he has had so much on his plate, economic crisis, wars, more wars, disease crisis, discrimination against him. and frank writes george bush because he overcame the greatest conflict since pearl harbor and also united the country instead of dividing it like the democratic congress. you can see more comments and weigh in yourself log on to facebook.com/c-span. >> this week on c-span in prime time, three nights of tech featuring the innovators driving companies. >> it should be a bentley or something instead it's just a taxi. and for that privilege of leasing that car for 40 grand a year he gets to be improverished. >> hear from insiders at facebook, paypal etc.y and more part of a special presentation while congress is in recess. >> israel is the most high-tech

country in the world with digital first for g.d.p. growth job unconclusion, health care, education to every location, movement of their cities south, by the way, cisco the partner all the way through it. >> three nights of tech starting tuesday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now a discussion on governance and leadership in the world from the u.s. to europe to asia, that's part of a conference hosted by the rand corporation called set politics aside. speakers include former fdic banking regulator sheila bear. this is about an hour. >> well, hello and welcome back. i'm michael rich. i'm president and c.e.o. of the rand corporation. the focus of the last session, of course, was the middle east

foreign policy more generally there also. the middle east, of course, is a region several hundred million people, hardly any democracies in that region. in fact, authoritarian states, teetering states, vanishing states, an increasing amount of ungoverned territories, in this hour we'll shift our focus to places on the surface that seems stable secure, and even prosperous, but the question is are they and will they be up to the challenges of the new century. it's an appropriate time of course, to take up questions like this. it's the 25th anniversary this month or this week of the opening of the berlin wall, this year, 25th anniversary of the protests or democracy

protests in tiananmen square. in 1989 there was a wave of democratic transitions beginning in eastern europe obviously, asia and even africa. democracy and free market capitalism seemed to have prevailed in that great battle of i'dologists over various forms of totalnism that one of our panelists have wrote. have we reached the end of history, he developed the paper into a widely cited article and ultimately a very famous book. the initial rand paper has a question mark at the end. it was the end of history. over time as it went from paper to article to book, the question mark was dropped. we may ask him about that. i read that frank recently said that the year 2014 feels

different than 1989 and how true that is. russia, of course, now has become an electoral authoritarian regime. it seeks to take bactertry that it lost when the soviet union dissolved. china has an economy that rivals ours but remains authoritarian. the transition to democracy, the transition of the path to democracy in many countries has proven now anything but smooth or straight. in the united states, we of course have experienced a prolonged recession, gridlock no end in sight to that declining confidence in our public officials and or public institutions and in europe, we see an incomplete union which nicholas has written about, says session movements and economic stagnation. hence the need for fresh approaches to governance and leadership and that's the theme for this session.

i think we have got almost a perfect panel to address this. let me introduce them briefly. frank, rand trustee, three or four time alumnus, i can't remember, of the research staff here. he is the author of many rand reports and best selling books including the two volume set on political order and political decay that we're going to get into today. the second volume of this set has just been published. sheila bayer is to frank's left, also a rand trustee. she is the chair of the systemic risk council and for the f.d.i.c. from 2006-2011, a critical time. she is author of "bulls by the horns." she has another book coming out, it will come out this next spring that will explain the financial crisis and its implications for young adults. it's title is "the bullies of wall street, this is how greedy adults messed up our economy." [laughter]

>> i told sheila she has made it easy for reviewers with that title. nicholas is next to sheila's left investor, philanthropist, impressive founder and president of the institute on governance. he has launched through that institute several government reform projects including these three, the 20th century counsel which is focused global governance options, g-20 type structures, the council for the future of europe, and importantly forrest dents of california, the thing long committee for california. he is co-author of a book with nathan "intelligence governance for 291st century a middle way between the west and east." simon is an anthropolicyologist and you'll see how there is a very close tie-in to the subjects we're going discuss.

