out. but i also include spain and italy in that group. i happen to think that ireland has just about escaped from being another, as it were, potential victim of the euro crisis, although its referendum at the end of the may is worth watching because if they do decide to vote no, which i don't expect they will if they do, the implications could be quite serious. it is entirely possible that ireland will be another bailout and if they vote no that will be hard for them. portugal, spain, greece, obviously, and italy, i would put a lot of focus on portugal because their economy has been very sick for quite a long time and it needs to do a great deal more to escape being bracketted with greece. the government of portugal is a much stronger government than

the greek government that's likely to emerge from the election but the country remains fragile. fourth point, continuing from my points on portugal, more specifically on spain and italy, neither of them, as you know, neither of them have yet applied for a bailout from the bailout fund for the euro zone. but it is increasingly clear that the spanish banks will need some help. i think some of the them have tossed around how much help the spanish banks might want. but the fact is that spain had an almighty profit, and those in spain who tell people like me that span yards traditionally go on paying their mortgages, i think they'll be tested over the next sex months, particularly if the recession intensifies. span inunemployment is already 24% and among young spaniards at 50%.

that's pretty horrific though spain has had to tolerate high unemployment over many years. i think the risk that some of the spanish banks will need more help is definitely growing. the worrying thing about spain and italy is the euro zone fund might be able to meet the needs of spain on its own but it's quite clear that any conceivable euro zone bailout fund couldn't meet the needs of spain and italy together. if those two countries get into deeper trouble, the risk of the injure -- that the euro could start to fall apart and the rest they have euro zone can't support them becomes much greater. italy is not quite in such bad shape as spain because contrary to popular views, italy's finances are not terrible and it doesn't have a property buckle. but the italian economy, like the portuguese economy, has been in trouble for a very long

time now. g.d.p. in italy is more or less back to where it was 0 years ago. that's astonishing failure in modern westernized country and it indicates that italy needs to make serious changes if it's going to prosper and grow in the future. as i'm sure you can imagine, all of us think that monty is the most marv ulous man in the world. but he's not an elected prime minister, he's not going to be there forever, he's probably going before next april, and there are signs that his popularity is beginning to fade in italy as he starts to push through measures that are increasingly unpopular. so what -- so watch spain and italy over the next week or so. how will we get out of the crisis? obviously, we do need in europe a bigger growth agenda. it's been quite clear that

we're putting too much emphasis on austerity and fiscal tightening alone. it's aggravating the euro, the euro zone is not able to cure them through public finances but i think also we've got to position where it's becoming important to isolate greece one way or the other, even if somehow it's another passenger wem need more, more europe to solve this problem. that means germany does have to at some point accept more euro-wide measures that will include some system that is euro wide for dealing with bank, health insurance, i think it does imply an acceptance of implicit transfer from more successful parts of the euro zone into poorer parts, something that happens automatically in the united states. and i think it needs some neutralization of debt. without moving in those

directions, i don't think the euro is going to survive. that's my diagnosis for what needs to be done. how to we get that cone? the answer to that is that the politics of doing it are exceptionally difficult and they're obviously most difficult in germany. i went dwell at length on germany because i think martin will say more about germany but getting consent from the german people and it isn't just her tell being obstinate, it's the german people who need to assent to changes leek this, is going to be extremely hard. the perception in germany that their country is doing very well, unemployment at the lowest it's been for 0 years, it's growing successfully, exports continue, they are even seing the beginnings of wage rises and living standards are rising. german popular opinion does not see why germany should now help to pay for what they see as the sins of the other euro zone

countries. they tend to say, we, in germany, we were in trouble 10 years week made painful reforms. you did not make painful reforms. now it's your turn to make painful reforms. this mentality in germany is quite deep, we've seen it many times over history. creditor countries believe that when there's a problem, it is for debtor countries to adjust. the debtor countries cause the trouble, they need to adjust. but the truth for germany, this is where her tell needs to do more to explain things to her voters, for germany, the breakup of the euro would be a catastrophe and it's worth paying almost en-- almost any conceivable price to stop that happening. that's the dynamic we are in as we put pressure on germany. of course the change in france, seventh point, is also going to make a difference.

the new president of france, who we consider to be a rather dangerous man, clearly has arrived in office determined not just to press the case for things like euro bonds and a europe-wide bank recapitalization, europe-wide bank resolution system, but also to get rid of austerity, to supplement it with some growth agenda, very commendable, and this is why we consider him to be dangerous, but again, i'll be corrected, i'm sure, he appears to be against the liberalization of structural reform agenda that we and others believe to be essential for the future health of europe. i've heard him say twice that those who preach liberalization and structural reform are preaching the things that got us into the mess, not the things that will get us out of the mess. i happen to think he's completely wrong but clearly the position of france is not

going to be helpful to pursuing the reform agenda. i'll finish with three points about the implications of where we go from here. the first is, i do think that one way or another, the euro zone does, indeed will implement reform, structural change, market deragelation and so on because i think it has to. if it doesn't, i think it will condemn its citizens and possibly its own currency to a very bad future. in a sense, i see that as the essential logic of the single currency if the beginning. my argument, my central argument at the euro bank in 1999 was the potential benefit of a single currency, which i saw as a risky venture, was it would force structural reform across europe. in fact, it didn't do that. in fact, many countries took the lower interest rates and

failed to implement structural reform. but i think the logic that requires structural reform is still there and i expect it to happen over the years to come. second implication, i mention some thing that need to happen, including some kind of euro bonds and a tighter fiscal union. i think getting the voters to accept this deeper level of political integration that i'm seeing as an essential part of resolving the crisis will be quite difficult. in a way, i see the economics of solving the euro crisis, hards as they are, as rather easier than the politics of solving the euro crisis. and i think already we are beginning to see across europe people asking what -- why should they be telling us what to to? even the belgians and the dutch when asked this question recently. i think we need to do more to

lend the strength to the increasingly tight union that will be a major part of the euro. we are talking about things like do we need to have some sort of system for electing the european commission or the european commission president. and the risk of a backlash against the european union is very great. finally, i can't stop without mentioning one country i haven't mentioned, my country. my country is rather an interesting part of this. it's not the only european country not in the euro. so there are 10 countries not in the europe. as we are all very affected by the euro crisis, it's in the interest of britain that the euro crisis be solved. but as the euro zone develops tighter rules of its own, the implications for the others, particularly for the u.k., will be very painful.

when i raised this subject in brussels, i'm always told, you can solve all these problems if you join the euro. but britain is clearly not going to join the euro, i don't think sweden will join either. i'm not sure denmark will either. they're going to be sitting alongside, a club which considered the euro to be a central part of what they are doing. and the rest to be somehow more prefer ral and developing this -- peripheral and developing this into a two-tier europe where other countries feel left out could be extremely painful. and for the u.k., if it went badly wrong, it could lead to the u.k. leaving the european union altogether. thank. >> now we turn to sylvia and ask her to continue on that theme and also perhaps

enlighten us on what she thinks -- who she thinks the new french president is, and where in particular the fran co-german engine is heading if indeed it still exists. >> thank you. thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to be back here. it's very, very nice to be back in this city and at the brookings also. i also must congratulate you, justine, for hosting this. the european union leaders are meeting in brussels for this big meeting. now we have -- we the media have presented this meeting tonight in brussels as very traumatic and that's the way we have to put it, of course. but it's not that dramatic. it is traumatic but not for the reasons we usually say.

it's not that dramatic because in the sense that i don't think anything is going to happen tonight. or is happening. it is 27 people around a table. i don't know if you have very often conversations between 27 people, it is rather difficult. and i think it's more for them to make new partners and put everything on the table. so that's what they are going to do. and then there will be a long cycle until the end of june. it is a problem because the cycle is indeed long and there is urgency. they the scribe the situation in greece and spain and in the euro zone is really traumatic. so it's going to be really a

few very difficult weeks ahead, i think. elections, where we have parliament elections in france and -- on june 10 an june 17. june 17 elections in greece. may 31, the referendum in ireland. probably forget a few. but it's going to be a very busy two months. so what is important now regarding this meeting in brussels and the next meetings and next round of talks is these the terms of the debate now are very clear. and it's a good thing. and i must say it's probably to the credit for so long and i'm not a spokesperson, i don't want to sound like a supporter

but he's been very good, i must say, at staying on message since his election. he's been surprisingly firm, i think. his message, of course, is growth. and i think he's been doning a very good job of taking advantage of this extraordinary coincidence between the two rungs of the french election in end of april and early may. we had the situation in spain and in italy, political crisis in the netherlands, which showed that countries which had been doing things by the book are starting to implement reforms in a very painful way, people, you know, taken seriously like the dutch leader

came to the realization that it was not working. the austerity measures had to be done but just by themselves they were not producing the results that were expected. so he understood that and i think continues to seize the moment and turn the campaign to the first round has been very much a campaign hostile to europe where people, you know, the national prong were very vocally against europe and the whole discourse was against europe and then he managed to turn this into a positive agenda toward growth in europe. so of course it's politics. it's easy, you know, he has to

be extremely ambiguous on a lot of things then after the elections, the parliamentary elections, depending on what majority he gets, he will have to face the truth and face the music and you said that you think he's totally hostile to those involved, i don't think he is. i think he has to say a few things or hide a few things during the campaign but there's no way he's going to be able to avoid some reforms and some very important reforms and that will be his job to sell it to the voters and to the french people. so one thing we learned during the campaign is that he looks unassuming but he shouldn't be underestimated. he's -- that's part of his

appeal, apparently but you know, he can -- for instance, from the very early time they breyed the elements and the rain and the thunder to go and meet in berlin, as soon as he landed in berlin, he mentioned the euro zone and he knew, he obviously knows that this is the german people don't like but he said it from the very beginning. and he's been, again, on message in america, again he raised the issue of the euro zone here. and he's raising it again, i'm sure raising it again tonight or he said he would.

so the debate is here, now. he's also been quite shrewd, i think, at running support behind him. of course, david cameron, you know, so now he has this conservative leaders who agree with his growth agenda, of course, always this kind of fakeness about what a quote means and we can talk about this later but for them it is a kind of magic word, they have to all agree about what it means concretely among european leaders. so what are they going -- i don't think that's going to be the real showdown as the media presented. it's not growth but austerity. it has to be, and this is some

movement that's been done the last few days, it has to be both, together. there have been signs of flexibility, i think, coming from the germans on higher wages, on the level of inflation, maybe martin will tell us more about this. but i don't think the situation is so impossible to solve at the moment, the prime minister said yesterday there was no fundamental disagreement, there are differences but there's room for compromise. this is what they're going to have to do in the coming weeks, maybe the compromise will tissue the terms of the compromise will be the name of the euro bonds. maybe we can do some kind of eurobonds which will not be called eurobonds. they can be, you know, we have

something with a project bonds. maybe we can move toward something else. but i think there's a whole array of tools actually the german prime minister had something today, he offered growth batch which wouldn't imply more debt. he gives six examples of measures that could be, i will spear you the detail bus go to "le monde's" website and you'll find it. there's been movement, again, i think. so i'm personally even though i agree this is an existential crisis, an extremely serious crisis and pushing everything aside, there is a lot of sense of urgency but maybe because of this, i am optimistic.

