it is available for the discounted price of $12.95 cents plus shipping at c- span.org/products. >> martin christie and martin dempsey -- chris christie and martin dempsey spoke at a conference hosted by "the wall street journal." then a conversation with gloria steinem. republican governor of new jersey chris christie talked about the failure of both parties to meet at an event hosted by "wall street journal" answering questions about his possible presidential run. about 40 minutes >>

governor, thank you very much for being with us. you squeaked home. a bit of a close election. you were not quite at the 60% threshold for a wailing. >> i am a republican in new jersey. i am just worried right getting over the finish line. it was gratifying. >> what was striking was to look at the detail of the exit polls. the latino vote, over 25% of the black vote, running against a woman democratic candidate. all in a state where president vote a year% of the ago. a lot of questions about the future of the repugnant party. -- the future of the republican party. how did you do it? >> you do your jobs. i often think people make political leadership to

consultative. what people expect you to do is do your job. first and foremost. jersey,s in new republican, democrat, independent, felt as if we had done a job -- our job. second thing, if you want to reach out to constituencies that have not normally voted for your party, you can't go six months before your election. we made a concerted effort from the time i got into office, we only got 30% of the latino vote in 2009. 7% of the african-american vote in 2009. my view was that was nowhere near good enough. so we started working with those groups, giving them a serious seat at the table, knowing that they were not always going to agree with my policies but that they would be listened to. i think that was a very important part of the victory as well. campaigns still do matter.

so i was fortunate to have a really great campaign team that worked with me so the last five years, so they knew me. these are not folks who parachuted in from washington or someplace else with their own ideas. they knew me, my voice, what i would and would not be willing to do. >> you have become a national figure in the last four years. tell us what you think you did that was most effective? not just in terms of being reelected, but in terms of changing the political or economic trajectory new jersey was on. you did a number of things on taxes and public-sector unions. what is the most important thing you have achieved so far? >> i couldn't point to any one particular achievement that was most important. yes, we cut business taxes by $2.3 billion. we reformed the pension and benefit system to save $120 billion over the next 30 years. all in the face of stiff public- sector union opposition. the most important thing we did

was change the conversation. so many of these things were considered givens in new jersey, that could not be changed. our position was, i'm a republican in new jersey, playing with house money. i am not supposed to be there, not supposed to be alive. the fact is, if you get elected in that context then you have two choices. you can try to figure out how to play everything perfectly from the conventional wisdom perspective, or you just say, the hell with that, i'm doing it my way. either it will work or it will not. if it does, i have a chance to win. if it doesn't, i lose. we changed the conversation. at the beginning, we took on the teachers union. the teachers union is the most powerful union in our state, private or public. they have 200,000 members in new jersey, and they get annual dues

of $140 million. from those, they do not pay teacher salaries, pension, or health. essentially a slush fund to reward friends and punish enemies. so we took them on early. ushink they never expected to do that. and the public reacted extraordinarily well. i think that was really the moment that changed the conversation in new jersey and made a lot of the things we did possible. we showed we were willing to take on the biggest bully in the schoolyard. >> is there a national lesson from that? who are the national equivalents of the new jersey teachers union? >> the national teachers union. [laughter]it is not hard. -- ly, >> that is hard for a president, isn't it? i'm jumping ahead of myself.

teachers are organized on a local basis and paid by local authorities. >> that you are talking about setting a tone. you have to point out to people, as rupert mentioned in his remarks, the education system in our country, wailing there are successes -- while there are suc main failing the many, many millions of families. anyone of these ceo's out here knows that the only way american companies or international companies working in america are going to continue to thrive is with an educated workforce. that doesn't start when you get to college. so, i think it is the defining issue of our time. what we are going to do with the education system in america. it used to define us as the best. it is now defining us is

mediocre. >> is it producing better results already? >> in certain places, we are. other places, it is too soon to tell. for instance, look at the city of newark, our largest city. pupil per4,000 per year for public education. two years ago, the graduation rate was 23%. now, i don't know how you define failure. park, where i held my election night celebrations, we pay $33,000 per pupil per year. 50% ofrs ago, less than the young people who graduated from asbury park high school could read at the eighth-grade level. so, somehow with the teachers union -- this is a debate about whether that is failure or not. my opponent, who was endorsed by the teachers union, said that when it was pointed out to her

we have 200 failing schools in new jersey, her response was, that is not a bad percentage. they asked me for my response. my response, that sounds like someone who never sent their children to one of those schools. if you send your children to one of those schools, it is absent today -- it is an obscenity. that is my difference between the republican view of what needs to be done with education in america and the democrat view, thaters union the status quo is fine and we will get to fixing those places. if your child is in the classroom, eventually isn't good enough. >> you didn't change the economic performance much. the unemployment rate is still one of the highest in the nation. you haven't had a particularly strong recovery. other states have done better. hasn't new jersey produced more jobs in the last four years? >> tell those critics to come to

jersey and attempt to turn around the queen mary in the delaware river. the fact was, we were the highest-taxed state in america when i took over as governor. we were rated e state with the least business friendliness in america. fees 115 taxes and times in eight years at the state level. you are not going to turn that around in four years completely. what we have done is cut business taxes by 2.3 billion dollars, cut regulations by 1/numeral re-over where they were in the corzine yurok, and create private sector jobs. 12the last year, from august august 13, new jersey ranked in the top 15 in the country. it will take us longer, because we were in the deepest of deep holes in a state that had followed a liberal democrat doctrine for a decade of there is no tax you can't raise or create and you can't raise it

high enough to drive people out of your state. boston college did a study that between 2004 and 2008, in the heart of democratic governance, $70 billion in wealth left our state. you don't recover from that like that. .t is going to take a while look at your numbers, i think they will continue in the trajectory they're going in now. >> you expect a real economic dividends in the next couple years? >> i do. you can't -- everything is relative, but i do expect us to continue to be more competitive. for instance, a state like new york is moving in the wrong direction. you see taxes being increased, a new mayor in new york who is aggressively talking about increasing taxes in new york city. yorkers.dly for new come to new jersey. [laughter] you know it is moving in the other direction. >> but not to the tunnel you decided not to build. >> that tunnel would have never been built, whether i decided to build it or not.

hateis what new jerseyans the most. want to be popular in new jersey? cancel the tunnel between new jersey and new york. one, because it is the smart thing to do. secondly, the deal negotiated by jon corzine, a wizard of business, apparently, was that -- well, it is true. you may not like it, but it is true. his subsequent performance has shown that as well. after he left the governorship. -- hard truths need to be told. the fact is, the negotiation he made with the federal government was that new jersey would contribute about $3 billion to this project and would be responsible for every nickel of the cost overruns. new york city, zero. new york state, zero.

for a tunnel that will take people predominantly to new york. and was not going to go to penn station, where people could get on subsequent mass transit to go to other places in the city. this was going to the basement of macy's. six stories below macy's, a $1 billion terminal. >> miracle on 34th street. >> the miracle would have been if it happened. folks say to me, why did you cancel it? my answer is, why the hell would i ever build it? we would be responsible for every nickel of cost overruns in a federal transportation project. nothing to worry about, right? talk to her friends and boston who went through -- in boston who went through the big dig. this was the single largest federal transportation budget that would ever be built. i canceled it because it was a bad deal for the people of new jersey.

there is nothing they are more suspicious of them getting stuck with it by new york. >> that is a good opportunity to talk about national issues. on your election night, in your victory speech he talked about what you achieved in trenton. working across the aisle, achieving political consensus. there were lessons there for washington. what are the lessons for washington? what is wrong right now in washington? that is a long list, so don't go through all of it, but tell me what you would change in washington right now. >> the people. predominantly. >> in both parties? >> sure. blame inies have equal what is going on here. listen, i have a completely democratic legislature in new jersey. it is not like it is close, everybody. strongly democrat. how do we get pension reform, how do we cap property taxes,

cut business taxes? how do you do all the things that don't appear to be traditional democratic things with a democratic legislature? it is about human relationships. is,fact of the matter nobody in the city talk to each other anymore. if they do, they don't speak to each other civilly. they don't develop relationships, don't develop any sense of trust between each other. then they expect from the kinds of problems you talked about,, big, difficult, contentious problems, that they will be able to get into a room and fix it. >> who do you blame for that? >> first and foremost, the president. if you are the executive, you're in charge of making that happen. if i waited for the state legislature to come to me, i would be waiting forever. they are legislators. they are elected not to lead. [laughter]that is it. members of congress, members of the state legislature, they don't have a responsibility to lead. they always have an excuse. if you let them.

heldxecutive is the person responsible. first and foremost, the president -- this is no newsflash to anybody -- he has not developed relationships necessary on a personal level with both sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle, to be able to bring people to the white house and be a consensus- builder to drive the course. i was watching one of the numerous specials on the assassination of president kennedy. there was one particular piece on the war in commission -- warren commission. they played a tape of president johnson on the phone with richard russell, who said, i don't want to be on the commission because i can't stand your war -- earl or in -- warren. johnson said, you know you don't take -- i don't take no for an answer. too bad, it has already been announced. what did russell do? he served.

