received the organizations leadership award. announcer: this holiday, book tv brings you three days of nonfiction. on friday, afterwards. at 7:00, arthur brooks discusses his latest book. click the biggest mistake that we make on the conservative side, the one that ships people of the most is the one that should be the easiest, getting happy. cornell west examines the life of dr. martin luther king jr. >> martin understood that for any human being who wants to

reach a level of integrity, honesty, and decency, has a long-distance runner, you have to kill something in yourself, fear. you have to kill something in yourself, europe session with position in status and wealth. announcer: followed by john did forth honor -- author of the -- >> religion does point is beyond ourselves. people, to the, you know, what is it ever may? it is not central. announcer: at 10:00, claire talks about her book. a memoir about her life experience in local state and federal government. >> i don't think we do anybody any favors by trying to dress up politicians as if we are not real human beings that have made major mistakes. and have major problems in our

lives. announcer: saturday evening, it is cut in on national review founder william f buckley junior's run for that mayor of new york city in 1965 and at 11:00, winston groom discusses his latest book. one of the first questions i'm usually asked when i do a tv or radio show is why did you choose these three men from the second world war in my answer is believe, embodied, i oftain characteristics courage, character, and patriotism. on sunday, david patricia looks back at a turning point in world history 1932, the rise of hitler and fdr. at 11:15, alyssa katz discusses her book the influence machine, the u.s. chamber of commerce and the corporate capture of

american life. >> there is a reason that i chose the chamber of commerce as a subject for my book. it is because this single organization really sums up the story of how we got here to this place. announcer: this weekend, watch book tv on c-span2. in 1865, the nation is america's oldest magazine that is still in circulation today. to mark the anniversary, their editor and publisher katrina .anden hoover joins robert rice and a number of others to discuss inequality in america. this is about one hour and 40 minutes. >> thank you. can you give me? thank you. it is terrific to be in san francisco. so many readers and soon-to-be readers, subscribers in this gorgeous theater.

this is the last stop on our trip. 2015 marked the 150th birthday of the nation. it is daunting. [applause] host: this is our last stop in introducing a new generation to the next generation. some 3 million people come to the nation now every week in different forms, so we are proud of that. tonight we have gathered some of the great thinkers, activists on issues of fairness, fighting inequality. for a panel, i think that is vital at this time, at any time. it is a transcendent issue of our time. let me introduce our great moderator, and we shall begin.

ladoris hazzard cordell is a retired judge of the superior court of california and former independent police auditor. she is a long time advocate for repairing transparency when it comes to police misconduct. she was assistant dean at the stanford law school, where she helped develop a program to increase minority improvement. during her tenure, it went to first place for african-american and hispanic students at law schools. she has received prizes for breaking race and gender barriers. she was the first female african-american judge in northern california, the first female african-american superior court judge in santa clara county, california. please welcome judge cordell.

[applause] host: it's like you don't need it. [applause] judge cordell: thank you. thank you so much. good evening, and welcome to today's special program of the commonwealth club of california. tonight's program is cohosted by the nation magazine. i am ladoris cordell, former judge of the superior court of california, former police auditor of the city of san jose, and your moderator for this program. 2015 is the 150th birthday of "the nation" magazine. to commemorate this historic

anniversary, we are proud to present a conversation about our country's inequality crisis, a pressing issue impacting millions of americans, and a core nation issue on which the magazine has long been sounding the alarm. the wealth controlled by the top tenth of the top 1% has more than doubled in the past 30 years in the united states, approaching unprecedented levels. san francisco most certainly symbolizes the inequality issue. the city has been wracked by battles over development, a homeless population that spills onto its sidewalks, rocketing housing costs, and increases in crime. with its gleaming new buildings and influx of silicon valley

wealth, san francisco has the fastest growing income inequality gap in the nation. so what does this inequality mean for the political process? for the environment? living wages and immigrant rights? and in turn, for civil society and the future of our democracy? tonight you will have a conversation with four prominent experts about key problems afflicting america, through the lens of the unprecedented wealth in the united states today. first, a senior fellow at the blum center for developing economy. he served as secretary of labor in the clinton administration and was named by time magazine

as one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. his latest book is "saving capitalism for the many, not the few." please welcome robert reich. [applause] sec. reich: oh, wow. [applause] judge cordell: ai-jen poo is director of the national domestic workers alliance. she was a 2014 macarthur genius and was named one of the world's most 100 influential people by "time" magazine. she is the 2013 world economic

forum young global leader, an author of "the age of dignity: preparing for the elder being in a change of america." please welcome ai-jen poo. [applause] judge cordell: van jones is an environmental advocate, civil rights activist. and he is the cofounder of four nonprofit organizations, including rebuild the dream, of which he is president. he is also a cnn political contributor. van is a yale educated lawyer, and in 2009 worked as the green jobs advisor to president obama.

he is the author of the new york times best-selling book, "rebuild the dream." please welcome van jones. [applause] judge cordell: our final panelist, katrina vanden heuvel, is the publisher and editor of "the nation." she is a frequent commentator on tv and radio and the author of numerous books. her blog appears at thenation.com. please welcome katrina heuvel. [applause] judge cordell: we are going to start our conversation with a

question i am going to throw out for all of you. in a 2014 survey, inequality was the top choice for greatest threat to the world. all of the presidential candidates are talking about inequality. i give you a quote here, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty than ever before. those words are the words of mitt romney. [laughter] judge cordell: so panelists, are we finally at the tipping point? are americans left and right, rich and poor, all in agreement that our economic and political systems are rigged and have to change? has all of the anger about inequality become a great unifier, or are we about to tip? [laughter]

sec. reich: no. [laughter] [applause] sec. reich: should i explain? [laughter] sec. reich: after years of seeing inequality widened, the median wage stagnates. with the rich getting richer, finally we are getting to a tipping point, even among republicans, where it is expected to be fashionable to say something about it, but we are not anywhere near doing anything significant about it. there is one candidate who is talking seriously about it, and a few others who are being influenced by him -- [applause]

sec. reich: but i don't want to make this into a partisan forum. my biggest fear is that we may be as a nation heading into a world war. war can bring out either the best or the worst in nations. it sometimes can lead to a great deal of social solidarity, and some very good things can come out of the horrors of war in terms of the issue of inequality, but it can also bring out ugliness. we have to watch that. judge cordell: anybody else? ai-jen: i think there is other good news, which is that everywhere i turn, i see low-wage workers in motion. i see incredible organizing along fast and workers, health

