host: jeffrey mankoff happy new year. coming up tomorrow, we will talk about immigration policy. with you heard our previous guest reference that. that will take place at 7:45 tomorrow. also on the program tomorrow author chris adellison will talk about the rule of law. we'll talk about lobbying that took place in 2013. we'll answer your question about that. we'll take a look at the paper and take your phone calls and tweets as well as "washington journal" come your way tomorrow at 7:00. see you then.

>> tonight at 7:00, we continue "q&ancore presentations of " with columnist gregg easterbrook. he discusses his book "the king of sports." here is a preview. areoday most politicians oleaginous hacks

what brought all that on? >> congratulations knowing how to pronounce "oleaginous." you are in a small minority. football has become a cult and you see some evidence of this trade i present it in the book. coaches have become revered figures in american life and in some cases justifiably. if all men were like tony dungy the world would be a better place. but coaches have become substitute father figures in american society. we don't believe in politicians anymore, businessmen, clergy. coaches still seem like people

who practice tough love, like a good father would be, and it has a lot to do with their high standing in society. > >> see our discussion with greg easterbrook today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. clock, highlights from our original history series "first ladies." tonight come a 20th century first ladies. edith roosevelt to rosalynn carter. including newsreel footage, archival video clips, on location tours of homesteads and historic sites, radio broadcasts, and more. tonight it on a card p.m. eastern on c-span. -- tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house.

we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and invited by your cable and satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> journalist and historian at david andelman discussed at the history of the imperial president and the changes in power to democratic leaders around the world. bard college and "foreign affairs" magazine hosted this hour-long event. >> david andelman has a biography that i can't possibly do justice in my typically short -- probably not short enough -- introduction. in brief, he is the author of the book "a shattered peace: versailles in 1919 and the price we pay today." he is the former president of the overseas press club am aware we have students interning come as well as the world policy

institute. he is the former executive editor of forbes.com has been a domestic and foreign correspondent for "the new york times," a paris-based correspondent for cbs news, a correspondent for cnbc, and is written for "harpers," "the atlantic," "the new republic," and a list of others we won't go through now. i just named the ones i read. today his talk is titled "imperial presidency: gone and all but forgotten." orwill speak for 25 minutes so. i don't generally interject unless things take a terrible turn. we will have time for q&a at the end of. it is my pleasure to turn over the podium to david andelman. [applause] thank you.

i have to say that this is a particular honor delivering to james clark lecture. he was my predecessor and the great mentor as well when at the debut of my career i had approved us the privilege of writing for him at "foreign affairs," one of our worthy competitors. .et's begin there was a time in the not-too-distant past when the office of the president carried with it all but unprecedented powers, not unlike the great emperors of old. the president could launch towards -- watch wars and claim peace and change the course of history. and political systems for removed in every other respect from the traditional dictatorship, president still will does all but unfettered butr -- wielded all unfettered power. i liked to call this the imperial presidency. no longer. charles de gaulle could launch wars in algeria and indochina with barely a gesture to the national assembly that met .egularly and futilely

today, francois hollande must turn to a deeply fractured parliament for approval on every .ajor political decision in london, where winston churchill and his war cabinet could join american allies in defense of the empire with barely a nod to the house of commons down the block, today successor david cameron bows meekly at the same body and spent several hours shouting out his efforts to join the same aerican military in syria, state with few clear ties to the british commonwealth. rarely in modern history of cheese of state and governmen -- chiefs of state and government been so handcuffed as they are today. early able to keep a single unlink or die on how history might treat them. the presidency, and imperial or not, is the. at one position in government to which all power flows downward to the rest of the government and at the same time in the best of circumstances upward to the people. but all too often in just one direction.

in august 1983 there was a panic across the center of africa centered on the nation of chad when the libyan dictator muammar gaddafi was contemplating an invasion of his neighbor to the south. it was a nation that struggles the desert to the north and the jungle to the south -- straddles the desert to the north and the jungle to the south. the french, who for a century or more control of this part of africa, still maintain close economic, political, and cultural ties with their former: he. it was hardly surprising that the detachment of the french foreign legion would find its way to the capital as a show of force. at the same time, though, the periods ruler of chad put somewhat -- the imperious ruler of chad put somewhat more faith in a neighboring dictator, mobutu sase sac -- mobutu sese seko. if there was ever an approval president, it was mobutu.

he amassed a vast personal fortune which at its peak in 1984, by the time i got there, was estimated that $5 billion. $11 billion in today's money. he was known to charter a supersonic awkward jet -- concorde jet for shopping trips to paris. with power at home and across broad stretches of the african continent on challenge. the president of beleaguered chad was an aspiring mobutu character. he had come to power in a coup a year before i got there and quickly moved to cement his hold as president, self-proclaimed president of course. hardly a decade. he was using a secret police organization that he created to hold onto power. his message included spraying gas into the eyes, ears, and nose into his opponents, and a primitive technique of waterboarding that few have managed to survive. now he was fearing the arrival

of qaddafi's tanks, power he had little ability to neutralize. it was hardly surprising that c arrived in hardly democratically elected president might want to hedge his bets and seek backup from a leader whose interests might be more france's than those of françois mitterrand. cue mobutu. mobutu's presidential jet touched down in the airport. as both presidents had anticipated, the world press turned out, and i was on hand as well. this was going to be a real show . just the ticket, both presidents hope come to show qaddafi and his forces what they would be up against. thousands lined the route from the airport to downtown, clearly in a festive mood. then the doors open and out , clad in hisu

leopardskin toga, a cap perched on his head and he's road confidently down the steps, mounting a colossal customized in thetood magisterially back, grabbed anonymity staff with a gold figurehead, and signaled the vehicle to move slowly down the path. a host of escorts banged loudly on jungle drums as big crowd chanted " mobutu, mobutu, mobutu ." awe-inspiring, thrilling in its own way. as consummate a demonstration of presidential power as i've ever witnessed. coffee, incidentally, never bothered to invade. such dictators in president's clothing still exist in parts of the world. republic ofoviet belarus has never known any president but it's a really stalinist alexander lukashenko -- any president but the

thoroughly stalinist alexander lukashenko. it is effectively a latter-day gulag sandwiched between poland, russia, and ukraine. ocean of thean moabites, the president -- of the maldives, the president held on for years as his nation holds onto some someone's of democracy. he executed it little wealth that she has a cute -- he has accumulated little wealth on the order of the head of papua new guinea, who has a network somewhat short of mobutu's but still north of $600 million. these leaders, while bearing the title of president, maintain the trappings of hereditary monarchs who still peripherally -- who still proliferate across the gulf.