that is because he knew johnson. johnson knew him. in the end, when i develop these relationships over time, you compromise at times, you don't walk away with everything you want. but if i walk away with 70% of my agenda, new jersey is 70% better than it would have been otherwise. what we have in washington, on both sides of the aisle, absolutists. >> a month or so ago we went through the government shutdown. you have criticized the president, but you have been critical of your own party, too. who was to blame, and what are the lessons you think should be learned? >> both sides were to blame. it was a train wreck everybody saw coming for months. where was the president? he knew this, everybody knew the dates. it wasn't like, i forgot my calendar, i didn't know this was coming. everybody knew this was happening. and i think there were a number of people in congress on the republican side of the aisle who

just did not have and endgame -- an endgame. >> talking about ted cruz? >> i get myself in enough trouble without your help. [laughter] the strategy of defunding obamacare as a condition for keeping the government open. >> and's obamacare is still currently being funded and the government is reopened. itbe i am too simple, but appears to me the strategy of defunding it by closing the government ailed -- failed. some people believe it was the right thing to do. that's fine. they can believe it was the right thing to do. you can rail against obamacare. you can refuse to run a state- based exchange because you know the whole process is a train wreck, as i have done in new jersey. but not subscribed to the notion that your job in running the

government is to close it. your job in running the government is to run it and run it efficiently. all the people down here, from the president to the leadership in congress who engaged in this, failed by definition. why are people more appreciative of what is going on in states? we are actually doing our jobs. >> do you think obamacare can survive this mess it is in right now? does it have to be scrapped? >> obamacare is a failure, it has always been a failure, and it will not succeed. it just won't. >> how would you replace it? >> i am not going to go through a issue -- an issue like that with 16:26 to go. >> you can have 14:00 to that -- of that. >> that is the problem. as all due respect, that is part of the problem with the culture here. somebody things i can solve obamacare in 14 minutes.

solve the health care crisis in 14 minutes. and i have 30 seconds on iran and 22 seconds on syria. we will solve the whole thing. carbon up. -- carve it up. either conflicts conflict problems, and people are tired of these focus group-tested, below-dried answers people give that all sound the same. somebody asked me during the campaign, why is it you get so much attention? i said, unlike most politicians i don't sound like charlie brown's teacher. it all sounds the same. it is the most extraordinary overreached of government power in the history of our country. it is being run by people who never ran anything. so why are we surprised it is failing?

it is failing because the people in charge have never run anything in their lives, and even if they knew how to run things this would be hard to run because it is an extraordinary 1/7 ofched, taking over the entire economy. we need to replace it. we need a robust debate on both sides. unlike last time when the president got -- jammed this down everybody's throat and got one republican vote because he was a neville -- unable to compromise. we need copper mines were everybody brings skin to the table and everybody compromises. if we do that, we can craft a solution. if we don't, we will continue to have this failure. >> it seems objectively obvious that to defund obamacare and shut down the government strategy failed abjectly. aw did the gop get itself in position where it was associated with that for such a long time? how did that happen?

>> bad decision-making. a lack of courage. that is really at. we all saw it on display. the fact the democrats were as guilty. harry reid played the same kind of games. we are not going to fund this, funds that, even though they believe in funding those things. he was going to do it because it was good public policy to close all the monuments in town? good public policy not to fund the military in the places it should be funded? of course not. if you ask what was good public policy, he would not answer. he would pivot to the are publicans are the cause of the problem. come on. he did not do that because he saw political advantage not doing that. i am fine with the republican party taking their share of the blame. i am not fine with the republican party taking all the blame. harry reid and nancy pelosi played as many games as the

folks on the republican side. so we need to drop down some of the partisan cloak here and say, both sides fail here. we have an enormous failure of executive leadership by a president that seemed unwilling or unable or uninterested in being engaged. to takere just about over the chairmanship of the republican governors association. 30 republican governors across the country. how are you going to use your five farm? atform?hat form -- pl governors public and -- electric public and governors. >> how do you do that? >> my job is to make sure they have the resources they need to tell that story, and also to hopefully give them strategic advice on the best way to reach out and broaden the reach of their base of voters in this state. where 14 other states

there are democratic incumbents or open seats, it will be my job to identify talented challengers to come in and challenge in those states to make sure they are funded and help them with strategy as well. but my job is to be supportive of those 36 races. to make the strategic choices about where we should invest the most money to yield the greatest success. >it is not a whole lot more consultative than that. >> you will be spending time in iowa. >> there is a republican incumbent governor who is the longest-serving governor in american history. in new hampshire, we have a incumbent democrat governor. i will also be in places like texas, where governor perry is retiring and we have a really dynamic candidate in the attorney general there.

be in states like south carolina and pennsylvania and ohio and florida, michigan, arkansas. all over the country raising money and trying to help folks raise their identity level with the voters. if we have a chance to tell a story, we will do quite well. we have 30 republican governors now out of 50. >> a lot of people were keen on you to run for president in 2012. you turned down the opportunity. how do you make your mind about 2016? >> don't know. depends on what the politics of the world are like them. >> is there any other republican candidate you could get behind? >> there are a number of people -- there is a number of people who would make good presidents. whether i would support them depends on the politics of the time and how they continue to develop. this is a long way away.

we are three years away from the presidential elections. in this sense, i feel badly for president obama. he just won a year ago, and everybody is like, "who's next?" as we shoved him out the door we minimize his ability to be an effective executive. we shouldn't do that. i am not rushing. i have work to do. i just got reelected governor. i have an agenda i want to pursue in the next two years. i will make that decision when i have to. i was direct with the people of my state. people confronted me, my opponent frequently in debates, are you going to serve a full term? i don't know. if i decide to run for president and win, i won't. if i don't, i won't. i don't have to make that decision now. people who run companies know this. when you make decisions before it is the right time to make

them, you increase geometrically the chance to screw that decision up. not something i want to screw up. >> you speak very directly, unusually for a politician. >> thank you. >> you have spoken very directly about some republicans. you hinted at it tonight. there are people in the republican party who think you have been to direct and two critical of republicans, and it does not play well. they also don't like the fact you seem to have a warm relationship with president obama. i year ago, hurricane sandy, the work you did there. have you some work to do with the republican base to reassure them you are a good, solid, reliable republican? >> how outrageous. your state has been hit by the worst storm in its history and the head of the federal government comes to help. and when he does a couple things right, you say he did a couple things right. it is the most outrageous bit of heresy.

it is ridiculous. i speak candidly about everyone. when the president does something worth praising, i will praise him. when he does something worth damning, i will damn him. i will not make that decision based upon my party. i think most republicans, except for a few who like to see themselves on television, understand that what you expect of a elected official first and foremost -- the second thing you expect his performance. the people of new jersey judge me on honesty and performance, and we got 61% of the vote. some republicans think i must not be conservative. how could a conservative win there? this is completely crazy to me. among these elements, the better you do, the more voters you attract, the more diverse voters you attract, the more suspect you are.

there is a winning formula. let me tell you. [laughter] there is a winning formula. so no, i don't feel like i have any fence-mending to do. if i ever decide to run for anything again, it being me isn't good enough, fine, i will go home. this is in my whole life. my mother used to say to me all the time, to me and my younger siblings, my brother and sister, be yourself, because then tomorrow you don't have to worry about trying to remember who you were trying to be yesterday. you never have to worry about that with me. i will never have to worry about remembering what i said during the debate. if that is good enough for me, that is great. it was good enough for new jersey two weeks ago. if it is not good enough in any other election i might someday pursue, i will find some work. >> we have some minutes for questions from the floor.