we have already covered a lot of ground since, for the past two years, we have gone to lengths we wouldn't have, you mentioned it some years ago and i think we can find the tools. now i agree totally with john, a problem then is political. how are these leaders going to sell those measures to their public opinion? that's where we have a big problem. not only of political representation, it is true that most european cities don't feel they are properly represented at the european level. we have a problem of legitimacy. particularly the young people feel they don't have a voice in the european process. europe has been built for them and they don't really understand, because they have been -- they have not been through all this the processes we have. they were born europeans so

they don't really understand why it is so important to be european and what does it bring to them so this is -- politically, i think we all not only the political leaders but also the media and -- we all have to do a lot of big efforts on this. now we, i spoke about urgency and there is also urgency on the political theory, we see that every single election brings -- shows the rise of extremism, of culturism, we have this 18% of nationals in france, it is really a problem which will get worse if we don't confront it, if we don't face it really squarely. there is the problem of confidence. i think this is crucial at all levels, financial level, at the economic level, at the

political level there is, we have to manage to build confidence. it's a problem of vision, it's a problem of what is ex--- of expressing what is the euro for? what are we heading to? and it is a problem of leadership. so very briefly, because i think my time is up, it is understandable from a political or moral point of view, maybe, but i agree, i think he has to make the case to -- i think she has to make the case to her own people about what does europe bring to the german people? what do the benefits, what are the benefits of the german people? the number of young graduates

from spain, from portugal from greece who are flocking to germany to have a chance, that's extremely useful for the german economy. this is a story that has to be told to the german people, i think. and the same goes for, of course, the benefit of trade, of the economy, including the benefits of transfers, if they are properly implemented within europe. and the same goes for all. for france. i hope we manage to change this a little bit but sarkozy used to go to meetings in brussels and say, this is what france is going to say in brussels. then he would come back and what france had offered, you know, somehow, every country

had its position, but then we had a european decision he would never come back saying, this is what europe has decided. and it's -- this is important in the political discourse, i think leaders have to do a big effort in becoming european politically also. and this is a huge issue, of course. i don't think we're going to solve it today. but europe does exist in everyday life. it's amazing that the number of things that we have in common and that we, you know, internal migration, education, the number of things which have changed over the past few years are part of our life, you know. i will just finish by quoting a political leader who used to say about communism, he said, i know when the country was

embracing communism, he said i know how to make a fish stock from an aquarium but i don't know how to make an aquarium from a fish stock. i know the consequences will be terrible if that happen, there's no way to undo europe but we have to be much more positive about what europe makes possible. >> and now turning to you, martin. we'd love you to explain to us the thinking in america and also the question that comes to mind is, is -- >> i'll come to that. thank you for having me here and giving me the opportunity, even though i'm not a

spokesperson of the german government. i hope to explain a bittle -- little bit to you the philosophy behind it. let me first say talking to the americans, and to my fellow brits, about the european union and the euro and to try to convince them of the value of both, sometimes like someone who tries to convince the salvation army of drinking a glass of red wine. but i think that the european union will survive and the euro will survive and maybe, and this is my optimistic note, at the end of the day, when we have gone through all the hardship, it will be stronger and even more prosperous and maybe an example for some others like the united states about what reforms can do at

the end of the day. i always meet people here telling me, wow, you know, germany, people are flocking to germany now from spain from greece, but that's good for germany but bad for others, but wouldn't this country, the -- wasn't this country, the united states, based on the idea of attracting others to flock to the united states because it's a country of opportunity? and didn't the united states always tell the o's, try also to reform yourself and then you keep the people. so i think there is some truth to it. and this leads me also to the core of the the bait. but first of all, let me say, we are somehow, we are in a very dramatic situation. i will not deny the gravity of the conflict. but there is something like a schizophrenic situation, greece is the problem and it is not the problem. actually, economically, it's

very weak country trks% of the european g.d.p. no one from an economic point of view would really bother in all of europe too much if greece one day doesn't belong to the european -- the euro zone anymore. but as john as has pointed out, and he is right, there is something like a trickle down effect, a ripplesque, a domino effect, however you would like to call it, but there is also a political consequence to that. and this is probably also the core of the process. the european union is based on the idea of integration. from the first moment until today we have seen constant steps of further integration. if greece leaves or has to leave the euro, it will be the first time that severe step of

disintegration is taking place. and i think the consequences, the political consequences, of these cannot be underestimated. therefore, what happens on june 17, when the greek, we again to the ballot box. the 17th of june will be a referendum on the euro and the european union. angela her tell said this, i don't think it was smart to say it so openly, but she was right. the sitz frenic situation in fwreast is that 80% of the people want to stay inside the euro zone. desperately want to stay inside the euro zone. but are not, first of all, not very willing to take the

necessary steps to reform their country, but must also see that the votes they give are also in opposition to the ruling parties that have led to this crisis. so i think the extremism you see is also the result of dissatisfaction of this -- of despair with the ruling system in greece. so i cannot say if greece is going to opt out or if it has to opt out of the euro. i think it is manageable. it is manageable now. it would have not been manageable a year or two years ago. it all depends on the firewall that will be established and the sincere will of them helping all the other remaining in the euro zone without letting anyone else go. but nevertheless, there is a

strong will and still a strong will also in the german government to keep greece in the euro because of the political consequences. the european union has also strong interest not to only keep greece inside the european union but also inside the euro because if it leaves the euro it will have political consequences on the european union. greece is a nato member. it has a border. the -- with turkey. it has a porous border. it is the gateway, the entrance gate for many refugees pouring into the european union. so greece is an important country outside of the european union. there is interest in keeping greece inside. so what would be the consequences if greece stayed inside and also for the other

countries that stay inside the euro zone? i think what is clear is that we see further integration, federalist leap, less national sovereignty. interestingly we have seen that angela her tell, who was pretty skeptical of the european union, she was brought up and raised in east germany, did not have much contact with the european union, had to learn what that all meant and was pretty distant to what that body actually means. but she has become a strong advocate for further i want fwration and for the federalist leap. but on which federalist -- but on which basis would this federalist leap take place? what is the economic, the philosophical and political

foundation of this leap? austerity or growth? i think this is -- antagonism -- this is a false antagonism. the germans, angela her tell as chancellor have still, they have not lived through it but they know germany is still very much afraid of hyper inflation due to what happened before world war ii. but germany is not against stimulus. germany has used stimulus itself through the its history after the second world war many, many times. even cre lently. when the financial collapse happened on wall street. there is a -- everyone says save in good times, spend in dire types. this is a true sentence but there is a precondition to that. that leads, i think, to the core of german thinking.

you can say that if you talk basically about sound and safe economies but what happens if those economies are not sound and safe? if they have deep structural problems, need dire reform? what do you to when you create another growth package? without knowing what happens in the consequence, do those countries stick to their promise? or do they think, ok, now the money pours in and we might, you know, step back and don't reform our system as much as we have to? we have seen, for example, with burlesconi in italy who has promised to do things and then just stepped back and said, sorry. after he got support.

so i think insisting and saying the fiscal pact has to be considerried out is a necessity . and interestingly enough, when the fiscal pact was signed by the european union, there were only two countries that opted out. the united kingdom and the czech republic. so i think at the end of the day, and her tell is a realist, a pragmatist, she is also firm and she is very normal. and i think at the end of the day she will agree in some kind of stimulus. i think we will see that in the

upcoming summits. there is nothing like a german friend. i think her tell will get along with the new french president, probably better than sarkozy and her tell. he is a very, very sober person and sticks to what he says. he's not a flip-flopper. so far. and so i think i think germany and france could be a power couple. we are indispensable nations for the european union. maybe what one does not always hear, because sometimes the perception of europe suffers a

little bit on a very anglo- american point of view. what is written in french or german papers is not really transferred to the general public in the united states. it is always just one ankle of the whole problem. stand alone. not what you see at the moment is a more northern and southern divide. there are a lot of northern countries, the border countries, that support the german point of view. not long ago, the polish foreign minister said in berlin he is not afraid of german leadership

but and elected their of. which is very new to germany and heartwarming that a neighbor that germany occupied and had done a lot of harm to 60 years after world war were meant to comes to germany and says that. -- world war ii came to germany and says that. a lot has happened in the last few years. there is more discipline. we have a fiscal pact. we have the european semester. that means that budgets and reforms of every nation will be sent to brussels for oversight.

it is very new. it is not very easy for the germans. our constitutional court has ruled that the budget is the primary right of every national parliament. this is always a very tricky issue for germany. the safety of umbrella is there with about $800 billion. i think the stimulus will happen maybe not with more debt, but there are other possibilities. the european central bank has poured money to stabilize the euro even though they're not there to bail out countries and cannot get it directly to the did they have poured billions

of dollars into the eurozone by stabilizing the currency. the european investment bank would probably get more money to finance research projects that generate growth. then there is the top of the euro bonds. i agree that we probably have to find a new word for that. something like that will come. i think that is very tricky for the german. they will not agree in a joint liability for all debts. they find more and more friends among the euro countries. it is to mutualize the debt in the liability for that. before the money goes in

defaults, at every one will help. the principal will be everybody has to pay its own debt. by the end of the day, if you cannot do it, everyone should. i think those are some perspectives that tell you that europe and the euro is not at the end of the day. we have to go through major discussions. we have to go through referendums and elections. at the end of the day, if the people will have to decide whether they agree on what happens or not. i do not think that a hundred years from now the euro will be.

dr. blake passed by a shadow. -- will be carried rockabilly -- irrevocabily pass by a shadow. >> there two views of this crisis. no one is really knowing where this thing is going. precisely, there is no real logic to it. when he referred to is more of that of what could be called the birthplace of a new

eurozone. things that were not doable in the 1990's 1 the eurozone was created, that is now possible because of the crisis. it saved a lot of ground. it has been covered in the past two years. in this narrative, there is a logic. the bureau had in mind that at some point it would be necessary to get there. that is what we're seeing right now. based on these marriages, i have three questions. i would like to ask how likely

do you think this second narrative is ta? do you think what is happening now might be precisely the sort of hidden construction of a more robust eurozone? she did not have this in her dna. she has come a long way. however, it is not clear that france has covered the same grounds. the question might be weather friends are ready for that. lastly, the impression is that

merkel is using the crisis. she is not putting her cards on the table in order to avoid moral hazards or to avoid the political constraints that she has at home. she need something in return for you said it was likely to exist. the question is, don't you think there is a risk that the first narrative prevails and that she might miscalculate? increase comment the idea is to keep a strong constraints. greece does the reforms. the wrong way fine-tuning that pressure, it might get out of hand. >> i would suggest you might

start. >> just a couple of remarks. this is indeed the one to face. i think people should get beyond the immediate noise. they should do this. the only way forward is to construct the consideration. it is not untypical. did this is how the european works. i think this is the thing to focus on. i think it is going to happen. it is messy and entails a number of arrests. what we saw last august was very interesting in the way it

affected german thinking. if you are playing a game of brinkmanship, at that is fun. it can often produce rather good results. there is a risk always that he might get it. that is why the process is quite dangerous. it could lead to the departure of greece one way or another. there is the general lead. it is also quite a difficult trip to carry on. i see two potential problems. if the go back -- you go back, this is a project driven by two

drivers, france and germany. merkel may be getting along better. this is an extremely unbalanced pairing. it is closer to this. i think that will make this move a much more difficult to handle. it is a way of describing this. is this one of legitimacy? seems to haveha benefits.

people started to pick up the treaties. we did not like that. i think it is generally accepted. it produced markets. we are making it as a result of failure. there is a perception that it has not worked. people are being asked to go on another leap. i think this rate is much more difficult of the system. i think it is going to be very difficult to handle. partook of the difficult to handle when the last four or five years -- particularly difficult to handle when the

last for five years we have seen a divergence. it is a very important question. it is a question that has been very much silence. it is interesting. i was wondering when these last couple of weeks with all this talk about the eurobonds. why did the germans raise the issue of political integration? i agree that angela merkel has been extremely eloquent and quite clear and putting forward the concrete propositions. they have not said a thing about this to my knowledge. he is the son of the law.