each rules with barely a nod to those he or she holds in his way. of course, there are very few female dictators of this strike. lukashenko was that he is all that stands between these people and other instability, brought property that is enslaved vast stretches of the soviet union, and the depredations of powerful russian mafia crime families, all of which was true, but at what cost? these serve as one extreme of the presidency. today francis perhaps the other. francois hollande is a far cry from the nation's last socialist president. namesake, or françois mitterrand, a leader in control of every word spoken by anyone in his administration from every act in action that flowed from the palace, had in any respects perfect pitch when it came to the sense of how our president should rule, where to pull every lever to achieve maximum impact. even as the power of his office was slipping away from the fast charles ded by

gaulle, mitterrand did his best to slow the process. one afternoon, the foreign minister had concluded a particularly sensitive diplomatic negotiation and was exiting the foreign ministry in haste, running the goblet of a scrum of french and western journalists. i was there for cbs, and i thrust my microphone in front of him and asked him a question in english, to achieve replied reflectively in his impeccable english, and then he disappeared before my french counterpart .ould interrogate him in french each evening at the palace, mitterrand would convene a group of his ministers and counselors to watch data clock evening news. -- the 8:00 evening news. rapidly evening, french national television was compelled to use my soundbite in english subtitled in french. what an embarrassment, mitterrand sniffed. a french minister speaking in english on french television. imagine. trust me, it never happened again. after that, it became all but

impossible to obtain an incursion soundbite from a single member of the government under françois mitterrand -- a single english soundbite from a single member of the government under françois mitterrand. it is the longest any french president will likely will again. the reason for that is that in the year 2000, the constitution was amended to provide a maximum of 2 five-year terms. three presidents later, even more has changed. francois hollande finds himself in a pickle that is deeply reflective of many of his fellow presidents, but with far less room to maneuver. writesemma is terrible, the leading editorialists of the brilliant french daily. he continues to sap his ability to function. francois hollande may well have

all presidential powers, but his power is to assert himself as a leader. the immediate context he was talking about was france's growing economic crisis. standard & poor's has dropped the nation's credit rating to aa from aa plus and and just this year -- that is just a year after it lost its aaa rating, of course, under sarkozy. hollande has found it impossible to drag his nation out of this as had out of despair, his right-wing predecessor sarkozy. the question of the bureau presidency is a question of atmospherics and is by no means confined to france. in this multipolar world, where operations are informed by a voice of the sting ally and a broad range of voices clamoring to be heard, each offering appealing solutions, presidential leadership -- indeed, leadership of any stripe -- has become seriously diluted. when i arrived in paris in 1980 for the debut of mitterrand's

presidency, and in fact, by the time i returned to the united states seven years later, there was no internet in france or anywhere else. each evening there was a national news broadcast on each networksstate-owned which had sensational murders and the doings of the famous fashion stars and sports and weather. , i have those newspapers catered to many political persuasions in france, from the centrist to the conservative "la figaro." but it was the president with is the load stoat of government -- who was the lodestone of government and society. today that is no longer the case really, in france and a lot of other places. in france, along with much of the civilized world, they have been brushed by forces -- brushed by forces impeding for attention and allegiance. outwardnly an

manifestation of the presidency across the globe. sharply circumscribed the term limits are the rule rather than the exception. the only profound a dysfunctional dictatorial leaders of uganda have no term levels for the presidents. only belarus and uganda have no term limits for the presidency anymore. tajikistan let its president hang around for seven years with a maximum of 3 terms. in theory. in practice, he has held office since 1994 and shows no sign of fading into retirement. the same open-ended tenure holds true for the president of italy, but that is largely ceremonial post. . at incumbent largely serves the will of the parliament. the leaders of senegal, uzbekistan, and ireland -- another largely ceremonial post

-- are each allowed 2 seven-year terms. i state this because it demonstrates that today few democratic elected presidents have the same power and reach as their predecessors. the only remaining imperial president of the ones who largely used up their authority and maintain the office in name only. this shift in the power balance, this diffusion of power, has led to profound disconnects on the world stage and the ability to include any truly transformative initiative. this past summer, when i ran into today new and somewhat freethinking president -- we all --e -- irradiance were jo iranians rejoice. hossein rouhani seems like a fresh trees compared with his knuckleheaded predecessor. he said that the holocaust was not as oracle fiction. he was prepared to take president obama's phone call and chat amiably for a few minutes, although a handshake at you and maybe a bit of a stretch of the moment.

rouhani's negotiators returned to the bargaining table, we all know that. in an effort to broker some progress that could put a hold on that nation's nuclear ambitions, while at the same time lifting the collection of sanctions that was striking the iranian economy. here again, the sharply curtailed powers of presidents on both sides of the table reasserted themselves. on the iranian side, neither the president nor his foreign minister had really unfettered control of a section -- a certain existential issue as iran's nuclear program. when it comes to foreigners strategic affairs, iran's nuclear aspirations, a single individual is pulling all the strings, the supreme leader grand ayatollah ali, in -- ali khamenei. there may be no... figure behind the curtains, but the ability of the presidents of the u.s., france, russia and china, even the chancellor of germany are equally concerned when it comes to arriving at a bargain that is asnsformative initiatives

restraining the iranian nuclear weapons program. a broadt obama has swath of congress who would prefer tightening sanctions rather than listening them. the president of russia and china have a somewhat broader margin of maneuver, but their hands are still tight as well -- tied as well. what is holding acted their inclination to throw. or behind iran is whether jinpingt putin and xi w watc -- want their nations to be pariahs. international image. in earlier times, it was possible for a national leader to complete a pact with little reference to forces outside his immediate entourage. the paris these conference that led to the treaty of her sigh and the end of world war one -- treaty of oversigh -- the

tree of versaille and the end of world war i -- as i put in my wilson largely went along with the means of achieving his goal of the league of nations, with an ultimately ignominious end to that exercise. the delegations of japan and china, generally not seem to be versailles,thei represented by the last of the great generals, and figure fromenerable china. neither was ever seen in public. each confined himself to fling strings from behind his respective curtain, allowing his diplomats and politicians to mime in public the words that each had so carefully crafted behind the scenes. today no such tricks up our have

her very much impact at all. the stakes are much higher and far more nuanced. everyday business and financial interests must make commitments that plane to the balance. such choices may have profound effects on the course of a nation's economic development and vitality. where to manufacture the next generation electronic device, where to build that dam or power project or prospect for coal or oil or precious minerals. such decisions are based on a context cactus of risks and consistency, honesty, and continuity. leader headings into his third decade of all but unchallenged power, is falling rapidly behind on almost every score. putin is a sensibly the most powerful of any elected president today, a true heir to the czars a millennium or more before him. to leavehas been able and then return to office without for a moment ceding

control of his nation? as any ofis hobbled his western counterparts by forces as pernicious as those nibbling at the foundations of llande ando cameron. while ruled by an all-powerful and on challenge president, it is crumbling as rapidly as any western democracy. is all buto maintain unchallenged power, yes to pay off those who helped him rise to the top and keep him there, the crafts --and copper and kleptocratic. but the oil is fading in desire ability. of the commodity rises and falls with the open flow of international crises. middle eastn the oil. could even such events are of diminishing value as it permanent of oil demand -- as a

determinant of oil demand. the united states approaching self-sufficiency, while the number of the consumer, china, makes side deals in far corners of the globe. hat is an oligarch like putin to do? russia has been reduced to at most a bully, a spoiler in world affairs. above all, a bad that when it .omes to long-term investment the only good president in today's context is one who can be counted on to maintain a certain modicum of consistency and intelligence in the use or distribution of power over the judiciary, legislature, bureaucracy of the government he or she leads. in a so-called pure democracy, of course, there is the concept , designedand balances by america's honeypot is to restrain the powers they would put on a single leader -- america's founding fathers to restrain the powers they would put on a single leader.

