als, everybody involved. we had this fear. charter schools were not performing. charter schools were still not performing at the level public schools were performing at. we had a couple charter schools -- they were still for-profit. even though they are public, the money is still for profit. we had a couple charter schools are closed with a significant amount of money and the kids were left standing outside. that issue had been addressed. -- she hasmember moved on to another public service position -- in nbcsl. we put things in place. we just said, listen -- if we are going to have them, we put legislation in place. i think all schools are important, but at the same time

he focus needs to be on the children. another issue we are facing -- we are asking the parents to weigh in. we have educational reform that starts in january. we have asked the parents. the parents are getting together in writing what they want to see in legislation for their children. i think we represent a body of people. form thatack to that government is for the people -- if we say we the people, let the people get involved and what we legislatively. they have hired us to do a job. we forget we are making decisions for them, but not including them in those decisions. we have parents groups providing information that they want to see in legislation. i think that will be the answer. >> i agree 100%. schools,ree elementary

high schools -- you look at all driving around. you say, look. you all are going to school at home, on that laptop. does it work? i think that is what it boils down to. that is the last question we can say. i will leave you with this. when we talk about narrative and thetegy, some of you in room have done this. alicia, she has been on my tv show, radio show. folks from other different states as well, depending on the issue -- one thing that you should except right now is there is a significant black media apparatus in this country that i think many of you are not utilizing. >> right. >> if you look at the fact that you have the steve harvey morning show, the reverend sharpton show, d.l. hughley has

smiley., ricky those are national shows. then you look at the black websites out there as well -- we have a daily morning show on tv one. you have an apparatus that is there to get information out. something happens in florida, allen williams will text me. hey, manall and they, -- and say, hey, man, this is what is happening. folksve to get content to at those places. we assume and we say, msnbc did not cover it, fox was not there, abc, "the washington post," "the new york times." but when you look at the number of black news programs, radio stations, we have a substantial

apparatus that is they are. if we do not know what is happening in your state, if we do not know what the issue with, you cannot assume that we do. if something is going down in textsnd alicia text me -- me, hey, we have of voter suppression act out. as an organization you should put together what is the black media apparatus? who are the members? when something happens, be e- mailing and let us know. hit me after the fact when a bill has passed in louisiana, north carolina -- that does nothing. it we are on the defensive. letting us know before something passes, when it is in committee, when it is going up for a vote, it allows us to galvanize our audiences,

bring in troops, bring in support. tamika knows. something happens. they could not depend on reverend sharpton to be the only voice. whom. this is what we are doing. -- boom. this is what we're doing. i will leave you with this charge. you should put together that national black media apparatus and every member get it so you know how to get those stories have ane will and informed vote. all right, around of applause for new members of our handle please. [applause] cook thursday, charlie looks ahead to some of the congressional races for 2014. he is the editor and publisher of cook political report which forecasts election rankings.

2.ve and thursday on c-span c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, reef things and conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public industry. private created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> journalist and historian david andelman discussed 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. 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] >> next, the hidden qualities that make us influential. this conversation was one of several panels at politico's women rules series. make one note you all should know. four evens, and this

is the first time we have let loose on the stage. i know you think they have things to say. i want to introduce the co- author. it is a very hot the book right now. with them is a friend of ours who has cofounded many of these, the list, which is a great tool. we are going to have some fun today. advise executives and politicians on how they can be more compelling. also the issues women face trying to be more compelling and their voice and all these things. the core of their book is advising people on high to -- how to find strength. we know women have difficulty with that.

i am going to let them take it away. strength and war, please tell us about it. >> i am john. where shall we start? the idea of strength and warmth. when we meet for the first time, we pass judgment very quickly. everyone remembers the book now can gladwell wrote. becausedidn't answer nobody had it figured it out, how did we meet these judgments? it turned out they were on the forefront of how we judge another person or somebody judges us. strength is your ability to get whetherne in the world.

