los angeles to talk about his new book regarding president reagan and the nuclear scare of 1983. c-span's washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern on sunday morning. joined the discussion. >> a discussion on the future of global democracies with former defense secretary and cia panetta and john negroponte, former director of national intelligence. after that, we look at the recent terrorist announced by the trump administration. now, former defense secretary and cia director leon panetta and john negroponte, from a director of national intelligence, discuss the future of global democracies this is . this washington post event two .

as president trump begins a week of meetings in europe, we look at where democracy is showing resilience, and where authoritarianism is gaining ground. is gaining ground. our experts will also talk about how americans -- i would like to thank our presenting sponsors, the democracy fund voter steady group for their support of today's program. please welcome joe goldman, president of democracy funds to the stage for summer marks. [applause] >> good morning, it is really an honor to be able to support this important conversation we are

having today. for those of you who are not familiar with the democracy fund, let me talk about our. it is a bipartisan foundation. we were created by the founder of ebay. since our inception, we have given away about $100 million in grants. these funds have gone to organizations working on a wide array of issues, from reviving our public square, to strengthening our system of elections, to working with our governing institutions in the u.s. to ensure they will fulfill their governing obligations to the american public. no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, the last few years have raised pretty profound questions about the health of the american republic. questions that we as americans are not used to having to ask about our own country.

the democracy fund, we have responded to this moment by expanding our commitment to strengthening american democracy and defending the u.s. constitution. in addition to that, we found it really important to think about what we can do to expand and improve our understanding about how the american public is changing, and what that means for the future of the american political system. that, we have created something that we call the democracy fund voter's study group. it is a group of about two dozen public opinion experts from across the political spectrum. on the right, it includes scholars from places like the american enterprise institute, and the cato institute. on the left, scholars from think tanks like the center for american progress, and the brookings institution. this group of scholars will never agree on everything about what is best for the american

public. they have committed to study together what is going on with our political system, how the american public is changing, and what leaders in washington need to understand about the public. today's program focuses on .rends in authoritarianism a subject the voter steady group has focused on quite a bit for the last few months. some of what we have found has been quite disturbing. found onet survey, we in four americans said a political system in which a strong leader wouldn't have to bother with congress or election would be a good thing. more concerning, we found those kinds of authoritarian views are increasingly polarized within our political system, a trend that could be very dangerous for the future. the good news is when given a direct choice, the vast majority of americans jews democracy. people believe in the rule of

law, they believe in checks and balances, they believe congress and the courts should be at check on executive branch authority. this kind of support should give us some hope, but we can't be complacent. leaders of both parties need to stand up to the rule of law, they need to stand against abuses of power. we need to support free and secure elections, independent media, and we need to support the protection of the very dignity and rights of every individual that our founders envisioned for this country. at the democracy fund, we are committed to work with you and other partners around the country to make sure our democracy remains strong. we are grateful to each of you for joining this conversation we are having today and look forward to continuing it at boulder study group.org. -- voterstudy group.org. and on twitter.

thank you, i look for to today's conversation. we appreciate you being here. [applause] >> now i would like to introduce the washington post mary jordan, who will lead our first discussion. good morning, everyone. thank you for coming out for such a light topic. a nationalordan, i'm correspondent, cover politics around the country, try to figure out what is happening in america. i want to welcome our distinguished guest today. he has been france's ambassador to the u.s. since 2014. an important figure in washington that everybody knows. before that, he was france's

permanent representative to the when -- the u.n. director general for affairs and security, heat was also the ambassador of israel. we also have ambassador of israel before becoming ambassador in 2013, he was senior advisor to the prime minister. and israel's minister of economic affairs in the u.s. he is co-author of the book "the case for democracy, the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror." silva,have ambassador will became ambassador in 2016. he was previously the country's vice minister for environment and held many other jobs, including industry and foreign trade, which is topical. what a powerhouse. we are lucky to have you here today. the four we begin, i'd like to tell you to send in your questions. they will pop up and i will try to get to them.

let's begin. we are going to talk about the state of democracy in each of the regions that you know so well. we can't sit in the washington post and not talk about the news. a lot happened today in europe. the president of the u.s. is over for a meeting at nato. alliancealled the nato and said our allies were delinquent. he said pretty strong extraordinary statements. he said germany is totally controlled by russia. another tweet that he just made, nato countries must pay more. and more with in all caps -- was in all caps. the u.s. must pay less, and then he said very unfair. the tone beginning this pretty

important summit has gotten off to an interesting start. i wanted to hear some reaction to it. ambassador. you'd be surprised, but i am a diplomat up to a point. in ank we need debate democratic alliance, and i think it has started. more important, i think we have to wait for the summit itself. that's the place of the summit. is aseriously, there debate about sharing. there is a legitimate debate about the future of this alliance we have created in 1949 in very different circumstances. let's wait for the summit itself. let's wait for what the president is going to say, but also to ask. it is a debate that we should

have, and i think we will have it. >> let's be a little more undiplomatic and just say what you really think. >> no way. >> how does the style -- does it matter? does the opening tone matter? matters always. i'm french. [laughter] have an unusual president, so it is leading to an unusual way of debating between allies. let's go back to the substance. ist are the subject -- what the substance of the proposals, the request of the president, and the other allies will respond, will tell what they want or what they don't want to do. >> what do you think? >> i am glad to see another

ambassador in the hot seat. it gives me a great deal of pleasure. i think the issue of burden sharing is a real issue for my country, israel. we spend 6% of our gdp on our defense. the u.s. is around 4%, europe is somewhere between 1% and 2%, which is why there is this debate. israel is 6% without u.s. assistance. we also receive military assistance from the u.s., which we are grateful for, it helps us bear this in arm is burden we have on our economy. it takes is to over 8%. how it will work out in europe remains to be seen. it seems many countries are starting to address this. at various degrees and at various speeds. from the discussions i have had, most people think this is a real legitimate issue the present his rating. -- is raising -- the president is raising.

i think he will see something, how much and how fast. effect calling out our allies, particularly germany, who seems to have a contentious relationship. any effect from the words and tone? >> we will see. as the ambassador said, you'll want to wait to see what comes out of it and what the policy will be. it is hard to judge these things in the moment. you will have to look a few years and see if europe is not a greater trajectory of their gdp being devoted to defense. how dramatic 1% or 2% can be, there is a formula of how long it takes your money to double. where itled 72 over n, is the interest rates. if the interest rate is 7%, it doubles in 10 years. if there is a 3% gap between what the u.s. is spending, at around 4%, and a european country, 1%, every 24 years it

means europe has doubled the money to spend on other issues, health care, education, social welfare, everything else. you are now over 75 years since world war ii. you're doubling and doubling in that time. it is an eight time difference. i remember 24 years ago, europe would look at the u.s. and say you don't offer your people health care, you don't top or your people enough of a social safety net. one of the reasons why the u.s. has not had those moneys to do anis because they have spent enormous amount of money defending the world. >> do you think nato will exist in 24 years? -- you are both good with numbers. people are very concerned about these historic alliances. we will come back. >> i think it will exist. >> you don't think there is any danger of this blowing up?