he does work with rand as well as one of our adjunct researchers. he is contributing to our company and best seller here at rand. frank has done more analysis on the causes of political decay, more thinking about the problems plaguing modern liberal democracies than just about anybody i know. nicholas' book contains some of the most intriguing ideas for fixing the breaks in democracies taking ideas as the title suggests from east and west and putting some of them to the test here in california. few people have thought more about the shortcomings of our institutions for governing modern economies and their financial institutions than sheila and in the end i think it all boils down to the competence and leadership qualities of the individuals in the institutions that we have and nobody better than simon on the quality of leadership and

leaders. let me start with frank. frank, you have done a long way back in history, collected experiences from around the globe on many continents. what does an effective modern stay, a liberal democracy need to endure and can you list the ingredients and what is causing the decay in those institutions that we're seeing? >> well, thank you michael. so this is a really important issue because the difference between 25 years ago when i wrote that original article and now is that back then, i think most people around the world would have looked to the united states as the model of an effective democracy. i think very few people would say that. i mean new democracies are not saying, yes, we want to replicate everything that is going on in washington with the shutdown and refusing to pay back your previous debts and that sort of thing. so it's an important thing for global politics.

so in my view, a modern political order has to three things. it has to have a state which is about power and the ability to use power to enforce laws and provide services, protect the community, but it's also got to constrain power. it has got to have a rule of law which basically sets rules for the powerful. if it doesn't set the rules for the president and the prime minister and the king, it's really not the rule of law. then finally there has to be democratic accountability to make sure the government acts in interests of the whole community and not just the ruling elite. i think americans have a problem in perceiving the world because in a sense the american system is built around the instruments of constraint, around law and democracy. that's what we think of when we think about our political system. we don't think about the state part of it very much. as my mentor, samuel huntington said, before you constrain power, you have to generate

power. you need an effective administration. that's i think where we got a big problem. so my diagnosis of our situation, it's inconcludes of several things. >> i want to ask nicholas whether his definition of intelligent governance is close to those three ingredients that frank just listed? >> frank is probably the greatest thinker, one of the greatest thinker living today in terms of understanding governance and goments. so whatever he says, he is right. [laughter] >> all right i'll go on. to address one of the key issues here, government, why

are there governments? as frank says, it's power. but government is really there at the end of the day to serve the public. it really has a function. the function is one of maybe control, direction, but also service. and the issue that at least we see at the institute is that the service part at least in democracies and very much in the u.s. has become too politicized. so you have to be able to sort of separate the political side, where do we want to go morally ideologically, but also the government service, the bureaucracy needs to be there really to make things function, make sure that people have opportunities, that they're safe, that there is a future for everyone of the individuals. that has to be depoliticized. i think the issue we have in the u.s. and a lot of other places and that's why reform is so difficult in democracies is that it's become much too

politicized. >> with that basis, let me return to frank and let you complete your diagnosis because maybe you now agree with nicholas? >> i think that's a different way of saying what i think was saying. you need a come at the tent executive and administration. the problem we have right now is polarization. something has been measured very clearly by political scientists. it's happened since the late 1980's, that's just a fact of life. there is also a huge group of interest groups, well organized, well funded, supreme court has now said money is a form of free speech so money and politics makes much, much more difference than it used to. these by themselves would not be a problem but for the institutional structure of our country.

founding fathers were interested in maximizing liberty. they were intensely suspicious of strong centralized power, so they created a very complex system of checks and balances in which different parts of the depoft checked other parts of the government. but unfortunately when you bring this together with polarization and with powerful interest groups, it leads to what i labeled a rule by veto where it is extremely easy for well organized small minorities to block things that are in a broader public interest. so that's why we have got this absurd tax code that goes to thousands of pages, it's basically a collection of special privileges. it's why congress has not been able to pass a budget since 2008. i would say that's kind of a primea facea case for decay. >> it's a good lead into a question i wanted to ask sheila. one of the changes that has kurd won't you agree frank, that the economic and financial institutions that government is also responsible for governing,

regulating overseeing are now much larger, much more complex, much more international and, sela how in your experience does that set of trends complicate the governance challenge for modern democracies? >> well, it complicates it a lot. i think a lot of the cynicism and the disillusionment we're seeing now in lack of trust, i thought rogers spoke about it very eloquently, i think a lot of it stems from the breakdown of the financial system leading up to the crisis and the bailouts who helped people responsible for the mess to begin with. it did create a lot of cynicism and a lot of lost faith in government. i think we can get that back, but we're not doing a very good job right now. again, getting back to rogers' remarks earlier today which i was quite taken with and because i think to be a good public servant and effective