you have a very outspoken and directly spoke -- speaking governor speaking to you. anybody wants to ask any questions? there will be some microphones around. >> nobody raising their hands, aings to mind to me, i have monthly radio call-in show called "ask the governor." in the first year it was pretty contentious. one of my friends said i should rename the program "ask the governor, call if you dare." >> how is that for an invitation ? let me ask you a bit about the campaign last year, the presidential campaign, mitt romney. according to some published reports recently, they considered you very carefully for the vice presidential slot. i am not sure how carefully you considered being the running mate. they raise some questions about your background, about some ethical questions about your time as u.s. attorney, related

to your brother. you are going to get a lot of scrutiny over the next few years, whether you run or not. the press is going to be examining you carefully. the romney campaign, according to accounts published in this book that was published recently, did not get satisfactory answers. >> it is simply not true. all you have to do is listen to mitt romney. he is the only guy who got to make the decision. what governor romney has said publicly since the book came out -- let's face it about this book, this book is a book where these two authors trawl at the lower levels of campaigns to get gossip which they then put hardcovers, and all of a sudden because they put it between two hardcovers it becomes authoritative. for myhoritative source betting is the guy who did it,

mitt romney. he said there was nothing in the vetting that gave him any pause at all, nothing that had not been in the public realm, and it was not the reason he did not ask me to be vice president. i am pretty much content with that. as far as scrutiny goes, i am not worried about scrutiny. some will be fair, some will be unfair. if you are worried about in that -- this business, you don't belong in this business. >> the press, they like your directness. >> you have to ask them. if they ask good questions, i give good answers, and it usually makes good copy for them. if they ask stupid questions, i tell them they are stupid. that is the relationship every candidate should try to have with the media. >> over there, please? i think what we all want to

know, what does it take for a republican candidate to beat hillary, and can you do that? >> i have no idea if i can do it, but listen -- i think the question should be broader. what does it take for a republican candidate to win? we have to do better than over the last two cycles. we have to reach out to other constituencies that have not voted for us in the past, and we better be doing it now. the fact is, our country is changing, like it always does. as a country changes demographically and economically , people who want to lead first have to understand who they are asking to lead. they need to listen to those people. i think leadership is just about just -- just as much about listening as it is about talking. for republicans, we can't give the percentage of the hispanic vote and african-american vote that we have nationally and think we can be a successful

national party. we have to be better. it is not just about policy. auntie of my policies are pursued in new jersey, folks in those communities disagreed with. yet they voted for me anyway. triple the number of african- american voters we got in 2000 nine. a majority, 51%, of hispanic voters. i think it is because they felt like they were included, that their opinions mattered. decisions, they didn't need to hear about it some place else. they heard about it for me. good news or bad news, they heard it from me. we had to stop, as a party, going back to the old tried and true ways of running these campaigns. they are not working. we need someone who is going to be clear, direct, authentic, and say what they think. if that is good enough, it is good enough. if it's not, it's not. changing things around, changing positions, trying to look at something -- what does he want to hear? trying to figure it out, then say it, and pray to god he never remembers that you actually

promised to do that because you have no intention of doing it, that is not the way to win. in the long-term. ?> one more question >> when you were talking about the affordable health care act, you mentioned we had a government that had people who do not know how to do things. to, asu given thought president -- i know it is premature -- but how would you put together a federal government of people who know how to do things? >> i don't know. it is i am not president. but i would tell you, as governor, i have people in my cabinet of both parties. whove people in my cabinet i took out of private-sector business and leeward to -- lured

to come out. my commissioner of transportation rent private business. he runs the transportation department like a business. i have folks who have experienced, who are not business people but have been career social workers. they understand things a lot better than i do. my general rule is i want most people in the room with me to be smarter than me. legitimately smarter than me. that is not my job, to be the smartest guy in the room. theob is to make decisions. way i make decisions, the way i trust many of you do, you listen to the folks around you, the cabinet you build. whether you are running a corporation or a government. you listen to those people and you reach out, then you think about it, and you are the one in will to with the decide. that is the hardest thing to find, in my experience. it is harder to find that than

to find a whole bunch of people who know a lot more than me, are a lot more than me. that is not what i am hired for. the way you put together a group, you say, i want people who are experts in areas, who after -- practical experience. he goes were honest, who speak truth to power. he told who are willing to quit because they don't need this job. it is not their whole life. you put that group of people willher, you will -- you have a lot of heartburn over time, but you will also, i think, have the best chance to have the kind of a -- information you need to make really good decisions. you have to be unafraid to decide. i think that is the format for any successful enterprise. i don't think government is any different. there are some competitions about folks who don't want to be in public life because of scrutiny and exposure.

you will have to deal with that and try to be persuasive to bring them around. is identifying talent. i police tell people, you can't teach smart and you can't teach loyal. you can teach everything else. when i became governor, i brought 27 assistant united states attorneys with me to government. 25 of them had no experience in government. zero. i had a bunch of people in trenton tell me, this is going to be a disaster. these people don't know how this town works. i said to all of them, you can't teach smart and you can't teach loyal. these are going to be smarter than anybody in the room and loyal to me. they know how i want things done. when there is no confusion about that, you got smarts of the people around you, they have loyalty to you and the mission you are attempting to accomplish, you can a company think. they didn't understand that we

didn't care. we intended to change things the -- change the way things worked. we did. because of those people. their loyalty, their intellect, and their willingness to stand with me to get the mission completed. no matter what enterprise you are running, a fortune 500 country -- company, the state government, the federal government, those are the elements to put together a successful operation. if you can hit those elements, you have a much morris -- much better chance of being successful. if you can't, i believe you are doomed to failure. another thing that sounds relatively simple, because it is. it is relatively simple. when we try to aggrandize ourselves we make it more, located. and gentlemen, you have heard some characteristically direct talk from governor christie tonight. please join me in thanking him very much for dipping of his time. [applause]

[captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] quacks on the next "washington journal," a washington reporter for "the nation" looks at president obama's approval numbers, his relationship with congressional democrats, and the senate's rule change. his an analyst talks about book "shaping our nation" and the immigration debate. the former executive director of the commonwealth authority compares the affordable care act's health changes -- exchanges with those he created in massachusetts in 2006. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- quacks i --t

>> i thought it was fun to have a view of a time in american history that was not instructional. it was a little more anecdotal and actually a little more archaeological, meaning random. you take a look at them and you see bunches of weird photos and the captions explaining them. i had a vision of high school students flipping through them and loving history if they flipped through it. n moves from the world of cable to that of author with "the big picture was quote on c-span's q&a. event, speaking at the chairman martin dempsey, chair of the joint chiefs of staff. he set down for a wide-ranging interview, covering afghanistan, iran, and the threat of cyber attacks. this is 43 minutes. [applause]

>> well, general dempsey, thanks very much for joining us. you heard a lot about leadership in our last session. it seems to be the topic here in washington. everybody seems to be searching for it. we have a room full of ceos. they manage 5 million employees. you alone have 2 million in uniform. so i figured you do more performance reviews than they do. [laughter] we thought we'd come to you. so did chris christie get it right? it's smarts, loyalty and the people that you hire, and then the courage to make a decision? is that what leadership is? >> i think those attributes -- first of all, by the way, thanks for being here. congratulations for being here. it's an indicator that you actually want to think about something that ought to be all of our kind of our core if we're in those positions where we migrate to the top of our

organizations. just the term "leadership" is actually quite exhilarating in some way, isn't it, and intimidating. but, yeah, sure, i think those attributes are right. there's others, and i -- he made mention, i think, of being true to yourself. there are other attributes i would add to the list. for example, how many of you know the name of the young man or woman who served your table tonight? anybody know? anybody know who served your meal or poured you a glass of wine? it happened to be eunice at my table. from morocco, 29 years old. he pointed out to me morocco is the first nation in the world to recognize the united eights of america. so i think there's something for me in trying to get to know people and touch them at every level. it gets harder where you are, by the way. it gets harder where i am, but not impossible, and particularly in this age of social media and

other things. so, you know, maybe a little humility doesn't hurt on occasion for a very senior leader. trust. i didn't hear the -- i think the governor alluded to trust, but for our profession trust is really the -- it's really the gold standard. you don't walk out of a forward operating base in afghanistan unless you have a certain level of trust for the men or women to your left or right, your leadership, your guidance, your medics, your chaplain. and by the way, you mentioned 2 million men and women in uniform. it's probably 2.4 active, guard and reserve, but you add to that about 3 million family members who we also feel a responsibility for. >> so where does responsibility fit into this equation? >> well, you know, i think it is -- if trust is kind of the gold standard of what it takes to be a real leader in the military,

then i think responsibility and its kissing cousin, accountability, are probably right there as well. and, you know, we've had a few missteps here recently that we're trying to overcome - attribute tohat i 10 years of frenetic activity. we balancebout how character and confidence. and i think we forgot a little about how we balance character and competence. we began to value competence. by the way, you can't have either/or, actually. you know, you don't want a leader in a combat zone who's really a man of great character but can't fight his way out of a paper bag, but nor do you want, you know, the ultimate warrior god who isn't a man of character. >> so these are ceos of enterprises, of businesses. the military leads people into harm's way. but putting that distinction , are the attributes of a good leader roughly the same, or

different between the military, being a ceo of a company, or being a schoolteacher? >> i think there is always a baseline of attributes that are exactly the same. mean, iprobably -- i get asked all the time, why are you you? had we outsource you? sure, go ahead. you know, some days on capitol hill i'm absolutely ready to do that. [laughter] but you know, i do think -- let me say this. we are a profession, which is to ,ay that we commit ourselves what we like to believe, to an uncommon life. and we accept by becoming a member of a profession to live to a certain ethical -- an ethos , really. not just special skills and at least. it's also about a particular ethos. in our case, it's serving the people of the united states and ensuring the common defense, or in the way i describe it is keeping the country immune from

coercion. but it is a profession, which requires certain things of us. continuing education, a renewable of our commitment to that. out. up or we are an up or out organization. and so i don't know how it all works inside of your businesses or your occupations. and some of you may actually describe yourself as a profession. but the one thing i would tell you, and it has become apparent to me in my job, you are not a profession just because you say you are. you have to earn it and re-earn it. survey. do a quick how many ceo's in the audience have military service? veteran's month. >> what does that look to you?