>> i don't think so. i think they have to focus on the mission to finding the coalition, rather than the coalition finding the mission. >> from this point of view, what do you make of what's going on? >> in nato or the region? >> in nato. there is a big focus on the world. huge country, hugely important. what is the view from brazil? from a different perspective. we are not associated, we are not members of nato, we don't face similar challenges nato does. i am an observer, not a partisan. -- not a participant. as an observer, the comment i make is similar to what the one the french ambassador made. needed a discussion is

to the assumptions. is nato as needed as before? the point where the u.s. president goes along quite well with russia, as russia represent the danger it was expected to represent some years ago? >> what do you think? >> i don't know. that is a very different subject. there is a real question about nato. it was created against an existential threat to the free world, which was the ussr. it has disappeared. russia is raising some questions, but russia is not the ussr. that not a unifying threat the ussr was. there is legitimate question about the transatlantic relationship, based largely on nato. anhink we have to create agenda between the europeans and

americans the on a military alliance. we have a lot of issues where we could work together. about whatworried many people in the u.s. are, that this president is too close to vladimir putin? just to follow up on what i was saying, if we discuss assumptions and that we agree the danger is not the same, why should countries have to reach 2% to be more provocative? >> they don't necessarily have to. this game. part of as an outside observer, that's the question i raise. europeans are spending their military budget several times the russian military budget. russian military budget is slightly superior to the french military budget. question about

russia and the personal alliance between vladimir putin and president trump. is that anything to be concerned about? a lot of people in the u.s. are. they feel he is giving the cold shoulder to some of our allies while being cozy to vladimir putin. >> i think it is a very good thing that the president of the u.s. is in a working relationship with the president of russia. the russiann system, if you want to work with russia, you have to work with the president of russia. i think it is a very positive development. >> anybody else? >> we definitely think it is a positive development. a lot of the problems we have in our region i think would be alleviated if you had the u.s. and russia working together. the most acute issue we are dealing with is what is going on in syria.

if the u.s. and russia could come together, and i suspect this will be one of the issues at the upcoming summit, come together on a political process for syria that they can both agree on, which would ultimately insure from our point of view that iran leaves syria. that could be very good and positive for the region. i think there are other places where u.s./russian cooperation could be good. british officials have been unhappy with putin, especially because of problems dying -- of people dying from nerve agents. square the autocratic actions and the dangerous things that the president of russia has done, or people believe that he has done, with this cozy relationship with donald trump? >> this is a worrisome

development, but it has to be checked. we have many assumptions, but i have not seen any documented assessment of what happened. >> look, obviously in international relations you are making agreements with countries that you do not fully agree with. the leading powers of the world made an agreement a few years ago. the state department of the united states is the greatest response to terrorism and people thought that would be good for people around the world. at the threats you are facing, i would be more concerned with the world lighting up with the worst regimes on the planet that represent a threat to israel. the dangerous of giving such regime hundreds of billions of dollars. a few minutes ago, before i walked in, there was a red alert.

which is, when we had to respond to a project out that we did not know what it was, it it went through the area and was sent through syria. we are dealing with the repercussions of the leading powers of the world, many are upset with the relationship between the president and president putin. if you years ago they made an agreement with the terrorism of the world. i do not have any problem with them having a relationship. i don't think they will agree with everything. can lead totionship a better situation on the ground in syria, and if it is good for syria, good for our -- good for their neighbors and europe. a lot of refugee problems have happened because of neglect of the situation in europe. >> dan shapiro, who was u.s. ambassador under obama said

something that is getting attention. he said, i do not think we are fully grappling with the possibility that we could be on the cusp of a new era of fundamental reshaping of the international order. i do not mean over the course of the trump administration, i mean by next week. this is in response to what is going on right now in belgium and nato. what do you think? >> i think he is right. unfortunately, he is focusing only on president trump. he should've focused on the presidency of obama as well. i am used to shocking my american friends saying that the foreign policy a president trump is not that different from obama's. for instance, on syria and ukraine. you have seen the obama anynistration refusing

active american policy. are, it now, what is happening is there is a fatigue for foreign intervention. i am not talking about washington, d.c. i think president obama and president trump have felt it. they have decided in their own way that the united states should be the -- of the world. trend that uss a non-americans have to face. i do not see any major crisis of this important since 1945, were the united states has ton so adamant of refusing intervene. whatever we think of this, that is the reality. that is a major shift.

i think we have to adapt to this new reality. >> changing and reshaping of the world order, the topic today was about democracy. i would like to start with brazil. just give a very quick explanation about the health of democracy, where the person leading in the polls is called the donald trump of the tropics. is that fair? i would like to compare the situation of democracy in brazil and north america with what is going on in the world. i think we are all under a different time. the changes which are going on all over the world, represent a revolution. the revolution means

globalization, this means information revolution, which brought about a sense of nationalists and populist. we never had so many democracies. members, with the exception of venezuela and cuba, the other countries are democracies. anour case, we do not have excess of globalization. we do not have the fear from the immigrants or goods. we can cope with that. our institutions showed to be resilient. we went through a very important crisis. , a recession of anin two years, an d

unprecedented anticorruption campaign. >> but the polls in brazil show that the results of the corruption scandals, and the results of the trump white house trump like character who is running, military is the most revered institution. is the help going forward for democracy as we have known it? >> i think democracy will go out of this difficult transition stronger. people are set up with politicians, with corrupt politicians and business people. they want more democracy, not less democracy. i think this is the general feeling in latin america. we should not misunderstand the reaction of politicians with the lack of commitment to democracy.

people are against politicians. there is ideology and democracy. you have a leftist government in mexico, but you have a conservative government in columbia, and a conservative government in chile. it does not matter the ideology. what matters is that people will like the institutions -- will let the institutions of democracy strengthen. >> what about the middle east? >> israel is the only true democracy in the middle east. we would like to have neighbors , becauseemocratic nondemocratic states tend to fight others in order to justify their internal repression. what it comes to israel democracy -- israel's democracy, it is a tremendous model. democracies are tested under crisis. is her -- israel is the most

beleaguered democracy. egyptianace with our and jordanian neighbors now, but in our history we have had to nol with threats faced by other democracy. we have maintained our democratic values. i was born and raised in this country. as a former american, i am marveled israel was able to do it. i remember september 12, 2001. the fear that there was that there would be another imminent attack. people weret, willing to trade the civil liberties for security. over time, you cherish those civil liberties so the pendulum swings back. israel has been in september 12 for 70 years. there could always be another attack. the fact that we have been always able to keep our democratic institutions strong and vibrant, as well as our institutions of government. and to maintain free press.

>> you do not see it changing anytime soon? >> no. dealing withntries the security challenges can look to israel as a model. i agree with the ambassador. a lot of this is the effects of globalization, changes in the workforce and different movements. it is also to not say the sky is falling when it comes to democracies. >> what would you say instead of the cut -- instead of the sky is falling? >> it is a natural course that democracies always fight. have -- for instance, in israel we have a supreme court. , democracy in israel is falling because of that. i disagree. you had a battle about the role of the supreme court. the person who fought that that is what -- battle was thomas jefferson.

they said, the supreme court in the united states should not have the power to knock out a legislation in congress. this was the person that came up with the bill of rights. >> we only have a few minutes left. >> just give me 10 seconds. i think it is important not to court -- not to cry wolf. there is the natural progress and give-and-take in democracies. this is a sign of totalitarianism should not be said. when you have a real threat to democracy people cannot see it through. hungary, brexit, a lot of worries about immigration, now all eyes are on the alliance with nato. how do you see the world order? we started talking about the changing world order? >> i think it is the first time in my life when political life in america and europe are

comparable. we are fighting the rebellion of some of the voters who are telling us, telling the elite and the political power you are of crying instead wolf we should respond to their concerns. we should listen to what they are telling us. that is what my president is trying to do. a substantial number of our students have been hurt by the economic policies that have been followed in the last 40 years. inequalities been so high. when people say, why? you give this figure and you understand it. basically you say, there is a crisis of the middle class. thedemocracy is based on

health and the well-being of the middle class. we need to have policies address these concerns. response,ight wing left-wing response. right wing response, we see it in this country and europe. on immigration, it is really responding to the crisis of identity of our society. it is a bad answer, but i think goings something that is on. on the progressive side, what is the answer? side -- what the leftist side is telling to the country. we need to have this debate because the citizens are asking us a fundamental question. ignore these questions, if we despise these concerns, the crisis could be -- >> how do we respond?