care workers, domestic workers. fight for 15. walmart workers, retail workers, even the baristas at starbucks. people are coming together, and i think that combined with the vibrancy of the movement for black lives, there is a sense of collective self-confidence that people who are on the frontlines lines of inequality in this country are starting to express. we actually can turn the tide on this, and we are going to come together and build the kind of movement necessary to do so. that to me is the best news in this situation. a great historian of social movements told me not long ago that she does believe we are in the early stages of what will be the next great social protest

movement of this country that will fundamentally transform democracy for all of us. she is right about a lot of things, so i am going to go with that. [laughter] [applause] van: first of all, congratulations. i think that you are right, there is an agreement about the problem, not the solution. but there are right-wing populism's that are very interesting now. in their willingness to take this on. they use terms different than are familiar to us, but you hear right-wingers now talking about what they call crony capitalism, and that is their way of talking

about the way that the government has been captured to protect big corporations at the expense of working people. i think there is a growing militancy on the right and the left. i also think that when you listen to the orange guy, trump. [laughter] judge cordell: john boehner is the orange guy. sec. reich: who else did you have in mind? van: when you listen to him, there is something interesting where there is a style of politics that could be a precursor to something. in other words, i just don't give a dad gum anymore.

there is something that is happening where people who felt constrained, there is just not enough cookies on the table now for people to be polite. the temperature is going up on both the right and left, so i do think the income inequality debate is something we should be very observant of for opportunities on the right. katrina: i think the rules are being written in different ways on the left and right. at the heart of it, we are experiencing a failed status quo of deregulation, of corporate trade agreements, of failure to make public investments, of mandatory sentencing. all of this is coming under scrutiny and questioning. you see it in bernie sanders

campaign and donald trumps. around the world, there are movements like you are describing, both hopeful and not hopeful, whether it is in spain or canada, where it will end will require political power and movements. judge cordell: let's pick up on the political power issue. first of all, this talk about inequality has been around for years. in the 1930's, supreme court justice louis brandeis once noted, we can have a democracy or great wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both. in 1956 "the nation" published an article written by w.e.b. dubois that says we turn over funds to national profit and have few funds left over for education and health.

if we talk about politics, there is a boatload of money left in the lobbying industry. in 2013, apple spent $3.3 million in lobbying. amazon, $3.4 million. facebook, $6.4 million. microsoft, $10.4 million. google spent $15 million, all to lobby. don't we have to hit lobbying to achieve income equality, and how do we do that? sec. reich: clearly we do, and we have to get money out of politics. we have to reverse citizens united. [applause] sec. reich: we have to make sure there is public financing of all campaigns and make sure there is full disclosure of where the money is coming from. it is easy to say what we should be doing.

it is extremely hard to get the power to do it because it paints a chicken-and-egg problem. the people in power do not want to lose power, and it they fear that any fundamental change would be a threat. let's go back to the issue of populism, because it is the core question. we see on the right and left upheavals and angry people, all around the world. this is not just an american problem. but how is that anger utilized? what political organization will do with that anger? this is a great challenge, it seems, because if we are facing a common threat in the form of radical jihadists and, whatever

you want to call it, that anger can be turned into something positively creative, or it can be turned into fierce xenophobia and racism. and ethnic exclusivity. we have got to take a leadership role in making sure that anger is channeled in a positive direction. everybody this fall has to do exactly the same thing. judge cordell: anyone else? van: first of all, from an african-american perspective, the conversation about inequality starts with mass incarceration. it starts there -- [applause]

van: and then moves to the rest of it. ai-jen mentioned black lives, i think this is the most important development of our time. a lot of people got mad because kids grabbed their microphones, and that is their only point of reference, missing the entire movie. you now have a generation of african americans who are coming on the scene, they were 12 years old when obama got into office. they are not impressed with having a negro president. they are not impressed with having a democratic party that will say stuff. they are facing incarceration rates that are six time their peers when they are doing the same things. in other words, black kids and white kids do drugs the same

amount, but black kids go to prison six times more than their white peers and no one is saying anything. and you have a view of the state that it does a better job of punishing than protecting, that they do a better job of hurting people than helping. the sea violence from the government inside their borders in the form of mass incarceration. their peers see it at the borders in the form of mass deportations and all people see beyond the border in the form of militarization. you have a seamless web of violence from the government that does not protect from street level violence, it enhances it and nobody is speaking for them.

and a democratic party that wants to talk about equality. but won't speak of these issues as enter goal to the fight -- integral to the fight. you cannot have a quality if you are labeled a felon. for doing what you are doing right now or what some of you were doing this weekend. [laughter] you cannot have incoming equality if you cannot get a job, a student loan, a business license. so for those young people to hear a democratic party still not dealing with it. i was very impressed, by the way, the only force besides hillary clinton that both political parties had to address in their debate was black lives matter. which was started by three and women --young women, with

nothing but a # and they forced both parties to deal with them. we should celebrate that. [applause] judge cordell: it appears that race is the weapon of choice for those who want to maintain a status quo and draw attention away from any quality. if you look at donald trump and making america great again, that is politics, that is code for let's make america white again. so the question is, is the black lives matter movement focusing enough on income and wealth inequality, should it be doing more in that area? this is for anybody. sec. reich: no.

van: no. you have a democratic party. judge cordell: i think what has emerged -- post-occupy, post-crash, post-obama, there has been a war war within the democratic party, the wall street wing and the corporate establishment wing, which often both have failed to take that into account, you could argue that the sticks apply rightly to bernie sanders. and consciousness raising done for senator warren, people are speaking in new ways. that battle goes on and it will determine the inequality discussion in this country. van: the way i see it is that the visible fight of the party

is between the wall street wing and white economic populists, i mean if you look at reality, there is a white reality. the problem you have is that at the end of the day the republicans and right-wing democrats want black people to settle with trickle down economics and the left wing wants us to settle for trickle down justice. in other words, you shut up, we will not say black, we will not talk about your issues. shut up and we will talk about taxing wall street, social security and income inequality you'll get years -- and you'll get yours, don't worry. katrina: and not schools. judge cordell: and not raising the slogans of mass incarceration and as a result