public servant, that's why we're called servants, we do serve the public. agencies should not be about political purpose or advancement. they should provide a service. he had a clear understanding of what his agency did. it was to protect the u.s. public against foreign threats and gather intelligence to that end. i'm happy for him to look at my telephone records. i know that a person like that and people who work for a person like that will no exactly what to do and what not to do with that kind of information. we don't have that strong sense of public purpose i think with a lot of the leaders of the government agencies that we have now or if they do, they don't publicly articulate it, they need to talk to the public and explain to them what they're doing and why they're doing it. and so and especially in the financial sector, we're getting a lot of very slow forms, complex rules, they make the tax code look simple, some of the bank regulations that are coming out now. i think again it's because the

regulators are being buffered about. they're becoming less effective and less confident because they know denonet have the public trust, they decent get the public support they need. there is relentless lobbying against it. i think the financial crisis has lot to do with the cynicism that we're having now and unfortunately the government's response to that is not one, it's weakened that confidence even further instead of instill it and making it stronger and restoring it. >> frank and nicholas have outlined in different ways, but quite common ground, the ingredients for an effective set of institutions. simon, what are the ingredients for an effective leader of an institution of the sort they have been talking about? >> well, first and foremost, leadership has nothing to do with rank. authority comes with rank. there are many people who sit at the highest levels of an

organization who have authority but they're not leaders. they tell us because they have authority over us, but we wouldn't follow them. we all know people who sit at low levels in organizations that have no authority but they have made a choice to look after the person to the left and right of them. this is what leadership is. it's the choice to look to those around you and as you gain more authority, you have the authority to look after more people. this is where we trust in our leaders. we as social animals responding to the environments we're in. you take good people and put them in a bad environment, they're capable of bad things, right. we're in response to the environment we're in. the trust in our leaders is the belief, the human intuition as social animals that our leaders have our interests in mind which is why we would devote to them, offer them our blood sweat, and tears and willingly and proudly help them build their vision. when we have the sense, the belief that they have their own beliefs in mind or rather they would sacrifice our lives to protect their interests which is even worse, then we keep our

walls up and keep a safe distance the reason we don't trust politicians, though we may agree with the words that come out of their mouths, we know they don't believe all of the words that come out of their mouths. so we keep a safe distance. it's a very primal reaction which is can i fall asleep at night and trust that this person will watch for danger. can i turn my back and trust that this person won't stab me? if there is any doubt, then trust decays and self-interest prevails. >> nicholas, you have thought a lot about what we might do to change our system here in the united states. can you tell us a bit about the path we should at least consider going down to fix some of these problems? >> well, it's a complex problem and you can't, it's not like a simple recipe. i go back to what i said before and i apologize for that, but

sort of, part of what government has to do is service and that should be depoliticized. at the same time citizens have to sort of approve of their government so they should have the last word. there should be some separation or some difference between serving citizens and giving the power and the responsibility to serve to people who maybe we like and elect. so there has to be some difference there. and to your point of leadership, the question is somebody may look good and be a good leader and be popular, but may not be the best administrator. we have to be able to make that difference. and government has to on the one side be able to attract people who are willing to lead and inspire and on the other hand there has to be an

organization that is capable and has to be able to attract people for that. i would say what is interesting is get feelers beyond this, is government in the u.s. and is government in a lot of western countries really able to attract the best people. is it prestigious rewarding exciting to be in government does the government attract the best people? i was listening before in countries that are rich and this one he is saying, governments have to may more to get better people. i think in this country, maybe that's also true but there has to be prestige. there has to be recognition that comes with serving government and i think that's been lost and so you get the best people? you don't get the best people, you won't get the best service. >> i think that is very true. it is a problem.

it feeds on itself. as people appear for cynical about government and get relentlessly bashed in the press, pretty so do you want to go into that, as it gets more dysfunctional. good people want to get things done, do you want to go in government to get things done? and some people want to use government for their own favor, get a nice job with an accounting firm or whatever, that's not what you want. i think it's a real problem. i think, again, you want to attract people who are committed to serving the public interests, however that has been defined by congress or elected officials, what your agency does, protecting insured depositers, national security, fair collection of the tax code, you need to identify what the public purpose is and i want that job for that reason and not other reasons. it's important too your comment about public servants especially the political heads