he intellectually and politically is closer to the idea of me to answer a view of europe. he does not see eye to eye with conception. to he led the campaign for the referendum. when it was rumored that he would be the prime minister, i ask, how are you going to deal with this ta? he said things that do change. the office has come a long way

since then. in france, foreign-policy is led from [unintelligible] for him it could not be too much of a problem. he has a very strong personality. he is very experienced. he was quite happy to be there. then it is the minister

. he is not in big government. we will see how many he get in congress. politically, it is going to be a tough sell. we will see. i think this should be part of the negotiation. you what eurobonds? ok. it is something on the political integration. >> one thing about the german/french engine. a year ago it was dead. it had disappeared. it was weak. in germany, it is the only

leader in europe. for some reason, the election seems to have changed this. it is not that simple. the jump before was excessive. i do not think they had disappeared from the radar screen. this shows this double in gedoue engine is really indispensable. both have to be in the driver's seat. germany because of history, france was in the driving seat.

germany did not want to take part. it is not in the economic power. i think this is where he has been quite good. it shows that france and other countries in europe, even those which are weak at the moment must have a voice. that changes the equation a little bit for the germans. >> thanks. i do very much agree. i very much hope that both in the driver's seat, and knowing can carry the burden alone. it is always good -- no one can carry the burden alone. it is always good to look at the history.

it was well in germany and france had a common ground. it did not work well when there were disagreements. i think it would depend on how fast it would perform economically. there are little worries about that. especially by the countries that are suffering at the moment. they hope the idea of having more growth will help and that they find support. it will have to do with how he will carry out reforms. i was worried when he said he was going back out to 60.

and do not know if it was part of his program. i think those reforms have to be carried out. my parents have lived there for almost 20 years. i think the public service has desperate reforms. i think this is one of the very big problems. especially when you look at greece. a great economist on me about 90% of their public service is useless. that might be exaggerated. there is some truth to it. one has to think about that. i also agree with what you said.

at theve looked back recent german history, also the predecessors was not to europe skeptic, but what being in office he became an advocate. he could join the european union. when he came into office, i became a big promises on what you would do to further strengthen the welfare system. part of it is that we get more money. germany went there a very better time -- bitter time. now we see it worked. we need to reform a lot.

i think what we have experienced shows that reforms can help. they are very much afraid that emblem of go this path. we are fine. alicia's postpone our reforms. let's just postpone our reforms. >> there is a structural one of the euro. there is the symmetry between a strong monetary pillar and the weakness of the institutional foundation of which the currency is based. but we have the debate between new and old federalist.

of the old federal lists were visionaries. -- the old federalist were visionaries. we are pushing integration. we also have to find democratic institutions that would present people's well. the problem of the new federalists that say this is a consequence of failure is the only pragmatic view. three have to get it done. it is the only solution we have. what they do not see a at the same time growing is dissatisfaction among the public. democratic reforms do not come along. this is one of the big problems that european unions have to face.

>> weevil take more than three questions. -- we will take more than three questions. we will choose the question they want. >> you are not alone. you have described the european problems of the vertical problems between countries. if we do not put the generational schedule in the contest, we do not get out. if we do not decide together

with that in europe we have the same rules, we will never allow the new generation to grow. we will have to support them. that is the only way to come out. >> i am looking at an article that says france has the highest rate in the eurozone. 56% of gdp. how can that be supported? can you work that down t? have we passed the point of no return?

>> i believe that the current exposure to the greek debt [unintelligible] the question is in regard to where do we go that back? the average would be [unintelligible] greece cannots unless

it is a farce. this is one of the proposals which they have made. it is in reference to france and germany. i remember a speech given on november 22. on thecussion was budget.

>> hollande to the microphone. thank you. there you go. -- old on to the microphone. thank you. there you go. >> i will provide my personal remarks as the father of a professor. i do not mind the expenditure at all. i want to ask our powers to step back for a minute. if we take the entire spectrum of the european left starting with the post-communists and social democrats, kristin socialists and even social christians, if you look at this entire group, d.c. any indication the present a

difficulty. >> thank you. i write the mature report. if you had been a member of the eurozone and had dealt in the euro, with that change in any way denatures an extent of the

crisis -- the nature and extent of the crisis today? can be euro and the eurozone be successful on a sustainable basis without them? what is the likelihood that might happen. >> i used to work in european bureau. i have just a brief question. i am not sure whether they accept the view and whether their elites except the belief would lead toeek exit a contagion.

it keeps this visible to us. >> there is just a word. i have looked into public spending. includedpretty much all da in the public spending. in other countries, at the same expenses would not go through the states. i now leave the concluding answers.

>> i had many relatives. a very good friend of mine had heard i'm speaking here today and is working for a huge bank in england. he said be happy you do not have us in the euro or you would have another problem. >> public spending and g.d.p. we have to be careful because it does not tell you very much. we have countries in europe that have high public spending and have very productive and effective economies. sometime it is misunderstood. when you add your private

spending for what is done publicly and other countries, you sometimes comes to similar sonsums. the question is how effective the public sector is and how lean it is and what kind of services it provides. generational problems i totally agree. this is why the german government discipline is needed. otherwise, we are just transporting our problems. even though i hope in a month we

will see a compromise of growth. i think it is going to happen. there is no other way. i hope one bears in mind that it does not have to be repaid. it only can happen if it the only sector reform program. -- if you only stick to a reform program. this is going to need a lot of persuasion. he always have to persuade your own electorate. who knows what happens until then. >> thank you. i agree. the public spending great is too

high in france. that is for sure. this is one of the hidden secrets of the campaign. no other candidates in the presidential campaign really dare to tell the truth to the french people. i thought that was a disgrace. we have been living beyond our means. we have to put this in order. it takes some political guts and well. that has to go through this.

it'll be very difficult. the left has not put forth many ideas. nor and france are other countries. i read what these greek leaders had to say. he was in berlin. the position was that we wanted to stay in the euro but we do not want austerity. it is something new we can use. the contagion about the risk of contagion, i really have a hard

time mentioning to tell you what i personally think. i have a hard time mentioning the euro. the vote in june will be a referendum. it will say they want to sustain the euro. i think there will be a clear message. european leaders say they all want greece in europe. if that is what everyone wants, and that is what will have to be done. the other problem is that we do

not have legal provisions for greece to leave the euro. it would be really tough for germany and all the others. how do we do this? it is unheard of. we have never been through this. there have been no legal revisions in the treaty. have you organize this? i did not see this happening. i hope i am right. >> thank you. all ask you to conclude in two minutes. black>> we have an issue in fra. i think it is absolutely true

that they were in power so long and then nothing. it does not mean you cannot have high public spending. in these to be spent as well. i do not think we did it need to be spent as well. it need to be spent as well. a couple things on greece. i will be crisp. i think that greece is insolvent. it is going to need a haircut. that is one reason why i think in germany the notion that they could fall out is becoming more widely supported.

it is a different case. it is unique. we could find some way of saying that was a mistake, we want to wash our hands. the greek exit that help of the germans. on the u.k., i do not think the u.k. was ever likely to join the euro. if that had, i think it would have made matters worse not better. they drew different conclusions from what happens in the early 1990's when the exchange rate fell apart. the u.k. the drew the conclusion that we should stay clear of any of these european schemes.

the italians drew the conclusion that they had to be in at the table. the trouble now is that many people on both sides are saying we told you so. we knew the euro was a bad idea. we told you so. the mood has to come before for that very reason. structure will make it harder, not easier for the u.k. to join. i think it has been striking that the left in europe has been so weak since the crisis broke. you would have thought that they could have said this was a right wing crisis. they have not discovered a good response. we may just be beginning to see that change. it could make a difference.

we have a danish left prime minister. it is possible. on the front of ideas, the left is short of ideas. we have to do more for the next generation. europe unemployment is a disgrace. they have democratic problems as well. the next generation is going to be a we still it appeared that could lead to a strong reaction against the project -- we stole its. . that could lead to a strong reaction against the project. >> thank you. we're going to take a break for tenor 15 minutes and then come for the next panel. -- 10 or 15 minutes and then come for the next panel. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> now more from the brookings institution forum on europe.

they talked about diplomatic relations between the united states and europe. this is 1.5 hours. >> out of like to welcome you all to the second and final panel of the conference. my name is jonathan laurence, i am a non resident senior fellow at boston college. i would like to provide a very brief introduction to this panel and introduce our distinguished guest. we have gathered several foreign policy expert from different perspectives to talk through the role of u.s. policy in the

elections. president obama took office just over three years ago with unprecedented personal popularity in western europe. that is something secretary gordon mentioned this afternoon. it led many to expect a new beginning where america would reap the benefits from the popularity of the president appeared early encouragement came in the form of a peace prize. here we are several years later. republicans and democrats seem to disagree on two fundamentals. this is our current relationship with europe. first, how to help solve the debt crisis and emerge from recession and second, how to spur european to increase contributions to military defense. the administration can

legitimately claim to have encouraged growth and job creation measures at least verbally in europe over austerity budget since 2009. advice which until recently fell on largely deaf years. the term "roast measures" is translated as more government and higher taxes. that is one area where we might expect a republican administration to take the opposite stand and encourage austerity programs in europe in line with current german policy. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. bill kristol dubbed the preference for economic stimulus as "the obama alternative." will this dick?

will be romney administration be willing to endorse the german model? they can point to their success and shepherding nato partners closer to a missile defense operation. they wrote that the administration has a different relationship than the coalitions of the women. the secretary gordon made a defense for that. while the nato summit had its share of successes, european partners and not agree to new financial commitment to afghan security forces. they did mention the political commitment. nato did not press forward on enlargement. secretary clinton did meet with four aspiring applicants. on the face of it, at this does not reflect enormous progress compared to december 2009 when europeans announced only a

modest increase to mask the last american surge in afghanistan. the european contribution is down to 1/3 in the last decade. what lessons can this panel drop from the president's difficulty in extracting resources? is there a structural reticence because everyone's hands are tied by economic crisis or is this because europe has been put on the back burner? if we except that nato is running out of gas, what can we conclude about why europe is not willing to take security risks? candidates mitt romney gave an answer in a recent column. he blamed the president's hollowing out of the military

which has discouraged europeans. he was referring to the hundreds of billions in defense cuts. this may explain why republicans were joined by house democrats in passing the national defense authorization act, rejecting cuts to the pentagon. it may be one of the kernel of disagreement. a focus on foreign on policy and the election campaign is not especially reporting. the president noticed it could lead to -- noted it could lead to boaters' been more concerned about the economy 50-1. we're going to brave the odds. i asked each eager to speak for 10 minutes. the first is kirk volcker.