it is your poker skills or whatever that may be, you can change the world around you. when you have strength you demand respect from people. warmth is not just being friendly. warmth is being on the same side , so you may have a grouchy person, but they may seem warm to you if they seem like you're grouchy person. aree criteria of what we looking for, the tricky bit is a nonverbally judged by facial expressions and .osture if you are more assertive, you seem stronger, and if you are more accommodating, you seem

warmer, which might seem more like a pushover. seemsing these things tricky. >> the research that went into finding these qualities has its stereotypetural research, and it has its role in gender. when you think about strength and warmth they have resumption that speak to gender. all -- there are cultural presumptions around strength and warmth, where men are presumed to be strong. we lift heavy objects and things considered to be strong. women are presumed warm. these cultural presumptions attach themselves to us as part of what people see when they make these snap judgments, the

same way they make judgments based on our age, our body type, our ethnicity. we are focusing on gender, so this resumption of warmth is where this begins. once a woman shows she is strong and assertive, that is where the tension runs in. it is a hydraulic affect. strength goes up. warmth goes down. this is not news for anybody. the question is what can be done about it? >> that is why i am on stage. fact the work was triggered by a number of things, one being how hillary clinton was treated at the media during the election but also my own experience as a woman who had

opinions and was also a warm person, but one of the biggest triggers for me was the first time i was told to watch my tone. how many of you have been told to watch your tone? i was told to watch my tone after firing off a brief, to the point instructional e-mail about how women would react to this situation, and i was surprised i the pushback. it took a while before i realized this was a common pushback women get when they have authority and start to exercise it. interested inwas the subject. >> how many of you know the name ? many of you know her personally as well. she is an entrepreneur and has been so successful that harvard

business school has written a , and one day a professor had a thought. he was going to teach this case, to do taught, i am going something interesting. he took half of his class and gave them a case. he took the other half and gave them a case, except one thing changed. all of the pronouns changed, so he had them read the case, and then he did a quick survey. what do you think of this person? howard, everybody loved howard. howard was dynamic and doing a great job. howard was awesome. liked heidi. take your favorite adjectives, but she did not know her place.

this was both men and women who found her to be not quite laying by the rules she was supposed to. you think about that in strength and warmth terms, when warmth, it is good. strays straight, a little warmth. that is great. what happens when they project strength? i don't know about that, so that is the conundrum. women projects drank, -- project strength, the b word flies. >> what are we going to do about that?

>> one way is rather than trying hold back strength, that is not the answer. is to project form on top of that strength. what you see is actively projecting strength to overcome iis hydraulic effect mentioned earlier. you have to bring warmth up as well. when you look at oprah winfrey the richest people in the world, the people who have been really achieving this balance of a lot of strength and warmth, they are bringing warmth actively to the lote. we talk about it a because one of her famous lines during the convention speech, which was she quoted a line.

everybody talks about what a great dancer fred astaire was. ginger rogers did everything fred astaire did, only backwards and in high heels. that talks about strength and warmth. you presume warmer and may be less strong. to overcome that you have to project some strength to be taken seriously, and you are a danger, so you have to reject warmth to keep the -- project warmth to keep the b word away. you have to do twice as much. >> for those of us who find this depressing, for those of us who want to be great at the things we are great at and not worry about who we might be offending by being awesome --

[applause] what is an easy thing we can do. smile, butways says, that is true -- my mom always said, smile. that is true. that was good advice, and she had to smile through a lot. >> mom was right. we forgot how much of our professional lives we spent telling men to stand up straight and smile. don't discount me. not a wallflower. anybody from the south, they are

like, how are you doing? there is that expectation. we are talking about actually smiling, actually being happy. that can be tough. finding some way to be happy in reflects a lot of warmth. that is the basic advice we give everybody. there are some pitfalls for .omen >> i want to say there is also some good news. that are seen as leaders than men, so when women use strength to stand up, the studies show clearly when women stand up for norms in the workplace and they are strong on

behalf of either behaving fairly or keeping social norms, they are seen as better leaders than men are. lease of research is so great. when women got angry, what happened? the basic advice is, don't do it. is not true for straight white guys. they talk about getting angry on the floor of the house, and everybody is like, go get them. that is not working. if you seem out of control of

your own behavior, that is very bad. the root word of hysterical is connected to being female. of culturalong line association of women being run by their emotions and out of control. what you can do is what moms and .eachers know well, being stern stern is ok. if you are stern, that means you have decided what is going on is not cool, and you are going to express that as opposed to just react to.