not always being administrators. that is a real issue as well. we need better management and business skills frankly and government leadership. i think there has been a slow recognition of that. again, if we can't, you can't have people whoa know how to defend their agencies, execute operationalize their agency in a way that is professional and you need to get out there and explain to people when you're doing it. that helps with staff morale and helps attract people. we had incredibly people at the f.d.i.c. but focus identify with the service that we were providing and wanted to be a part of that. again, you need to have you're never going to be, especially in the financial services, you're never going to be able to compete on a compensation basis. frankly, i didn't want people like that. i didn't want people looking for multimillion salaries working at the fdic, make money

if you're doing the right way. you don't want that to drive the folks that are working at the depoft agency. you want them paid fairly, but hopefully it's a higher purpose of why they're joining you and why they will do a good job for you. >> i was just going to make a comment and frank may disagree with that, but 25 years ago when the wall fell in berlin and after the, as you say the end of history and other important papers and books, who would have, 25 years ago, would you have predicted that today you would have more countries that have become a talk chassises instead of democracies? >> that's not true. >> terms of the large countries of becoming more, you know, russia turkey, india --

>> they were a military dictatorship back then. >> in terms of governance they have become a little bit less democratic versus not. >> i do disagree with that. there are about 35 electoral democracies in 1970. depending how you define it it's 110-114 right now. there has been a huge increase in number of democracies. >> maybe i'm wrong in terms of 25 years. maybe it's 10 years or so. >> in the last eight years there has been regression. >> i'm sorry i said the last 10 years. >> the last few years. >> in fairness, he did say you might disagree with him. >> the point, sorry, the point i was trying to make is that the reason why i think some of these are getting more traction is that maybe they are perceived by the citizens,

right or wrong to be more effective. and the citizens of some of these countries including china have seen the government in some ways perform, the issue we have in democracies is that our governments are seen to be maybe less able to perform and to change. that's really my point. so my point is not so much about a system that system, i'm just saying there is a perception that by letting by a government that is more effective citizens at the end are going to be better served. that makes the democracies harder. >> i'm looking for a point of entry to start changing this situation. so what i have heard so far is that we have a set of public institutions that are not professional, come at the tent service oriented, that one problem is that the human

capital in these institutions isn't as strong and appropriately motivated as it should be at all levels as simon pointed out. one reason for that is the polar zagse in congress which has led to gridlock over complexity of regulations and so on. yet congress is elected by the very citizens that should be the consumers of the services. i was in scotland this summer around the time, just before the referendum. there was very little publicity about campaign publicity, no billboards, hardly any bumper stickers or signs. the turnout in that election, 84.5%. in 2012 when president obama was re-elected, the turnout here was 58% of the electorate. we had a race for mayor of los angeles, second largest city in the united states last year,

16% of the registered voters turned out. how do we fix that problem? >> is it australia where it's the -- a lot of it, you get fined if you don't vote. >> a modest fine. >> i think what it does, it says it's your civic duty. i think there is something -- i get a kick out of our politicians who are getting mandates when they get a percentage of the percentage. isn't the mandate the people who didn't vote? i think the thing that fascinates me is why the polarization. yes, we're polarized. i had a conversation with a member, i congratulated her for the 9% approval rating and asked her what do you think the reason is? she says it's the system. i said you do realize you're the system. so i think one of the things that fascinates me is why the

polarization. if you think about what makes functional organizations functional and it goes back to trust, it's relationships. just good old fashions human relationships. and some damage was done when newt gingrich implemented some of the policies of the contract with america and one of the things he said was leave washington and go back to your districts. there was a time that when you won a seat in national office and federal office, you moved your whole family to washington. you may have fought on the floor during the day. you sat in the bleachers with your opposition at night and watched the kids play ball. tip o'neil they would bash reagan and famously get on the phone and chat as fingerprints as night. politicians spend so little time in washington. they don't move their families there. they don't really know each other of it's just that simple. >> there is a prior reason why that is happening which really has to do with money. >> absolutely. and there is a cost for the

money you make right. with the breakdown in relationships, they don't know each other how can you work with somebody that you just don't know. as you know, you can attest, it's much worse than the polarization of democrat and republican. the democrats don't trust the democrats, the republicans don't trust the republicans. they don't know each other. they don't work together. lacking relationships, self-interest prevails. we hunker down with a friend or two, it's short term in our interests instead of long term of what we can do together. not until we can fix the quality of relationships within the parties will you ever see a change in the polarization. >> of course when there was less polarization, some people weren't happy with that either. we used to hear there is not a dime of difference between the two parties. so how do you fix the eroding social relationships among people who are supposed to work together and compromise while still having some creative tens