how does europe respond to what the voters are saying? >> there are a lot of different questions. i think president trump is right to say what matters is fair trade. people last 30 years have said free-trade is globally good. but nothing is globally good, it means some of our citizens have suffered from free trade, from trade which has been unbalanced. we have to look at it. we have to decide what means fair trade. for our relationship with china, for instance. they are going to destroy in the decadebs that is coming. what does it mean? u.s.irst profession in the , truck drivers. you have 4.5 million truck divers in this country.

in 10 to 15 years, what does it mean? the driverless trucks, what are you going to do with truck drivers? that is the fundamental question. >> let me ask you about fair trade. you think what the trump administration has proposed in terms of trade and tariffs is positive? >> of course, no, since the audience is the victims. debate, ilitical , first, should wonder whether the answer is a good answer or the question is a good question. i do think the good -- the question about fair trade is a good question. my president went to doorposts -- davos, that is fair trade. we have to think about the

consequences of citizens on our territories. that int by chance france they have elected five members of parliament. ofhave several members parliament, six were elected by voted communists, because this was devastated by globalization. >> it is a stunning change. macron said the populism is spreading "like a leprosy" all over europe. >> i will make a comment on that. sympathy for president trump's ideal reciprocal trade. we would like to balance our debt that we have ran with u.s. think the case of italy is a very interesting run -- on

e. you have two populist movements. one in the right to the south to the left, and they are forced to a test. -- attest. i think that overcoming will beon -- populism -- when it comes to power. this may take some time, but it is the only way because people are not happy with the political system. it is not working. it does not provide the answers society is waiting for. they are looking for an outside response. >> you have written a lot about democracy. you were born in the united states, you have a great perspective about the world. where do you see populism moving? >> we have to understand and keep in mind the fundamental

moral difference between democracies and non-democracies. nato is not just about the common struggle between the soviet union, with all its issues and concerns it is not the soviet union. nato is an alliance of democracies. one issue is likely turkey is it moving in a different direction? we have to keep this moral difference. populism and different ideologies is part of the democratic game. >> are you worry of -- worried about what is going on with populism now? >> i think it is a natural response to what happens. >> but dying is a natural response, are you worried about it? >> i am not overly worried about it, but i think the failure to distinguish between democratic societies and nondemocratic societies, between free societies and fear societies, this is an ongoing problem.

willis that thing that happen in a democracy and cast it as fascism. cast it as some authoritarian some regime. it blurs the line. the person i wrote the book with said, the worst day of human rights violation is better than the best day in a fear society. thatu do not keep distinction clear, you won't understand why democracies need each other. the reason i have faith in nato is because they are all democracies. i think they will stand together. we sometimes lose sight of what keeps us together and what set -- and what separates us from non-regimes that don't give us the sick rights of freedom are taken for granted. i am so concerned because we have to keep the program going. the big meeting in nato is ahead of us. two, could each

of you talk about if you want nato to stay strong as it is? if you could say the importance of nato. >> i think nato has been important in the past. i don't know whether to take into the account of the present turn theer if it could discussions of nato is a crucial issue. from that discussion you may develop an indication of how much each country should invest in defense. if you keep seeing nato as what war, is during the cold think we are misleading the discussion. >> do we need nato more or less as it is now? >> nato should be expanded to

include all democracies. a body internationally that can unite all democracies and act together to defend freedom and predict -- protect democracies. >> who should be added? , israel,try like japan india. andhave to take nato redefine its mission. expanded, redefine it, democratic societies should stand together. to defende it democracy and freedom. i said the percentage of the gdp. israel has been blessed i the fact that the united states has devoted these resources for the last 75 years to defending democracy around the world. for the u.s., all democracies around the world would suffer. that,ans understand democracies in asian understand that and israel understands

that. >> of course nato has to survive, but to survive there are two concessions -- conditions. handleould be able to their own affairs by themselves, without calling the americans as soon as there is a struggle. that's why the french has pushed to be moren union ha active in defense. theave to extend beyond military side of the alliance. we need to define a positive agenda. we have a lot of issues on which we can work together. >> the last and crucial question, the world cup. [laughter] >> congratulations to france. the egg, big game today -- big, big game today. would you rather go against

croatia or england? >> england, of course. for the centuries we have been fighting. >> do you think you have a better chance of beating them? >> of course. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] now i want to turn over to my colleague who will have the next discussion. thank you for all those here and for those listening online. r here.going over

good morning, my name is karen. im the global opinions editor here at the "washington post." hilton, host of a show on fox news. he is a former senior adviser to david cameron and the author of a new book. is john,ext to him currently the vice chairman. he served as the first director of national intelligence under president george w. bush.

previously as ambassador to honduras, iraq, mexico, the philippines and the united nations. i would like to remind the audience to complete their questions to us using the #postlive. withd a robust discussion the ambassadors previously. we will get into the discussions about nato and democracy. i want to start with this with everything that is happening with populism, the current administration, with the rise of populist forces around the world, are we in a revolutionary moment for democracy? i want to start off with you mr. negroponte, because you have such -- you have had such a long career. over 40 years of experience. given what you have seen, where are we right now?

are we in a revolutionary moment? mr. negroponte: i am not the one who is about to publish a book. i look forward to what steve has to say. what i would say is, regarding the state of democracy in the world, if you look back at my foreign service career, i was to of the last appointees the fine service of the eisenhower administration. span of time, i think the march of democracy has been nothing short of impressive. america,ok at latin the picture has changed and everything is looking much better. mentionssador of brazil that, with the exception of cuba and venezuela, the rest of the map is colored green. if you lose the color scheme of some of the ngos. -- angios. is moving to a more

responsible government. with the fall of the soviet union, eastern europe has been liberated. i think the overall trend has been positive. to try to make generalizations m or another spreading like wildfire around the world, it would be perhaps going too far. this comes from years of doing political analysis in the nine different postings that i have had. at thee to look particular circumstances of each country you are in. his dog, geographic, economic and so forth, to really grasp what is going on in these countries. with that backdrop of your experience, what is happening now in the realm of

democracy and perhaps democracy promotion that gives you hope? youuld also ask, what gives the most anxiety or fear about the state of democracy today? mr. negroponte: there are examples on both sides of that ledger. in our own hemisphere i would worry about what is happening in venezuela, which has been a failed state for some time. the economy is plummeting. here is the country with the largest oil reserve that has managed to mismanage itself into oblivion. refugees are fleeing to neighboring countries. is anternational community little bit at a loss as to what to do. nobody wants to see us go into mode, as whatnist we might have done in the 19th century. we do not even know if it would work.