you have a third leg in the progressive movement, the racial justice leg which has no home , and no candidate and you are talking about dreamers on the latino side, the black lives matter movement, native americans, you have a third wing of the party that no candidate and no voice, not even the pretense of a black candidate can have that and they have exploded into view and they have brought out the best of both wings and i was proud of those young people and how bernie sanders righted himself and responded with compassion. he was taken aback. i think that these young people have brought out the boast of both parties and -- best of both parties, this is a healthy thing they achieved. [applause]

sec. reich: i think what has happened, again i do not know precisely what is going inside in a campaign or the washington precinct of a party, but i thin the washington precincts of the party, but i think gradually, a dawning realization s occurring, that if you have progressives, and they are white progressives, they can't electoral get an majority. but if you have the progressives people of color, latinos and blacks, you can majority in te the america, and that coalition, if you actually can generate that oalition is a winning collation. now, what the democrats have done since franklin d. roosevelt was to exclude african-americans, very carefully., very that was fdr's coalition. working the white, class, and whoever else he could

very, veryter, and a direct exclusion of the southern african-americans, southern blacks. that has been the policy of the democratic party all the way up say, bill ould clinton. bill clinton tried to have a coalition, but the error katrina, wason was bringing in, making alliance with the wall street democrats, undermined everything else. that made it very difficult to actually create a new progressive movement. so the question for the democrats and the question for bernie clinton and for sanders and for anybody else, is if they're , willing to abandon the wall street part of their coalition winning in the new coalition with the people of color. that is the central strategic mind, the nd to my only way we get any kind of the ed america is if democrats choose the latter, not

the former. katrina: so if you have these coalitions. let's say we can actually get together, voting is the bottom line. voting is critical to an society.ian and that said, in america, low oter turnout is the rule, not the exception. bernie sanders wants everybody to automatically be registered 18, but that e doesn't address the issue of getting people to actually vote. in australia, people are fined voting. should we do the same? should we penalize people for not voting, or are there other to go to the ople polls? >> i think the crisis we're witnessing is something related to what bob was just speaking

about. rising ition that the american coalition, the republica republicans, the right sees that, and they are doing everything in their power to suppress the vote, to suppress this coming shift in our country's demography, destiny, politics. the money that is pouring in to suppressing the vote is staggering. tax, to in to new poll jim crow. i think it will take movements to vote.t i'm not in favor of mandatory voting. i can be persuaded, but i'm thinking -- reverend barber in north carolina, mooral mondays, has made a commitment to devote out the ent to get multijustice,cial, multiissue, toward a third reconstruction. havingil rights movement been the second, and in that

reconstruction, rallying people carolina, but rth he's going to travel the country peaking about everything from healthcare to mandatory minimums, to justice, to mass ncarceration, to fast food workers. so i just think there's something in that motion, that we should be aware of the money that has been pumped in, and that should be disclosed. my last point, i think all contributions to super pac should be 100% taxable and the money should go to universal voter registration. this state has done a good thing. [applause] ladoris: does anyone on the panel here think that voting should be mandatory? sec. reich: i certainly don't. i think people will vote when they have something to vote for. [applause] >> you know, i think that part of it is a question of the we could create an agenda for the future of this country where the full diversity f who we are and who we're

becoming as a nation and our interests and how they're interconnected could be rticulated and reflected back in a very compelling agenda that's not imprisoneded by the possible, but e actually about what people need in this country. to ot only survive, but thrive, and not just to some people, all people. when we have that agenda, we will see a desire to different way. ladoris: so both of my grandmothers were the help. they had low wages, no healthcare, long days. today's domestic workers include large numbers of immigrant grandmotherunlike my has had organizations like igents, national domestic workers alliance to advocate for

them. ai-jen, your focus, and van as well, has been upon grass organizing, but there are some who believe that this has been the wrong approach and the way to think about eradicating inequality is by looking down, not up. pundant reallyve said the following: don't rich, help the poor become richer. all heard at we the beginning, finnions rainbow idle poor, become the idle rich. what's your view on that? going about it the wrong way? al-jen: well, so ever since the 1930s when our labor laws were put into place as part of the deal was cut, he

southern members of congress on to the sign natural labor relations act and he fair labor standards act, but they included farm workers and domestic workers, who were black workers at the time. robert mentioned this. and those bills were passeded and exclusions in place, concession to the members of congress and so for more than 75 years, domestic workers and farm excluded from en the core foundation of our labor protections, and the only thing that has changed that over time, more than seven decades, the only thing that has changed that workers organizing at the grass roots level, led by --. . pplause] ai-jen: the first was in the worker from tic tlanta named dorothy, she led

the national domestic workers union and won an inclusion of workers and minimum wage protections and domestic ation of workers organizing in some 30 has won the today domestic worker bill of rights in six states in the last five years. indeed, changing policy and the course of history organizing, s roots and that really has been the only thing that has worked. i would say to that. ladoris: van. van: first of all, i think we should give a round of applies to ai-jen for her work. [applause] van: , you know, i wouldn't dare to add to what she said. - e's just not going to be

even liberals, like urselves, just don't really have the fingertips for what's going on all too often, so we're often trying to solve the wrong problem at the wrong time. whether you talk about wall street or this new labor movement that's coming up. it's breaking all the rules. i mean, everybody applauds now. i hope not to offend anybody, but if you are not the darling of progressives three or four years ago when you were driving immigrant women into the halls of power, that was very weird. and people didn't know what to make of it, and people poo-pooed all of a izing and sudden you won in three or four states, and extended more rights, your movement extended more rights to more people

quicker than anything that's years, in the past 40 exception of the farm workers. this is what happens when people ho are at the boot heel stand up. and so i think, you know, we've people here from human rights and other places. pissed off, oung, dreadlocks, cops bothering me, were much more militant. ow i'm old and on tv and cops -- i find myself in that very frustrating world, you know, on the one hand, on the these blackand then lives matter kids came and kicked us all in the butt and said, screw you, we're getting messed over. so i think there's something to e said for the contribution that's made by people who have a

national dog in the race. ladoris: healthcare did not provide ee system to education for everyone. she said i don't want to pay for donald trump's children. neither do i. something or should college and vocational education be free for all? so other countries do it, why not here? sec. reich: well, i think it's terms of tant, in building the kind of coalition gaininglking about, and he kind of grass roots support we're talking about, to seek a kind of a system in which not only is public higher education free, and i don't think donald trump's children would go to public higher education. but also, that we have a single-payer healthcare system. [applause]