and competition of ideas? x it was functional. they would debate 80% behind closed doors and debate publicly 20%. now they debate on the senate floor, for the theater. there is a great irony in congressman criticizing bankers for being short-term interested, when they are only interested in their own short-term gains as well. i for one do not believe that congress is the root of all of the problems in america. i believe that congress is a reflection of america. i think we are the ones who are polarized, the ones who are mistrusting, the ones that have no sense of direction the ones who are quicker to disagree than listen. frank: that is under some debate. my colleague at stanford the status showing -- has data

showing the american public is less polarized than the political class in congress. that suggests there is an institutional -- simon: our media viewing habits would not agree with that. frank: there is a lot of data other than just who watches fox and friends. but it is a debate. so you are right, there probably is more polarization. but i think if you are going to fix it, you have to go to institutional rules. there are a lot of institutional rules that are opposing it. popular primaries were supposed to increase participation, and they have increased polarization . the only people who turn out for a party primary are activists. that is how someone like richard lugar, who was a great senator got defeated by a tea party candidate who goes on to lose the main race. i think actually c-span in the chamber has had a destructive

effect. that has killed deliberation. senators and congressmen do not talk to each other. they talk to activist audiences out there in tv land. sheila: i would agree with that. i do not know what is causing what is effect. they cannot get reelected with 16% of the vote. they do not care. they do not have to deliver. there is not a broader populace holding them accountable. you are absolutely right. the personal relationships were a lot better. they are not there. i think one feeds on the other. i think gerrymandering is a problem in the house. i worked for the senate, so maybe i am biased. i think having a longer process -- the primaries or caucuses are the worst in terms of having a narrow group of activists that

decide who the party candidate is. i like runoffs. i like getting the top two and having them go to the final of the general election, as opposed to these primaries which lead to the phenomenon where you can get elected with a very, very small percentage of the voters interested about you. we need better personal relationships. we also need reform of gerrymandering. gerrymandering has to go. those districts need to be drawn where it is impartial. some states have set up separate judicial panels. michael: i will call on nicolas in a second. maybe he can address this. we started with a discussion of innovation at the city level. and we have this -- been focused on the federal level in the united states, at least implicitly. the question is whether the local level is the place to start. nicolas, you have written about evolution as having some

advantages for reforming certain functions. you have a view about that, whether or not it is expected to see the pushback against polarization may become from the bottom up, rather than at the congressional or presidential politics level. nicolas: i was going to make a point a little bit on the prior discussion, but it is exactly the same point, which is, on big issues that are issues for everyone, if they are debated in public in front of c-span -- you are not trying to find a compromise. you are trying to win votes. and that is damaging. we created a committee, a task force for california. 14 republicans and democrats very prominent. it was a strong experience, but

also ideological views that were not in office at the time. and we had a series of meetings, i think 12 meetings over about a year, to discuss and come up with the proposals on very deep issues like tax reform. republicans and democrats who had ideologically very different views were able, after difficult discussions, but still constructive discussions -- they were able to come up with, i think, very thoughtful bipartisan proposals. that was done, frankly, in a place like this, brand -- a rand environment. behind closed doors not to hide anything, that to be able to deliberate openly. important issues by people who the public respects on both sides. to be able to give that space to political passes on both sides is a little bit what is lacking.

to go to your question about cities being able to potentially be more effective than states or countries, i agree. i simply providing -- simply providing clean streets or water should not be political. it is just, again, a service. so that makes mayors and sort of local officials potentially more effective. michael: let me turn to the audience for questions for any of the panelists. i know the microphones are coming around. people can signal if they have a question. >> you have someone behind you. you will be next.