.here are hopeful developments two recent examples, one is columbia. neighboring venezuela, which has made tremendous advances and thanks in part to some nationbuilding support from the united states. i would call it nationbuilding light. when we get to regime change, occupation or a nationbuilding, the opportunities to make mistakes or greater. we supported colombia in a very effective way. what was important was their willingness to develop themselves. sort of a bottom line, democracy can be helpful in facilitating a number of different things, but in the it really depends on is the political will and desire to accomplish the democratic

objectives. of that idea of the local citizens themselves and encouraging them to play greater roles in their democracy, i want ofturn to the question populism. we hear it so much more in the last two years or so. steve, you have written about this concept of positive populism. you are literally talking about revolution. can you explain about positive populism? the word has a negative connotation. we can go into those reasons why later. are we in a revolutionary moment? what is positive populism? and could it play a role in this climate? >> happy to get into all of that. thank you for allowing me to participate. what a great event and it is a pleasure to be here. one and expect that pleasure

from this morning was to welcome the french and bass that are into the fold of populism. i thought he did a great job of explaining the populist sentiment and seemed to agree with it. that was in and expect to treat. the way that i put it is this. expression ofn revolutionary sentiment over the past few years. ,ou have seen that with brexit then with the 2016 elections here. not just with donald trump what also bernie sanders, europe and more recently in mexico. you are seeing this expression of a desire for big change. i would not say that that has translated yet into the actual changes that will deal with the problems that have given rise to that sentiment. that is why i tried to set out

an agenda for populism. one that is positive and brings into play the things that the french ambassador was talking about. policies to deal with the issues that have caused this. that is how i would describe that. point, the important when we bring that conversation back to the theme of today, democracy, challenging today and the status quo represents democracy and the challenge is a threat to democracy. for a lot of people, there has not been democracy at all. across theerience world, for the last 40 years or so, it does not matter who you voted for in actual elections, you get the same results. the same result is, the rich got richer, and as the ambassador

true inlf the country, america, the u.k. and other places, got poorer. we use it as income stagnation. if you go back and look at the income data in america, there is a fall in real terms. -- for mostkers workers in america, incomes have fallen. 1972.asurement is since thatis a long-term trend has hurt working people and they want change. regimeracteristic of the -- the characteristics of the regime that has been in place whether the democrats have one republicans, who ever -- whoever who has one is the same thing. positive about automation and the economy, unlimited immigration, and above all, centralization. that is the defining

characteristic of the last few decades. you have seen a concentration of power. centralization has taken place. both in government, where power has been taken from a lick it officials. -- from elected officials. but also in the economy where you have seen businesses get bigger and bigger mergers. on the government side, it has left people feeling that they have this of dorian terry and government -- authoritarian government that treats people differently. people feel like they treat their workers with content on the other side. what we need now is structural change in government and the economy so we can make the populist revolution popular for working people. karen: i want to come to this topic because we have brexit. .> we don't have brexit karen: what we do not have it,

but i want to talk about it. the theme of taking power away from the eu, you made headlines by breaking with david cameron over brexit. you publicly supported brexit and he said membership in the eu makes britain ungovernable. resignationsn the --s week of course johnson what do you say of the resignations this week, and the critics who never gave coherent alternatives for the eu? talk to my american friends about the eu and brexit, there has been this assumption that the eu is basically a european version of nafta. therefore, people are mystified by brexit. equivalent ofthe

american context is not nafta, but the federal government. the eu is the federal government for europe. the difference is, at least in america, the president is elected. congress is a lack it. the decision-making and eu is notng for the elected. they drive policy in the eu and the result of that, as i have experienced trying to implement an agenda, it turned out that most of the policy work in government, most of the implementation that we did was thatmenting eu policies nobody in the u.k. voted for. mostly we disagreed with. that is the reason i argued we should leave the eu and have a position for a long time. coming back to where we are, it is not correct to say that that

those who argued for brexit did not have a positive vision, it is just that, what you ended up for was a prime minister that opposed brexit. therefore they were in a mindset that brexit was a threat to be handled and managed, rather than an opportunity to be seized. my point is, the truth about brexit is, what will help her in succeed inbritain the years ahead is not the deal you reached with the eu, it is uk's government policies on taxes, employment and investing on education. those being should be within the control. that is what matters. they have been so held down in this bureaucratic being what they eu, they have not focused on doing something positive. karen: i would like to get your thoughts about the brexit situation? mr. negroponte: i am married to

an english lady who wanted to keep britain in europe act in 1974, working on the referendum. i have always felt that the european union was a positive thing. i think you very eloquently describe the problems that people have. i'm not sure getting out of the eu will solve the problem. britainioned brynn -- dealing with problems on it's own, but will it remain britain. britain and the europeans will have to decide that. i am not saying the americans do not have any dog in the fight, because we have been very comfortable working with the eu as an institution over the years. mr. obama speaking out

publicly before the referendum may have contributed to the brexit vote. may have helped to make that a reality, which was the opposite of his intention. we are better off just waiting. karen: what do you think theresa may should do now? mr. negroponte: i am sincere when i think they have to work it out themselves. they have a democracy that is devised to deal with these problems. they have a wonderful parliamentary system. what i like about steve's comments is, when you talk about populism, you talk about populism but with an agenda. i think a lot of people think of populism as indiscriminate yelling and screaming, but that is not what you are talking about. i assume you mean bernie sanders, for example. do you consider him a populist? >> i do.

i agree with some of his policies. surprisingly, as a republican, i agree with some of the stuff he says too. on the fact that populism is seen as negative. i agree with that. that is why i provocatively chose to call it print -- populism. screaming it is angry rejection of everything that can turn dark, and strained territory that i would completely reject. i think that the real answer is to give an intellectually coherent positive agenda for policy. at the heart of it is decentralization. that's why i focused on using this concentration of power in the government. decentralizing power will be at

the heart of how we solve these problems. mr. negroponte: just an example of populism that i had in mind, the father of french populism was. pierre. but he was focused on only one issues. -- issue. i think you are talking about something much better than that. >> something i want to add into the mix is, the impact of these decentralization of power, we talk a lot about the economy. income and jobs and so on. also in terms of -- also, in terms of government. there is another piece, which is the social peace, the piece relating to society. one thing that has been the consequence of the centralization of power over the years has been the ripping apart

of our social fabric, specifically in terms of the core building blocks of a strong society that aspect is a really important part of it. for me, a positive populist agenda has to have answers to the problems of family breakdowns. the problems of community disempowerment. you will see in the book, i have very specific ideas. that is why the subtitle is "rebuilding economic security , family and community in america." that aspect relates to our society, and strengthening that is important. karen: trump will be in the u.k. and will be met with protests and apparently, a large balloon. what do you make of that? and i also have this question, we spoke about this john, about

the u.s. as a democracy promoter. under this administrator, are we a populist exporter in this day and age? i am just curious about those two questions. mr. negroponte: if you're asking, for example, does the example of president trump have some affect on the way other leaders believe? i am not entirely certain that is the case. i think each country is driven mostly by its own political dynamic. as far as his trip if i could , broaden the question, as far as his trip to europe, i think what we are all hoping for is that, despite some of the rhetoric in the run-up to these events, that he reaffirms our commitment to article five of the nato alliance, which

provides that an attack on one is an attack on all. i do look back at the place with the ambassadors that we are , committed to the offense of western europe, and we have done a lot to bolster defenses there. we can point to the baltic states, giving aid to ukraine, so on and so forth. and it would be a pity if nato started to erode in some kind of a way. at least i want to believe that the outcome would be sufficiently positive, that nato is not threatened by these developments. karen: steve, what would you hope for out of trumps visit to the u.k.? mr. hilton: what i would hope for around trump's visit to the

u.k. is that england win the world cup. whatever else happens, you could be sure that if england beats croatia today, no one will care about trump, or may, it is all about the world cup final. [laughter] too, but theutely really important point is something that was highlighted. you asked about boris johnson's resignation. one of the reasons why he resigned was that the deal on brexit was that theresa may finally published to her own government last friday, that deal specifically prevents the u.k. from signing, in the president's words, a big, beautiful trade deal with the u.s. there is nothing that could be more helpful to the british government than a really warm relationship with the u.s. president, and the president deal, not an opposite at the front of the line but at the back of the line in terms of trade deals.