sec. reich: and we may not be this next week or next year, or in a couple of years, but it's something to aspire to. builds and enlarges social solidarity. links tes the kind of between the poor and the middle whitesbetween blacks and and latinos, between americans, thisally, that can support kind of set of institutions, and the fight is going to be long and bitter and difficult, but uilding on something, as you said before, i've just returned from several weeks in red states and red cities. you may have wondered what i was doing there. [laughter] sec. reich: i was trying to flog a book. in the red very well states or red cities, but what i meeting ver, i had a with a bunch of small farmers in

organizing o were against some of the big agribusinesses and factory farms. these small farmers called themselves conservative republicans, but they were organizing against what they considered to be and were, in forces that the were systematically eating away at their profits and destroying the environments. you know, i met with small not only in ers, stature. they were actually tall, some of them. [laughter] business ere small leaders and franchisees in incinnati and they were organizing against some of the big businesses and big again, were who, undermining their profits and monopolizing. across red america, i kept running into people who were organizing against the powerful, monopolists, he and the the fight for 15 people kansas st. louis and city are doing exactly the same

thing. and these people have got to be up.ed he moral majority, not majority, the moral monday people, who i met in raleigh, they are also beginning to wake up with some of these conservative republican groups power he same issues of and wealth ladoris: so i think there's a transpartisan movement here to be built on. and you've been writing about it, bob, because there's so much in our history we could retrieve. there's so much radical history, bernie sandersen talks about denmark, i have no problem with denmark, we inrieve some of that history our own country, but the idea of trust busting, we need to revive that. in the ecall years ago, ight against media concentration and for media democracy, a fight the nation to, you had tral trent lot aligned with code pink, because both didn't like the bigness. they wanted localism and

diversity, and i think there's a of suspicion of bigness, corporate bigness, that if the tea party hadn't been so racist, you could have found some possible alliances there, but you've written about this. i'm not sure i fully agree, but you're saying the future of american politics is between the establishment and the antiestablishment. thinking -- sec. reich: there are two antiestablishments now. that's right, and interesting. sec. reich: i mean, we're finding, in the work that i do, called there's something the green tea movement. [laughter] is that right? i know about the coffee part of it. coffee part is liberal, and there's a black team. we're allieded with the green for all this. it's the green tea movement and is, argument that they make i think, very compelling.

shouldn't every american have he right and the liberty to power their own homes with their bossed r, without being nd dictated to by the utility companies that will tell you when you're going to pay your energy bill, how much it's going o cost, how many asthma inhalers you've got to have in your community as a result of it, and yet you don't have that right in america. there's a green tea movement, a tea party people saying we're dominated by government monopoly power companies telling us we can't own homes with solar and sell that power on a public grid. that's one thing, on the criminal justice side, i think it's very important to understand this. closely with very the far right and the hard right issues.nal justice and i pulled together a summit. we said, if we could get 100 leaders together in washington d.c., left and right, for one

hour on criminal justice, we could change everything. we didn't get 100. for seven hours, in march, including 10 congress people, three governors, two cabinet secretaries, and video, nt obama sent a and that was in march. in february, people said criminal justice reform was impossible. now they say it's inevitable, because it turns out that there's a conservative critique that says, prisons are a big failed government bureaucracy, and gobble up money liberties and do a horrible job. rom a christian point of view, they don't treat every part with respect and there's no redemption possible. from the libertarian point of view, the liberty of individual entities. you say, i don't trust these guys. hold on a second. who do you trust? i can point to three republican governors, deal in georgia, closing prisons, perry in texas, closing prisons. kasic in ohio closing prisons.

democratic one governor in the country that's including ison, yours, jerry brown. katrina: cuomo. it cuomo got pulled into kicking and screaming, a compromise. even jerry brown. my point is, just echoing on earlier.been said the temperature is rising. and there's a liberty and justice for all moment here. iberty, that's republican, limited government, all this sort of stuff. justice, that's us. don't hit on little people. there's a liberty and justice for all moment coming that i think we might find some overlap. ladoris: you're listening to clubalifornia commonwealth program, in commemoration of ary, and we annivers are discussing inequality in

america. our speakers are robert reich, former professor and secretary of labor. ai-jen poo, van jones, former for house special advisor green jobs and cnn commentator. katrina vanda heuvel. former police auditor for the jose and your moderator and you can hear commonwealth club programs on the radio, catch up with us on facebook and twitter and see program videos on our youtube channel. we're at a point where we want to go to questions that have been submitted from the audience. do that, let's do quick inequality jeopardy round. so i'm going to give a quote all up equality to you here, and you tell us who said and remember, your answer has to be in the form of a

question. so if you don't know for sure the answer, just take a good guess at it. it'll be fine. here we go. first quote, republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but conflict, the man before the dollar. a guess. sec. reich: ted cruz. let let. ladoris: anybody else? katrina: andrew carnegie. lincoln. m sec. reich: it's almost ted cruz. ladoris: all right. next one. with n't get rich dealing politicians, then there's something wrong with you. [laughter] van: willy brown. ladoris: willy brown, he said. [laughter] sec. reich: be careful. he knows what city you're in. ladoris: close. the answer, donald trump.

next one. the law in its majestic equality, for business and rich as well as the poor, from begging under bridges, on the streets and stealing bread. anatole france. ladoris: bingo, very good. last one. those are my -- [laughter] ladoris: last one. those are my principles. and if you don't like them, well, i have others. nixon.hard >> groucho marx. [laughter] ladoris: so now we will turn to questions from you all. questions for you all. individuals e enough power to be effective but not enough to be corrupted? sec. reich: can we give a life line?

