>> rose: welcome to our programf representatives passed legislation raising the debt ceiling, the senate passed legislation today, and this afternoon the president signed it. we'll have an analysis this evening from robert rubin, the former secretaries of the treasury. >> plain pu president clinton pa plan, and we were widely criticized for the revenue increases. and instead of the recession people predicted, they had mass job creation and all the rest. that's the kind of thing we need to do again, probably the revenue increase will be a smaller part of the whole just because of the political context in which it's being done. that'shere we need to go, though i would -- though i would -- defer the effective dates for some period of time to try to give us a chance to get on board, and i would make sure that we had robust public investment to be competitive. >> rose: we continue thiseveninn

assessment by steven cook, ross wilson, and bulent aliriza of the implications of leadg generals resigning. >> many arabs are looking to turkey to learn some lessons about a transition from authoritarian politics to a more democratic political system. >> the specific resignation i think, really reflect a change that's been underway for some time in civil/military relations. it codifies what has taken place, and codifies the superiority of civilian institutions in that country. >> the country is polarized. there are those who believe there should be a constitution to enshrine the civil control over the military, that will cognize that governments do have responsibility toward those who elect them, and to implement what they said they would elect. then there are those who are very much concerned about the accumulation of power.

>> rose: we conclude thiseveninm for tomorrow night. it is a profile and conversation with arnold palmer at his home in pennsylvania. >> if you were playingoday, would you be number one? >> i can't answer that. >> rose: but you had the will td be stronger. you'd like to give it's a shot, wouldn't you? >> you're damn right. [laughter] i'd like to give it's a go. >> rose: a conversation withroby after the generals resign, unrstand a preview of our arnold palmer conversation when we continue.

every story needs a hero we can all root for. who beats the odds and comes out on top. but this isn't just a hollywood storyline. it's happening every day, all across america. every time a storefront opens. or the midnight oil is burned. or when someone chases a dream, not just a dollar. they are small business owners. so if you wanna root for a real hero, support small business. shop small. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: robert rubin is here.hy secretar served under president clinton for two terms during h tenure robert rubin was the leading proponent of a balanced budget and free trade. he was involved in resolving the impasse between congress and the white house over the debt limit in the 1990s. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> good to be with you, charlie. >> re: what's your assessmentofn washington today? >> i think the following, chare. i think it was absolutely imperative we raise the debt limit, and we did. i think this was not the program we shod have associated with raising the debt limit -- actually i would have raised the debt limit as a clean increase. that w not politically possible. i don't think this was a program that we needed, but there were a couple things that were constrtive. one is thereare virtually no cuts in 2011, 2012, so you'll

have no reduction demand. and secondly, although the focus was far too heavily on the discretionary part of the budget, at least it included defense and nondefenses. i think it's what we need now, and we're putting in place a serious deficit discretionary budget. >> rose: do you think the surco? >> well -- >> rose: you've had experiencei. >> yeah, i've had experience with congress. what i think we should do now, and i think it directly relates to your question, i think we need a public discussion about the consequences of our decisions. i think we need a far greater public understanding of what we need to do. if the public understands the importance of putting in place a serious deficit reduction program that defers the implementation for a couple of years to get back on track, and also understands that we must have substtially increased

revenues if we'll have the public investment that we need anthe social safety net that the american people want, then i think we can put ourselves in a position, where confidence can be substantially increased and we can promote jobs and growth and all that needs to be done. >> rose: how would you generate? glee hope with respect to this commission, although i admit the politics of this will be difficult, if we had that discussion, and the public understands the impative in a broad sensthe kind of program i just outlined, that maybe that will begin to impact on howhis commission functions and the commission will have the political will, that is to say will be willing across party and ideological lines. >> rose: it's crucial who'spoin? >> oh, yeah, it's absolutely crucial who's appointed. i was going further than tha charlie, which is to say i think we need to create the public environment that begins -- or that affects how this commission operates, so that the members of