that is what president trump has promised he is a fan of brexit. ,but they have put forth a plan that stops them from doing that. the rules would mean that they cannot negotiate trade deals. and that, to me is an example of , why boris and the other ministers were right to resign. because he used the phrase, semi-brexit. is worse than that. this is not really brexit at all. karen: do you think brexit will still happen? mr. hilton: it is hard to tell. the real problem is, although everybody agrees -- when i say everybody, the country at large, but conservative members of parliament and the opposition -- they all agree that theresa may is completely useless and hopeless and making a complete mess of it, but they cannot agree as to what comes instead. , stumblingeft there along in this incredibly depressing way because nobody , can agree on an alternative. so sadly, i think we can expect

more of this slightly shambolic performance. karen: i want to move on to trump's next stop which will be , meeting with vladimir putin in russia. i want to get your thoughts on this summit and what he could get out of this meeting that would serve america's interests. mr. negroponte: first of all, i think the meeting is a good idea. after all russia is part of the , permanent five members of the united nations security council, it is a nuclear weapons state. it has been a big player on the international scene sometimes , more, sometimes less. obviously in the time of mr. , putin, the russian role in the world has expanded somewhat from 1990's,rums days of the when russia was really pretty much flat on its back because of all the changes that had taken place. so they are a power they are a

, force to be reckoned with and they are proactive. think a very good example of their proactivity has been the role they played in the middle east, especially in syria. so i think there are constructive conversations to be had between the two leaders on syria, iran, which i am sure the russians will have some views about our having withdrawn from that agreement, and the situation on the korean peninsula. let's not forget north korea , borders on a part of russia. they have a direct and immediate sothey have a direct and immediate stake in that situation. so it could be a broad agenda. and i do not think one wants to exaggerate, or underestimate the importance of this meeting. karen: steve? i completely agree. the most helpful thing would be

a more constructive attitude towards north korea and the middle east. karen: i want to touch on the role of technology. coming from the west coast you , have been involved in silicon valley. the role of technology in our changing society, and what role that can change in fighting populism, or promoting positive populism, and john, what role technology and social media could play? mr. hilton: it's a great question. one thing that is happening is a dawning realization on the part of the technological leaders -- i know directly or indirectly because we are based in california -- that the tools that we have created, which were designed to empower all people,

are empowering all people, including the bad as well as the good. that is something they are, just my wife is the senior executive some. for full disclosure my wife is the senior executive at , facebook. i started a tech company and i would argue that that was an example of the positive intent. the mission of that company is to really put democracy directly in people's hands by allowing people to run for office. karen: that makes you the centralized power? mr. hilton: it is the opposite because it is actually undermining the control of the party system, and the idea that people can run for office without relying on big-money and big donors. i am no longer the ceo because, ironically, the company has succeeded greatly amongst the

resistance to donald trump. so you have a fox news host a platform that is really funding the resistance. karen: i just wonder, because as we talk about democracy and traditional political parties and institutions, technology is becoming, as the previous panel mentioned technology, you have , driverless cars replacing truck drivers, eliminating jobs, you have news about uber putting taxi drivers out of work. the tech sector is becoming extremely powerful, not necessarily with the same accountability we would have had in an elected system. i am wondering the power of the algorithm. it seems like we are replacing one centralized power for another. mr. hilton: i am very conscious of time. i want to make two points. on the centralization of power,

you are completely right. and i argue in the book, and i have for many years for ways -- for many years in ways that definitely conflict with the agenda of the company that my wife has worked for, that we need to have a much tougher approach on antitrust. we need to aggressively go after this concentration of economic power. i have very radical ideas that will be published in september, but i completely agree. and it is not just tech, it is every sector. one of the problems in health care is the concentration of power there. the giant insurance companies basically wrote the obamacare law to suit themselves. you see at across the economy. -- you see it across the economy. we need a more aggressive antitrust policy. the answer to that is not to try to stop these things that do bring convenience to people and

actually create jobs on their own it is actually to equip the , people who will be the victims of those changes with the skills and the training and the education to really increase their productivity so that they can get jobs that are going to pay well. that means a complete revolution andthat means a complete revolution in how we think about education from the beginning of , life all the way through. i have specific ideas about how to do that. karen: will technology save democracy or hurt it? i thinkoponte: ultimately it is going to be a wash as far as saving us, but it has contributed in different ways to our well-being. you mentioned health care, i think growing life expectancies around the world would be one example. there is the dark side of globalization that you were talking about. i think it is not so much that all of these technologies are inherently positive, i think it's somewhat depends on who is at the controls.

also, i think the tech sector will have to face up to the fact that, although it has made a big mantra of not being regulated because that impedes to freedom of the internet, there will have to be more regulation than there has been up until now. and then lastly, and this is the most significant point from the point of view of populism and the discussion we have been having, and the ambassador meant to did also, what impact it is having on the nature of work, and what policies need to be adapted to address that? at this point, i think we are andat this point, i think we are sort of just standing there watching a lot of people losing got ajobs, and we haven't complete program as to how to deal with that fact. i think this is a very serious social problem in this country. i am sure it true in many other countries. karen: that is all the time we have for today.

this could have gone on for much, much longer. i would like to thank steve hilton and john negroponte for joining me today. thank you all for joining us today. i would like to hand things off to my colleague, david ignatius. [applause] david: ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to offer this last session in our discussion of the future of democracy. i can't think of anyone who who is a more appropriate cleanup hitter, if you will than my guest, , secretary leon panetta. he has served in so many different capacities helping our congress, member of

committee chairman, director of the office of management and budget, chief of staff, cia director, secretary of defense, now runs the panetta institute, which is doing good and all sorts of partisan and bipartisan ways. mr. secretary, i want to get started by talking about what is on all of our minds. ask us questions from the audience with a livestream audience, send them to #postlive and we will process this them -- process them and put them to secretary panetta. mr. secretary, this morning we watched president trump arrive in brussels with frankly smoke , coming out of his ears. with theto breakfast nato secretary-general and talked about how germany was a captive of russia, and all the

familiar lines of how they -- how the europeans are not paying their way. i always remember hearing, when i was growing up, that when we thought about the future of democracy we should think about , nato and our european allies and that structure of friendship and alliances that were about the future of democracy and keeping it going. what did you think as you listened to president trump's totoric yesterday on his way brussels, and this morning? sec. panetta: it is good to be with you david. david has tracked me for a long time here in washington and we have always had a great relationship. and i thank you for doing this. deal about where this is all headed. it is, in many ways, it fits a pattern for the president.