van: give a round of applause. federal judge. give a round of applause. [applause] ladoris: who is the epitome of justice. absolutely. so how do we give people power, not too much? van: it's all in the balance, and i love that, i think you had some ideas from our earlier discussion. but listen, this is a dynamic system. people want to figure out, you know, geez, you talk to young 2008, and oted in everything didn't get fixed. i quit. i mean, this is a dynamic system we're going to be continuing to interact with and try to improve and learning from for hopefully another thousand years. and so there is no one single answer or one single thing, because even if you fix it today, there's new technologies tomorrow, and y

democracies, they practice. ladoris: didn't you write in your book, that it really isn't corruption, right? say it's people making rules? sec. reich: yes, i mean, the new form of corruption is, in fact, mostly very -- big institutions, large corporations, wall streets, and lso some very wealthy individuals who are buying their way into american politics in he form of changing the rules the way of the market, the way the market actually functions. themselves hink of as corrupt. they think that's just the way hey have to lobby in order to maintain themselves and obey the principles of fiduciary obligation to their shareholders, but it's actually undermining the entire system. question, your r honor -- may i call you your honor? ladoris: i love it. please do. [laughter] sec. reich: as long as we're passing around appreciation, let me just appreciate you. your public service has been

exemplary. [applause] [applause]. . c. reich: and you are both both great u are artists. like brother reich here, you are an accomplished artist. maybe the left brain and the right brain can get us out of this. ladoris: i didn't realize. let's get back to the questions here. ai-jen: can i say one thing on that point? look at, i think if you the healthiest democracies around the world, one thing they have in common is really, really vibrant social movements and so one of the things that we most importanthe things we can do is add oxygen to social movements, because i the context eates view.ood governance in my sec. reich: i think you're absolutely right, and the

greatest enemy of social cynicism. s ai-jen: that's right. that's right. [applause] sec. reich: and every single time anybody detects any degree of politics in our democracy to function as it it can, they are contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy. ai-jen: to pick up on the cynicism, it's very tricky in e because edia coverag we do a lot of investigations as a nation, and you expose corruption. you expose abuse, in the hope that wrongs will be righted. but it can also lead to cynicism, and i think there's a balancing act there. i agree with you. it's not only cynicism. it's cynicism about the role of government. that is so much at the heart of it. i've heard so many people, and the re right, say government is the captured, and on behalf oforking

the people. they're right. you want to take it back, clean working, and show it seems the most important thing you can do in politics, of movements, electoral politics, is to show that you can improve the condition of peoples' lives. wage stagnation. labor, 40, etary of 50 years, you know, african-american communities, white working class, it's brutal, and no attention really paid or no concern really showed until these last years. that will turn people away from politi olitics, from government, from a belief that government can a too often f of sided common good. van: i've been sitting here, and i think she's holding out on us, because we were talking about left-right stuff. you have been able to get people on your issues in a way that i think has shocked a lot of people and i thought you might have said

something during that left-right conversation. insight? ve any ai-jen: i did. i was actually just going to ay --i mean, i've been so nspired by hook 50 and all the work you've been leading on mass incarceration and i think that we just have to get smarter and more creative about how we are connecting the dots between and pain that kinds of people feel in this economy. that we f the things think about a lot is the fact this country is actually generation aby boom is reaching retirement age at a ate of a person every eight seconds. 10,000 people turn 65 per day. call it the silver tsunami, the gray revolution. [laughter]

sec. reich: why did somebody give me a microphone? [laughter] ai-jen: and what it's resulting in -- well, and also, because of advances in healthcare and technology, people are living longer than ever before, so people of my grandmother's demographic are the fastest-growing demographic in the country, 85 and older. the are about to have largest older population we've this ad in the history of country. country. [applause] ai-jen: no, it's a good thing. exactly. katrina: living longer, loving longer, connecting longer if we have the right supports in place. because of the huge demand, the need for care givers is going we ugh the roof, and represent care givers.

the fastest growing occupation care, and on is home the average annual median income for homecare workers is $13,000 per year. so here you have a situation where millions of people, 27 million, to be precise, by the are going to need care just to meet their basic daily eeds, and then you have an incredibly talented but overstretched and undervalued working poor workforce. if we could connect the dots invest in a ually new care infrastructure and the ability for people to afford the care they need so that they can independently, age connected to their communities and this workforce that can upport that independence actually gets invested in such that these jobs become good jobs for the future, right, it's a win-win. people get to age in place, and people get good jobs.

win-win, right. [applause] ai-jen: this is the kind of agenda, right, that connects eople across race, class, generations, and ideology, and we just need that, you know, really comprehensive way in this country, so that instead of polarized,creasingly the long lines of race and generation, we're actually turning towards each other and finding solutions at the places where our interests come together. let me pick up on and ask a question from the audience. hy do the working class, the working poor, so often vote in defense of the 1%? n other words, vote against their best interest, and how might we change that? van: i want to say something about that question. the deal. think this is a question that

ask -- it's a favorite among liberals and progressives, and i don't like it. i'll tell you why i don't like it. there are people who vote self t their economic interests. and there are people in this liberals -- rich help for higher taxes to poor people are voting against heir economic self interests, but nobody calls them stupid. you say oh, that's because values.- our we care so much about our values, our higher values. well, great. i'm a southerner. i grew up in the rural south. i grew up on the edge of a small town. i grew up in public school and was in church every sunday. i'm much more comfortable in red anyplace rica than else.

and that white guy who votes liberal programs is voting against his economic self interests and for a set of values. and if you listen to what he says, he'll tell you, i know wind up hurting me. but i don't want you taking and tryingse's money to bribe me with their money, so you can undermine my parenting decisions. i want my kids to be independent. if my kid makes a mistake, i stolen nt you taking money to bail them out. have a value of respecting other people's property. i have a value of respecting good parenting. i don't like you stealing people's money to undermine my parenting decision. . now, listen, that's value. doesn't help you with china. doesn't help you with a whole set of problems. ut when we come to people and say, you're just too stupid, to and us r own interests,

mart liberal folks on the cuff are going to tell you what your interests are, it's highly it also makes it impossible for us to partner. you se i tell you what, if insult somebody, it doesn't wrong,if you're right or if you've offended them. i go the other way and i say, understand, and i believe that you are making reflect yourat both economic interests as do i, and your values, as i do. so let's talk about your values and how we can make your family stronger. you've got to go around -- let me tell you, the worst thing you can do to somebody is to tell hem that, and i think the iberal on these coasts, i'm going to go on about this. cut out the radio if you need to, but this is important here. i remember in 2004, i had a son big, now he's 11.