prior to that he was deputy assistant secretary of state for european affairs. second to speak will be heather conley. she was a senior adviser to the center for european policy analysis from 2005-2008. she was executive officer and chairman of the board. the third panelist will be ellen tauscher who is a special envoy for missile defense with the state department since february. from june 2009-every 2012 she served as under secretary of

state for arms control. she was a member of the house from january of 1997 to june of 2009. thank you for being here. >> thank you very much. i think i have to start out by debating a little bit of the whole characterization of the discussion. i do not think it is a big debate between republicans and democrats. i think it is really between those who would favor a robust u.s. international leader across the board and those who are more concerned that we cannot for for that anymore. i think that is really the debate. i would not go so far as to call it isolationism, but there's some of that emotional element

of why we're spending so much when we have so many problems at to fix.n wwe need there's a real division there appeared to talk about where we are and where we go, -- division there. when we talk about where we are and where we go, it is going to be the same set of problems. it is going to be a challenge to deliver no matter he was the president, given the world that we are in. the world is very difficult. the nature of some of the tough regimes that we are dealing with whether it is iran or the nuclear issue, whether it is a petitiutin russia. that is the nature of it. what would i like to see if i want to project ahead to where

we are in january?] one of the things i would like to see is a renewed commitment to supporting freedoms, democracies, human rights, rule of law, all the core values that we believe and as americans and that underline our society and are the aspirations of people around the world. i think this is top. this is a very ambitious commitment to say we are going to support these things. it is important for those who are struggling for these and syria or libya or russia, they know we are on their side. how we manifest that is the second thing we need to look at. we need to be created and smart about how we use u.s. power. it is not the case to say that the u.s. is in decline and we

cannot afford to be engaged in the world or launch military operations if it is the right thing to do or use foreign assistance. we can. we can do it. we cannot do it everywhere, but we are still the most powerful country in the world, and the wealthiest country. the one that has the most productive capability in the world. we can still do a lot. i think we need to work are using our imagination at what we can do as opposed to the finding the reasons for things that we cannot do. the third thing i would say i would like to see looking ahead to foreign policy is some toughness in dealing with some tough characters. take for example putin in russia. that is not the only one. for right or wrong, i think the russians have tended to view the u.s. is not willing to stand up

for things. i think they have behaved more assertively and aggressively as a result of that. that is an increase of the scale of difficulties that we have to face. i would say the same thing about iran. with all the negotiations, iran feels it has a steam bath it can use. whenever we get together with -- steam valve it can use. whenever we get together with iran, if we can make some small concession, it lets the steam out of the buildup of pressure for a while. the we have to work hard to build that up. a little bit more of dealing with non-democracies that are willing to exercise power for a clearly defined national purpose, we need to push back on that a little bit. the that relate to building our

own strength and knowing our own capacities and trying to use it the best we can. the fourth one that i would mention that underwrites this is we have to get our own finances in order. none of this as possible if we are in a budget meltdown, which is very well where we could be in january if we do not get a handle on it. i think that it means responsible and difficult decisions on the overall structure of the budget. within that, doing enough to preserve the defense capabilities in u.s. foreign engagement capabilities as part of the budget. no matter what we do with our own budget, at the world is not going to go away. the challenges to our values are not going to go away. we have to make sure we reserve our capabilities to engage as no the world can.

, it add one final point think we are going through a very difficult time. in some ways, and nato is running out of gas. european allies are not intervening budgetary leak. we're finding it hard to sustain the military operations that we are in. all the things that nato has done to transform since 1989, partnerships, transport capabilities, there on the rocks. capabilities are under deep stress. we're shutting down operations. partnership has turned out to be a success. it is bitter because partners are making up for what some of our other allies will not do.

that does not speak well as a whole. it is a very difficult time for the alliance, largely driven by budget and public support and imagination of what we can it cheap. we have a little bit of work to do looking ahead. how do we define again what the interests of a transatlantic community are? what are the common challenges we need to address? how do we work together to do this in a reliable and effective way? nato does ever from a credibility gap right now. one of the principal things should be to restore that credibility. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. thank you. it is a privilege to be here. i hope everyone has had that coffee after an afternoon of

conversation. i thought i was spent a few moments reflecting on the last 3.5 years of transatlantic relations. but very much looking toward the future. i could not agree with you more. what we're talking about is the nature of american leadership moving forward. before coming here, i got a question from a reporter, secretary clinton and secretary panetta were on the hill testifying about the loss of day trading - laws of day trading. the reporter asked what we need to care about. i said it is not about the united nations, although this is the loss of the american sovereignties. this is about american leadership in the 21st century. are we going to lead and step

forward or are we going to step back and stay out of it and not ratify that treaty? that is what the future is about. i want to reflect on that in a transatlantic contacts. looking back at 2009, there was surely not a problem to solve in europe. europe was about helping us solve some very challenging global problems. we are be put on the fact that president obama was extremely popular in europe. there was that room and the flexibility for the president and the administration to do many things. initially, i think the administration was willing to move forward to solve problems with of europe. that was forward without europe.

throughout 2009, i saw a stream of european leaders, angela merkel, and many others go straight to congress, talk about climate change. this is a massive security imperative for europe. they wereagen, ther surprised to be left of the room of the select leaders to help solve the matters related to climate change. what do you mean we're not at the table? we put money for this. we put leadership to this. this is very important to us. the to be of the table, we are in this fluid moment of international relations. what combination do we need to solve the problem? and where does the trans- atlantic relationship fit into

this moving pattern? i think it was a very critical challenge. and where does alliance and partnership fit into that? that was not answered for quite some time. fatally, this was a challenge of unrealistic expectations on both sides of the atlantic when president obama was first inaugurated. europe had very unrealistic expectations of what the president could and could not do, certainly within a domestic context here. i think the administration come to a certain point, was eager to see europe make huge contributions that it wasn't making. that did not turn out to be the case. so it was managing through these unrealistic expectations.

in some ways, there were some self-inflicted wounds that the administration committed. the u.s.-russia recess -- the reset itself in creating a positive u.s.-russia relationship was critical to helping europe, part to do earlier central european friends, create a positive and are meant. -- positive environment. we thought it was a little oversold. it caused anxiety with their baltic friends and their central european friends. we also needed to be redoubling our transparency and consultation for those states that have the most direct knowledge and most direct impact on our policy changes.

clearly, i welcome your thoughts on this as well. the rollout of the face adapted approach, the way it was a cuban native -- the way it was communicated, it was extremely hard to overcome the initial challenge that i think we're seeing a stronger central european relationship. i think we can do more. again, this is a self-inflicted problem. in some ways, the selection of the word is a loaded word -- what is the physical manifestation of pivot? well, you turn your back. did that cause concern to our european friends? and had we message that to europe? the interesting part is that europe is pivoting to asia. there pivoting trade, investment, economic

relationship. how're -- they'd are pending trade, investment, economic relationship. how are we managing it? i think we need to do more. it is sometimes communicating such a new policy direction that actually causes some confusion or uncertainty about what that all means. moving forward -- i will still something that kurt volker told me a few months ago that i thought was really important. when president obama made his nine-day tour through asia, he gave a very important speech and australia handed encapsulate it our strategy toward the asia- pacific region. -- and it encapsulated our strategy toward the asia-pacific region. curt said, a few to asia out of that strategy and put your opinion, it would be

interesting cricket would have a security component, an economic component, a cultural-social future. i would argue it is time for us to create a 21st century transatlantic european strategy. we are trapped in some very old talking points that no longer match the reality on the ground. it is different now. and fact, in a bipartisan way, we are guilty of the spirit we need to request the new and challenging circumstances that are facing european but even the most perfect strategy, we have to make the decision whether this relationship, this alliance is worth the time and the energy and the enthusiasm it takes to sustain it. i look at my other colleagues, my japan share, for example. one country, i am so envious.

you concentrate on one country. i concentrate on 30 countries plus institutes. it is a daunting task. it takes an enormous amount of energy and commitment to spend the time to invest in leaders, to get to know those leaders and the bureaucracies and everything and listen to them and understand them. we have to see if that is worth it appeared whenever her the turn summititis, but that is part of europe. that is how we communicate with your, through nato dialogue. it can be tiresome on a very busy schedule could but we have to agree that it is worth the investment and then you have to see it through. i think that is the decision about american leadership we have to make decisions over whether investment is worth it. i will and on what i think are some future challenges.

when i look at your for the next 20-25 years, i see three fundamental challenges. number one, it is the profound transformation that europe is going through due to the debt crisis. it is certainly an economic transformation and a cultural and social transformation that will have a generational impact. you see the numbers in use and unemployment in spain and greece and the emigration of use going outside of europe. what are they taking from this crisis? what, in 20 years, when they become the future leaders of year, how will they internalize this crisis? this is what we have to understand and get into the challenges of the political dimension of the crisis. the second challenge in the

transatlantic relationship is managing the rise of turkey as a regional power through the reach and stretch to the western balkans, the caucuses, central asia, north africa, middle east, recognizing that the turkish-u process was fundamentally solved -- turkish-e u process was fundamentally salt. secretary clinton said it is understandable that we put this on the back burner. we have a lot of issues on our plate in the region when america doesn't push for turkey's accession or continues to push for turkey's european orientation, that is a challenge to the transatlantic relationship. dilutioevolution, democratic evolution, economic evolution, that will be a fundamental

challenge that will fan the next generation. how will we work on those issues? we have a decision to make about american leadership in year. i personally believe that america is a critical european power and we have to be involved and engaged sometimes in the very messiness that his institution-building and policy- building. but we tend to have two approaches to american leadership in year. we tend to get right in there and direct traffic or we say, you've got it, were busy, we have better things to do. we have to find the middle path that allows europe to leave, but with strong american engagement and action. that is the middle road. that is the new american leadership that i think we have to bring to the transatlantic to loorelationship. not just treatment to our values, but operational eyes those values, particularly in the enlargement agenda, whether that is the western balkans, the

eastern partnership countries, or beyond. that fundamental challenges a bipartisan purpose. you highlighted the difference between democrats and republicans. it is bipartisan. the enlargement has been successful because it is bipartisan. this relationship is so important. it has to be bipartisan. >> thank you. >> i am not here as a member of congress for seven terms nor as the secretary of state. i am here as the special envoy for strategic planning. i am here, i suppose, for the center at the atlantic council. kurt and i have known each other for a very long time heather, i have seen many of your pieces

and i appreciate the lot that you say. so far, it seems i am the only person in the room who has seen the dark side of politics and has actually been elected. when the obama administration came into office, we found ourselves with a number of significant situations that immediately caused a pause. every administration has to do in number of reviews. the administration was set up to do that appeared in this case, many of them were done -- to do that. in this case, many of them were done for the first time. the state department was part of the team. it was clearly a decision that president obama, secretary gates, and secretary clinton had made.