11, so maybe 10% of the group here. a recent study done by the university of texas. tell you what is said about ceo's that have military backgrounds. for those of you who don't, there will be waivers outside later on that you can pick up. this is out of the mccombs school of business. look at ceo's to have military background and ceo's who didn't. here is what they discovered the differences between the two. ceo's have a military -- with a military experience are less likely to be sued in class- action lawsuits, to backdate options, to engage in earnings management, the use tax havens. interestingly, they are also more likely to pay more tax. they have a 1% to 2% higher

effective tax rate. this academic reached the conclusion. i want to hear yours first. why is that? what is it about the military background that causes that evident behavior in a ceo? >> you are killing me. i mean, you want me to opine about why we're more ethical than they are, and they're out there? [laughter] look at them. they can hear us. [laughter] you know, i don't know -- i don't know where the data comes from. and by the way, you know, many of the most ethical, responsible, admirable men and women i've ever met are in sessions like this, who do so much for not only their own organizations but wounded warriors and gold star families and -- you know, i don't want to opine about what makes us different or what makes you different. i think it's more useful to us to see where we have common ground. and i think where we should -- and i think and i sense where we

do -- have common ground is in caring about the future of our country. i mean, that's why you're here, i think, and why you're engaging with civilian, political and military leaders to figure out, what are we going to do? because, you know, the title here, "leadership in a dangerous world," that's really true. so i'm going to dodge that one. [laughter] >> so while you're dodging, here's what the academic said -- >> oh, here we go. >> -- "further validating our use of military experience as a proxy for respect for rules, authority and societal values." >> yeah. >> so they followed the rules. >> well, i like to think we follow the rules, but on occasion we don't. and when we don't, we hold people accountable. and, you know, remember i mentioned, though, we -- probably other than the medical profession, i think our continuing education program for leaders in the military is second to none, really. and, you know, we -- as i said, we try to renew our commitment

to being part of a profession at various intervals along the way. and then secondly, i do think there's something extraordinary about being given the responsibility for people's lives. that should cause us all pause and put everything else we do in perspective. and so i'll accept that part of our uniqueness, which gives us some balance in both physical courage and moral courage that may be unique in our profession. >> so there were miscalculations in iraq and afghanistan. was that -- was that a failure of leadership or was that something else? >> you know, i -- we're -- the book hasn't yet been written, actually, and particularly in iraq, as you see them struggle with, you know, what we -- the opportunity we gave them. is it a failure of leadership? sure. i think, you know, at some -- at some level i think we have to look back and acknowledge what we -- what we didn't know and maybe should have before we took the precise actions we took.

on the other hand, look, i mean, once we were engaged in it, the leadership demonstrated at every level, and in particular at the lower levels with those captains and sergeants and villages and towns and districts, and even today in afghanistan, where they are -- they've become so committed, so captured by the experience of trying to make the lives of iraqi children and afghan children better. you know, even if they do make the odd misstep, it's pretty hard to be critical, for me, having seen the effort they've made. >> so you've written a great deal on this topic -- >> yeah. >> -- and have said that it's kind of critical to running the armed forces. and you said that you -- that you read a great deal on it as well. are there -- are there people who have written, on the topic of leadership, books that you look back on and say that this is really kind of worth sharing with others?

are there two or three great writers on the subject? >> yeah, i -- you know, it's funny -- it's funny you used that phrase, is there -- are there two or three great writers? there's no shakespeare of leadership out there, as far as i -- as far as i've been able to tell. and so i read broadly, and i read voraciously, and i read both fiction and nonfiction. so -- by the way, some of the -- i think some of the better -- maybe the best books about leadership available today are written for the business community, for developing leaders in business. and i mean, i could rattle them off, but i don't want to be accused of necessarily advocating any one in particular. but there are some good ones out there. and then on the -- >> rattle a couple off. >> well, i mean, i'm a big fan of "managing the" -- i don't want give you the authors, you'll have to google it, but you can. so "managing the unexpected" i found to be a -- you know, it left some echoes. and i read, by the way, to see if i can produce some echoes for myself later, when i confront issues.

"starfish and the spider," about the difference between hierarchical and decentralized organizations. on the fiction side, i don't -- i don't think i've ever found a better work of fiction that describes leadership than "once an eagle" by anton myrer, about the world war -- the period between world war i and world war ii. so i think it's a matter of -- >> why is that? why that? >> well, because the conceit that he sets up is comparing a leader -- he turns out to be a west pointer -- who -- which pains me -- turns out to be a west pointer in the book -- who, with all the advantages, begins to feel entitled about leadership, and he rises through the ranks. and then the parallel is a man named sam damon -- this guy's named courtney massengale, this guy's sam damon -- and he rises through the ranks from the enlisted ranks, battlefield commission, kind of struggles

his way through, and watching him struggle his way through, and he makes some mistakes along the way and -- but his -- and learns from those mistakes and becomes the better of the two leaders, i think -- well, not "i think doug" he does become the better of the two leaders. >> so putting the policy issues aside in washington -- >> really? [laughter] >> what's wrong -- what would you advise -- what is the leadership prescription that the players, the actors in washington need now to get through the gridlock? >> well, first of all, because of my role within the administration and within the department, that's well beyond my responsibility. but if you're asking citizen dempsey, not general dempsey, i think that the issue of relationship-building is actually what seems to me to be the key to success. and i -- you know, governor

christie talked about building relationships, reaching across the aisle, you know, doing things that will cause people to try to find some common -- some common ground. i don't know -- you know, i've spent most of my career outside of washington, so i can't speak, you know, with any -- with any clarity or nostalgia, as some do, about the old days. i suspect the old days were pretty much like these days; it just wasn't played out in the social media and in 24/7 news coverage. but i do think that the key will be at some point when things are reach such a state that, you know, i think the nation will demand it. and i don't know when that occurs. >> we're not at that now with the government shutdown? >> i don't know. you know, i -- you know, i keep i keep an eye on my own force, those 2.4 million men and women, to make sure that they have the kind of clarity, as much clarity as we can give them, as much certainty. i tell people that, you know,

we, the military, we actually -- we don't have a reputation for it, but we really do embrace change. we are nothing like the -- i joined the military in 1970 at west point, almost 40 years now, and the military i joined then is nothing, i mean nothing like the military today. in fact, the military we have today is nothing like it was in 2003, nothing. you -- i mean, you'll recognize unit insignias and patches and some of the equipment, but it's a very different military. so what i tell people is, you know, we embrace change, but we do a considerable disservice to those young men and women who serve if we live in perpetual uncertainty. and we're living in a bit of what i would describe as perpetual uncertainty. >> karl eikenberry, former commander in afghanistan and also our former ambassador to afghanistan, wrote an op-ed in another national newspaper -- we like to call it "brand x" -- saying that, look, if you

examine the military culture now, as changed as it has over the last couple of decades, it's become increasingly divorced from the rest of society. saw 10 percent of people raise their hand here, 20 percent of congress has a military background. used to be in the mid-70s back in the mid-'70s. instead, what you have now is kind of a family business, what he called the military caste, the sons and daughters of those in the military, going into the military, and the rest of citizenry says, you know, it's their job to go off and fight our wars. and from that, he argues, comes a lot of negative things, including misjudgments on the political side about what conflicts to get involved with. and he's suggesting a selective amount of drafting go on, targeting particular, you know, groups of highly able individuals to bring them into the military, to re-engage the citizen soldier. does that idea, to somebody who manages an all-volunteer army -- does that resonate at all? >> well, we haven't thought

about it in those terms, although i did read that study and the suggestion, for example, by stan mcchrystal about universal service. and we are looking at the potential in the future of kind of lateral exit and re-entry, possibly. but to your point about selective service, i don't know how many of you are aware, but only one out of four young men and women in america between 18 and 22 can get in the united states military, one out of four. now, none of us should be very proud of that, but if you went to a selective service, if you're not going to lower the standard, you're going to get about the same -- you're going to get about the same people you would get. i mean, one out of four isn't a huge population from which to draw. secondly, i did grow up in a draft army, my first -- well, i guess, five years or so, was in a conscript army. and there were some -- there were more holes in that selective service system than there were holes in a nice emmenthaler swiss cheese -- i'm sitting with a danish fellow here from -- who lived in germany.