at as a little burrito baby the time. and i was with a bunch of other folks, and they had just reelected george w. bush, nd somebody called the middle -fuck-stan ntry dumb- because they didn't vote for john kerry. moment, i'm that part of something very important on the left. nation, i as a remember that moment, and i people is a the politics that is dead on arrival. the elites probably failed, but the people are not the ones to blame. right you're absolutely then, and i think i'll say very briefly, that there's a gop

crack-up we're witnessing, where you have the country club establishment republicans, not with a at is going on base.opulist i can guarantee you donald trump would go to ohio and talk trade, and do real well with a whole set of people, right, left, center, transpartisan. so i think it's an interesting moment where there is a group -- there are people within who you lican party could argue could have voted against their own self interest who are liberals have, waking up saying, wait a minute, i'm not getting my share from country club kind of republicans, but i agree with you, politics blames the people first. going anywhere. van: i just want to say -- i just don't think -- i may have misspoken. it's very painful for me. i just don't think you can lead don't love.u and i think that there's a part rhetoric that doesn't love the middle of the see them in n't

their pain, doesn't see them in their beauty, and almost sort of casts them out in a way. and it's painful -- katrina: there are different lefts, there are different rights. my husband is from owensboro, kentucky. we go every year. you know, you get to know people. we went down there a couple of years ago. we went to owensboro, which is by louisville, and we spoke at big trucks and cars. and i was worried. i mean, you know, i'm editor of the nation. and part of what happens, and just very briefly, as you talk to people, you find common interests. you may not agree on everything, but the idea that everyone has to agree on everything, i've never believed in, but you're able to talk. so much of our media doesn't talk to people. it makes them spectators. it makes them feel cynical. it cuts them out, right. so i'm just saying, there's a this irling around in issue.

sec. reich: i was told that the reason i got a microphone was because my mike isn't working. so you didn't hear anything i've said all evening. [laughter] and that's sort of depressing. i'd like to introduce myself. [laughter] and there's a few things i'd like to get off my chest. one of them has to do -- van, i'd like to speak on behalf of coastal liberals. [laughter] because i'm sure that there are better, perhaps, great middle, the my outh, but actually, experience is that there is a widespread sense, whether it's southern berals or conservatives, or midwestern tea powerlessness. and that sense of powerlessness is almost universal in america except for a very,

very small elite. ow, i'd like to also put in a good word on on behalf of the baby boomers, who have also come in for some discussion tonight. i was born in 1946. [laughter] so was bill clinton. so was george w. bush. so was donald trump. was born o's anybody in 1946. [laughter] and a lot of the boomers, political learnings, and the kind of formidable political about were not powerlessness. they were about power. -- rshiping i mean, we learned through civil rights movements, the antiwar movement, we could make change. and i think what americans need more than ever before, and certainly since the '60s, is a a sense that acy,

they could make a difference. years en teaching for 25 young people between the age of i have never in 35 years, encountered a generation 25-year-olds that are more realistic and etermined to get back this country than the current one. [applause] so i am very optimistic, but i think we can build the kind of coalition that we've all been hinting around, but it has got of mutuald on a sense interdependence, the need for us to have a voice to overcome a ower structure that has becoming completely unconnected, everyone, ed from including coastal liberals. [laughter] did you hear me? because sometimes i feel like i

don't have a voice. [laughter] ladoris: so another question. let's talk remedies. what are the metrics of success reform?u look for in tax for example, ted cruz's proposal of a flat tax. [laughter] ladoris: go for it. sec. reich: there are a number of tax proposals out there that are, in a time of raging nequality, so extraordinarily stupid that almost works. for dea of a flat tax, example, a flat tax necessarily means that high-income people less and aying low-income people would be paying more. that's how you get to a flat tax. so don't have anybody tell you differently. that is going to aggravate country.ty in this it's as bad as trickle-down economics.

it's as bad as austerity economics. voodoo, her version of economics. [applause] [laughter] sec. reich: have i found my voice? [laughter] katrina: i think on the more positive side, i did love it in the nie sanders said debate that president eisenhower radical than he was, when you consider the 91% marginal tax rate on people making over 400,000, which would be equivalent of about 3 million today. i am passionate about something called the robin hood tax. it also has but ranspartisan support, the conservative finance minister in germany, but the idea is small speculation, stocks,

trade, currency, and take that wall street money and reinvest it in main stream, in rebuilding the middle class, and the other thing is tax work, unearned income at the same rate or much higher than work. t is just insane that you have holes edge fund tax loop filling our system. i think bob reich, if we put him here tonight and closed him in the cabinet, could come forward with a manifesto. but quickly, we all know in many ways what the solution is. it's the political -- it's the inequality of political power. back what could be done to make this a far more rational, far more fair system. received a 've number of questions just about capitalism and the capitalist ystem and i'll just put this one here. isn't income inequality just the unfortunate reality of a capitalist system?

van: yes, at some level, but you can get to a level where the up and you lf seizes have a tremendous problem and i think that's where we are. say is g i wanted to that something's happening here in northern california that i you we haven't discussed, know, we're moving into the digital age now. see, since usual to we're talking about millenials, to see a 23, 26, 31-year-old multi-multimillionaire wandering around here in the mission district. [laughter] or people who are listening to this on the radio, it used to be a working class neighborhood 20s, and it's y

now not. so i do think there's something happening and i don't think we you know, past it. there is this technology dimension, and i don't think our conception of the liberal conception, our conception of the state has caught up yet. i still think that we primarily think of the state as a redistributor redistributor, that we are still industrialnd of this ge capitalism, where the production needs to be in the hands of certain people, and the states carry them along by popular movement to redistribute on the nd push back environmental destruction and all sorts of stuff. and i just look at what's actually happening in the economy. say is one thing i can that the future is not being written in laws in washington d.c. written e seems to be

in code in silicon valley, and it gets shipped every day fast. and the ability of the state as we have known it to catch up, let alone keep up, is quite dubious. so for me, the popular movement becomes much more important to actually get change. i don't just mean popular movements to elect candidates. i mean popular movements to do battle on a daily basis, to employ technology on a daily basis, to connect with each other on a daily basis and to be actual moment where change is growing exponentially. i don't think the left should anymore say we are trying to make change. when we e sound weird say that. silicon valley is making change. revolutions happening in bio tech and nanotech, in drones, and smart screens. able to pricko be your finger, put it on a slide,

put it into a machine and print out a copy of your liver in four years. that's real. when you have that much change, change. is not to make change is coming faster than we know. our goal should be to make hange work for our people, to make change our friend, to find a way, whether we can use the aboutment or not, i worry this political coalition talk. whether we can get the government on our side or not to find ways for popular movements to make change our friend, and where government can be captured, great, but i don't think we should leave these communities to the tender market or of the state in an age like this. [applause] katrina: the talk about capitalism makes me think why bob has been traversing the country, going to the heartland. your book is about capitalism. thoughts.to hear your there are many different kinds of capitalism, so --