it was part of the soft power for the first time and that is triggered. we had not a lot of work done by the previous administration to do with the fact that we had a treaty that would expire in 2009. secondly, we had a missile defense proposal by the bush administration and so did the russians. it was headed by the europeans because they understood that it was not meant to protect them and they were basically inconveniently in the wrong place at the wrong time. subsequently, during these reviews, immediately, the secretary put together a team to look at beginning to negotiate a .ew structure coul

a decision was made with the white house to use the negotiation of a new start treaty to restart the relationship. the relationship characterized by -- which is no longer the posture that we have between ourselves and the former soviet union-russia. that success of getting the new start treaty and the escalating a lot of tensions was very important. it also got as a relationship with russia that enables us to work recklessly on things like iran, more successfully than with algeria and libya. on the iran and north korea situation, we have a much more respectful and successful relationship in getting things done. we're also able to announce in september the defense review,

which was because the president was insistent that we were changing the characteristic of exactly what would happen. that review, as many of you know, culminated in the announcement of the european- based approach called the sn3 rocket. we would move ashore and deploy it much faster to protect europe. and we would good to nato engaging in the mission so it was not just point defense, but to protect troops in a certain area. the idea was having an umbrella for one person and a cannon for the whole room. having uss is deploying nearly into the mediterranean -- having u.s. assets deployed immediately

into the mediterranean with poland, romania, turkey and for spain to perform more leadership. and to deploy the river by the end of 2011. that is an enormous set of circumstances, to get nato to change its mission at the summit in 2010 could to deploy a mission that can protect us now -- in 2010. to deploy a mission that can protect us now. we had a couple of other things done. on the political side, i spend a lot of my time in russia and with my european colleagues. the relationship had very little to do with questions as to whether we still want to stay together. but think the real issue is how

we manage together in a time of shrinking resources and a time of other distractions? real problems to both economic security and real security, balancing the relationship for very long time. president obama is not the first to face the fact that our european and nato allies are not contributing what we hope appeared kennedy -- we hope. kennedy was doing with that. in our case, i would say in that there was a question whether they would increase the defense budget. we will have decreases in the

defense budget, of course, we are, for a number of reasons. we have been operating two wars honor credit card for the last 10 years. but why are we decreasing the budget of the state department? that is a problem. the problem is that, whether you " smart power, her soft power, it -- whether you call it smart power, soccer, part power, you still have to pay for it. we have the ability in the congress to understand that a sign of patriotism is not to have a ribbon on the back of your car, begin every speech by talking about how much you love our fabulous military, but that we have the balanced policy that includes a risk deck and a renaissance. we had a crisis last year and we will have a crisis again in the state department budget.

i do know many people who have written about it in a way that compels people to understand that we're taking people off the field. we're taking prize diplomats, the ability to find councils, to do anything behind big wire fences out of town because we're so interested in protecting ourselves. i find that to be a crisis when we can leave it -- when we cannot even be in the middle of town. when we cannot find the best americans who can project american soft power in those places because we decided that fewer is better when it comes to diplomacy. that is not a sustainable situation for us. i appreciate very much that heather said nonpartisans 45 times. i think foreign policy should be non-partisan. we have too many people on both sides of the aisle.

in this political campaign, they will use anything they can find to attack anybody and it just turns people off. i told my former constituents -- i am blessed to think or have been told that my constituents in california would still elect me. but in many places in this country, i do not know who would want to work with the american people. talk about an absentee landlord. i was lucky in my congressional district in california. i had 70% to 80% of the vote. they get the same boat i get. i do not know if that is very good. and the american people would rather watch "entertainment tonight" by large rather than the newshour.

you don't have to take a test, but you should be informed. for too many years and for too long, we had partisanship sinking into foreign policy and national security affairs to the detriment of everyone. kurt and i have known for very long time. we were concerned that we would be on a panel today and that it would be very boring. we thought we would say i agree with her and i agree with him. i find now that i agree with other, too. the truth of the matter is that it should be non-partisan foreign policy and national security. we should be increasing the state department, not cutting it. we should have a balanced approach on how we work with their friends. we also have to work with their friends about paying for their own. we were busy in 2009 and early- 2010. we negotiated a state of the treaty with the russians and one of the most important issues in

the new start treaty. we are working on many different things. it it used to be that we had to reset the relationship to work on iran or libya. but it is a much better relationship. we need to move from mutually assured destruction to mutually assured stability. we have a number of issues where we have a common view and we need to escalate the relationship where a 10-foot sans costas to build an 11-foot ladder. ds cannot -- 10-foot san caused us to build an 11-foot ladder.

we can afford to do that anymore. trying to work together to get the economy bounced and to get people back to work in a very big world where the europeans are our no. 1 trading partner. we are inextricably intertwined. people better start paying attention. this is a democracy that is not a sideline game. it is a representative democracy where people have to step up and vote. we're losing that battle. we're losing that battle and partly because there's more cynicism because it appears to be chic and there is no imperative and there is a sense of partisanship.

heather wants things to be bipartisan and i want things to be non-partisan. we are really capable of doing this. if we can project that faith and that voice to the rest of the world, we would actually be doing everything we can to preserve our democracy. >> thank you very much. does your message mean that there are not in gendering differences that are being put off both -- being put forth to the voters? are their budgets being proposed and counter-budgets and volcker said that the differences are quite start between robust international world or quasi-isolationist. i do not think --

>> the american voter is not voting on foreign policy in november unless something cataclysmic happened. they are oblivious to it. they will vote the economy all over again. it will be about jobs. it will be about the sense of their own well-being. there will be a piece of it that will be about appealing to people's sense of desperation there will be people who are upset and will be turned off by different parts of the rhetorical battle we will be hearing and stay home. the enthusiasm gap is my concern for what we have coming forward in november. in many ways, there is a laziness about the facts for the same people that my former

colleagues that have pitched a fit about the debt ceiling and created a big problem with that has gone us degraded in the financial markets a few months ago. they are preaching from a partial, temperance -- they're preaching from a bar stool, temperance from a bar stool. playing deficit games all day long. nobody has called them on it. the test of a good politician is can you do it and get away with it? apparently, the answer is yes. >> i agree. i do not think foreign policy will push a single vote in the election. no one will vote on it. while you may see people make an effort to use foreign policy as a cudgel in the election, it is

not serious. it is trying to calculate where i can get a little bit of political advantage this where that prepared it is not really serious. it is not true among those trying to have a strong american role in the world. when i talked about those who feel that we cannot afford that anymore, we got to cut back, pull back, fix it, i am not disparaging the second view, even though i don't share it. that is a legitimate point of view, by the way. people are very worried about where we are and all of that but i think i -- but i think we cannot afford to do that. that is really the intellectual debate that is out there. it really is not a partisan debate in that respect.

i didn't see anything in terms of individuals that way. when you to think about foreign policy and the election, the thing that i would really expect both parties or both candidates to lay out during the course of the campaign is a strategic framework for the way we're looking at the world. what do we see out there? how'd we see ourselves? how do we want to engage in that? that may offer a hairsbreadth of a choice between the candidates on that. there may be a difference between tone and style in that. but i think you'll see in both cases a fairly traditional being gauged robust american foreign policy articulated from both sides. >> there may be more difference than just tone and style, right? if governor romney proposes restarting start, resetting the reset, does this have any consequences? is this really a subject of

nonpartisan or bipartisan consensus? if the budget cuts will be walls back -- you for your talking about capacity in the missile defense and the ability for americans to project power, is this about style and tone? >> import, it will be. i agree that it will -- in part, it will be. i agree that it will be opportunistic in the elections. this is where the sovereign debt crisis, a worst case scenario, that, my friends, will have a direct impact on the election and that is your. i was briefing a proletarian group and one said wouldn't it be ironic if this is the reason that president obama does not elected, if economic centers in

gets a difficult and that is what drives that? wouldn't it be ironic? but it speaks to how closely interconnected we are. how europe shows is how we go. and we saw very much in 2008 that how we go is how europe goes. i do not have the luxury of saying that that is europe's problem for our problem. we have to solve this together. iran is another example. the price of oil will have a direct impact on the american economy where foreign-policy intersects with economic issues will have direct implications. governor romney mentioned that russia was the greatest geopolitical foe.

i think it speaks to, again, that this is a difference of opinion from the bush administration on missile defense, on the approach to russia, on arms control in many ways. from, i think you'll hear the romney campaign very strong focus on strengthening our relationship with central europe and making sure that that is a strong part moving forward and making sure that we are together understanding the changes and the developments we are seeing in russia. this is an issue that we will have to stay absolutely in lockstep. it will be critical. we have to get in great alignment. there will be some consensus on this issue full stop. but the strategy before it is

making sure that we are tightly closed -- that we are closely tied with europe. >> what did the republican administration do with the eurozone crisis? are we talking about different kinds of intervention? if president obama is depicted now as hectoring ineffectually the europeans about building greater silence and focusing on the -- greater pylons and focusing on the strategic goal -- >> every american wants europe to resolve this crisis quickly. we want europe to be back and strong and be productive economy. we want the global economy to go and your visit critical part of that. that is non-partisan, vice parson. -- a bipartisan. it is a dim reflection of ourselves in the united states. that is why we have an awfully hard time looking in the mirror.

politically, there's something here for everybody. you look at greece and you say, see? that is how we're going if we cannot get this debt under control. we will lose the ability to control our destiny and the markets will control it force. and you say, see, greece, what happens when you cut, cut, cut. there's something there for the entire spectrum for everybody. together, we need to support your. -- support europe. i know how politically awful it would be for the administration to go to congress and say, boy, how about a bailout for europe? the pulling of hairs and

gnashing of teeth. we have to be involved, even if it is token, even if it is small. we are investing in europe as they have invested in us and our foreign policy objectives. for the last 10 years, europe was in afghanistan could not necessarily because of the national security threat that they saw, but because they were there for american solidarity. europe is in deep trouble right now. i don't care if it is tokenism. the u.s. has to make an investment in europe. i nursed and we cannot do that. we are offering our ribeyes and council. sometimes it is well received and sometimes it is not. but i do know one thing about my history. when we don't engage with europe, if they're not part of it, we will be turned back by the greater cost for not being there in the beginning. i don't want that to be -- i do

want that to happen. i want to be involved in this profound crisis. and that is what it is, whether europe tends to think if it is our crisis or our issue. i don't want this to be a race to the bottom for our economies. i wanted to be raised to the top. we cannot blame each other. we have to find the solutions. >> heather made very good point. we suffer from the same problem that europe suffers from. it is a failure to make decisions. our budget is tough now until january and then we will see what we do. europe is also failing to make decisions on its debt crisis. the longer it tries to shape it and push it off, the bigger the problem mounts. about contributed, i do not think it is sensible or syllable to contribute to year.

it is enabling them to continue to postpone decisions. if it were possible to flip around, in exchange for europe making decisive decisions about putting up a wall against further deterioration of the debt crisis, which would be very painful and difficult fended involves who is in the eurozone and who is not, eurobonds and the issues bush -- and the shores of european debt, it would be in our own interest to say we will support this as well, whatever ways the market requires to hold that line. fifth so if -- so that it holds the line. but the way europe is making those kinds of choices, biden at the beacon consider putting any

money behind it. -- i don't think we can consider putting in may behind it. we also have to get serious about our own debt and our own issues as we look ahead. >> thank you. i want to open the discussion to the audience. we have under half an hour. please wait for the microphone and state your name and affiliation before you rest your question. up here first. >> i have a question on counter- terrorism policy. it did not really, in your interventions, but a couple of weeks ago, there was an important speech from president obama's counter-terrorism adviser admitting that the u.s. uses drones and will continue justifying that.

guantanamo bay is not being closed. obama believes in detention without having to bring a charge. for counter terrorism for security reasons. do you think those issues will, first of all, the issues in the u.s. presidential campaign or not? benefitted it is for transatlantic relations -- and if it is for transatlantic relations? these are front and center issues. now it seems like they're no longer a important. think there will be part of the elections. i don't think there is a tolerance that has developed. i think that the president and

john brennan have been very clear about the statement policy. this president has stopped a lot of things that the previous administration was doing. as a regular recognition, in light of the activities that cause people to be very upset are no longer going on. but, at the same time, there has to be a way to manage when you pick up some of these terrorists. part of the most important piece of detaining them is extracting information about operations, people they are associating with, how they have their financial opportunities, how they're dealing with each other, what does their network look like? there is a sell by date on that.