my point is, i would never sign up for any process that would lower our standards or that would -- that would be so hard to implement that -- and would have so many ways of avoiding service that we would end up with a lower-quality military. the reason i'm such an advocate of the professional all- volunteer force now is because that's what the nation needs. it needs a force that stays as well-trained as it can be because the world doesn't hang around waiting for you to get -- you know, get your act together when something goes badly. >> you're not worried about what eikenberry was talking about, that it's gotten separated from the rest of citizenry of america? >> you know, do i worry about it? sure i do. in fact, i spend a lot of time another thing about -- by the way, another leader attribute i'd -- i would encourage you to consider is a -- i have a -- what i call a campaign of learning and a personal campaign of learning. i have a colonel that i hired

who stays with me, and once a week for at least a two or three-hour block, he exposes -- he allows me to be exposed to business or industry or academia or something i don't know anything about. so i was out at a -- at a rapid prototyping center out in california last week. i was at goldman sachs the week before that; i was -- i may have visited some of you on occasion. but anyway, the point is, as i go around and connect with people, there is a deep appreciation of military service, maybe not a deep but i'd rather strap on that as a challenge than change the nature of the all-volunteer force. >> so while you were out in california, you were also talking about changing the compensation program, possibly, for the military. >> right. >> there's the sequester, there's talk of general cuts in defense spending, and yet, you

also describe this era as, while there aren't major conflicts, perhaps the most dangerous period in your lifetime in america, because of all sorts of non-state actors, as we've seen. so budget cuts and sequesters and compensation change is changing the military, and yet, that national security concerns that you have -- where are you going to lead the military? where do you want to take this organization while you're still chairman of the joint chiefs over the next five -- to build it out so that it's capable of addressing those concerns over the next five to 10 years? >> yeah, i mean, this could take, you know, the next 20 minutes, not the next 9:32 here. but so i've got four focus areas i talk about: one, we got to achieve the national objectives we currently have established for ourselves: rebalancing to the pacific, finishing our work in afghanistan and -- i mean, you -- i could list those for you. secondly, it's -- i got to build joint force 2020. by the time i leave this job, we will have submitted four budgets, the last of which will cover the period fiscal years '16 to '20. so we're either going to back

into '20 -- 2020 -- or we're going to shape it. and i'd rather shape it than back into it. and we can talk about what that force might need to look -- to look like. third, a recommitment to the profession: after 10 years of being extraordinarily busy and fighting two wars, it's time for us to be introspective about who we are as a -- and how do we connect with the american people and how do we see ourselves? and then the third -- fourth one is keeping faith with american military -- the military family active, guard, reserve, families, veterans, gold star families and so forth. now, just one last -- one point about keeping faith, people sometimes think it's about making sure that i continue to argue for better pay, better compensation, better health care, better retirement. that's part of it, or at least adequate pay, compensation,

health care and retirement. it's also about making sure they're well-trained, well-led and well-equipped. and if we don't get our manpower look, it's a bit of a business for me at my level. if i don't get the manpower costs under control then the institution will suffer irreparable harm in modernization, training and readiness. >> some of that instability and some of that concern, state and non-state actors, very much pertains to the mideast. >> yeah. >> and i'm wondering if you could kind of just walk us through the big picture on the mideast. it seems that perhaps more unstable than ever. we have legacy in iraq of what looks to be kind of dissolution in some regards, iran's effort to get a nuclear weapon. syria demands and desires for the u.s. to have some kind of role there, we're just not sure how to untangle that role. and yet, at the same time, very firm commitments to an ally in the region, israel. the big picture on the forces that are shaping your decisions and your thinking on the

mideast? >> yeah. so the middle east, and let me include in that probably north africa -- mideast, north africa. three things i would suggest to you. one is the -- a changed relationship between the governed and the governing. so what -- you know, i think books will be written for the next several years about what is this thing that we kind of optimistically described as the arab spring several years ago. and it's many things, but it's certainly the relieving of pressure that was -- that was being brought to bear by dictators on societies that had that had been suppressed for many, many decades. and so you have a changed relationship between the governed and the governing among a populace that doesn't know what to do with it, frankly. and so i think it's a bit naïve to think that in the first

generation of that change we would move somehow from dictatorship to -- you know, to democracy, certainly, but maybe not even all the way to representative government. >> blue thumbs of the first -- [inaudible] -- notwithstanding. >> yeah. yeah, i mean, look it's a step, but it's a step. so it's a changed relationship between the governed and the governing that i think will take, you know, a decade or more to finally settle. secondly, it's being played out in a -- in an environment where there's a -- somewhat of an internal struggle within islam for control. and it gets at the sunni-shia schism -- it's a fault line. and right now, the fault line runs from beirut to damascus to baghdad. and players on both sides are trying to influence the actions in their favor. and then the third factor is --

what that creates is ungoverned space. or, if not ungoverned, governed less than we would like to be governed. and in that ungoverned space migrates extremists. so you've got this changed relationship between the governed and the governing, this internal conflict within islam in some cases which is more prominent than in others, but it's prominent throughout the region -- and then that arab spring was hijacked, in many ways, by these extremist organizations on both sides of that sunni-shia schism, and it makes for a very volatile, complex, long-term challenge. >> what do we do -- >> i don't know. [laughter] >> -- if the charm offensive of iran goes awry, israel wants to buy refueling planes from us, you know why -- >>yeah. >> what are our obligations to israel in the face of what still looks to be an intractable iran? >> well, i feel like we have a deep obligation to israel because of, i mean, a matter of history, but also a matter of what they bring to the region.

you know, they bring an example of what could be. you know, if we had one of my israeli counterparts sitting here today, they would tell you that most of the arabs living in israel have a better life than the arabs living in the rest of the region. now, that's true -- >> but if israel loses faith in the negotiation process and decides to bomb iran, where is the u.s. military? where's the u.s. in that equation? >> well, we have some -- we have some defined obligations to israel that we would meet. and that's why we're in constant constant -- contact and collaboration with them. but you know, my counterpart and i have talked about the fact that there's also a strategic opportunity for israel. there's no state right now that's threatening israel, as there was just 10 years ago. i mean, egypt's unstable, syria's unstable, jordan is struggling. so -- and not that jordan was a

threat to israel in the first place, but the point is, israel's got a strategic opportunity, and i think they are beginning to think themselves about how to take advantage of it. >> you wrote a letter to carl levin, at his request, this summer outlining possible things that the military -- u.s. military could do to support rebels in syria. none of them looked like very good options. have any of those options improved, in your mind? would you be able to find the right people to arm? would you have the confidence that the weapons weren't getting to the wrong people? >> well, even in that letter, the options were described as scalable, which is to say, you know, the top-end option, which would be if you wanted to topple the regime and do so through the imposition of a no-fly zone or seizing chemical weapons yourself, that's what got all the headlines. but any of those options is actually scalable. i worry that -- and have said so

that we might have more confidence in our ability to limit conflict. you know, history's against those who think they can limit conflict. some of you may know that on the 10th of november, 1964, robert mcnamara declared that we would never send combat troops to vietnam. and i'm not sure how some of you think that worked out, but it wasn't one of the greatest predictions ever made in the history of american statesmanship. >> right. >> so, look, my obligation is to articulate options and articulate risk. and then those who we elect make decisions about which options they're interested in based on the risks that we would accrue. are the options getting better? no, i don't think so. i think they're probably becoming more complex. but again, to my way of looking at it, that was absolutely predictable. >> abe in japan wants to change the constitution to be able to create a more robust military,

presumably to offset a rising china. is that something that is -- you would endorse? would you see that as kind of a valuable development in asia, or is that just going to accelerate the existing arms race? >> no, i don't -- you know, it's to be determined, but i do think we have -- for some time, we have encouraged japan to match its economic power that it brings to the international community and to the region with some extended military capability that could be integrated into regional architectures not to threaten any particular player in that part of the world, but rather, to make us a more capable alliance. and so -- >> are the territorial disagreements there manageable, or is this going to aggravate them?

>> well, the territorial issues are manageable if all of the parties to them continue to behave as they are, which is to say, responsibly, mostly through law enforcement with the occasional misstep. but, you know, that's where we, i think, can provide our influence and our -- and our assistance in continuing to encourage a diplomatic solution. and, you know, look, the chinese have a much different view of time than most anybody else, and i think, as long as we can continue to encourage both sides to be patient, i think there is a chance that over time, diplomacy might make a difference. >> so we have a few minutes for questions from the audience. yes, dan yergin, right here. >> general dempsey, my question follows from a question that john just asked you about the middle east.