go ahead. >> this question is for nicolas berggruen. last night, we talked about "interstellar," and the opportunities for governance on a new frontier. this morning, you heard from admiral rogers regarding cyberspace and some of the challenges associated with governments -- governance of cyberspace here on our planet, but internationally. i am curious if you have given any thought to a virgin frontier of governance which might be something like "interstellar" or governance of cyberspace on a grand international scale, and how that might take shape and form contrasted to your comments about the state of california that there is no easy recipe. nicolas: i am not sure that there will be easier recipes for cyberspace. in truth, what has happened -- i think it is a good thing, but

the consequences are enormous. cyberspace has become incredibly relevant. i mean the same way as 50 years ago nuclear weapons -- or let's say nuclear power became incredibly important, for good or for bad. you can create energy but also weapons. the same thing with cyber. the cyberspace is a fantastic opportunity to share and communicate information. at the same time, if we are going to be in a position where we need to understand, between nations, what we are allowing ourselves to do or not to do between let's say civilized countries. our countries going to spy on each other? our countries going to do economic espionage -- are countries going to do economic espionage?

up to what level? what should countries permit or not? to cooperate there and to establish limits i think is going to be incredibly important. and we are just starting this kind of global negotiation. but i think that it -- it is going to make friends and enemies, and could really exacerbate tensions, especially china and the u.s.. >> to you have a question back here? >> i just had a question. full disclosure, i work with nicolas. [laughter] i just had a question about -- nicolas: a spy in the audience. >> the role of globalization. it seems a lot of our focus is on national governments and their incompetence, but they are operating in a very different context than the one they are created. national governments were in control of their destiny in a

way that today they are not. how much of the incompetence we are seeing is not about improving relationships or tweaking our regulations, but more about the fact that we are operating in a context where they cannot solve the problems they face, the cause they truly are global problems, and they are going to look incompetent in the face of that? sheila: i think that is a fair point. but i do think there are things that should be getting done that just are not getting done. i think there needs to be some accountability. we heard this during the crisis the 100 year flood. nobody could see it coming? that was not true. the challenges are good because of globalization. we should have a simple fight tax code. our tax code is horribly unfair. we should not be allowing banks to borrow $25 for every one

dollar of common equity that they fund with their balance sheet. that is crazy. there are obvious things that need to get done that are not getting done. i hate to sound hard-nosed, but i don't want to let people off by saying, it is hard. it is hard. i know that. but we need leadership. that is why they are elected. that is why they are appointed. then it's to be some recognition they have jobs to do. there are clearly things that can and should be getting done and people need to take responsibility for that. frank: if you look at the deepest causes of the financial crisis and the way it was the result of global forces, that you see accumulation of these very large surpluses -- china was the biggest, but they were in a lot of different countries. in a certain sense, the fed was blamed for to loose a monetary policy, but the fed could not control the ultimate flow of funds to the u.s. housing market, because there was so

much liquidity sloshing around in the world. that is one of the areas where g 20 admitted this was a problem. they have not done anything to deal with that kind of issue. and i am really just not at all confident that that is going to happen. sheila: it is worse, if anything. there were some regulatory approaches but at the start of the crisis, we were letting banks take on more leverage instead of trying to constrain it. no mortgage lending centers. they could have turned what was a crisis -- it could have been a downturn. it could've been a difficult spot versus a near capacity. -- catastrophe. local dynamics make it harder. there are still things that can and should be done. to throw up our hands and say it is hard -- i do not buy into that. frank: does and that have to do with the fact that the banking

lobby is too powerful? sheila: people talk about being too big to fail. there is a problem with being too big. i think there has been real progress in regulatory regimes that can let these institutional -- institutions fail without exposing taxpayers. the work needs to get done. they are so politically powerful. a lot of the end-users consumers of financial services, are fearful of speaking up because of the market power. even if we solved too big to fail, there is still this problem of too big, and it makes our system unstable. hassan: i am with the grand middle east board. i have two questions, one for frank and one for simon. frank, last time we met in your office, you said something very eloquently that i remember, something to the effect that instability in weak states, starting from north africa to the middle east and asia, will be a threat to nationstates

democracy. my question for you is, the stagnation in our political system and other countries like ours, which are generally seen as stable and a beacon of democracy -- what will that do to the whole concept of nationstates? and quickly, simon, i had it teacher at usc called warren bennett. he said something that, leaders are like beauty. you know when you see it. so my question for you is, in your research, do you still believe it is something that people are born with? can it be adopted? can they be taught? frank: in answer to your question, i would echo something that nicolas said earlier, which is that i think one of the big problems in the world right now is when someone like xi jinping or putin gets up and they say,