at a certain time, the cells deteriorate and nobody knows who the next guy is our and the one is after that. it is important to extract it because it will save lives, both here and now and with our friends around the world. it will not be part of the debate, but what you will see in the debate -- the political debate about foreign-policy and national-security can be characterized very simply as i am the toughest guy in the world and the other guy is a week fulool. anyway that they can do that, they will do it. what ever hits the headline that they will be what it is. it will be manipulated around and i am the tough guy and the only other characterization is who loves israel the most. [laughter]

and hugh is spending more money on his real than the other guy could -- and who is spending more money on israel than the other guy. what is important -- i want to pick up on something that he said -- you have this duality of who wants to be an isolationist and doesn't care who thinks it's a good idea to be cutting state department budget? a lot of people do not consider themselves to be isolationists. really? you cannot project american power in a peaceful way from this place forward? that is destroying seed corn. we have a policy situation right now where people have gone ahead of themselves and cannot really justified in the coat -- in the political system with their doing. but i do not think that any of these things you mentioned -- unless someone secretes something in their underwear

again or in their shoes, all the sudden, whoever's running the government, the tsa does not have this and we do not have that. >> cannot add to that? >> i asked the same question. i was speaking to a student group in march at the hague. it is interesting, drone of policies, guantanamo remaining open, detainee policies, i do not see much public reaction in europe to that. is there an acceptance of the policy? i would have thought that europe would be much more vocal about these issues because they were during the bush administration .oul

and one said that we like president obama more. that is an explanation if you're concerned about it and this is a value-based issue, i, as an american, would be concerned about this and we should be able to talk about it. but let's not be hypocritical about it either. we should embrace the debate. this is an important debate to have. my sense is that this gets to where we are in a different place in time. i see continued strong cooperation. we had a cyber security conference and a lot of really good coordination. we have the secretary of homeland security and another. there were really finishing each other's sentences. there was a focus there. that is an encouraging sign. we have differences on privacy

and a lot of other differences. but we know this is so important that we have to get it right. we have to dedicate the energy, the enthusiasm, the time. it is not an easy conversation. i am very in courage that we are in a better place on the u.s.- european dialogue across the board on those issues. >> ambassador broker, when you look at the european union terrorist threats and piracy threats, do you see a difference of the partners now than you did under the previous american administration? when you seek the the you writing a part ler, does this make you smile? [laughter] >> a couple of thoughts on this. europe.see a different

what i do see is a glasshouses europe. there is not a whole lot else to do. they are not happy that we are reducing from four grades -- from four brigades to two big brigades in europe. they don't really want us to pull out of afghanistan with the risk that afghanistan will be a mess. but they also do want to stay in afghanistan. >> by keeping troops in there actually discouraging more investment in defense budget? >> this has been going on for decades. >> they are there for us. >> it is in our interest. that is right. >> the defense budget and the percentage of gdp -- >> it is a phenomenon that

europe has put money in the defense budget that the u.s. thinks it should. we could not have picked that during times were good. and now things are really hard for your. >> how are they encouraged to increase their contribution -- hard for europe. >> how are they encouraged to increase their contribution? >> will spend more money? no. the answer is what is in our own interests? it is in our interest to have it for word platform in dealing with global challenges. when we do things, we can do things together care -- do things together. it creates a broader political foundation for what we are doing. we just have to decide what is the right level, what is right

for us. and we keep working with europe. it is neither new u.s. leadership toward unilateralism. it is how the u.s. leads with others and we all do the same thing together. and we can point to the first gulf war, to kosovo, to afghanistan in the mid-two thousand's. we are able to do this. i wanted to raise this question i'm really glad that you raised this question and that we are where we are. it was the bush administration that stop doing things that the bush administration was doing and then the obama administration also did not do them and that was good. in order to do with the war -- with the world that we're in, you want to detect terrorists

and take out terrorist leadership, speaking both still under both administrations, we are in a war. all of that is good. when you see the u.s. today and europe, when it was only the bush administration doing this, people were willing to criticize. but when the obama administration comes in and does the same thing, it finally clicked to people that this is a problem and it is really hard and there is not an obvious alternative. while we cannot be happy about randomly -- not randomly, that is not the right word, but using drones as a way to kill people and holding people in guantanamo for however long we need to hold on, nobody can be happy about that. but we have a much more sophisticated understanding that we do not have a whole lot of other options are now. then the trans-atlantic

community is asking how will we do this for the future? >> on the right. >> picking up on something that both have other and ambassador volcker mentioned about how the eurozone crisis mirrors many problems in the u.s., how you see the growing consensus in europe that austerity is not enough having an impact on the political debate here in the u.s. considering the political discourse about europe in the u.s. being very negative? we have seen that in the

republican primaries. europe has been touted as a sort of a scarecrow. do you expect president obama to use europe as an example of his approach at the risk of being associated with a french socialist? [laughter] >> do you want to go first? >> at the risk of president obama using europe as a positive example for his policies, that is zero. there's no chance. we have had no austerity here. we have talked about it. we have flirted with catastrophe. but we have not actually cut much of anything at this point. we will have to face -- which probably will not face it until

january. even then, we will kick it down the road below bit because we have the reserve currency and it is easy to postpone. in the end, i think in this country, the debate is not about more stimulus and austerity. it is about fundamental reform that will involve some combination of the revenue base and reforming our massive expenditures in domestic programs with a proportionate effect on defense because you have to do that for fairness across the budget. that is the debate we will have here. very different from the european debate, which is levels of debt that cannot be sustained with the euro. countries coming individually, can sustain their debt -- countries, individually, cannot sustain their debt. no growth in europe.

with the overall population declining economic performance, you amass enough wealth to do with all of this? >> pulling back, this is really how western democracies will appeal with the leveraging and pain -- will deal with the o deleveraging and pain. we have not yet begun to do that. but if we really think about in tenement reform, we will be doing that here we will be -- about entitlement reform, we will be doing that. whether we are reducing benefits, make some future investment in r&d and education, this is about how we

are the west, japan and others, how we will do this. it is the most difficult issue for democracies. who votes for increases in taxes and who votes for less benefits? we have seen politically -- this is my own reflection looking at the french elections and the ongoing greek elections -- what we have seen is the center, the establishment is unable to hold in this position, whether it is center-left or center-right. we would call that moderates here, but this center position, they are unable to convince others that we have to do this. it is painful. and the narrative that people are looking for, particularly young people, which is what shocked me about the french election, the french electorate, in the first round voted for an extreme left or an extreme right

party. one third appear. we are seeing the exact same phenomenon in greece. the protest vote is going to the extremes. that will change the democratic pattern in europe. there is the political- historical adaptation to that. what we have to understand that europe will emerge from this and the united states will emerge from this and how do society still got that? so when they talk in the primaries that european socialism and you wonder whether they talking about, it is the role of government in society. should that be a big role? should it be a directive role? should it be limited role? this is the debate we have had in our country for over 200 years. and that conversation right now is happening in europe.

i have seen more references to alexander hamilton in the last several weeks on the europe bought for. we're going back to this fundamental principles because that is what we are having to look for to see how this will evolve. but this growth in austerity debate, this is in part to feed an insatiable need for information and media for analyzing the moment. we're not pulling back and saying what does europe look like in 10 years to 20 years. how will my children adapt to this new society and how will my country be dealing with that? that is the bigger picture we're losing in all this noise and confusion and uncertainty. as a think tank, this is how we -- that is what we have to look at. >> the middle of politics in

this country is gone. it has been sacrificed the worst thing you can be is in the middle of the road because you get hit by the car's going east and west. as the leader of the moderates in the house, i can see my colleagues getting knocked off left and right because they were standing for things that were in the middle. we have had the debate about what we should do. all of these debates that say one or the other, take the "or" out and put in "and." it is not austerity or growth. it is and. it is both. we have had the debate. we just haven't decided to pull the trigger.

we have to get around to it appeared in the twin -- to it. in the 2012 -- in the 2010 election, the democrats lost the house and the tea party people were elected. where do you think we will go if we're sending people to washington who do not have the temperament for compromise? that is what it is about going to washington. it has been turned on its head of the past 35 years by a conservative campaign to come to washington to serve the country, to serve their constituents, to make them look crazy. to make them look crazy, stupid, and venal. some arrive that way and some of them become that way. not everybody in [laughter] is good. how does the american believe -- how do you get a congress --

these people don't volunteer. they get sent. we all get to congress the same way. how is it possible that the american people believe that the people they send, from the moment that they send them to the airplane ride or the car ride, turn into maniacs? >> it is everyone else's congress. >> right now, it is everyone's congress, including your own. that is completely unsustainable for a representative democracy. so we have a number of challengers appeared -- challenges. but the american people have to decide that they will have to pick people that will represent them hopefully in a more centrist and more moderate way that will be willing to compromise and that will action get things done and not lose their minds in washington. >> we have under 10 minutes left. i will collect the last several

questions and give the panelists to respond. i would ask you to keep your questions short. i apologize in events. >> i have the good fortune of working for ambassador volcker a few years ago and the state department. you would think that everyone wants to prevent the recurrence of the lehman brothers event that was a worldwide financial crisis. is there no hope that the issue of contributing to a european fire wall couldn't be explained to the american public in those terms that we want to prevent a worldwide contagion after a greek accident? no hope? >> mr. harris? >> it has been a fascinating

discussion. in terms of the issue of debt, a couple points very quickly. number one, most countries in europe, most member states, are actually not in that much debt put it is really just a handful. it look at the eurozone as an aggregate, it does not have that much debt. it does not have much of a trade deficit. the problem the eurozone has a balancing. that is an important distinction because you have surplus member states and deficit member we have been bailing out mississippi and alabama for decades. that is how it works. if you look at the trajectory of the last couple of years, it is going to take many years. there is no correlation between debt and your economy being in trouble and your bond rates. look at japan, and has won the highest debt in the world.

the u.k. has a higher debt than france has and is borrowing at lower rates. the united states, we are borrowing at historically low rates even though we have a big debt. we are getting kind of loose in we talk about these things. the economists don't know how this works. the city should not have more than 90% gdp to debt ratio -- they say you should not have more than 90% gdp. there is no real theory that those numbers are founded on. they are pulling them from historical research and other things. things are not as simple as the narrative is making it out to be. >> a final question in the back. >> thank you, karen johnston, american university. i very much share some of your concerns. you mentioned the problem with

the public policy level of interest and information on foreign policy issues. i think there is a missing link, and that is the role of the media in providing accurate and sometimes in the information about some of the foreign policy issues that are of great concern to you and some of the other foreign policy experts and people in government. from your perspective, what can be done to strengthen this link? there are obviously problems in the business of news. the problems of differentiating between news and opinion, the fact that people now in this media landscape self select the kind of -- it does affect their opinions and views on foreign policy issues. what can be done? once the american public is given informed information about issues, they can give informed

decisions and be part of the foreign policy debate. this has been done with the research on the make democracy -- on direct democracy. there was an interesting report on providing its permission about the defense budget and how americans see the defense budget. so what can we do? >> i am going to give the palest one minute to respond each. >> on the debt issue, i am very sympathetic. i think we should be engaged but i understand how ruinous the policies are. 40 of the 87 banks that received carper funds were international and european banks, so in some ways we are already doing this. on the question of the simplicity we talk about, you are absolutely right.

in some respects, what we are seeing is a balance sheet recession. this is why some of the differences in approach that europe has had, the austerity driven efforts have actually make things worse. my concern is the divergence of economies in europe, where you have germany pulling away from the rest of europe economically, how do you sustain a more balanced economic union when you have one member -- if you took germany out of the statistics, the trade balance number would not be so good. it is doing because it is in such a different place economically. that is something we need to watch very carefully. the role of the media, think tanks are very much called upon to talk about what we see. sometimes we feel like, what is the sound bite you are trying to analyze this second?