this president who is not steeped in history or steeped in foreign policy, is someone who likes to react, obviously, based gut instincts. is always toion create disruption and to operate with chaos. you mentioned your column in the "the washington post," which is this new york developer mentality because that has been most of his life. it is to operate on the basis of challenging people, criticizing people, demanding things, and knowing that, ultimately, the more that he can antagonize and create disruption, that ultimately people will come around and come back to the table because there is money on the table and they will try to

work out a deal. the problem i see is that he creates this chaos, which, by the way, tactically i understand chaos can be helpful. but what concerns me is strategic chaos, where there is no strategy as to where it is going. so you get rid of ttp, but where is the strategy to deal with that? you get rid of nafta, but where is the strategy to repair that? you create a trade war and increase tariffs, but where is that taking us? you move us away from climate change, but where is the strategy to deal with that? you get rid of the iran agreement, but where is the strategy to deal with that? i have this sense he is applying that same approach with nato. to create disruption, challenge these countries. look, i do believe that these countries have to meet their responsibility to nato. i think he actually deserves

some credit for getting some of these countries to come forward and begin to respond with their 2% requirement. but what he is missing is, this is not just a country club where people have to pay their dues. this is an alliance of allies that has a 70 year history that is critical to the security, not only of the united states, but of europe and the world. and he has got to keep coming back to that fundamental point. he is not doing that. he's basically criticizing, he's pushing them, he is making the kind of statements that he made this morning. and what concerns me, as i said, where the hell are we going with this? what is the long-term strategy? is he trying to undermine nato? is he trying to weaken nato? or, deep down, is he trying to use this as a tactic to

hopefully strengthen nato for the future? david: mr. secretary, let me ask you the question i was puzzling over this morning. i've traveled to nato summits with you in the past, if memory serves. and i wondered this morning whether we were getting near the tipping point, where at some point people say, you know, he's been banging on us now for a year and a half, i'm beginning to believe it. i believe that he doesn't really believe in nato. and so, at that moment, if you're a european, you say, we need to think about other ways to guarantee our security. the american commitment to defend us with nuclear weapons if necessary is no longer -- how close are we to that tipping point where people say, we've got to make other plans? sec. panetta: i think one thing that could very well happen in these next few days is that it

may very well define trump foreign policy for the duration of his term as president. and it can go one of two ways. if he takes advantage of the fact that the european countries are coming forward, tries to take steps to strengthen the nato alliance, to provide the kind of military assistance and deployments that are important to keeping that alliance strong, he could use that as a strong point in going to the summit with putin. i think it could strengthen his hand in dealing with putin and then ask, obviously, deal with putin on some of the critical issues that we confront with russia. that is something we should hope for as the path that he will take. on the other hand, it could be a disaster.

and he could very well wind up in nato continuing his criticism, demanding that if they don't pay, that the united states will somehow withdraw in , terms of the numbers of military personnel and equipment that we provide to nato. so he could really send a torpedo into the strength of nato, weaken nato, and then go trotting off to russia and have a great reality tv meeting with putin. putin,tin -- with similar to what happened with the g7 and then going to kim. i think if that repeats itself, then i think europe and our allies will have a very clear message that this president is not interested in trying strengthen the alliance, but rather weaken it. david: not to push you too hard, but after this first morning, as

we watched it, it looks to me like the latter scenario, the torpedo scenario seems a lot more likely than the former. sec. panetta: you know, i don't know. this guy is totally unpredictable and erratic. [laughter] and i have no damn idea what the hell is going to happen here. i mean, i watched the president with the supreme court announcement. he followed his lines. he behaved himself. he did well. as a former chief staff, that's what you want presidents to do. [laughter] and so, you know, he does seem to have at least the ability to adhere that kind of big moment. now, on the other hand, he's -- you know, by virtue of his tweeting and the way he behaves

in other areas, and the criticisms that he makes and the personal attacks that he engages in, that's the other side here. and whether or not -- look, the most encouraging thing is that surrounded by pompeo, mattis, and john kelly happens to be there, who is somebody i worked with. and particularly mattis and kelly, who are two marines, ultimately, i think, can -- they're trying to keep him on the right track. and whether they're successful or not, we'll see. but at least i'm somewhat encouraged that he has the right people at the table beside him. but obviously he's still not , following their lines. david: you may just have given the kiss of death for general kelly and general mattis. [laughter] i don't know.

but let me ask you what's in some ways an awkward question but it's an appropriate question , for a former cia director. it's written often that donald trump's behavior towards putin, support, encouragement, being and hisis a good thing, behavior towards our traditional allies, chancellor merkel, prime minister theresa may, is consistent with someone who is acting on behalf of russia's interests. obviously, these are questions that, in the end, will be left to robert mueller and his investigation. but if you could just speak from your perspective as a former cia director, about ways in which people sometimes wittingly or unwittingly end up acting in ways that help foreign powers, i

think that would be an interesting way to look at this question. sec. panetta: look, i have been in public life over 50 years. and i served in one way or another with nine presidents. and every one of those presidents are recognized russia for what it is. and understood that they were an adversary and that we had to be , we had to defend our interests in dealing with russia because from all of the intelligence that we gather on russia, there is no question that they continue to make efforts to undermine our democracy, to undermine western democracies. that's pretty clear. this president doesn't like to

read his p.d.b.'s, but i'm sure that at every briefing provided to him, it's mentioned that rush it is engaged in efforts to undermine our democracy. so the fact that this president kind of goes out of his way to try to in many ways defend putin, when putin says that russia was not involved in something that all of our intelligence agencies agree that they were involved with, which was to try to undermine our election institution in this country and putin says, no, no, , we weren't involved, and the president of the united states says, i kind of take his word that they weren't involved, when all of the evidence and all of the intelligence and all of the evidence is that, in fact, they were involved and obviously that , raises concerns. what those concerns are, you know, i don't know. bob mueller obviously will

determine whether there's a money connection or whether there's anything else that truly is influencing him. but i think the bigger issue is this, that he is donald trump is , president of the united states. he has sworn an oath not only to defend our constitution but to protect this country. and i think for that reason alone, the president of the united states has to protect our country from our adversaries. i always felt, as cia director and as secretary of defense, my primary mission was to keep america safe, to protect our country. and that's what presidents of the united states are responsible to do. and i worry that this president, for whatever reason, is not operating with the awareness of how much an adversary russia is

to the stability of the united states. david: that's a powerful answer and i'll leave that there and turn to a related question. you're experienced in the process of bringing order out of chaos. and i'm thinking back to when a talented but somewhat disorganized president named bill clinton was in a lot of trouble after his first couple of years in office, and you came in as his chief of staff, in a environment in which a lot of people thought, no way even leon panetta's not , going to be able to discipline

this, and you had some success. and i think it would be interesting for this audience to hear a little bit about how you did that and what rules you laid down to impose some discipline on a talented but undisciplined man. how did you do that? sec. panetta: it wasn't easy. [laughter] and frankly, i didn't want to do it. i was o.m.b. director and we had just passed a very significant budget for the president that, by the way, provided $500 billion in deficit reduction over five years. david: what's deficit reduction? we don't remember that. [laughter] sec. panetta: and the combination of that plus the bush agreement is what produced a balanced budget. so i was very pleased with the opportunity work on the budget and work on appropriations bills. actually vice president gore, who was a classmate of mine in congress, said i think the president wants you to be chief of staff and i said, al, i'm much more valuable as o.m.b.

director. besides that, i kind of knew the chaos in the white house. so the next thing i knew, i was being invited up to camp david, and so i flew up to camp david and i walked into the presidential cabin and it was president clinton, hillary clinton, al gore and tipper gore and me. i knew i was screwed at that point. [laughter] sec. panetta: so at the end of that conversation i said, ok, i'll take the job. and i had some conditions. but the most important was that i had to establish a chain of command. i remember asking my mclarty, giveac me an organization chart for the

white house, and he said i don't , believe we have one of those. and i knew i was in trouble at that point. [laughter] so i took my army experience, developed a chain of command where you have chief of staff, deputy chiefs of staff, people responsible to people, not having people wander around into the oval office, these kind of people that carry a broad title and can walk into any meeting, have no responsibility and walk out. that's a lousy way to run the white house. so i developed that kind of approach along with trying to control, obviously, access to the president. the key difference was that this president wanted that discipline to happen. he knew that in many ways his thatction would depend on and so he was very cooperative , in the effort to try to put those changes in place. and it was not always easy. you know, he's somebody who just

instinctively wants to reach out to people, wants everybody to come into the oval office and talk and be a part of it. and so you had to discipline that and i think he was willing to accept that discipline and as , a result i think we were able to really put it in a better place. i remember talking to john kelly who called me before he took his , job and i went through the , whole thing. i said you got to put a chain of command in place, you have to limit access, you need a policy process that you put in place for the president. i said the big difference, john, is your principal and whether or not in the end he's going to be willing to accept that kind of discipline. that will be the difference between success or failure. david: so we keep hearing reports, friction between general kelly and the president, and yet he stays on.