>> and what? did i avoid it and you're re- engaging me or what? >> well, it's a kind of, fill in the footnotes here. >> ok. >> obviously, the u.s. energy position has changed dramatically in the last five years. does this -- and a lot of talk about whether this changes u.s. strategic interests -- is there any clarity in your mind yet as to whether it does and how it does or doesn't? >> i wouldn't describe my feelings about it as in any way clarifying, although i will tell you that as we take a look at long-term -- probably beyond 2020, we do think there will be there will be -- that our energy independence, if that's ever entirely possible, will change the dynamic in -- notably in the mideast, but also europe. probably not as much in the pacific, by the way, in our -- in our current assessment. in fact, i mentioned i was at goldman sachs last -- a week ago friday, and that was the topic. we had two topics.

one was the future of energy security and the national security implications, and they're going to run a conference, by the way, in april. i'm not inviting you to it; i can't, but it -- they're asking some very good questions about what changes may accrue if energy policy is changed to allow this breakout to occur. and then the other one was cyber, by the way. we had a pretty rich conversation about cyber threats. >> yes, please. over here. >> general dempsey, question about -- it appears that with the amount of resources and energy we're spending in middle east that we're not getting as much financial benefit from it than some of the other allies who have spent far less or committed far less are getting, you know, better opportunities taking advantage of the financial arrangements and opportunities -- how do you see that? is that -- is that -- is that in line with your strategy or is that something that we need to rethink about going forward?

>> yeah, it's pretty hard to answer that question. i think you've answered -- i think you've -- at least, you've shared your opinion with me on the answer to that question. [laughter] yeah, look. i've seen it even in my own experience. i spent two full years, from '05 to '07, building the iraqi security forces with american taxpayer dollars, and then there was a point in time where they went off to russia to procure some weapons on their own. you know, i think that we do better at that than you might think, not as well as you might like. and i think it's reflective of who we are as a nation that we don't hold people ransom to our assistance. and, you know, i'm more proud of that than i am disappointed in it, and i think it just takes some big, solid diplomacy to convince -- i mean, look. we've got some close allies who are considering procuring weapons systems that wouldn't be

interoperable with us. by the way, that's the leverage we have. you normally can't appeal to them on the basis of good will. i've found that doesn't go very far. [laughter] but if you can show them that by buying a different system they can't be interoperable with us, then generally they come around. >> yes, please. >> by the way, and the point is that most people actually do -- would rather be like us than anyone else. we're still the ally of choice across the world, and it's one of the things we should seek to preserve as we go forward. >> general, you observed that the military force today is nothing like it was in 2003. >> right. >> can you describe those differences? >> sure. i'll give you a couple of images, maybe. in 2003 i was a division commander in baghdad. i had roughly 32,000 troops

there, kind of a traditional tank division with some appendages, some paratroopers and some military policemen and cavalry scouts. and almost everything we did came through me. so if you were a young captain on the streets of baghdad in those days, you waited for the division staff to give you the information you needed so that you could then apply yourself across the city. today -- so my -- the image here would be everything was top- down. anything of value to you came from the top down. we've almost flipped that on its head entirely. it's now most things of value come to us from the bottom up. and we've changed our systems in order to allow that, our communications systems. we've empowered -- you would describe it as empowering the edge. so a captain now, in a combat outpost in the pakistan border in afghanistan, probably has as much access to national-level intelligence and local

intelligence as i did as a division commander. it's phenomenal, really. my worry, by the way, is we're going to bring that force back that has been -- you know, has been allowed to shape things and to be leaders and have both responsibility and authority, and we're going to bring them back. and if we don't find a way to continue to inspire them, they're going to go work for you [laughter] so i got to worry about that. >> another question? yes, please. >> hi, general. thanks for coming. we're convening a group tomorrow to talk about cybersecurity. how bad is it out there? >> you know, i've found that it's not helpful when the chairman uses words like "crisis" or "meat axe" or, you know, these really powerful adjectives. but we are vulnerable, make no mistake about it. my job, by the way, through the

cyber assets that i control, is to defend and protect my network, the military network. the problem is my military network depends on your network. so 90% of what we do is shared in the -- you know, across the internet with commercial. and as you know, there's some problems with incentives for cybersecurity for information sharing that i think we have to break through. we're really vulnerable. and i would simply say to you, i know what we can do, and we're not -- this is back to governor christie -- we're not the only smart guys on the planet. >> we haven't talked about afghanistan. so after 2014, can afghanistan live without isaf and the united states? >> after 2014, afghanistan can live without a ubiquitous presence of u.s. military forces

in their country. they can't live without any. and importantly, they can't live without the financial support that we've made both on the military side, but also at the in japan, at a donors conference, that the -- that we made to them economically. so the real question that i -- that we are grappling with is what size -- you know, most people think, what size presence should the united states leave there in order to maintain security? that's actually, to me, the wrong question. it's what size force does the united states and the contributing nations need to leave there to guarantee that the money we've all committed to afghanistan will continue to flow, because if security deteriorates to a point where -- i think it's $6 billion a year or so has been committed to the economic side of afghanistan

from the international donors. if that money dries up or if the money dries up that we're providing, along with donors, then they can't survive. this really comes down to what will it take to guarantee that the commitments we've made monetarily will continue to be realized. >> the defense department's identified china as a primary concern over the next generation. what in asia concerns you from a national security standpoint? >> i would be -- so there's a couple things. one is, i worry more about a china that falters economically than i do about them building another aircraft carrier, to tell you the truth. i think we can find our way forward with them militarily. i don't think -- it will be competitive, and at times it will be contentious, but it doesn't have to be confrontational. so there's that aspect of it. and then you've got -- someone mentioned the territorial disputes. i -- you know, i think the

potential for miscalculation is certainly there. and there's -- you know, you look back at history. miscalculations with major powers who are kind of emerging on the scene is normally a problem. and then i should have probably mentioned right from the start north korea, because north korea is the rogue nation, with some confidence, we believe, nuclear weapons, and the intent to find a delivery mechanism that could reach out across the region and potentially to the united states. so i actually worry more about a provocation from korea that escalates than probably anything else that i deal with on a daily basis. >> that problem's not contained by china? >> china is -- i believe is working to influence. "contain" is a strong word. i think china is trying to influence the dprk into a more moderate behavior regionally.

the problem of course is that they're still so opaque, the leader himself is so young and so inexperienced, and we have these cycles of provocation. we happen to be in a cycle, you know, where the provocations are absent right now, but we'll see. you know, the -- if the provocations continue, the fear, of course, is that those being provoked, notably the republic of korea, will tire of being provoked, and it's a very dangerous -- it's still very dangerous there. >> general dempsey, thanks very much. please join me in thanking him. [applause]

the founder of ms. magazine, gloria steinem, spoke at the national press club on monday. she stressed the importance of women voting. this is one hour. that one person can define an era. gloria steinem is the face of the feminist movement and was dubbed "the leading icon of american feminism" by joelle attinger in "time" magazine. she solidified her feminist legacy by co-founding "ms. magazine" in 1972. more than 40 years later, she is still a consulting editor to the magazine now published by the feminist majority foundation. ms. steinem celebrated the magazine's 40th anniversary right here at the national press club last year. she said then it was the right place to do it since she was

also the first woman to appear as a national press club luncheon speaker after women were finally admitted to the club's membership in 1971. [applause] she received a man's tie as a thank you. [laughter] she's in town this week to receive the presidential medal of freedom from president obama. [applause] ms. steinem is a granddaughter of a suffragist and worked as a journalist in the 1960s after living here in washington during high school and heading to smith college, from which she graduated phi beta kappa. after college, she spent two years in india on a chester bowles fellowship where she wrote for indian publications and was influenced by gandhi and activism. in 1968, she helped found "new

york magazine" where she was a political columnist and wrote feature articles. as a young journalist, she also wrote for publications including "esquire" and was once hired on for a stunt as a playboy bunny for an essay that was later made into a tv movie starring kirstie alley. she's helped found the women's action alliance, the national women's political caucus, and most recently the women's media center. [applause] along the way, ms. steinem has been criticized as a threat to male privilege and even knocked by fellow feminists when she wrote a self help book, and by some when she got married. today, she's a documentary producer, an author, as well as a regular on the speaking circuit and says the fight for equal rights for women is hardly won. not only here in the u.s., but especially in developing countries.

today, she'll talk to us about big things left undone in a speech titled, "still to come: the unfinished and the unimagined." please help me give a warm national press club welcome to writer, author, lecturer, editor, feminist, gloria steinem. [applause] >> first, i have to say what an incredible collection of talent and great hearts and great minds there are in this room. you have to promise me to meet each other. it drives an organizer crazy to see people who may not know each other. and as you have already heard, i get a big sense of history when i come back here including my own history. and i can just say that as the first woman speaker, i remember so clearly my knees knocking and my voice quaking and losing all

my saliva. does that happen to you when you get -- each tooth gets a little angora sweater because i was so aware of the responsibility. however, when they gave me a tie, i felt completely free to say outrageous things. and since then, it's so great that we've had, what, 11 female presidents of this illustrious institution we had to picket to get into in the first place, and so many great women have joined great men in speaking here. and we did gather last year to celebrate the 40th anniversary of "ms. magazine" thanks to the feminist majority. and i just want to say a deep thank you to the feminist majority. and to ellie smeal and to kathy spillar for carrying this forward.