the 24-7 in satiable media. i try to provide context, but they are looking for that sound bite. sometimes that pullout three sentences, and i did not mean to sound like that. it is difficult to appreciate. >> we have time for two more sound bites. >> i cannot agree more. i am speaking for myself. it is not a question of who gets eliminated from the eurozone, it is question of who gets added. this is a growth problem, not a debt problem. you are absolutely right. he added turkey and maybe poland to the eurozone, the rest of the problems would solve themselves very quickly.

to my friend from american university, let me say, unless we can package foreign-policy and national-security are around "dancing with the stars" or some kind of crocodile ridden swimming of the potomac, the american people are just not interested. they are tired, they are scared, they want to be entertained. they want something to divert them. they all look like problems that someone else should salt. they are not going to pay attention. there are so many things that they can watch out there, and they do not watch them. >> a different point on the economic issues.

the reason french interest rates are higher than british once is because france is in the eurozone. that imposes a risk on france that the uk, with control over on economy and currency, does not face. they do not have confidence in europe. many states are doing very well. some states are in an unsustainable situation, and that is something that could have been nipped in the bud and dealt with a couple of years ago but was not. the problem has grown and grown as a result. it can still be dealt with, but it requires some choices that thus far europe is not willing to make. one of those choice is the eurobond, and have a collective process for issuing new euro denominated debt.

that would be a huge transformation in the way things look now. is it going to happen? i don't think so. >> we did that in the 1970's with new york city. you had a big premium added on to the interest-rate. . lot of people want to buy it >> to close of controversy and no, i think that voters and students are better informed. people have access to all sorts of information through online media, social media, through television, travel.

people are a lot better informed than they have been in the past. the quality of information, people are going to make up their own minds, but ultimately, my gut feeling is that people know their own interests. they know something, they have a feeling about it. they speak their mind and they can vote in the category allen described very amusingly. i think we are actually not in as ill informed estate as it may often seen. the issue comes down to one of leadership. it is going to require at every level, whether city, state, federal, congress, president, whoever, use your best judgment and make some hard decisions, even if it means you will not be very popular the next time around.

that's what you need people to stand up for when they go in to public office. a different take than looking at the information the people have is really what the leaders come back with and say, this is the best we are going to be able to do. for these reasons i support this, and face the consequences, which is hard. that is what is missing in the equation. people know a lot more than they used to, and they are angry about it. they need people to stand up and give them something to believe in. >> perhaps that is what second terms are for. >> if you think back on every second term presidency for the last however many years, they have all been better than the first. >> on that note, i would like to thank the panel for coming and thank you all for staying. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight on c-span, slate magazine's weekly podcast, political gabfest, is next. then secretary state hillary clinton presents the state the board's annual human-rights report. the brookings institution hosts a discussion on europe's economy and debt crisis. >> friday on "washington journal," maria barona talks about the losses at morgan chase and lawsuits filed following the facebook ipo. later, discussion on the technology and self driven cars and help companies plan to use it. after that, look at the demographic profile of the nation's veterans. we examine policies and programs

available to help veterans and their families. "washington journal," like every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- live every morning. >> i want people to get a better understanding of who she was, what she was like. there have been a lot of books written, and most it has been written by people who talked to friends of friends of friends. they really don't have the information themselves. i happen to be there. i knew her. >> from late 1960 through 1964, former secret service agent clint hill served on the protective details of former first lady jacqueline kennedy. >> it is just what happened, what she was like, things that she liked to do, held numerous she was a time, how -- how athletic she was, and how intelligence. she was kind of rambunctious. she tried to put me through the

test many, many times, and i did my best to meet that. >> that is sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a". >> each week, slate magazine hosts a podcast called political gabfest. panelist this week talked about the 2012 presidential campaign. mitt romney career and politics in washington. this is an hour and a half. >> thank you, esther. it is great to be back here. although i am trapped already. it is a metaphor. >> i will let him answer that. >> i feel like we are backup singers and they are going to come out. >> bill, where are you?

are you ready? are you guys ready? let's do it. hello and welcome to the slate political gabfest. i am david plotz, editor of slate. joining me are emily bazelon to my right and the john dickerson, as dangerous as an angry rattlesnake, political correspondent and political director of cbs news to my left. we are live in front of a gorgeous crowd at a historic synagogue for a live version of the gab fest. john, please tell me, are these beautiful people real or are they pigments of my imagination? >> they are real to me, but our listeners don't know that you

are real. [applause] i don't tell our listeners can tell, but that is two balcony's of people. there are a lot of people. >> this is our biggest crowd yet. we are so glad you guys are here. [applause] >> that's why we've got the headsets. go ahead, david. >> we have three topics. the first will be the fight over bain capital and how it will affect the presidential campaign. the second topic will be why is washington so dreadful? the third topic will be the

sentencing in the tyler clementi/dharun ravi case. c-span is building the show for tv broadcast, so you should prepare really eloquent questions that will demonstrate just how smart john and emily are. >> just make them simple. >> the dc that study about the notion that members of congress have the vocabulary of eighth graders could, >> de are supposed to speak in similar sentences. >> it was interesting because it seemed like told bull -- like total bull. they were punished for speaking simply and clearly.

the longer your sentence and a more complex it is, the more intelligent it was supposed to be. >> there are plenty of politicians to sentences are long and meandering. it disbanded, it would be like at the postgraduate level, but if you took the actual content, it would be at the preschool transition level. -- if you stand it. that was a cheap shot. i just thought we would get it rolling. >> the mayor of newark, superhero, rescues old ladies from burning buildings, shovels their sidewalk when it snows, and much lauded politicians made a lot of news this past weekend. >> he went on meet the press on sunday and they were talking at the end of the show about his

political campaign. he's been a lot of time talking about the president and why he supports the president and his achievements. at the back end of his comments, he talked about the talking points he had next to him. they were a comfort to him as he was making his case to the president, but then he said about the ad that attacked mitt romney that week over a steel company that bain capital had owned and managed that went bankrupt, one of the workers at the plant called bain a vampire that searched -- that sucked the life out of the company. the ads never ran, but there was a $10 million plan to make a run them. booker then got a lot of phone

calls from the obama campaign and the democratic committee saying you cannot say you are nauseated by the guy you are trying to reelect. >> and he said he was nauseated because it was out of bounds. he said the campaign ad attacked basically what bain had done, that private equity was good. in the main, bain had created jobs and supported businesses, another thing that was off message. by later that evening he put out a four-minute video recapitulating what he said but putting it in a more favorable light. the president was called on to respond to this the next day at nato. the reason it is a problem, it was not only cory booker but steve ratner came out and said

this was not a great thing. ed rendell said this was not an ad that should be running. >> now there is a run the ad that " them --quotes them. >> he was speaking up for private equity. that is an incredibly long winded explanation of what happened. >> is cory booker right, that this is out of bounds, or is it a stupid attack for the president to go after romney about this? >> he could have made the argument that what romney did as a private equity chief was good for the economy and import and and you can expect this protectionist attitude toward jobs, particularly at a steel mill. private equity at advest takes companies that are dying on the line in terms of the around and

make them productive in new ways. that is not just the vincible but important. he idea that that is out of bounds when it is from his career and he is stating his campaign on the notion -- you already wrote this piece but i am telling it because i agree with you. >> it is an interesting debate to have about what private equity is, and none of us our finance people. i don't even balance my checkbook. it appears that there is the private equity. matt miller makes the point that there is private equity of the sort of you take a really flabby company that otherwise is going to die, and change what the company does. miller makes the argument that what president obama did with the auto industry is a kind of private equity. he took the of companies and set

your business model is not sustainable, you will have to get leaner and change how your pensions are funded and so forth. that is the good kind of private equity. then you have a private equity that has surged in the last few years. you come in and fund the buyout with loans from the asset company you are taking over. you pay yourself huge fees, and whether the company lives or dies, you are not interested you are -- you want the company to succeed, but the most important part is the financial engineering of that transaction, and that is what determines whether bain ins of making a ton of money on it. >> then we have the investigation by the wall street

journal where they look that 77 companies. maine had refused to give them any information, but they found from portfolio accounts what the record was and they looked at the 77 companies and found that if they went out on these years, longer than it bain had owned stock, they catch up with a higher rate of bankruptcy than is the normal. then they came up with 12% which was still higher, but within the range. >> it is bulk -- fair game because mitt romney says he is a business guy. that is the first thing he talks about on the trail. he does not really mentioned his time as governor as much. he has started to mention the olympics more. this is the central claim he is

making. the question is if it maps to what he says it is. >> and creating jobs. he takes credit for the stable jobs even though somebody else of the company. >> the question is what did he do. tell us what you did to give us this insight. tell us the story, basically. he says it and then he moves on. >> are you finished with that? >> yes and no. i am finished with that sentence. [laughter] >> now you are going to go on

and on and on. >> no matter what you say, my point is going to be the same. >> the point is to keep the focus on the president, so there is a tactical reason for not answering the question, too. once the conversation to stay on an up or down vote on the president's stewardship of the economy. >> my defense of romney in this is, i don't think he can make a credible defense where he actually uses his work at bain to say that is exactly what the president of the united states does, and therefore you should elect me because what i did at bain is analogous to what the president does. what he did was make a ton of money for investors and himself. by all accounts, he appears to have been very good at it. >> it always been a fitted bain

in the aggregate. >> which was his constituency. " i would make, here is a guy who has had three jobs in his life that we know about. i am sure he has had more. it was a consultant, then he ran bain, and then he was governor of massachusetts. and he was incredibly effective in each of these jobs. whatever the job was. he is given a set of tasks. he is very good at those tasks. whether those map to what the president does is the debate. he is something that when you give him a set of things to do, he appears to be very good and getting them done. >> the better argument for him is to stay in three different instances, have taken complicated systems, figure them out, and turn them around.

the olympics is not a steel company. these are three separate things. i was able to go in and figure them out and make them work efficiently. at least he shows them a set of attributes where he can say no one is able to prepare for the presidency, but i have gone into complex places and figured it out. he doesn't even really get that far. he is not a small business guy. he did not start out selling something out of his garage. small business people talk about the guy who had a change of restaurants in ohio. there are a bunch of people you tell a story like that too and they get. >> here is another argument.

the president has been -- i am sympathetic to the argument, but what about the president that needs to be callous and cutthroat? there are a lot of people asking for things from the government who should not be getting us things anyway. we need an in but the deficit in our president. -- an empathy deficit in our president. they are worried about real people on the bread lines. they are pandering to their

constituencies. >> the republican party has gone so glued be on economics -- so loopy. mitt romney is a hyper rationalist. he can read a spread sheet. >> but he is not going to raise taxes. that is what we are going to get out of this. he could bring the republican party back from the brink of craziness, but he won't do it. >> is much more likely to do it than some kind of weird, crazed, a populist candidate garrett kern >> it would not take the 10 to 1 deal in the midst of the campaign.