and i've wondered what would be the consequence if one day general kelly decided, this just isn't working and walked out the door, or the president fired him, and decided that he didn't want to operate with a chief of staff. let's face it, that's not working out very well, the chief of staff process. what would that be like? what would a white house without a chief of staff, with this very president? can you give us a word picture of what that would be like? sec. panetta: it would, again, be chaos. but the president likes that kind of approach. and you know, i think he basically -- he may very well have arrived at a point where he thinks i really don't need a chief of staff, i know this job now and i can basically handle it without a chief of staff. david: and the leon panetta who's sitting on his shoulder, who's been given an opportunity to whisper something into

president trump's ear would say -- mr. president? sec. panetta: mr. president, no matter how you've operated in the private sector, no matter how you've operated as president of the united states, you absolutely need to have a chief of staff that can implement the things that you want to do, can organize the staff and make it respond to you and to what you need done. you can't operate without some discipline. i don't care who you are. you need to have an organized approach to dealing with these issues and yeah, the president of the united states is the elected individual in this country, and he determines what policies are. but the reality is that no

president can operate without a support foundation in which you have advisers and key people that know these issues, that present options to the president, that allow him to look at issues, understand those issues and try to make the right , decisions. that's the process you need to have in place. i'm hopeful the president will n thatwith john kelly i job. this president is not somebody obviously, fires people the way others do despite his , background on reality tv. the way he undermines people is by tweeting and criticizing them. he did that with sessions he's , done that with others. he basically embarrassing them, -- he basically embarrasses them, criticizes them, and

ultimately pushes them out that way. what i've noticed with john kelly, and i think god for this is that he has now kind of is that he has now kind of pulled book those kind of tweets , which may send a signal that , that relationship has gotten better rather than worse. david: i want to ask you about the broad topic of our gathering this morning, which is the future of democracy, and ask you not about how difficult it is now. we see that. but about how we'd go about putting this country and its political system, its process of governance, back on track. you're somebody who has special standing in that debate in my book, because as i've written, you're part of what i've described as the great chain of being in our government of people who came through , congress into o.m.b. and who basically made this system work,

made things run, made the dollars and cents add up at the end of the day. so as you think about an agenda for restoring the health of our democracy, what are two or three starting points, mr. secretary, that you think we should think about as we head towards the midterms, as we think about 2020? sec. panetta: look, the most critical thing in our democracy is the ability to govern. i tell the students at the panetta institute that in a democracy, we operate either by leadership or by crisis. if leadership is there and willing to take the risks associated with leadership, and make no mistake about it, if you're going to lead in this country, you've got to take risks, got to take risks. if you're a businessman, you've got to take risks.

that is what leadership is all about. if that leadership is not there and for whatever reason, then we will govern by crisis. and we have largely been a country, in recent years that , has governed by crisis. you have to have a shutdown of the federal government in order for congress to figure out what to do about the budget. you have to have crisis in other areas in order to drive policy. and the problem with that is you can operate that way as an elected official. it's easy to wait for crisis and not have to do anything to anger your constituents. but ultimately there is a price to be paid, and the price is you lose the trust of the american system of our governing. and i think that's what the 2016 election was all about, was the lack of trust in washington and the failure of washington to deal with the issues that were confronting the american people. i haven't seen that improve. in my history, i've seen

washington at its best and washington at its worst. the good news is, i have seen washington work. when i came back, worked as legislative assistant to tom kuchel, minority whip to everett dirksen in the senate, there were a number of moderate republicans. they worked with democrats like humphrey and jackson and dick russell. they worked together on issues. yes, they had their political differences, but they worked together when it came to issues confronting this country. when i got elected to congress, tip o'neill was the speaker. he's a democrat's democrat but he got along with bob michael, the minority leader. and did they have their political differences? of course. but when it came to major issues, they worked together. they were willing to sit down, to negotiate, to respect each other, to develop trust between each other and to govern the , country. that's broken down.

that process has broken down. there is no trust. they can't even agree on the facts regarding issues. so there's an unwillingness to sit down and to negotiate and to find compromise and find consensus. and so you have dysfunction and , it's a dangerous dysfunction. you can't deal with the budget. you can't deal with the debt that's going to become almost over 100% of gdp within these next few years. they're not dealing with immigration. they're not dealing with energy issues. they're not dealing with the whole issue of infrastructure and how to improve infrastructure in this country. they're not dealing with the fundamental issues facing our country. so a concern i have is if that dysfunction continues, then i think, along with the president who's beginning to withdraw from our leadership role in the world, i think that spells a

weak america, and that could undermine our democracy for the future. now, i have great faith in our system. i have great faith in the fact that there are communities and states out there and institutions that want to make our democracy strong. but i will tell you this, i do not think that our democracy is going to solve its problems from the top down. it's only going to solve its problems from the bottom up, which means the election of new individuals who are willing to get back to governing. david: let me take that issue head on. there are a lot of people in your party, in the democratic party, who say we are facing a mortal threat to our institutions, our values. they point from immigration to various human rights issues, the

whole agenda that you went through. and they say, you know, all this centrist talk about compromise and all that, that's getting us nowhere. we need to be an angry, motivated party. and we need to more prepared to confront the other side. so if sarah huckabee sanders goes to dinner in lexington, virginia, well, you know if the , folks there get angry, send her away without dinner. if mitch mcconnell's trying to leave his house in the morning, go remind him about immigration issues and a whole series of things like that, that are illustrations of this argument that to be successful, democrats need to be an angry, militant party to rally the country. there's obviously an alternative argument, that democrats should

try to be a governing party with , a broad tent that lots of folks feel comfortable under. but you've heard the argument from motivated young democrats. i'm sure you hear it in california. what's your answer to those folks that say we've tried that centrist stuff, it doesn't work. let's try being angry? sec. panetta: if you're angry and you lose, it doesn't mean a damn bit of difference. the objective has to be about winning. i mean, you know, for all of the concern about kavanaugh -- the new justice to the supreme court, look, the bottom line is that's the result of losing an election. and the democrats have lost a major election in this country. and the issue is whether democrats can win an election