look at us. we are on the move. we are making decisions. and then the point to washington or to brussels, and they say, and look at these democracies that are really gridlocked. i think in the long run, i do not believe that this is the right argument, because i think they have got a lot -- especially russia, but china as well -- they have a lot of problems with sustainability of the china model and so forth. and i think there are resources that democracies, but particularly the united states have had in the united states, -- have had in the past, that have come into play slowly. there is no question that in the short run this is been very damaging in terms of perceptions of the relative strength of authoritarian systems versus democratic systems in the world. i think that is why what happens in our country really does make a big to for global politics.

-- big difference for global politics. simon: there is a difference between rallying people and leaving people. and time is the thing that distinguishes them. we see what we call leaders, and you can throw prudent in there. you can throw hitler in their -- in there. ] it seems to be leadership except for the fact that it does not last. there is a finite quality in the personality or the short-term solution they offer, usually blaming someone else. leadership, one of the things that the sting wishes our democracy -- benevolent dictatorship is a fantastic form of government. the problem is succession. however people want to complain about whichever president is in power, what is always remarkable is the peaceful transfer of power. it is time to distinguish

between rallying and leading. leadership is a skill like any other. some, because of the experiences they have when they are kids, have natural capacity for that. some kids are great at basketball, and some work very hard to become good leaders. but it is a skill like any other that requires tremendous practice. the problem is we do not teach the skill very effectively. when you are junior in your job, we teach you how to do your job. you get lots of training and how to use the computer systems. if you are really good at doing your job we will promote you into a position where you are responsible for other people who do the job you used to do, that we do not teach you how to do that. because you were good at doing the job, we assume you are good at leading others. this is why we get managers. you are better at doing the job than them. you cannot help. we are good leaders. the transition they make -- the

mbas or inside our company, we have to teach the transition where you are no longer responsible for the job or the results. you are now responsible for the people who are responsible for the results. that transition, like becoming a parent, is hard. it takes a lot of practice and is learned over the course of time. it is why we want people to have experience, so they can practice leadership as we promote them up the ranks. nicolas: i was just going to say, on the issue of confidence in democracies -- people here probably are frustrated a little bit. how good is the u.s. at progressing and all that? look at europe. they are all wonderful democracies. and the european union was constructed with the idea, we should have a free trade area, and be peaceful after two terrible wars.

but when you look at europe, it is not able to progress at all. and it is not able to come together, because of some of the big issues like economic development, economic coordination, foreign policy. it is having huge difficulties. in the end of the day, even though they are all democratic environments, it is going to undermine more and more the confidence in the democratic system. and that is really a shame. in some ways democracies are their worst enemies, by not being able to come together and make europe function properly. you have in some cases -- you see it now. you have nationalistic parties in europe that really did not exist in a big way a number of years ago. it is really a symptom, and it

makes it even harder for europe to come together. that is the danger. michael: we have questions your right. >> i think history can be a great teacher, so this might be a question primarily for frank and sheila. the last time i believe we had this kind of partisan gridlock may have been the days of reconstruction after the civil war. at the same time, probably the greatest economic growth we have ever seen, with the rise of rail, steel, and oil. what lessons might we extract from those experiences in the later part of the 19th century? somehow, we got out of it. frank: it is a fascinating question, because you are right. partisanship kind of peaked in the 1880's and 1890's. the country could not decide whether it wanted to remain an agrarian jeffersonian country or a modern, industrial urban

one. that is why i guess you have to temper your pessimism about this country at the moment, because i think in the 1890's, no one saw a solution to this. all of a sudden, you have this realigning election in 1896 that brought mckinley to power. you had great leadership in the form of theodore roosevelt and the whole progressive area -- europe. -- progressive era. they built institutions and fixed a lot of things. i would say that i guess the only thing to keep in mind is that history does not always repeated itself. and -- [laughter] in theory, democracies should be self-correcting in this fashion. but you need three things. you need a kind of grassroots mobilization where people are angry, upset, and want things to change. you need good leadership, as simon says. and you need an idea.