and we have here the great -- you've heard we've got the great beverly guy-shefftal, right, who's a great troublemaker. [applause] and johnnetta cole, educator and now -- what's your proper title at the museum of african art? >> director. >> director? okay. [laughter] and alison bernstein, who insists on calling herself bernstein even though it makes me steinem, who is a great educator and a great international activist. and there are just so many of you here. i just want to tantalize you to make sure you look around and see three or four people you don't know and you introduce yourself. and it is a celebration of my inclusion among 15 people i greatly admire who are being presented with the medal of freedom by president obama.

there's no president in history from whose hand i would be more honored to receive this medal. and, it gives me a chance to say here, i'm especially grateful for this lunch. because actually, when we get the medal, we can't talk. [laughter] i'm grateful to have the opportunity to say here that i would be crazy if i didn't understand that this was a medal for the entire women's movement. [applause] it belongs to shirley chisholm and bella abzug and patsy mink. in the future, it would be great for robin morgan, susan brown levine -- i'm just lobbying a little bit here -- joanne edgar, barbara smith, gloria anzaldua. and so many more. and it has already honored rosa parks and rachel carson and

dorothy hyde and delores huerta. and my dear friend, chief of the cherokee nation, wilma mankiller, who i accompanied when she received her medal. now, of course, it's with all of that illustrious company i get uppity. i can remember that dick cheney received -- as did henry hyde, whose self-named amendment has hurt uncounted numbers of women, especially low income women, for the last 37 years and we're still counting, right? but, the power of this honor may be even more evident in the withholding than in the giving. i was reminded by ellen chesler, biographer of margaret sanger, that president lyndon johnson, even as he signed the first federal and international family planning act into law, refused

to bestow the medal of freedom on sanger. he feared reprisal from the catholic church. ellen told me that when she looked at sanger's private history papers at smith college, i'm proud to say that's the biggest archive of women's history, she found a poignant little handwritten note from sanger asking that her body be buried here next to her husband. but that her heart be removed to japan, the only country in the world that had ever bestowed a public honor on her. so, i hope this is retroactive in honoring the work of margaret sanger. i hope she would celebrate this recognition, that reproductive freedom is a human right, at least as crucial as freedom of speech, and that no government should dictate whether or when we have children. [applause]

whether we are male or female, the power of the state must stop at our skins. she also might say that the backlash against reproductive freedom by a right wing extremist minority, especially in state legislatures they now unfairly control by redistricting, is proof of panic of their misogynist, racist and immigrant-fearing efforts to keep this country from becoming, as it is about to be, no longer a majority european american nation. it is becoming one that looks more like the world and better understands the world. so sanger might say, as i do, that there is no president for the united states who is more responsible for understanding that representative freedom is a basic human right than president obama.

however, there may be a movement problem with me as a recipient because of my age. i'm trying to absorb the fact that i'll be 80 next year. [laughter] [applause] i plan to reach at least 100, but i am really worried -- i mean a little worried about mortality. but i'm also worried that my age contributes to the current form of obstructionism, all the people who say that movements are over and use ridiculous terms like post-racist and post- feminist. excuse me? right. i can testify personally that the very same people who were saying 40 years ago that feminism was unnatural and unnecessary are now saying, well, it used to be necessary, but it's not anymore.

just to name one parallel to show how ridiculous this is, if it took more than a century for abolitionists and suffragists to gain legal and social identity as human beings for all women and men of color, now that we need legal and social equality and no power based on race or sex or ethnicity or class or sexuality, that's likely to take at least a century, too, don't you think? and we're only 40 years into it. also, as original cultures say, as wilma mankiller always said, it takes four generations to heal one act of violence. so, truly, we are just beginning. so, i would like to contribute a few examples of the adventures before us. >> good evening. -- to date and

united states took an important first step toward a comprehensive solution to addressing our concerns with the iranian nuclear program. clear my it determination to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. i have said many times my strong preference is to resolve this issue peacefully. we have extended the hand of diplomacy. for many years, and ron has been unwilling to meet its obligations to the international community. my administration work of congress, the united nations security council, and countries around the world to impose sanctions on the iranian government. the sanctions it had a substantial impact on the iranian economy. with the election of a new irani and president, i am hoping or diplomacy. with theersonally president ever on this fall.

secretary kerry met multiple times with the foreign minister. we have pursued intensive diplomacy with the irani and -- our partnerswith and united kingdom, france, germany, russia. today that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure. a future where we can verify that iran's nuclear program is peaceful. today's announcement is just the first step, but it achieves a for -- a great deal. for the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted progress of the irani and nuclear program. key part of the program will be rolled back. iran has committed to neutralizing part of its stockpile. iran cannot use its next- generation centrifuges, which are used for enriching uranium.

iran cannot start up or install new centrifuges. its production of centrifuges will be limited. they will halt work at their plutonium reactor. sections will -- new inspections by theovide access international community to verify whether iran is keeping its commitments. these are substantial limitations which will help prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. simply put, they cut up iran's most likely path to a bomb. this first step will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our copy had concerns about the iranian program. because of this agreement, iran cannot use negotiations as a cover court program. on our side, the united states and its allies have agreed to provide iran with modest relief. we will apply our cap the sanctions. we will and frame -- refrain

from imposing new sanctions. we will allow the irani and government access to a portion of the revenue that they have been denied through sanctions. the brother architecture of sanctions will remain in place. we will continue to enforce them vigorously. if iran does not fully meet its commitments during this phase, we will turn off the relief. we will ratchet up the pressure. over the next six months, we will work to negotiate a comprehensive solution. negotiationshese with a basic understanding. iran, like any nation, should be able to access useful nuclear energy. -- peaceful nuclear energy. but with its record of violating its obligations, it must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program that make it impossible to develop weapons. , will not betions agreed to and let everything is agreed to. the burden is on iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for

peaceful purposes. opportunity,his the iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community. we began -- we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. we can provide iran with the dignified path to forge a new getting with the wider world based on mutual respect. if on the other hand, iran refuses. they will face growing pressure and isolation. over the last few years, congress has been a key partner in imposing stations that sanctions on the iranian government. that is the rate bipartisan effort, and progress was achieved today. went forward, we will work closely with congress. however, now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions. doing so would derail this promising first step. it would alienate us from our allies and risk unraveling the coalition that enable our sanctions be enforced in the first place.

that international unity is on display today. the world is united. ourre supporting determination to prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. iran must know that security and prosperity will never come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons. it must be reached through fully-verifiable agreements that make iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible. --we go forward, to resolve the resolve of the united states will remain firm, as will our allies including israel and/or golf partners. they have good reason to be skeptical about iran. ultimately only diplomacy can bring apart -- bring about a durable solution to the challenges posed by iran's nuclear program. as president and commander-in- chief, i will do what is necessary to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons the top i have a profound responsibility to resolve our differences peacefully. today we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive,

peaceful settlement. i believe we must test that. the first step we have taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we have made with the ron's since i -- with a rotten since i took office. we misuse the months ahead to pursue a lasting settlement. easy, and huge challenges remain ahead. but through strong appraisal diplomacy, the united states of america will do our part on greaterf the world for peace, security, and cooperation among nations. thank you very much. [applause] to child marriage and pregnancy, which is the biggest cause of teenage female deaths in the world.

that for what may be the first time in human history, females are no longer half the human race. on this spaceship earth, there are now 101.3 men per 100 women. so, before we think of causes as distant, of that cause as distant, let me also remind you that even by fbi statistics, if you add up all the women in the united states who have been murdered by their husbands or boyfriends since 9/11, and then you add up all the americans killed in 9/11 and in iraq and in afghanistan, and you combine all those numbers, more women have been killed by their husbands and boyfriends since 9/11 than all of those americans who were murdered in 9/11 and afghanistan and in iraq. we pay a lot of attention to foreign terrorism, but what about domestic terrorism? what about crimes in our houses, schools and movie theaters that are 99% committed by white, non- poor men with nothing to gain from their crimes, nothing to gain from their crimes, but who

are addicted to what they got born into. they did not invent it, but they became addicted to the violence of masculinity and control. those crimes, i think, we might refer to as supremacy crimes, which is their motive, and really think about the why of it and the cost of the falsely created ideas of gender. but, here's the good news. thanks to a landmark book i've been talking about to some of you for a year, at least, called "sex and world peace" by valerie hudson and other scholars, we now can prove with 100 countries that the biggest indicator of whether a country is violent within itself or will use military violence against another country, the biggest cause is not poverty or lack of natural resources or religion or even degree of democracy. it's

violence against females. it is that that is experienced first and that that normalizes all other subject/object dominated/dominator conquering superior/inferior relationships. and in my list, i haven't included everything you know. i mean, the equal rights amendment? it still would be nice if we had the constitution, don't you think? cedaw? [applause] the fact that 3/4 of all immigrants now fighting a great battle in this town are women and children. i mean, you know all of those things. but those are ten i just picked arbitrarily, so i dare anybody to say that this revolution is over because now, we are onto the ways of de-normalizing violence and dominance.

we're understanding that we'll never have democratic countries unless we have democratic families. we're understanding that the idea of conquering nature in women is the problem, not the solution. we're returning to the original and natural paradigm of 95% of human history, which was the circle, not the pyramid, not the hierarchy. as bella abzug would say, our movement came from a period of dependence, we were dependent, so we naturally had to get up there and become independent and self identified. and now we're ready for a declaration of interdependence, of interdependence, among our movements and with each other. we are discovering that we in this room, and everywhere else, and we in nature and we human beings are linked. we are not ranked. so, moving forward if we just do

it every day, it's not rocket science and it's actually fun and it's infinitely interesting. just for one simple example, those of us who are used to power need to listen as much as we talk. and those with less power may need to learn to talk as much as we listen, right? but in both cases, it's all about balance and understanding that the end doesn't justify the means. the means are the ends. the means become the ends. so, if we want, at the end of our revolution, not that there is an end, but in our imaginable future progress, if we want to have dancing and friendship and laughter and work we love in the future, we have to be sure to have some dancing and friendship and work that we love and laughter along the way. this is the small and the big of it. and we've just begun.

[applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. we're here at the national press club, so we'll start with a media question. how do you think the representation of women in the media has changed since you first got involved in the industry, and where do we still need to go? >> how long do we have? >> we have a while. >> well, it has changed. because there are smart, competent journalists and all kinds of specialists on television that we didn't see before. i remember that the -- just to show you how bad it was, there was only one woman who did the weather and she was rising from her bed in a satin nightgown

saying, well, it's going to be stormy tomorrow. you can't make this stuff up. so we have progressed, but obviously women are still something like 15 years younger in order to be on camera, so just as you get experience, you're gone. and there are fewer and we're more diverse than we were, but not diverse enough. and think how important it is, think how important it is. i mean, who would have thought that a little girl named oprah in the south would have looked at barbara walters and thought, i can do that. you know, we need to see people who look like us. so i would say we have token victories. we've realized the problem, and as the women's media center always points out, part of it is not on camera, but a big part is who's making the decision about what story gets covered and

that's more like 3% women who are in the clout positions. so i would say we've made symbolic victories, we know what's wrong, but we're not even halfway there. >> given how far we have to go, does calling attention to the disparities, both of women in the media as well as women sources, create change? and if not, how do you create change? >> no, it does create change because consciousness, as we all know, in every social change and revolution on earth, consciousness comes first, the understanding of what's wrong and what could be. and we, and i know other people here, the women's media center, have shesource so that there's endless lists of experts if you want to find somebody who is an expert in aeronautics who's a female human being. we need those sources, we need to not just accuse the media, but help the media find other folks.

and we ourselves need to do it. you know sometimes i think that men get up in the morning -- i mean, not the men here who are exempt from everything i say -- but get up in the morning and look in the mirror and say, i see a public intellectual. but, women don't usually do that. so we need to go to each other and say, hey, you're an authority on this. and then get training at the women's media center, or somewhere, so you're comfortable on camera. i can tell you from calling people up to get on camera, it is harder to get women to do it because of our self image and because, of course, we think we have to do our hair and all those guys have a blue suit hanging in the closet and just put it on and go racing off. so there are both internal and external barriers. >> is it incumbent on journalists to seek out more women sources, or is it incumbent on women to empower

themselves to be sources? >> you know, it's so interesting that anything that is only two choices is wrong. [laughter] have you ever noticed that? i think it comes from falsely dividing human nature into masculine and feminine and then everything is -- so, of course, we need both, we need both. but it gets to be ridiculous when you survey all the people who are writing about reproductive issues and 80 80% of them are guys without the organs they're writing about. so, this is not something -- you're not supposed to say the o word here? so, the answer is that both are responsible. but i think that when we are looking at a story that arguably has more female experience or more experience from a particular racial or ethnic group, sexuality, we ought to understand that at least half of our sources, at least half of

our sources, ought to have that kind of experience. >> this questioner says she, maybe he, but probably she, saw you speak at the university of utah in 1975. the questioner asks if you could go back and tell yourself to chill out about one issue, what would it be? and what one issue would you tell yourself to get more fired up about? >> ah. >> hi. >> hi. [laughter] well, i think that the issues that i should have been more chilled out about had to do with self criticism and it's still a problem, i think, for a lot of us because i walk around after i've spoken, i'm sure in utah, thinking, you know, "and another thing," or, "i should have done." so i wish i didn't do that so much. to what i should have been more in an uproar about is monotheism and religion.

religion is too often politics you're not supposed to talk about. spirituality is democratic and in each of us, it's a different story. but institutionalized monotheistic religion, if god looks like the ruling class, the ruling class is god, let's face it. so, we have refrained from speaking about it in spite of all the history of, say, colonialism, where they were very clear, the bible and the gun, that's how we're going to conquer. that's what conquered -- you have to take away people's feeling that there is something sacred within themselves, that there's authority within themselves and get them to submit to other authority. and not only for reward in this lifetime, but for life after death? excuse me? unprovable, so very usable.

-- useful. no, i am much madder about that and wish i had talked about it there because i do remember that at the universities in utah there was an enormously high rate of suicide because of the strictness about sexual expression, and so on. and still, i probably in my memory, maybe you can tell me, but i don't think i was saying this at the time. >> what keeps you going? what keeps the fire burning, and have you ever wanted to just hang it up, and why didn't you? >> well where would i hang it? [laughter] no, first of all, people say to me, well, aren't you interested in something other than feminism? and i always try to think if there's anything that wouldn't be transformed by looking at it as if everybody mattered, and so far i haven't been able to find anything.

and also, it's so interesting, you know. it's like a big aha. you figure out what could be and it's just constantly, constantly interesting. as to what keeps me going, it's you. i mean, it's our friends. we're communal animals, we cannot do it by ourselves. and i'm so lucky that because of the magazine and the movement and many other groups, i have a community. so, when i am feeling crazy and alone, i have people to turn to. and we cannot, we cannot, keep going without that. actually, sometimes people ask me what one thing would you like for the movement? and i always think a global aa, that's what i would like so that wherever we went, any place in the world, by a river, in the school basement, wherever, we

would know that we could find a group that however different shared values and was free and leaderless and sat in a circle and talked, spoke their own stories and listened to each others' stories. and figured out that we are not crazy, the system is crazy, basically, and supported each other. >> as you reflect back on the women's movement so far, what would you define as the seminal moment? >> well, it would be an ovarian moment. [laughter] [applause] i think each of us has a different one, probably. each of us had a first, or maybe several, memorable aha moments, oh, that's why. i was a journalist, worked freelancing in new york and even after we started "new york

magazine" i was the girl writer. and the other guys, and they were very nice guys, jimmy breslin and tom wolfe, all these nice guys, would say to me, "you write like a man." and i would say, "oh, thank you." and it wasn't until -- the experiences in my case, maybe yours, too, had to pile up before i saw the pattern and then i had an epiphany which was related to my own experience. which maybe is true for each of us, which is that i covered a speak out about abortion and i realized that i had not told the truth about having an abortion myself at 22. and why not? and why? if one in three american women, approximately, has needed an abortion at some time in their life, why not? what was secret about it, you know? and then as soon as i started to

speak about it, then other -- i discovered it was often part of other people's experience, or their family's experience. i remember sitting in a taxi in boston with flo kennedy, the great flo kennedy, and flo had written a book called "abortion rap," which was totally about this and we were talking about her book. and the old irish woman taxi driver, very rare, probably, as a taxi driver, turned around to us and she said, "honey, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." and that's where that came from. i didn't make that up. so, it's that experience, i think, of telling our own stories, of truth telling. >> a couple of questioners ask whether 40 years after roe v. wade we are moving backwards rather than forwards on women's right to choose.

one questioner asks what do you think about the fact that women in your home city of toledo can no longer obtain an abortion without driving over an hour? >> yes, we are moving backward, not in public opinion. you know, if you look at properly phrased who should make this decision, the government or the individual, overwhelming majority say it shouldn't be the government, it should be the individual and the physician. so, we're not moving backward in public opinion, but we are moving backward in -- as we can see, the anti-choice forces have not been too successful in washington, so they've moved to state legislatures. though they murdered abortion doctors and firebombed clinics. that has proven not to be as successful as what they're doing now, which is getting state legislatures to make impossible to fulfill rules for local clinics.

and the only way we can change this is to pay attention to our state legislatures. i believe that president clinton just said this last week. if we don't want a divided washington, then we have to vote as much in off year elections and for our state legislatures as we do in presidential as long as state legislatures are in control of insurance companies and people who build prisons and the people in there that don't deserve to be in prison and then they redistrict in order to keep that control permanent. that is why the house representatives is what it is and the senate is not. you cannot redistrict whole state. so, our response has to be organizing and