what she would not be reelected and he would be seen as benedict arnold picrates by that standard, there is no republican who could be president, as far as you are concerned. given the constraints of his republican -- >> don't pander, emily. just because you know your crowd here. >> i wonder if at this moment as a possible for a republican to be eight responsible president. not that the democrats are doing such a good job with our deficit and fixing the economy, either. the numbers do not add up. your spreadsheet is right, that is what the president should care about, but i don't think romney would be that different. >> it depends, if the right and

budget -- let's say he is just going to sign the budget. you cannot just pass it with republicans. the question is, it seems to me what is wrong about focusing on bain, it is interesting and fascinating. it is a way to figure out what kind of attributes he has. and he'd pick up some skills and use them in the new sandbox? he tried to do that in massachusetts. the other challenge was going to a place that was totally democratic, and for a guy who is not a back slapper, figuring out how to work with democrats. he will have to do that at some level in washington, even though he might sign the rhine and budget, it will not get passed without coming to some kind of understanding with the other

side. that is essentially what he did with the health care plan in massachusetts, about which he is to be very proud until it became a liability and he had to reverse himself on that. there was a long piece in 2007 about the health care plan. it was not that he was fascinated by the intricacies of health care policy. what he liked was how he had gotten the deal done, he wanted to get from a to z and he just marched down the alphabet and got there. when there were obstacles, he went around it can and got to that objective. some kind of tax increase is a part of that. he has shown ideological flexibility in his career. perhaps under the threat of

getting nothing done, -- >> if you look at the right and budget and you are ok with all the slashing of government programs, it is part of the way toward sustainability. it is not irresponsible on the expense side of the ledger. talk about the rise in budget anymore, not now. >> did you guys think that cory th started running? was he just pandering to the idea of the corrupt political system? >> he was barack obama from 2008. the disgusting political climate, we have to stop it.

that is something candid that obama would have easily said in. -- something that obama would have easily said. when he argued why the ad -- >> i thought he threaded the needle. >> it is an ad full of blue collar workers that are trying to register. it is an interesting question whether on the eastern side of ohio, where mitt romney does not have a strong relationship, whether there is any availability for those folks to go to obama. it is aimed at their gut and it

hit cory booker in the wallet. he raises money from these guys and so do other -- all those other democrats that are against it. >> it is not just going after steelworkers but also the moderates and independents. people were moved by the clint eastwood at in the middle of the super bowl create the old america is being threatened. people are losing their jobs. it is not just those workers, but there is something that appeals to many of the rest of us. >> carrero couple of primaries on tuesday night, at democratic primaries in arkansas and kentucky, and president obama barely won them. he got only 58% in kentucky.

they went out and bother to vote against president obama in the primary. obama wants to represent the way america used to be, but he is clearly not received as a threat. let's move on to the second topic. we are so glad that we are sponsored this week but all were friends that -- by our friends at sams.com. making trips back and forth to the post office is a waste of your time, as i discovered this week.

if you are a business, you can lease a postage meter. it is expensive. or you can use stamps.com you can buy and print official u.s. postage using just your computer and printer. it is easy and convenient, and you'll never have to go to the post office again. the folks in the audience, you cannot do this unless you are on a device. he is the promo code gabfest. click on the radio microphone at the top of the home page. i can hear people clicking on it. the second topic, i have a long,

printed this position here for our second topic. >> but we are allowed to interrupt. >> it goes on for three pages. i grew up in washington, d.c. garrett ker we will stand up for cocktail chatter. i spent my whole life here. the city itself is a lot livelier than it has ever been. it is safe to say that political safety is awful, and not in a funny way that you see on political tv shows. it has always been awful. it's awful in a non silly way, in a way that seems really dark and poisonous, like late roman

empire are dark. first, a few of the facts. you guys can interrupt me here. >> i am is wondering how bad this is going to get. bill i need to sharpen the bottom of my chair? >> there is really good evidence that the house and senate is stronger than ever. the most conservative democrat is more liberal than most liberal republicans. this has never been the case before. >> there used to be overlap, and now there is not. >> it is also true that both delegations can move to the extreme security >> the line is more dramatic toward the extremities of the republicans.

the democrats have moved as well. >> one explanation, it does not appear to be gerrymandering. there's an interesting story we looked at. members to come from swing districts that are tightly contested appeared to be just as extreme as members from various safe districts. >> why has this happened? can have 10 theories, but i don't know if i should run for all of them. >> let's put this in more context. the ugliness you talk about, we have gone through a series of these constipated moments where we have dealt with extending the government funding, the debt ceiling fight, the extension of the bush era tax cut.

at the end of this year we will have a massive fight over two things, the end of the bush era tax-cut and the cuts that have been mandated by the debt limit deal of last summer. it requires adult behavior to keep those two things from happening. the cbo came out with the report yesterday saying that the tax cuts will happen in a draconian passion and it will send the u.s. into a temporary recession. a temporary recession does not feel like a possibility. it is like a temporary imputation. -- a temporary amputation. now we have another instance where people have to deal, and they are not. we are going to have a zombie congress.

of members a bunch of congress to will be in congress trying to deal with this before the next term. >> they might find some way to kick into the next session, but anyway, that felt like something was missing. >> did you buy this premise? >> i do. it does seem alarming. a think you have covered the waterfront. the theory that people have separated themselves geographically and socially, so we no longer spend time thinking it through the ideas that people -- being friends with the people whose ideas we disagree with. it elect politicians who do not traffic in diversity of the

intellectual kind, and that is really damaging. i am trying to remember which idea of was particularly drawn to. there are so many. >> in the last several years, but you have passed the affordable care act. it was ugly, but it is the first time a president and congress have been able to pass comprehensive health care reform in 60 years of trying. they pass the stimulus bill, and it was a lot larger than people ever thought it might be. dodd-frank was passed. that seems to meet distinct from the debt limit fight. here are the biggest issues of the day and they cannot get to an answer.

>> some kind of action cut that helps some people, it seems to be a greater achievement than no action at all. >> it depends on a filibuster proof that majority, which is not going to happen. >> we are not a parliamentary democracy. >> one of the big problems is that the constitution is broken and we need a parliamentary democracy. this gridlock to the constitution has become too dysfunctional because of national media, because of gerrymandering to some degree.

>> the other theories about why is that there is a growing branch of research that says there are no independent voters, that they are a bunch of partisans on both sides. there is no constituency to be in the middle. you might as well go to an extreme. >> so the people who call themselves independent are not. >> that has always been true, they are just getting better at targeting. a lot of people call themselves independent and have never voted for a republican or democrat in their life. it is better to talk about swing voters who might still have an open opinion. there are about eight of them left. >> and you have interviewed every single one.

>> is there anyone in this audience who consider themselves a swing voter? wow. that is very interesting. >> i think that just don't know how they feel. >> there was one city council race in which they voted for the green party. >> because of the rise of national media, and partisan national media, there is no local politics anymore. every congressman is a national politician. you cannot be a congressman who does well locally and may be ideologically and diverse. everyone faces a national

challenge if they descent from the popular party line. that is another theory. washington politicians are no longer actually washington politicians. they don't have to spend that much time here because of the ease of travel. they don't know each other and they don't all members of the opposing party. >> it does not help you deal with your voters back home. orrin hatch was great friends with ted kennedy, and he was losing his mind trying to stay on the right side. >> that was then. now he is trying to do everything he can to stay on the right side of conservatives in

his state. he had the temerity to work with the democrat on a couple of pieces of legislation. hatch and bennett are quite amiable and have friendships across the aisle. richard lugar are is good friends with the president. >> part of this must have to do with the decline of the roman empire. . we are in this moment where there are very stark choices that have to be made in the near future, and they are not going to be any fun. your the person that doesn't get to build the new building or the new office.

and the country is incredibly divided about what to do. the tea party narrative is that we have to just cut everything. if we just cut the government enough, which will take ourselves back to sustainability. if you take them at their work, it would get as a moderate share of the way there. >> for people in the middle, and i wonder if this is true with media, there is no flight to quality with politics. and look at what is happening in washington and they just think it is a total clown show. i am not going to engage. the people who do engage or the people who are most passionate. they have already picked their teams and they want their team to win. they are happy to engage in it.

i like to watch a football game. i don't want to sit next to the guy who has painted his face and shave his head. it might discourage you from playing it has become such a clown show. >> they are not running for office, either pickax the ones in the middle. >> there is a book called "the age of austerity." you can paper over all these political differences. money is pouring in. you want defense, education, housing bills. you can do it all. >> that was my point about the stimulus and the affordable care act, and these decisions about taxes and spending. for republicans who feel like --

i went back and looked on c- span. you can look up any advances in that c-span archive. when bush put together the budget deal that went back on the no new taxes' pledge, here you had president bush saying that bob michael had done such a great job, and bob dole saying richard gephardt had done a great job. you could not imagine that scene now. you cannot put the current body on that stage. >> why did they need each other in that moment? was it that they all needed to cover up praising each other and being in this together? >> they needed that. they lost 126 republicans on that boat. i think they did believe that a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts was the way to actually solve the problem. what happened with republicans

with that deal and during the reagan administration is, they said we got hoodwinked. the promise always gets broken. you get the $1 tax increase and the spending goes through the roof. we will not be suckered again. in talking to voters who are conservative, a lot of times people will say i will be happy to pay more if i had any belief that it would be used efficiently. they hate taxes because they don't want to lose money out of their paycheck. they think everything done in washington is so inefficient. believe in the other side of the deal at all, then why would you say yes to that? >> this is obviously one of the other theories about why everything is broken.

because of the deal, the republicans went down this crazy pat where they have stayed and gotten more and more calcified. it has become theological. you actually no longer have politics. >> it is rational, not ideological. if you are portrayed every time because government spending can never be controlled, and we have never had any incentive to seriously controller before, even if your head off the cliff, why would you believe that such rigid that suddenly this time -- gillon >> and you say the republicans offer some revenue increases, they say in exchange they hope that will get some kind of reduction in entitlement spending. they basically think the other side is always going to cheat.

why should i give anything when i know historically that the other side cheats. that is the normal washington increase in spending that happens in washington by both parties. >> it is the government's money. it is always that problem. >> there are those who believe in tax cut solving everything. that is distinct from another group of republicans who feel like they will always be hoodwink if they ever agree to tax increases, and they will never get the spending cuts they want. >> this presentation of john boehner is not that he is theological, is just that he does not think he is going to be betrayed and treated.

>> we talked about this on the show last week. there can be no more back room deals because of the ubiquity of technology and the quality of technology and twitter in particular. it means that any news that happens it's out and spread immediately. and there is no trust, where people think they can come together and make a ideological deal because they don't trust each other and they know that the news will spread quickly. >> i don't think this one is right. you said some things are incredibly visible and other things just don't want to obscurity. [unintelligible]

>> nobody noticed. >> we knew about that. >> the last one is the white rage, nostalgias syndrome. [unintelligible] >> there is some level of. about what has happened in the world reduce some love lovefury. derrek -- there is some visceral, racial rage a room at a black president. >> let's try to take that down one notch.

imagine this, you grow up in a part of the country where you are not exposed to people of different colors and backgrounds. the other party, if you look at the numbers, the democratic party is likely in the next election -- it will probably get more minority votes. when you thinkat' of racism, you imagine people who are basically like card- carrying members of the kkk. i don't think that is what you mean. people can be threatened by a party that is increasingly denied by its nonwhite ness, and i know that they are threatened by it in that way. the other part is an urban.

>> that is spilling dispossessed and this place. >> this was a very depressing discussion. >> it is all you are doing. >> you get so animated by an incredibly depressing topic. >> what preparation would you do for the plague or something? >> we have another sponsor, can you believe it? we actually used this last week. emily often does not join us for a show.

when we cannot see her, joh is on his iphone most of the time. i am picking my nose. the encounter is much worse than it would be. >> the problem is that in the very beginning, they have a conversation with other people in the room that i cannot hear. so i sit there waiting until someone notices me. >> being able to see a space for a meeting is important and it enhances our relationship. improves the way we do business. meeting all your clients and colleagues is impossible, often. that is why we are glad to be that is why we are glad to be sponsored by