>> sometimes we cry. >> john boehner has made a career of it. about where john boehner is, he is a guy. he is a congressman. he is a republican. all of these things say strong, strong, strong. he could get away with it. it was very tough. there was one famous episode we should talk about a little bit. >> that was very compelling. hillary clinton. >> one of the archetypal case studies of how this stuff works is hillary clinton. this in theout book. hillary clinton when she first showed up on a lot of our radars was back in 1992, and the first

thing we knew about her when she was first lady was this was somebody who wasn't interested in baking cookies. there was a role she was auditioning for, first lady, and if you think about women and warmth, first lady is almost the mother of america, 20 years ago almost more so. said, i'm notn that. >> she actively rejected that. shehe decade before that was the first member of the walmart board who was a woman. she had been doing strength for so better part of a decade, there was no way to say, i am going to sit around and do these resumption. and then there was health care, . ith didn't reflect a lot

was secretive, and i think by 1996. >> they mention the word that came to mind, the number one word was strong. it was not a surprise. it was about the low point as far as her favorability with the public. it wasn't until monica and the sense that hillary was undergoing something that things started moving in the direction of people filling warmth for her. >> do you remember how she started that off? the beginning of that campaign she was very clear of what her challenge was. she did that and succeeded. if you fast-forward after a few years of doing a bunch of strong

stuff, there was this glass ceiling. she had to think about a woman could be commander and chief. -- commander-in-chief. it was confidence and strength, and it didn't work in iowa. shifted, shee and the question was not about politics. the mask cracked, and she was

just a human being. chelsea.d about she talked about wings everybody could relate to. suddenly there was a human being. everybody saw that. >> there are two important things that set that up. two men held up signs that said iron my shirt. that made her more sympathetic. was something everybody saw, you are likable enough, hillary. that made her warm by comparison.

>> she did fantastically well. a pivotal moment for her. >> we have continued to see her as warm through the secretary of state role, where she is a .oodwill ambassador text with hillary? she is cool now. >> we are running out of time. i want you to give these women three takeaways, whether it is body language or a thing to do or say. i am going to start with you, rachel. three things to take away? >> i think watching how you present yourself, one of the things i didn't know but they not sureut, when i am of myself, i up talk because i

don't want people to think i am being too sure of myself, because i am not, so don't do that. if you ever want to raise her hand, don't do this. we hit up. it is a big swing. that was signed for c-span. the third thing i would say is negative ors being victimized. there is an argument thought of that turned out to be a hoax. it turned out to be a hoax, and he created a universal

antagonist. she was an older woman wearing long jeans, and i found that interesting because in addition to addressing gender, they talk about all the other elements. disability,ability, so those are things to pay attention to. when you start to notice them you will be unable to stop noticing them, so that will affect how you perform as well. about standing up straight. the thing we often do when we are a little unsure about something, standing up you cross your legs. you are prattling in some way -- tzeling in some way. yourally you are telling fight or flight hormones to surge instead of retreat.

what you want to do is take up a little more space and be a little bigger and take up a little more of the room then you probably were comfortable doing. if your instinct is to pretzel, be a little bigger. >> there is a great ted talk that talks about research and you want tot stretch out a little bit ahead will raiseause it your testosterone. it is a confidence booster and which ise cortisol, the butterflies in the stomach. we get a lot of questions from ,omen about posture from women's

studies. posture is the most important thing, so you can dress modestly. stand up straight and be proud. i am sorry we are going to have to and. thank you so much. it is very good. >> we look ahead to some of the key congressional races for 2014. see that event live thursday, 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span . journalist, on q&a,

columnist and author gregg easterbrook discusses his latest book titled "the king of sports," football's impact on america. host: why did you decide to name your latest book "the king of sports," >> it's the most important, most exciting and popular game and most important game in the world. america used to be baseball but football now is the king of sports. host: what gave you the idea to do this book and what connection does it have with politics and washington and government? guest: for 13 years i've written a weekly football column for espn mainly but also