you have to have a concept. it can be a really bad idea. hitler had an idea. you do not want the wrong kind of idea. you want roosevelt rather than hitler. those three things have to come together to really fix the problem. simon: it is important to highlight this sense of vision, a future we can build. this is one of the great things about the american experiment the declaration of independence. we declared what we wanted a country. all men are created equal. this proposes that when we are on our best -- you compare that to the arab spring. everyone knew what they were against. mubarak out. nobody said what they were for. mubarak out. now what? i think that was one of the distinction factors between america and the egyptians. we did not just say, england out.

it started with a vision of where we wanted to go, and you can look at the declaration of independence. the rest of it is, and here is how england is preventing this from happening. i think there is a lot to be said from that idea of where we can go, which is really lacking in a lot of democracies whatever you want to -- sheila: i with that. maybe we have to hit rock bottom, where things get so fractious and bad that people are fed up and willing to give support to someone with a strong mandate. i would love to have a teddy roosevelt on the political horizon. all those things we were talking about. a leader, a strong sense of public purpose. he was willing to betray his own class to break up some unsavory business practices, to help the country and the economy more broadly. i think having that kind of leadership today would be good.

i am not saying it is not going to be difficult and challenging. but i think if you have a strong leader with a vision and a way forward -- i think you have to make some tough decisions in the short term, so people can see where we are going. i think they would support it. frank: whenever we have struggled, our great leaders have always harken back to the gettysburg address, or the roosevelt for freedom speeches. he basically are a reinforcement of the founding fathers. they always go back to the founding vision to keep dust to take us forward. -- founding vision to take us forward. >> thinking about how we teach the next generation to be good citizens, what would you say, if you were on a curriculum committee, would be the right methodology or right messaging for civics classes, k-12? [laughter] simon: mandatory service. frank: i would say you should cert -- first just teach the civics class. [laughter]

the content is not that complicated. but somehow we have lost this sense that citizenship is something that actually has to be cultivated. it does not come to people naturally, but it is a duty that all of us have. we have gone through a couple of generations where we think that we have lots and lots of rights, but no duties. i do not think you can inculcate a sense of duty unless you actively teach it. so, you know, i would really start there. >> a question here on the panel's left. >> i am on the rand icj board. this question is for simon. i hope this does not violate -- we have established that teddy roosevelt was a leader. simon, who do you think, of our presidents or other prominent politicians in the last 50-60

years, would qualify as a leader under the test you have articulated? simon: if we are going to talk current history, i have got nothing. [laughter] sheila, ow. -- sheila: ow. simon: leaders seem to stand for something. if you want to compare the first inaugural of reagan and kennedy, they both use the terms peace on earth. regardless of their methodologies, they are idealists. that is really the difference between them across and republicans, is how we get to the american ideal. whether it is margaret thatcher vaclav havel, or ronald reagan they stood for something, and they existed on a level above their own position. i got nothing of a politician now who seems to exist on the level above their own position and seems to stand for something. and more importantly, who would actually risk their own career for that thing. the election is everything.

i love watching when someone says, i believe in this, and they lose their election, and go do that. -- and they do not do that. did you ever believe it in the first place? pope francis is great. he stands for something, and he stands for something on a level above his job as pope, you know? which is awesome. and he is really attractive to non-catholics too. i think lady gaga is really good. [laughter] she is consistent. her message is positive inclusion, belonging self-confidence. she meets all the rules. michael: i have a feeling that was not the answer that brad expected, but good nevertheless. any others? well, you know, it is interesting that the panel ended up in a different place than i expected it to.

[laughter] and i do not just mean -- i do not just mean lady gaga. because frank's book, to some extent nicolas's book, to some extent sheila passed last book focused on institutions and processes those institutions are responsible for. but in the end, i think we all came down to the qualities of the individuals that both select the people in those institutions and who work in those institutions. pretty interesting circuit that we have traveled. our next conversation, the final conversation of the program is going to begin at 7:00. michael litton will be back, with people from snap cap. -- snapchat. between now and then, we will have a reception back outside, and our bookstore will be open as well. i guess we have books from everybody here for sale.

thank you very much, simon, nicolas, sheila, and frank. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> are scheduled tonight continues with presidential campaign announcements including presidential nominees. it begins with reagan's 1979 declaration. you can see our special lineup tonight at 9:00 eastern. >> february is black history month, and the c-span buses on the road. tuesday morning at 9:15, we will be at florida agriculture and mechanical university in