his or hers is the only branch was powers are controlled by a single individual. in essence, we have arrived at the crux of the modern presidency. as louis the 14th was so front of -- so fond of saying, for president of today's world, it is no less true could the problem is that ensuing centuries, forces in and outside the government have been chipping away at these unitary powers, particularly on the economic front, where power to the ultimately resides -- where power today ultimately resides. where once the power of presence rose and fell on the evan flow of cheap little empires, the maintenance of sea lanes or the medications between colonies and far corners of the globe -- remember those days when the sun never set on the british empire? not anymore. now power rests on the goodwill of corporate titans, the presidents of the new empires. where apple or samsung will assemble their newest

smartphone, where bp or bhp will prospect for oil or nickel or rare earths, underwriting the railings and headlines to bring these commodities to market, these are the currency of power for today's presidents, tracking those companies did his or her country. -- a tracking those countries to his or her country. take india and china. both led by presidents. any chinese, while lusting after some form of democracy in which they might play a role in putting the president in power, sniff at the true democracy of india as a cacophony of competing interests, tied hopelessly in bureaucratic nots, living in filth with little opportunity to accumulate real wealth. indians revel in their ability to live and act freely. in the end, the international business has beaten a path to majors door, with

investments and contracts and commerce that marked a nation and its leader as a success in the modern world. china is one of the rare nations with the president who can truly he considered imperial in the classically modern sense. we need to reflect carefully on the view of such power, wielded wisely and honestly and in the interests of the many rather than few. there is no world -- no room in our modern world the on foundations of transparency and openness for the leaders of oligarchies and autocracies, and that goes for china as well, of course. at the same time, there is a broad, unclaimed neutral ground where wise rulers exercise a range of authority and creativity. where do we go from here? howard president may reclaim his or her power, reassert a on history, and shaped the nature of the gold -- global dialogue are open to question in these days of diminishing imperial power. appearances would suggest that

the imperial presidency is on a permanent downward slope. still, all is not lost. for a reason very peculiar to the core of the power of today's modern president presiding in any form of a democracy, a president, no matter how narrowly victories the free and fair election, arrives in office with a substantial reservoir of goodwill. i like to use the analogy of a large barrel filled to the brim with fresh water that represent power, reach, and influence. it is accompanied by a ladle. for each crisis, each real or perceived opportunity, the president dips into the barrel, or moving a brimming ladle -- removing a tiny dollop or brimming ladle. it is tipped over with quantities flowing out. eagero often, the novice to arrive at a quick victory biggs do quickly and deeply into this barrel and it empties before it's time. the presidenty

uses the reservoir suggests the nature and course of his or her power and reach. there is one absolute constant. once that barrel is empty, it can be replenished only by returning to the electorate for whenever the constitution of that nation may provide. intensive existential crises -- the 2 world wars of the last century, the cuban missile crisis, 9/11, such a paradigm may be suspended as all cluster around this barrel and replenish whatever may be necessary to empower the leader in question with all the trappings of imperial presidents of old. of course, giants do still walk the earth, in not -- if not in the form of mere mortals but in the form of the systems they represent. never before in history have so many people live under a form of government that could be seen to represent what they truly desire , what is most congruent to their hopes and dreams for a rich and meaningful life.

at the same time, imperial presidents are no longer able to dispense half of europe to a communist dictator with the stroke of a pen as roosevelt did at delta, or enslaved vast regions under colonial servitude, as the western powers decreed at the end of the 20th century. it may produce fewer unilateral, certainly less traumatic transitions, but it is incumbent on each of us to choose wisely in designating whose hand should be allowed to wield the ladle as into the barrel of power and influence. thank you. [applause] >> if you are called on for question, you should wait just a few seconds for the microphone to be put near you. it doesn't have to be -- you don't have to speak into it, but it will be somewhere near you,

and that will be good enough that you will be heard. questions? yes. >> [indiscernible] terrific talk, david, but he failed to mention one name, the most mysterious president at the moment to me, mr. assad in s yria. give the us your analysis of that. >> there's no question that he is not only mysteries but a president and an autocrat at the same time. clearly, this is a very, very difficult situation. how do you remove a president who has functionally no term of office and the power of the state behind him, the power of the military behind him? that is a conundrum that we have not yet managed to figure a way out of. i would like to see a system where the international community could in fact joined

together to bring about a change in the regime such as assad. we are not there yet. we don't have a united nations or any multinational contract in any fashion that has been able to successfully do that. that is really a major hole in the international system today. being propped up by some of the most of your presidents currently an office --the most imperial presidents currently in office, namely mr. putin and the array names -- and the iranians? >> certainly the iranians have helped out. we have a new regime in iran that is trying some kind of oreement with the west, democratic nations. it is hard to see how they in thee to support assad same passion they have in the past. utin and histime, p chinese counterpart are feeling

pressure on their and to bring themselves back into a position where they can be perceived as functioning players in the international community and not just pariahs. they do not want to be seen as pariahs. putin has desperately embarked on a campaign to bring international investment into his country. he is frantic about that. he has the olympics coming up at the last thing he wants to be doing is to be seen helping a non-aquatic decatur who was slaughtering his people -- and autocratic dictator who is slaughtering his people. i would like to think that for the international forces of work they can begin to move the syria.on in a place like >> you read about the writing of the u.s. constitution and the , thoses of both sides who didn't want the imperial

president, they badly didn't want an imperial president, and those who wanted a federal state. you see that the idea of an imperial president has been a controversial one. i would argue that the most recent imperial president to -- presidential act was our going into iraq. people thought that this was something the younger bush was determined to do -- the father, the son kind of argument. i would ask you whether you innk the imperial presidency the large is a good thing for humanity or not. >> i knew i was going to get beaten up a little bit on this. you did it very gently and i thank you for your kindness. there is no doubt that there are imperial presidents who have abused their power, and this is true in democracies, true in the west, true certainly in the case of iraq and in a number of areas, i suspect, as well. the concept of the imperial resident has to be used wisely

is what i am trying to suggest. the question is whether we have so eroded the ability of a president to govern anymore that we ever moved a lot of his power to do good as well as evil, to establish a worldview. it is interesting, henry kissinger, who i have known since he was a teacher of mine back at harvard in the 1960's, kissinger had this worldview. there are very few presidents anymore who have a worldview. they seem to ping-pong along from crisis to crisis, much like a ping-pong table and the motion -- ping-pong table, and machine, and they don't have the ability to focus on what kind of world they want to leave behind them. it is a problem of the system itself but it is also a problem of the nature of how we choose presidents and the kind of presidents we choose. there are very few president anymore that really have the ability in some fashion to fashion a world that would be

the kind of world they would like to see left as their legacy . i think that is unfortunate. >> would it be fair to call lyndon johnson the more recent imperial president in american history, given the basically complete involvement in vietnam, almost all just under his guidance and so forth? >> lyndon johnson was in many respects an imperial president could i think that with johnson we begin to see the cusp of the presidencyimperial in that sense. there have been some who have acted imperiously since then -- the bushes, no doubt about that. but he was the last person to understand the use and abuse of power. unfortunately, he abused it in many respects, as did any of the presidents who succeeded him. but he was last person who understood that because of his

consummate command of the levers of power within the united states, he understood much better how to maneuver power overseas. he was less interested in what went on oversees and his presidency was defined by his adventures in vietnam, which were almost left to him in many respects. he inherited them. he certainly did not make them any better, no doubt about that. but he did understand the use of power, especially within the united states. he was come i think, one of the last presidency really didn't truly understand that. -- he was, i think, one of the last resident -- presidents who really did truly understand it. there was one person who wanted to ask me what was my favorite imperial president. is that right? [laughter] >> i would say modern president passed fdr. >> i've thought a lot about that since i knew you were going to ask that question this afternoon.

i would have to say charles de gaulle. i think charles de gaulle was last real president in this world who had a real vision, a real understanding of where he wanted to take his country, france, and his region of the world, europe, and where he wanted it to end up. le made manyde gaul mistakes but he created a system of government in france that is function relatively well to this day. it was probably really formed in his image. -- thereally formed latest french republic was formed to let de gaulle act as de gaulle and there have been no de gaulles since then. lle reallyat de gau did have an understanding of the kind of world he wanted to leave behind, what he wanted to do to improve the lives of his people. her member, he had a long history with the french, going the time of the second

world war. he was next ordinary individual. my previous book to this, "the withh world war," i wrote a fellow who was the longest-serving head of french intelligence, he was de gaulle's young aide at the very end of world war ii and served as that of french intelligence throughout the rest of the de gaulle, through pompidou and although it down t -- all the way down to mitterrand. he said that de gaulle was the one individual he served through who really did have the sense of should be like and how to shape it. i found his perspective quite fascinating could i would have to say de gaulle would be my choice among them are chronically elected presidents in the modern era. >> just as a side comment, de gaulle solve the world according to de gaulle. >> yes, no doubt about that.