sec. reich: i think the point s that there really is not a division between governments and free markets, and if we accept away ivision, we've given most of the argument. government is creating the market. in silicon valley, if there weren't a patent system or an intellectual property system that is enforced by the government, where patents and trademarks continue to get longer and longer, where it's harder and harder to litigate against them, where intellectual property is a central subject of he transpacific partnership, where the power over networks in platforms and rd standard software portals is getting larger and larger, and in the hands of a smaller and s, andr number of companie antitrust is not being used as it could be used. very k these are all central questions that have to do with the structure of the

markets. draw the distinction between government and market, and i think that -- i think part people is ng understanding how government is shaping the market, and it's not even a question of the size of government. it's not a large government or small government. the government is working for us, or it's working for a smaller and smaller minority of people who have a greater degree of power over it. the na: does that mean lobbyists then? sec. reich: this is a big piece of inequality. lobbyists and also, political contributions, and relatively er of a small minority to get experts, university experts. ladoris: think tanks. sec. reich: and think tank experts to substantiate whatever they want, and congressional hearings, and elsewhere. power wer, all of that has a compounding effect on the

market is organized. let it tilts the market in the increasingly, of the wealthy, and the wealthy institutions of society. and as the market is tilted in that direction, you see that consequence is for the wealthy to have even more power, and large institutions, large corporations, and wall street to even get more power over the ding t, and that compoun gets worse and worse. it's a vicious cycle that -- unless we understand it, and attempt to reverse it vailing power, we are not going to accomplish much. i couldn't agree with you more, all of you, about the importance of grass roots organization. but grass roots organization is understanding or and recapturing the central society.ions of our [applause]

ladoris: so one of the questions follows up on that. corporations united, i mean citizens united. so we have a couple of questions about what is to be done to reverse that decision. constitutional amendment and one question is what's the possibility of even getting support from the that icans to overturn decision. katrina: 15 states, 600 cities issue repeal, to amend citizens united. obviously, we need a different supreme court. this election is critical, i mean, the next resident will have the power, most likely, you know more about three justices.

hecolleague also writes when writes about this, we must move immediately to repeal. i said john, you've got to give people points along the road. financing, public 6-1, has not only elected a mayor who ran on the most ambitious antiinequality agenda we had seen. let's not forget, he had a lot some uble but is doing good things. but the city council, because of radical nancing, political voices would not have been elected without that. i think public financing empowers people. it's not just limiting money. might nots people who waitress, a n, a sheriff -- not a sheriff, but

movements, an interesting anticorruption trust busting candidate ran with very public oney with some financing, and gave andrew cuomo run for his political electoral life. so i think there are ways to do it, but the citizens united decision, and not just the citizens united decision ustice, but others have compounded and dismantled what have remained and left us in a families, the 8 new york sometimes reported last half of ve contributed the campaign funding so far in this election so i think the politics of power inequality, you begin with public financing, you build out. and i think in cities and states cross this country, you can begin to chip away at citizens united. van: i just want to say briefly opponents have one trategy, big money in, little people out. that's their approach to elections. people out., little

we have a split where you have our movement that talks about big money, and you have the other part that talks act. the voting rights we don't talk as much about citizens united. the voting rights. everybody saw the movie selma. that legislation they fought and died for has been destroyed by the supreme court. and so when you have us over here marching for our basic right to vote, and others we've about big money, got to pull that together. whichuld have one agenda, is big money out, little people in. . . pplause] sec. reich: well, the supreme court, remember, we're talking about five of nine justices who responsible for the van wasshelby decision, just referring to, for citizens united.

that t's not forget, not many years ago was buckley ersus vallajo, where the supreme court found that money was the equivalent of speech. not only are corporate -- you know, to conceive somehow that corporations are people and money is speech. talk about the triumph of big people.tions over little e've got to get one vote, of five votes, we've got to get one vote changed. this is not impossible. katrina, you are 100% right. the next president, i think one of the biggest issues i think in terms of this upcoming election issing who is going to get to be president. i don't generally support tests of, you know, you can only be a supreme court justice if you -- if you stand or this one thing or promise this one thing. believe that the next supreme court justice in order

o be nominated and confirmed has got to pledge to vote against citizens united and repeal it. [applause] ladoris: so let's talk minimum wage. are you in favor of raising the minimum wage? if so, what should it be? katrina: 15. [applause] an on interns making 15 hour. [applause] you know, hillary clinton sided with alan kruger in the debate. there are debates about regional numbers. i don't know what your latest thinking -- i think 15 is the go, and i think we see it oving obviously because it's the power of movement. and by the way, we haven't talked about this, the power of cities and states at a time when washington is in grid lock. seattle, are the great coalition

cities,le, and in other it's moved like wild fire in the word.sense of the sec. reich: yeah, cities and states are moving on the minimum wage. katrina, ono moving, issues you brought up a moment financing, s public maine, recently ohio, connecticut, they're moving on antijerry antijerrymandering. public commissions. one of the great things we did in california was get districting out from under the politicians. i'm very proud to be the chairman of a national organization called common cause, which has done a lot of work, and is now focusing on the states on many of these issues. an hour, d to $15 minimum wage, let me just say this. i understand the position that says, well, cost of living is different in different parts of the country and, therefore, one $15 minimum wage might be too much for another place.

kind of n't make that distinction when it comes to worker safety, minimum labor ds, or child minimum standards or any other regard to with minimum decency in america, and i think that's a given that the in 1968 adjusted for inflation would today be $10.60, and that's not adjusting for the increase in roductivity, the dramatic increase in american workers' productivity, even low-wage workers. inflationust for both and productivity, the minimum than ould be far higher $15 an hour right now. national uld be a minimally decent wage for americans. . pplause]

ai-jen: just a couple of other things about minimum wage, there are groups of workers still excluded from minimum wage protection -- well, up until ago, 2 million home care workers were excluded and overtime age protections because of that 1930s legacy of racial exclusion and the labor laws, and this department of labor actually change rward on a rule that brought those 2 million workers under protections. [applause] ai-jen: i think it's one of the most important victories for that the obama administration, actually. but there are still workers, people with disabilities, who essentially who are still excluded from minimum wage protections. there's a little cause called 14c which allows for some companies and even nonprofits to pay people with disabilities below minimum wage.