, and they can't win if they fight republican extremism with democratic extremism. the only way you win in this country is by reflecting what america's all about. and america, the america i know, is a country that obviously has vast differences, but at the same time, in terms of values, represents very much the same belief in what this country is all about, in the importance of a job for their families, the importance of decent healthcare for their families and the importance of educating your the importance of being able to pull together as a community, in the importance of caring for one another in this

country, in the importance of welcoming those who come to this country. i'm the son of italian immigrants. this is a land of immigrants. so it is those kind of fundamental values that the democrats have to speak to. it isn't about tearing people up. it isn't about playing the same tactics. it's about providing a message to this country about what we really can be, which is to return to the important values that make our democracy what it is. that's what's at the heart and soul of our country. look, our forefathers came up with this saying reflecting what america should have as its motto, e pluribus unum. out of many one. out of many, one. out of many, one. the fact is, our differences are not our weakness. our differences are our strength. that's what america is all about. but to be able to deal with that, this clash of ideas, which

i think is healthy, i think that is what america needs to be but , out of that we have to be one nation. and that means, yes, that we do have to sit down, we have to listen to one another and we have to work through and find consensus and compromise and govern this country. that's the message that democrats are going to have to provide this country. otherwise, yeah, they can play the same games that republicans have played. they've now become a one-man party. they've given up on basic principles that the republicans are all about, whether it's free trade, whether it's foreign policy, whether it's remaining strong against russia they've , given up on a lot of those principles. we can't play the same game. we've got to represent something very different, and it is not that different it is what , america really is. go out in this country, go to the midwest, go to the south, go to the northeast, go to the west . the fact is that deep down there are some fundamental beliefs

that pull us together as a society, and that's what you have to appeal to. david: a powerful answer. i want to take a question that came in from our twitter feed, and it's an interesting question. as i read it, it's really asking how sound is this structure that want to rebuild? how bad is the rot? and the way the person phrases this is to ask your view of the stability of our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and other cornerstones of democracy. are you worried that those have been weakened by these many years of bitter, bitter partisanship? sec. panetta: there's no question that as i said, , pointing to the dysfunction, that it's been weakened by virtue of the inability of presidents and congresses to work together.

this didn't just happen with trump. this goes back a ways. probably the last 15 years , presidents have found it difficult to work with congress. congress has become more partisan, they've engaged in trench warfare. there has been this inability to sit down and really be able to work through those issues and , we're seeing that today. at the same time, our forefathers did design a system in which they did not to locate -- did not want to locate power in any one branch of government. they didn't want a king. they didn't want a parliament. they didn't want a star chamber court. and that's the reason they created three separate but equal branches of government and those -- branches of government. and those checks and balances are there. are they always working the way we want? no. we see what congress is unable

to do. we don't always agree with the courts, although i have to say that courts are continuing to make decisions that do try to keep us on -- in the path of the rule of law. but what i really see that i think is the great strength of , is that our institutions of democracy that count today are a free press, and the fact that the press continues to present the news to the people. there is obviously, with social media and all the other things involved, there's a real competition for just where the truth is, but the fact that we have a free press is extremely important to the debate that needs to take place in this country. we have states that have taken up their responsibility to deal with issues that the federal government, for one reason or

another, is not trying to deal with. so we have a number of states dealing with environmental issues, with immigration, with other challenges that the federal government has not been helpful on. but they are doing it. i see communities we've seen , comments about communities across this country where, there are democrats and republicans, there are people that support trump, there are people that support bernie sanders, but in these communities they are able to sit down and develop approaches to try to improve what is going on in these communities, whether it is in housing, whether it is in transportation, whether it is in health care, and there are other institutions in our democracy that are working as well. i think because of those so institutions -- look, we are all being tested. all of us as citizens are being tested. and in many ways, the question

is whether we are willing to step up and do what we have to do, in order to try to make sure our country stays in the right path. so we're all being tested, but i have confidence in the underlying strength of this country, because i really do believe that deep down americans , share a common spirit, common sense, dedication to what this country is all about. and the reason is, that as secretary of defense i saw those values in the men and women that serve this country. i looked them in the eye. these are young people that are willing to fight and die for this country. understand that. they are willing to fight and die for this country. and if they are willing to do that, if they are willing to do everything necessary to protect this country, then i don't see why we as citizens can't reflect the same courage in terms of our democracy. [applause]

david: are you sure you're not ready to run again? [laughter] secretary panetta: i like being 3000 miles away. david: so i want to stick with this question of damage to our institutions. maybe this is a last question. but it goes to an area that you came to know and love, i think, and that is our intelligence agencies. you said nobody was more surprised than you, when you were asked to be cia director, but i remember when you came in, that agency acted as if it had a sign on its back that said kick me. and you gave them some protection and some cover, and that was a period of rebuilding.

a periodve been in where the president, in an extraordinary way, has publicly attacked our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, talked about the fbi in ways i could never imagine an american president speaking, talking about the nsa similarly, engaged in massive abuse, for a time he was attacking the cia and its professionals. so i want to ask you, since you were part of that world, and still i am sure stay connected with it what damage has all that , done, as people listen to these comments from the president of the united states week after week? what effect does that have, and how do we think about repairing that so that we get what we want, which is independent, professional, self-confident, law-abiding intelligence and law

enforcement? secretary panetta: let's just establish the basic premise. this country cannot protect itself, cannot defend the of the american people without the rule of law, and without a strong national security, a strong defense force that can help protect this country from our adversaries. and critical to that is the ability to get the best intelligence possible on what our adversaries and others are up to. knowledge is critical to the ability to protect our country. that is what intelligence is all about. that is what the cia and all the intelligence agencies are all about. that is what nsa is all about.

it is the importance of being able to determine what others are doing that can impact our national security interests. and that doesn't just happen. that isn't something where you can just pick up the "washington post" or the "new york times" or the "wall street journal" and figure out what is happening in the rest of the world. that means you are going to have to put people in dangerous places in order to determine what really is happening. you've got to be able to deploy agents. you've got to be able to conduct operations that can provide the best kind of information possible. and so people are putting their lives on the line in order to be able to gather that kind of intelligence. that is what it is all about. i talked about our men and women in uniform.

the fact is, that the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies put their lives on the line. and when a president criticizes our intelligence, and our intelligence operations, then clearly it impacts the morale of those people that are out there putting their lives on the line. they are basically asking the question -- wait a minute, i'm out here, i'm taking risks every day, i'm providing valuable information, and now i hear the president of the united states basically criticizing the importance of that information, and criticizing what i do. it makes it that much tougher to try to attract people who are willing to go out into those tough positions and be able to do what is necessary to do.

now, i have tremendous conference -- tremendous confidence in the people who are part of our intelligence agencies. i know they are continuing to put their lives on the line. they are continuing to gather that information. they are continuing to gather that important intelligence. the reality is, after 9/11 we recognized that intelligence in many ways failed to be able to determine what our enemies were up to. and the result of that is that we really did improve the intelligence operations in this country. we put them together they are , willing to share information. they are willing to work together. and in many ways because of those operations we've been able , to protect this country since 9/11. but it is a continuing challenge, and my hope is that the president now understands that whatever problems he may

have had with intelligence in the past, the reality is he cannot do his job without the men and women in the intelligence operations who are putting their lives on the line in order to make sure they provide the information that is critical to our national security. [applause] david: when i talked with secretary panetta, i think of , as they say in church on sunday. prophets.f the you take us back to fundamentals about how our country works. we are grateful that you were willing this time to be with us. thank you, secretary. mr. panetta: thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

gregory watson, the man responsible for getting the 27th amendment to the constitution ratified. >> i will never forget the time i was in the library in downtown austin texas and came across a book that had a chapter devoted to amendments that it passed congress, but not enough state legislators had approved.

this one jumped right out at me. law varyinglove-- the compensation for the services of the senator and representative shall take effect intel and election of representatives is intervened. i remember standing in the aisle, holding the book in my hand, it was as if lightning had struck. i could feel the pulsating electricity of it all. i thought, you know what? instead of writing about the equal mind -- rights amendment, why don't i instead write about this amendment that says when members of congress want to adjust salaries, they have to wait until the next election. sunday night at 8:00 eastern.