>> leaving that subject, do you want to comment on the middle east and the supposed arab spring, where you have all these imperial presidents -- saddam ad, etc.,mubarak, ass etc., etc., being pulled down, and now you have total havoc? and as an aside on the assad situation, the united states is double digging its support for the islamic -- double thinking its support for the islamic rebels because of what possibly could replace assad would be perhaps worse than assad. i believe that you. >> that is a very interesting subject to something i've written a lot about. back further. in the late 1970's, i was the "new york times" responded for eastern europe and i live in program.

-- i lived in belgrade. tito was interesting. he held together seven disparate one, all ofin whom hated each other. a host of different nationalities and competing interests, all of whom would have been at each other's throats had it not been for tito and ultimately did go after each other other's throats after tito. what happened then? what happened then is that after all of the bloodshed and the terror and the horrors that came after, we have a number of countries coming out of their that are very solidly respectable nations, part of the european union, doing very well by the people, and you have leaders in their countries who are very much of the people. there has been a positive outcome from the transition period. i would like to think that in the middle east we are in a transition period.

it is likely to be bloodier, more disruptive in many respects, but i have this theory i have long had and i have written about it in world policy and a number of other places, but i have this theory that people, if left to their own devices, without any exterior forces on them, will ultimately arrive on a form of government that works for them, and i would like to think that is the path we are taking in the middle east . it is very often a bloody path, very often a very dangerous path, and a lot of people get hurt and killed as a result. but the end result is very positive. we have only to look at indochina. who would ever have imagined that after the end of the vietnam war we would have a country that is one of the leadership countries, particularly economically, in asia, in the form of a vietnam? we have numeral two other countries that are real ashley f

numeral to other countries that haven't 2vely -- we other countries that are relatively peaceful, cambodia and laos. true, when you talk about southeast asia. but each of these countries is run by a single party, or as in the case of cambodia, by han s en, a 20-near decatur, so you are back to where you started. you are back to a dictatorship-type of situation that has brought about some sort of economic chain. it is a most the chinese model. >> it is very close to the chinese model. isn't moving in the right direction? we hope that development in china will produce a more pluralistic society. we had an interesting conversation -- our winter issue

deals with china versus india, the competition and the concordance and so on between what -- it should be out next week, in fact. our conversation is with the noted beijing university economics professor who was fired from his job because he was preaching democracy. this is a very interesting fellow. democracyys is that will come to china and many people will have to be hurt. he himself is one of the victims. but he does believe very strongly that the chinese people want a form of democracy that works for china. when i asked him about democracy in india, he was contemptuous of it. he says it may a democracy but it doesn't work for the indian people. well, the indian people probably think it does work for them, but the chinese don't see it that way. they see a country that is dysfunctional, filthy, a class

that would not work in the chinese model. each country will ultimately arrive at hopefully a democracy with some form of government that functions effectively for a country and i firmly believe that is the case. it may take a very long time and it may be a bumpy road to get there, and i may be a bit pollyannaish in that respect, but i am hopeful still. >> -- the older definition of an imperial president, something the founding fathers were debating, george washington and king, whatever. my question is, is there a sense that the imperial president -- the definition has changed in this modern form. could you maybe lay out what your modern imperial president looks like a bit? >> what he looks like?

>> if there is a universal. >> there probably is no universal imperial president could i think there is a person who can establish a vision of what he wants for his or her country's role in the world and begin to move towards that direction. as someone who has a firm grasp of how to use the levers of power to makethis happen, internally and externally to make this happen, internally and externally. it is one of these things that is kind of you know what it looks like when you see it, but you can't necessarily describe it. if you see it and it works, it is an imperial presidency that works could i cannot identify an imperial president right now and i cannot identify an imperial president right now in any western democracy who does that. there was great hope when president obama came to power in the united states that we did

have a person who could perhaps create a vision and implement it . the result was that he didn't. i go back to that analogy of the ladle. he used so much capital on one or two specific issues that he finally discovered that basically, the barrel was empty. even when he came back to the electorate and one another election with a full barrel, it is again almost empty. i don't know quite how that came about, but it is unfortunate because he came in with the of the world. "worldmy first issues of policy journal," when he came to office, we had a photograph we ran of custom stripping on the shop so easy -- crowds demonstrating on the champs e lysees. this was for the arrival of obama in power.

justyears later, he is another failed world leader, and that is too bad, it really is. >> do you think it is possible in our current political climate for anybody to put forward a world view -- >> well, that is a good question, and i think that has to do with other issues and changes in the way politics is run these days. it has to do with the way campaigns are financed him and has to do with the way presidents are chosen, it has to do with the media especially. when i first came to new york in 1965, there were basically 7 television stations, and that was the second most of any city in the country. the only one that had more was los angeles. there were 6 daily newspapers. and that's it. there was no 24-hour news. i went to work at my first job at wnix the summer it went from all news to top 40 -- the summer

it went to all news from top 40 and, all news, who would want that? -- that was the same. campaigns are run and politicians are selected, it is change the whole nature of the type of person who is prepared to campaign for the presidency. i think in some respects that is to bad. on the other hand, i like the idea of openness, i like the idea of knowing everything there is to know about the person who is going to lead us, and that is good. -- but thatult itself may detract from his or her ability to lead in that same passion. -- fashion. >> you kind of mentioned this before, but i was wondering if it came to mind the presidency of woodrow wilson, because he is someone who struck me as had a perspective on the presidency that shifted once he got into power. he was a big critic of the executive branch but then realized the restraints of such a position.

, are there other currencies of power such as economics that could be a way to break through and be a more transformative measure for presidency or somebody, or even as recently as obama being quoted as saying he could do more outside of washington than inside. what could be done or what factions could take charge in creating a more transformative role for the presidency or even the country? >> it is interesting you raise wilson, because i will tell you a story. when i was just finishing my book, i had dinner with my m aend michael mandelbau professor at johns hopkins. he is an old friend could we go back almost 40 years together. michael asked me what i thought -- michael asked me what i thought of wilson. i asked him -- he is the scholar, i am just a journalist,

a minor historian, whatever. i asked him and he said there are 2 views of woodrow wilson. absolutely opposite views. some people believe he was a great president. others believe he was a terrible president. those who believe he was a great president look at his domestic record -- he created the federal reserve, he got women basically the right to vote. a whole transformative issues within the united states that he theardly remembered for states. but abroad, he was a disaster. it depends on which kind of president you want to look at. to some extent we face a similar situation today. presidents are incapable of making revolutionary changes anymore. wilson found himself incapable of doing that. his big mistake was probably going to paris to negotiate the treaty of versailles, because you should have left that to --

he should've left that to some of his other aides could he was taken apart for mary visited by world leaders who were much more adept at diplomacy then he ever would be. but in a sense, that is true today. presidents have to choose what is their great strength. they have to understand what the strength is and what the country wants. i would like to see a president who understands what the strength is an concentrates on that strength. if the strength is not international, fine, focus on what is going on in the united states and fix that. if the focus is international, if you can find a way to resolve problems between israel is in palestinians, really find a way to do it, that is transformative, whatever else happens in the world and the united states. no president in recent years is , and most everything presidents when they come to power think they can do everything, that they are omniscient, omnipotent.