tipped minimum wage, which hasn't been increased. $2.90.k it's still lots of e ways in which we need to also swiss cheese of what is minimum wage and secure it, in addition to raising it to 15. so i just want to -- so there's restaurantled by the opportunity centers united called for one fair wage, to tipped minimum wage altogether and raise us all. . . pplause] ladoris: so katrina, there was some reference made, and this is a quick question -- there was some reference made with to the transpacific partnership, we heard mentioned, or which president obama was campaigning. you have called it antiamerican.

call it ms. heuvel: this is a question robert reich should be addressing. i think one of the un-american aspects in the way the treaty was sold was how secretive it was. this is how trade treaties have been sold through time. secretive, nontransparent, the incentives for corporations to be non-patriotic and move out of this country. at its root what i have always fought against is the view the progressive left is anti-compensation. it's not. we covered seattle, we covered the fights against a beauty oh, we covered the fights for fair globalization. it is for whom, whose behalf, how. bob referred to the patent laws. the intellectual property protections, the arbitration secrecy, the lack of access for ordinary citizens to know how

they are being shafted by these trade deals that have contributed to the stagnation of wages over the last, 40, 50 years. i don't know it's anti-american, but is the worst of america. it's not the best of our traditions. i think the fight still goes on, but this was a case where we saw wall street exerted its strength, its power, and the resident worked hard and over time to sell it. and got into a fight, with i would argue, if bernie sanders is contending for this title, the leader of the populist wing of the party for stop senator warren did not back down and spoke articulately and effectively about the reasons why she could see other kinds of trade agreements. judge cordell: we have time for one last question. we have come to the end of the program, so i will pose one last question. if you were elected the next president of the united states, within your first 100 days, name

one thing that you would do to end income and/or wealth inequality in america. who wants to go first? bob? sec. reich: get big money out of politics. [applause] judge cordell: you have to give us a little more. sec. reich: oh. [laughter] sec. reich: the key to all of this, from the standpoint of what this nation can be and what we want, whether we are talking about a coalition of populist, left, right, whether we are talking about a new set of grassroots initiatives, or whether we are talking about reclaiming our democracy, we can only do it if we get big money out of politics. this is the keystone. it is not the be all, end all, but it is the first preliminary

step. if we want to do anything on the other issues, single payer or free public education, minimum wage, whatever you want to begin looking at, you cannot do it if the game is rigged, and it is rigged. i've been there. i've seen the rigging. i've tried to fight against the rigging. i started out in 1967 as an intern for robert f kennedy. there was not all that much rigging then. washington was a rather poor and seedy place, but it has gotten progressively wealthier. of the five counties surrounding the district of columbia, three of them are among the wealthiest in the united states. when i started in washington, only 6% of retiring members of congress went on to become lobbyists, because there was not

that much money in being a lobbyist. now 50% of retiring members of congress, half of them, become lobbyists because there's so much money. washington is a glimmering emerald city. we have to get big money out of that city and out of every state capital. [applause] judge cordell: if we could hear from the rest? ms. poo: family care. a new system to support the caregiving needs of families that would allow them to be more affordable and also improve the quality of caregiving jobs. [applause] judge cordell: van? mr. jones: i know we only have one minute left. ending mass incarceration is the most important thing, i think, that could be done to make it possible for 40 million

african-americans to even have a shot. we have not spoken as much about it as i think we should in these discussions about the economy. so i just have to say this -- you hear over and over again, 5% of the world's population, 25% prisoners.d's that means one out of every four people on planet earth are locked up tonight. in the united states, we only have 5% of the world's population. those are disproportionately african-american, latino, minorities. it is now better to be innocent. those numbers do not tell the full story. one out of every four african-american men now is predicted to have a prison

record by the time they are an adult. it's actually one out of three. that is a repeat of the dehumanization, of enslavement, of jim crow. the idea this could be happening in our country and we continue to act like it is ok or normal i think is something we have to dial up opposition to. there are safe, smart ways to roll back mass incarceration. this has become -- i want to be clear -- this has become the signature, defining issue for the african-american community, period. and you are talking about a population, if you are a democrat, in order for any presidential candidate to win as a democrat, african americans have to support that candidate 60%. no, i'm sorry, 70%. no, i'm sorry, 80%.

no, i'm sorry, 90%. no, i'm sorry, 92% to 94%. you have a political party, the democratic party, that needs near unanimous support from our community, and we have to climb over obstacle after obstacle to vote. african-americans are standing in long lines in the rain to vote. and we elect a party that until recently would not even break its breath to talk about the issue. in fact, was on the wrong side of the issue for way too long. i want to say very clearly, for the latino community, immigration is number one. for women, choice is number one. the african-american community has a thousand problems, but for us mass incarceration, where you stand on locking up an entire generation of african-americans for something we know kids are doing right now, is the number

one issue. anybody -- i don't care who you are, i don't care what you did in 1963 or 2009 or yesterday -- if you grab a microphone and you say you are a progressive and you don't speak about this issue with some passion and some heart and some concern and care, as if it were your children under this level of threat, you cannot and should not count on the quiet support of african-americans. the obama era of black silence is over. it's over. [applause] [cheers] mr. jones: look, i feel horrible, personally horrible.

i started my career working on this stuff for years and for decades, and we have failed over and over again to challenge the democrats to do better. to force the democrats to stop chasing after fear mongering and racism and support the political points off of our community's backs. that is why you are going to see more -- not less -- more african-americans asking these questions, more african murk and scholars asking these questions, and i beg everybody in this room if you hear somebody saying when your thread or anything else, what are these people doing, they are ungrateful, they are uppity, never again, we are not going quietly. this is getting worse, not better. we have been there. the african-american community

has been there on immigrant rights. it was very easy for black folks to come out and say these immigrants are stealing our jobs. you have not heard that. the obama coalition includes latino community and black leadership. they defend immigrants. the black community could have easily been moved against the lgbt movement. our churches are not in the right place on this, but you have not seen any prominent african-american leadership attacking lesbians and gays for 10 years because the black initiative, we say, shut up, these people are part of the coalition. latinos and the environmental issue. the entire congressional black caucus voted for capping trade. we have been there for every contingency down the line. and we insist that people be there for us this time. thank you very much. judge cordell: thank you, president jones. [cheers and applause]

ms. heuvel: very briefly, our priorities are skewed. i would say we must end endless wars as america's engagement with the world. [applause] ms. heuvel: america's policing of the world has detracted from the real security needs, tackling inequality, redefining security at home. and one thing the president could do in the first two hours is understanding the transition and close the 800 bases ringing this world. they are not going to modernize nuclear weap