>> is it possible for an imperial president to also be a popular president? what is the relationship between someone who is making these decisive moves politically and trying to transform a society that may not necessarily seem very popular at first? >> i think success creates its own popularity. hoe of the -- one of law llande's problems in france is that he is totally unsuccessful at solving the problems he was put in office to cure. the economies in desperate shape, the euro is going to hell in a handbasket. the country is in terrible shape right now. therefore, his popularity is down to the lowest point in any resident -- of any president in the modern era, since they began pulling in france in the 1950's. possibly a

compass anything? if you accomplish something, you become public, regardless of how you put it through. like success. they want to see a president who is accomplishing something, and that in turn feeds on itself. that person in power can really improve -- can increase radically. if you look at de gaulle, when de gaulle came to office, it was a horror show. s before him were changing prime minister's every three or four weeks. he came in and establish a whole new concept of the president. he changed the entire nature of the power, created a new --ublic, and it worked great and it worked. the result was he was enormous the popular could he began to fail -- there were problems knowledge area, indochina, his popularity -- there were

problems in algeria, indochina, his popularity began to wane. success is its own reward in many respects. that is important, to find something you can really succeed in and build on that. yes, sir? >> to change the topic slightly, do you think, given your vast experience, that liberal democracy is the answer for most of this world? is it truly a democracy that can function in cases like the middle east, or is the answer to elect somebody or that that what is beston do for the country without much interference? >> it is difficult. thailand is a classic case right now. thailand is a place i know well.

i was the "new york times" bureau chief in the 1970's after the wars in indochina. there was a very strong king event who was very much in charge, behind the scenes. there was a succession of prime minister's, prime minister's operating with military leaders when there was a coup. the king now is 86 years old and he is failing and health. his son is the air, but the heir apparent. he does not have the competence of his father. there is a huge vacuum in thailand right now. what i would say is that countries where there are power vacuums like that, there will inevitably be disasters, and i don't know what the answer is. it may be that the answer is the military has to come in and reassert control. but it is definitely a problem. we have a problem now in pakistan, and that is a very dangerous of vacuum we have

their. thailand is not a nuclear power. pakistan is. we have to find ways of dealing with countries like that when there is a power vacuum and make certain that they don't get out of hand. i do believe that the ultimate answer is not the end of liberal democracy, that is what you are suggesting. ok, good. >> any last questions? oh. >> talking about democracy and thinking about egypt, i think democracy really depends on the will of the people. we surely could have had people streaming and yelling and burning things because of health care and this issue or that issue. we come to terms. but when people interac -- elect a president and say "we don't want him anymore, let's get rid of him," it can't work

like that. the people of the country have to accept the rules, too. >> no doubt about that. the problem is that a lot of these countries have no tradition of democracy. they have no understanding of how you can remove a leader by democratic means, and it works. one of the problems, of course, is that when a democratic system such as that in egypt is set up, it is set up with -- it benefits one particular aspect of that democracy, in this case the muslim brotherhood. we had a system that was inevitably going to bring the muslim brotherhood to power, and that is unfortunate because that disenfranchises a substantial part of that country that has no interest in having the muslim brotherhood in power. the muslim brotherhood's principal priority is not running the country or improving the economy, it is perpetuating the muslim brotherhood in power. i don't know how you cure that, except by having -- it is interesting, we did a survey, a creationt examined the

of new constitutions throughout the world. there were more new constitutions created in the year 2012 than in any previous time in history, i challenge anybody to tell me what model is most commonly used. all right, since nobody's raising their hand, it was canada's. not the american model. there's not a lot of difference between the canadian constitution and hours. theresystem, canada, no doubt at that. but the reason they looked to canada was not because of the system of government or anything else, it was because -- what kind of a country is canada? the kind of country will -- country we want to model ourselves after? benign, does not force his fist -- system of government on anyone else? it is a nice country. a country where people live in harmony. that is the kind of country that

so many people wanted. we are no longer the model of canada, in most respects, is now the model of the constitutional democracy. we have to change that, find a way to change that. a good, strong imperial president who can take charge and demonstrate the kind of country that others want to emulate. >> since the united states became a democracy, a lot of other states have become democracy and no one has taken the american model. you are exactly right. it is not the ideal model. have come ashey maybe israel in the 1990s. but they push them back where -- pushed them back fairly quickly. >> microphone, please? >> would you prefer the great american imperial presence to be

democratic or republican? >> i have never registered for political party in this country. i am a journalist, have been my whole life. i prefer to defer that question, thank you very much. i have voted for candidates from both parties and i will continue to vote for who i believe is the best man or woman for the job. today,price that we pay as the world policy journal we see the most recent issues here. thank you, david, for joining us, and thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> happy new year. supreme court justice sonia sotomayor or let the countdown as the ball dropped before hundreds of thousands of revelers and times square. the los angeles times, along with another of hombre new -- other news outlets announced the granted exemption to a small group of catholic nuns shielded from having to partake in part of cap -- part of the obama health care law. she acted on an emergency appeal stopping them from facing draconian fines. justice gave the government until friday to file a response to the case. president obama is vacationing with his family in hawaii this weekend is not expected to make any comments in response to her ruling. again, coming up on friday.

plansple consider their for the future, we have posted a facebook question looking at retirement. will retire onu time? post your thoughts at facebook.com/c-span. on fire and is moving extremely fast. mine expires after five to 10 years. after that no facebook, no cloud, no twitter. life.e sliced human there is a work phase and then a resting phase afterwards. i think that we should interlink these phases. we should play and learn to work and rest of the same time. we cannot even afford a single

side to education. span, just before 1 p.m. eastern and throughout the afternoon, ceos on the future of higher education, robotics, and data with the new industrial revolution. former texas senator kay bailey hutchison on the women who helped to shape texas. and on american history tv on c- ofn three, daughters segregationists share their memories of the civil rights era. [rushing water] >> we are in the gallery of the light catcher building up the hatcom is --m -- whatcom these em.

the purpose of the exposition is to highlight the heritage of the frozen frontiers. the alpine region, arctic, and antarctic. this is the photograph of the 2008,and ice, dating from and it is exhibited side-by-side with a photograph by camille , also of east greenland. it is from her last iceberg series of 2006. many people understand the importance of ice for the planet , the reflective qualities that help to regulate the climate, but many people are unaware that there is a collective consciousness and western culture about these regions. so, it is important within the context of climate change to let people know that these regions are fundamental to our identity.

>> more from the watkins museum this weekend, as book tv and american history tv look at the literary life in washington, saturday at noon and sunday at five. >> the national black caucus of state legislators recently held its annual conference in memphis. the session focused on civil rights issues, voter id laws tom a mass incarceration, and charter schools. speakers included the former director of the national action network, the head of the trayvon author,oundation, columnist, and tv host juan martin moderated the almost two hour special. [applause] are we doing?how

i wanted to thank all of you for being here. we are expecting to have some engaging conversation. state officials are here, we might as well get dressed, put a tie on. doug looked at this and said -- this must be a working session, so he said no tie. i was going to take mine off in a minute to make everyone feel more comfortable, since he is so underdressed. doug forgot that this is a conference of black people and we dress up. >> i should have known better. >> for breakfast, for lunch, for dinner, for the after party. the after after party. and then just going to bed. see so many of you taping this. we know that folks are watching on c-span as well.

first we will introduce our panel. it was a smart move for them to leave. texas, the reason people left years ago was it was texas. you know that is right. they came to the alamo and i said come back. we are always kidding and having fun. keep telling him to wake up, that he is delusional. i was joking with our panel, first off. "slavery by another name, the reinstatement of black america." also been the director of public programs at the miller center and has held a weekly public affairs television forum

program and is a correspondent at the washington post. doug? [applause] ofcia bass is the mother jordan russell davis, her son was shot and killed in jacksonville, florida, november 2012, the age of 17, murdered by , who had been agitated about how loud her son and his friends had been playing music in their car. he went on to claim stand your ground. i believe nine shots were fired into the vehicle when the police arrested him, he claims he saw a gun, the tip of a shotgun. the police did not discover any gun at all. of course, she has gone on to the commonsense legislation network and moms for common sense in america.

[applause] all right, next up i want to introduce you to the executive of the trayvon martin foundation. , part of to kim mccrea the nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing gun violence and helping victims thelies, also serving as sounding board and consultant to martin's parents, as well as sabrina and tracy in the loss of their tragic -- tragic loss of their son, kim mccrea. [applause] last, certainly not least, tamika mallory. she recently stepped down as the national executive director for the national at chin network,

reverend sharpton's organization. recently, this past january, she had been involved in a variety of social justice issues and has been recognized by multiple a leading voice when it comes to the critical issues facing our country. give it up for tamika. [applause] as we look at the various issues , in terms of what is facing our country, the purpose of this is to deal with a civil rights platform moving forward. before we go down that path, you have folks determining today what civil rights are. thinking about how everyone is , we need toat term understand what comes along with that.

each one of you, from your perspective, what do you consider to be a civil rights platform, or defined as civil rights in 2014, from your perspective? anyone know? >> i would like to address what is happening with gun laws in this country. it has become an output epidemic. case, with my , we and trayvon as well have sandy hook and aurora, the have seenyard, and we disproportionately what has been happening in the black community based upon the gun law. we have been watching very diligently what has been happening with the loopholes in the law.

taken the federal self- defense law and watered it down. under the stand your ground law you are finding people that are able to use their guns in any way that they choose to. for example, the stand your ground law basically allows a person to use their gun, use their weapon based upon a perceived threat. they do not even have to prove that there was a credible threat. another loophole is that , the individual actually creating the threat, creating the conflict, those in the visuals are able to use the stand your ground law. >> you think that we should view gun control legislation is a civil rights issue? rights.uman >> ok. >> douglas? >> i agree with that. the few -- the focus on human rights is pretty essential. in terms of what we are really

talking about in many respects is not what the civil rights laws say or the execution of civil rights laws or what the constitution says, we are talking about whether all americans, especially young people, know that they can live in a secure society and one that is not pushing unfair obstacles to achievements. i throw it out as a bit of a challenge, people who say that they are motivated on civil rights, they have gotten distracted in many respects. particularly legislators, they have gotten distracted on civil rights, which is about not letting the things that used to happen happen. we have all of these laws in place to stop what used to happen, and what used to happen for the most part has stopped. grotesque examples of civil rights violations around voting and other things have largely gone away, we have these laws in

place to prevent the things that used to happen, and now we are in this kind of technical argument all the time about whether the laws are being fulfilled or not. do we still need the voting rights act? the civil rights act? court justices wind up making rulings on these technical distinctions and we all get frustrated, which is partly because we seem to have lost the narrative of what it is all about. it is about what the society is that we are creating. the young people, the mothers, showing them that this is not going to happen anymore. civil rights is a part of that. i think that some leaders, like many of you, probably need some new scripts, new narratives to talk about these things in a different way. >> how would you define civil

rights in 2013? >> it is so ironic that we are here, one year to the date of what happened. since then we have had 109 laws passed, 39 to tighten the .estrictions people probably say -- hey, we are solving the problem, but guess what? 39 laws are probably more than we have ever seen. you that from ms. mcbeth's point of view, from sabrina tracy's point of view, if there is one law that would help to prevent what they have gone through, then it is a significant change. 17 years old, trayvon martin, walking. he has the right to walk.

he has the right to chew gum. he had the right to do some of the simplest things. person'sels like if a civil rights have been violated only for walking home, you think about something crazy happening in new york when the young kids purchase gum. because it is so expensive, what happens to them? the conversation about civil rights is still abstract. as legislators may be the conversation becomes -- what happens when a person feels these issues? done?hould they have is there something or someone in place that they could call? ore kind of legislation policy in your state to address that? a legal recourse?

moving forward we want to be able to make sure that we are educated in making sure that there are policies in place to make a difference. >> i have seen different groups come to black civil rights organizations and say -- stand with us on civil rights, get when we turn around and see issues very specific to african- americans, those same folks are not standing with us. to get ae be able broad group across the country to understand that you cannot simply look at civil rights based upon your perspective, but if you want folks to stand with stand withst also us. >> that is absolutely a challenge. you know that there are issues and segments, going back to answer the first question, i

think about the civil rights movement of today, that is looking at any policy, profiling , or oppression. if you are determined that those things are wrong, everyone should be involved in addressing those issues. so often you see race becoming a major issue when people separate around things that they know are wrong. we hear people talking about what happened to trayvon martin. although many people knew what happened to him, they were not willing to stand with sabrina and tracy, they just did not feel they were a part of the conversation. if those people had decided that they would stand with us in our fight -- [applause] it is certainly a challenge. i think one of the things we have done, our legislation, community leaders, it is their

turn to deal with the issue. we want to have relationships with whatever it is, with these folks that we see as being grass is greener on the other side, but we do not challenge them on our issues. it is as if we do not remember that they used us in their time of need. i think the challenge for us as we said at this time and we talk about our issues is knowing our values. until we get to the point where we get to the place where we say that our children dying are just as important as what happened in newtown. certainly, the newtown shooting hurt me to my core. and i think about that today, it is so scary to think that your child could go to school and just be killed. at the same time, i am on the streets of new york all the time. annette robinson is here as an assemblywoman, we have seen newtown happening every day.

in brooklyn, in cities across the country. wherever the people are in chicago, in louisiana, and it is not national news. again, we all ran to newtown. >> is on tv one. that is true. that is absolutely true. news. is not mainstream and it is unfortunate. again, we write stories and show up at these events, protests and do these things, but when it is our turn, these people do not stand with us. >> obviously i believe in the civil rights issues, looking at mass incarceration, that is a huge issue. we are going to go through this by topics, like how you create a platform moving forward.

year at aning last naacp event. i had a civil rights leader tell gottenoland, we have more support from her public and reform then weis have from democratic governors. the reason i am starting this, there are a couple appear -- a couple of people appear elected who are democrats. how many of the folks up here who are elected are republicans? none. why am i asking that question? [laughter] i am asking that question because -- if we are talking about secrets with mass incarceration as an issue that we care about, what happens

politically is if there is a republican governor who says that i agree with you, there is a hesitation on behalf of black issue managers not to help them because it might help them with reelection. the question i ask for you, to what is morers, important? your party or reform? >> of principle. >> we are going to say principal. that is exactly right. when attorney general eric holder made the announcement early in the fall about changing requirements in the way that the ,epartment of justice sentences that is more of your problem the vastderal problem,

majority of victims come to state prisons, but it is true that what they have been able to do, as little as it is, being honest about that, and they have said wonderful things about their proposition for conducting, but they have done extraordinarily little. i have a conversation with the attorney general a few months ago saying that i know you want to make changes, but you are the mass incarcerate or and chief. they recognize the difficulty of the question and that the victims of crime who are disproportionately african- american want to see tough enforcement. it is a tough thing. there is no doubt that they have had more support in congress and from republican governors, from conservatives who have been more supportive of the structural changes because of the political views. to that point, we are

discussing this issue on tv one and i had a brother who told a police officer -- yes, but -- i stopped. was -- theirfrom motive is fiscal. that we cannot afford to keep locking people up, keep building jails, he said that his was moral. did not care what the moral was, but that the solution was in place. here. we are being honest if you are a black legislator in north carolina, you're governors republican. if you are in florida, your governors republican. georgia,, alabama, your governors republican.

so, if mass incarceration is going to be a civil rights issue , we will have to work with republican governors. -- i do notight say want to be seen as soft on crime. do you say to leslie that this is what is going to happen moving forward, not getting stuck in the party, from some of your fellow white democrats might not help with the reelection? to knowing our value, right? the community members are not doing enough to push that. as the elected officials, you should not just be able to do what you want to do because we push you and office -- put you in office. we have to be able to speak out and speak to the elected

officials. we do not do that. we vote people into office, elect them to our seats, and then we do not even talk to them again. we do not put the proper pressure on these people. i have to tell you that a lot of times when i talk to members of the community, they do not even know what the issues are, where the governor may or may not be on these issues. in some cases they do not even know who the governor or the elected official is. before we can even get to the answer about how to deal with it , first you have to make the officials feel accountable to thecommunity, meaning community must feel accountable to itself. i know that is not the answer you're looking for, but it is the reality. there is no pressure from the bottom up. once youly that, but have given the pressure -- i have spoken to local, federal,

ande legislators, particularly on the issue that i am so passionate about, it is broad for every issue. where are the people that support what you are saying? where are they? where are the people that believe what you tell me you believe? we do not hear from them. really incumbent upon our elected officials to speak out. you have been placed in power. you have the power, the authority. we have given you that to stand up on our behalf. you have got to give your constituents the tools to speak out. for example, people across the country ask me -- there are not very many minority women discussed, why is that?

i cannot tell you why. i do not know why. i am always trying to recruit people. what happened across the country is happening disproportionately to our people. so, i always say that i cannot answer that. i will tell you that this group, this organization has gone beyond and given people the tools to stand up and say what is important to them. as legislators who devise what it is you need to do, you need to give people the tools. give them an easy, quick way to go ahead and call the legislator. you can provide the information for them. you have got to give people the tools to use their voice. therefore, you are the voice. for us.

>> i would think that most to know who sense the president is, but they did not take the time to know their representatives of the local or state level, or at the federal and connecting on the constituent, who checked opportunity? saying what you support or what you oppose. be conversation needs to given. it needs to be a greater discussion. think about stand your ground. that law passed in 2005. in 2012 everyone was like -- stand your ground?

is that? no one knew about it. it was a breakdown of communication somewhere. as we continue to have these kinds of discussions, often the constituency get stiff see the end of the around up, things and they say that they have not heard from representatives so and so on ask, why, z. if he or she's here at the and not one of your constituents can appeal to you about a better way to make sure. >> with voter suppression laws, it was the same thing.

started running around, elected officials were calling , but they waited until to engage thee constituents. they have to find ways to engage and work closely with their communities. a lot of them are doing a lot of great things, but they are doing it alone for no reason. there is no lack of capacity or energy. we have a lack of organizing people and sticking with a particular plan. the stand your ground issue is going to take a lot of work to gear people up again for the midterm elections in 2014 to get them to understand the implications of what can happen. right?

up whene have to gear we had people engaged and paying attention to the issue? the follow-through is not the capacity or the energy. >> i will agree with all of that, but quick question, any of you from massachusetts? i gave a speech in boston a few months ago and i was astonished justarn that massachusetts passed its three strikes law this past year. with an african-american governor who said he would not sign it, and then he signed it. i was astonished. how could it be that in this age with this discussion you still have places where there is supposed to be real influences from people that care about this , and yet nonetheless? the bigger point here is that there has to be a kind of

mobilization. where are the pro-affordable care act rallies? i miss those. similar to these issues, it is strange to me how often these conversations happen and there are so many people who feel the way that most of you do, but we do not hear from them. the conversations are inside the statehouse. working across ideological boundaries, that is a part of the future and part of .hat i saw a minute ago you have conservatives and republicans concerned about these issues, that maybe the reason they come to the table, but that conversation should not just be about correcting the cocaine typeseen and shortening sentences, but

also let's talk about why it is that the justice system continues to mistakenly convict huge numbers of people -- and the numbers are huge, who did not convict the crime -- commit the crime? we know that, now, from all sorts of studies that have been done. there are really large numbers of people. i could run through the math, but there are large sums of people in prison today for things they did not do. that is just a statistical, provable fact. it is not just that they are unlucky. we fall into that trap. this is unfortunate, let's find a way to help them out, when in reality no one ever tries to help them out, they just sit there forever. but it is not that they are unlucky, it is that we have a system of justice -- i am a bit of a historian on this, my book is a history of how we wound up

with the criminal justice system that feeds our addiction for putting black men into the custody of the state. system this historical that is designed to fail black people in particular, fail anyone who is not part of the main establishment mainstream. worldd up with this crazy where you have people in prison who did not commit the crime, arrested by a black police officer, black district attorney, sentenced by a black judge. all the mistaken actors were white people? in this world maybe it is not so obvious or clear. police chief justice, black managers, black mayors, targeting individuals who were stopped by the police 200 and 48

times. >> and arrested for criminal trespass were going to his job at a convenience store and then being arrested for entering the property where he had a job. these things are going on, but if it turns out there is a hunter somewhere ready to talk penitentiary system reform for fiscal reasons, yes, people should work with them and bring them into the conversation. make, point i wanted to going back to senator ted kennedy, no child left behind, he worked on that with president bush. in 2004, hebush understood the issue and wanted to know how to get it done. i have had these conversations with people over the years. they were not so sure -- how was it going to look?

others, ie you on 10 am on the other side of the rope on those 10 issues, but the issues are the most important. we have seen these laws being passed across the country. we have seen the supreme court rule. laws, i throwarea this out to you, i believe it is a mistake on the part of black and hispanic legislators. to your point, we are framed in the voter support -- voter suppression issue, framed within the framework of african americans and minorities, many of the laws negatively impacting college students, others as well, when you see polling locations being moved. they are very popular, they get moved to a place without many people.

the advice you have for legislators here, in terms of dealing with coalitions beyond background. anybody? >> absolutely, coalitions are very important. i do not think we could get anything done with one particular person, party, or population. coalitions are very important. a lot of times we, our people, do not want to be a part of it because we want the credit for being the one who came up with the solution. >> looks like some of them agree. >> when i was talking earlier about power in the room -- people here that i mentioned, that is a power in this room. we have annette robinson here, the assemblywoman from brooklyn.

i see melanie campbell, the president of the coalition of black representation. lester.o, norma jean deidre malone, a mayoral candidate. i could go down this list of people. is already power here. the question is -- before we leave will people get together and say -- who was on the other side we need to call? when we have conference, is it for us to make conference or have social media? of thewrite the list folks that we need to call. i know that melanie does it all the time. on the affordable care act she just had a rally where people got out information about people signing up. but who joined? who said they would help to

support and lift your voice and encourage. with the concept to leave. that is where we got this from. saying that they have their stuff together, we want to join them and work with them. [applause] so much infighting amongst us, it has been very difficult for other people to join and unite with us, they do not take us seriously. we need to build a coalition, a broad coalition of people that do not necessarily like us but agree on the issue. looking at the voter laws that were passed in texas, using student ids at state universities, but you can use your gun permit? law thatudy the voter

was passed in north carolina, the exact same thing. that was passed by college students, and not just lacked once. i have studied this issue. we have been talking about it on radio and television. what i have got to do is brought in, broaden -- brought in -- brought in the -- brought in the broaden the issue. it is not just about black senior citizens, it is about white folks as well. as part of the platform going forward, we are talking about specific laws, but we have to brought in who the laws are impacting. i was reporter at "the wall street journal" until about a year and a half ago.

as we know, a lot of the people in the tea party movement are create -- crying out crazy as you think they are. bulldozing sandwiches and all those other things the representative described. among the crazies, there are people who are just zealot and then nobody who is 21 or 18 who has the right to vote should be prevented. that is an example where there are actually people in american who, in fact, our potential allies. in georgia, where i live sometimes -- i know there are that was that he did

in georgia by a coalition of groups, local theme party and things should have been passed. and it had to do with support for charter schools, traditionally a nonaggressive issue, but it was overwhelmingly supported by african-americans. it went through because african- withcans are so fed up school systems that have failed them for the last 150 years. there are national alliances and unconventional positions and i think that for legislators this will be driven by them to figure

out what the new alliances will be. >> what is so interesting here is we know what the companies will do. we know that. what are you going to do differently? i agree with what you're saying, thishat is the real take? year? or year after year? what is the difference between what happened this year, the year before, or some other issue? in terms of someone making a difference, i think that that starts now. talking about the coalition, at the important, but same time that is reaching into the pockets of people who do not

expect or require a miracle. they expect the network to be a part of something that is lacking. maybe they do not expect the american jewish federation to come in. when people realize that there is a change in what they are they start to engage in what you're doing. it mostly continues with the normalcy of what we always do. maybe this is a time when it is , butnger business as usual it will be a true legacy for you and your family. >> we talked about the issue of gun control legislation. i would frame it this way and i would like for you to start in

talking about looking forward when it comes to legislation. year on my whole radio show and television show with a phrase that was forbidden. it was created as a negative rather than positive. they embraced the phase on the hill, reinforcing the negative. that does not make sense to me. but i would say that that is the exact same thing when it comes to gun control. people who require -- who desire more gun laws should stop using the phrase gun control. when you use the phrase gun control, you are raising a red flag for the folks who are armed amendment, itnd

immediately says -- my god, the government is trying to control me. if you're talking about advancing legislation when it comes to the issue of guns, should the discussion not be framed around gunfire? which means something totally different. >> and gun safety. gun safety. with our organization we found far less conflicting arguments for those who are for stricter gun control. we are talking about gun violence, gun safety. you have a suburban white mom that believes in the second amendment and who still believes in gun safety. absolutely. we found 90% of the people across the country want

commonsense background legislation. and when you talk about control, there again those individuals in the nra, you are taking away their second amendment right. and so you have to change the rhetoric so that there is some compromise. even within myself and my organization, we would love the stand your ground laws to be repealed off the books and therefore it was

working with a verbiage. understandg i do not -- what are the legislators and who share an hate the law. historically, those individuals are likely supportive of republican officeholders. what i do not understand is why supporters of gun laws have not been more aggressive in utilizing law enforcement to say lawait a minute, enforcement hates this law is. if they hate it, you are not opposing us, you are opposing them. we have been on this issue for long time.

are the sheriffs? where are the district attorney's? >> they believe they have a lot to lose. they are not going to speak out. people say to me all the time across this country -- i really am for gun safety. the governors, the legislators, they do not want to lose their standing. >> but your legislators know how this process works. there will be other things included in the legislation. why did you vote for that?

without realizing it is coming up is removed. in the stand your ground case, in which we are all very aware , there was the pressure. guess what? people start making phone calls and putting the pressure on, it will be different. that will help to encourage you everyday we are losing eight kids each day to gun violence. this still ties into legislation of gun laws.

i have been to numerous protests. i have seen pro-life supporters holding up fetuses and others who had been impacted by and getting an issue when it comes to getting the organization past, i would have 100 mothers with lifestyle pressures on their sons and daughters that have been killed, portugal it -- forcing the legislators. >> years ago it was emmett till. let america see.

they have these binders. not the mitt romney binders. -- she asks for a photo of a young person who the graduation, photo, the class photo, whatever. and i think whatever we try to have a nice discussion about gun as effectiveis not as opposed to forcing someone to actually have to see the niche that is a result. that and roland,

i think it is important to talk about -- we say gun violence, we talk about the area we are dealing with, right? black ontalk about black crime, black gun violence, there is just not enough. the media is not present, not a light onlp shine what is happening. i don't with the death of a four-year-old baby in new york last year. he was on the playground at an who wasr another girl 15, she was stabbed to death in that same part. caskets, order special the smallest one, they did not have his size.

there for the first day, but after that they were not present. his mother has been very involved in the activities. she has gone out to protests. unfortunately, it does not get covered. what happens is our legislators disappear. they show up and then they are gone. they are not consistently dealing with the issue. because those are the people who bring the cameras. asking a dumbfor question, we are talking about establishing an agenda, how many the illinois black caucus? who is from illinois? how many people? >> 30. >> 30.

and going until 7 a.m.. the black caucus will be on various corners. each one of those 30 members one of asked to bring their colleagues from another party, or another fellow democrat, or whatever. you have 60 legislators literally standing in the community where there has been violence, talking to young people about the various issues, where you see the report come on sunday. that is a different tactic. you have a republican legislator who believes in the second amendment and says -- i hear you, but they do not

ownuse they have their experience and you have to bring them to the carnage to understand it. and in new york we went out to the corners, the hotspots, with ministers, black officials, community members, every friday, saturday, sunday night, until 2:00, 3:00 in the morning. i will tell you, again. people showed up. people were not -- cameras were not there, people that -- things started to fizzle away. when you say this, it sounds >> answer, important to

remember, it is true that every member of the media -- i can tell you, we are desperate and falling apart. ago, and when people complain about when the media did this or that, i will guarantee you 99% of the time it is not about a conspiracy, it is about incompetence polls -- incompetence. the media is not the solution it once was, and for sure the big that in tv cameras and changes of course the legislation -- that is not the model anymore. the model is you can make your own media and you are talking about that. you have to do that all over the place. what yourself out there -- >> social media -- >> and it is about theater. journalist, but i will tell you it is the theater of policymaking and the theater of legislating action that does attract attention whether