the commission begin to feel tremendous pressure to base their decisions on facts and analysis, not ideology, and to work across party lines to make the tough decisions we need to make to have a sunday economic policy in this country. >> rose: key phrase there is"pu" >> i think public awareness is really critical right now, and i think that's what we need to do both with respect to trying to effect how this commission works and more broadly to try to get the commitment from the elected leaders to put in place the program i outlined a moment ago. >> rose: will the trigger alone? >> well, the trigger is not -- the trigger -- >> rose: it is a pressure todut. >> well, no, i don't really think the trigger -- i may be wrong, b i don't think t trigger is going to accomplish the purpose that you just said, because -- >> rose: and did not in the pas. >> it basical has not been an effective mechanism in the past. i do not think that's the answer. the answer is to try to get the

american people to get aublic understanding that we need to have significantly higher renues, that we have -- with signicantly higher revenues we can put in place budget th can get us back on track in the way that the simpson-bowles and then popularity presiden later n the middle of april outlined, that can generate confidencand contribute to restoring -- although it's going to take time -- restoring economic growth and restoring jobs. >> rose: there's only one publis been called a bully pulpit. that's the presidency. you're basically saying at this president hasis work cut out for him to explain to the american public -- because he has 45 bully pulpit -- as towhere we o go, and what the values and imperatives are if we're going to get out of the deficit, and if we are at the same time going to create growth, and if we are at the same time going to develop growth that creates jobs. >> you made a very important

point, charlie. that is the question of jobs and the question of getting back on track fislly i think are really one question. >> rose: right.even though verye to try to distinguish between the two, because if you put in place -- thi happened in 1993. president clinton put in place an effective deficit reduction program. it was half revenue increases and halfpending cuts. we were widely criticized for the revenue increases. instead of the recession a lot of people predicted, we had e ngest lasting expansion in th nati's history with vast job creation. that's the kind of thing we need to do again. probably the revenue increase will be a smaller part of the whole, but that's where we need to go, though i would defer the effective date for some period of time to give us a chance to get on board, and i would make sure that we had robust public investment, becauswe need that to be competitive. >> rose: does th deal, withthe w down the possibility of growth? >> well, it won't slow down t possibility of growth in a

direct sense for the reason i said before. the way -- this is a constructed dimension of what i think basically is not a sound program. >program. >> rose: right.there are no cut, fortunately none in 2012. >> rose: if the cuts had beenimn effective on the economic growth. >> correct. should we have another stimulus, for example, the payroll tax holiday, as you know, expires at the end of011. i think we should extend that and the unemployment extension, although i think it's more complicated -- i'm fundamentally in favor of extending it, but i think it is a slightly more complicated question than its advocates make out, because i do think that the unsunday physical position that we have really does undermine confidence, both business and consumer confidence, for a whole host of reasons. that was what '93 -- it's one of the lessons of '93.

once you restored sound fiscal conditions, it had a tremendous impact on confidence. while i think we should do it, i think we could enormously reduce the confidence risk if our leaders, our elected leaders, would commit to the political will, to political purpose to working across party lines to accomplish the kind of program that i mentioned a moment ago. >> rose: you mentioned whathappe clinton administtion, legislation you got another things. what was the lesson to be learned from your experience at the white house at that time? >> i think there are two lessons that come out of that that are highly germane to where we are today. number one, that when you have unsound underlying fiscal conditions that really does have a significant adverse impact on business and consumer confidence, partly because people are uncertain what economic and financial policies will be look. clinton, ahc÷ very interesting observation on his part, he said that the deficit had a largest

economic significance to people. what it signified to them, we could manage our economic affairs more fairly. once we established a fa fiscal program, it had a tremendous impact on confidence. the other point from '93, as i said a moment ago outbreaks prram was 50% revenue increases. our opponents said that was going to lead to a recession. instead it lasted to the- really in many ways the best economic conditions this coury has had in a long time. the longest expansion in our country's history. >> rose: and the presidentperhat didn't help his elections. >> i think what president bush the first did 1990 i think was constructive and useful, but arm that have, after that, the deficit projections actually got worse. >> rose: right.so his head of me

end of the bush administration actually increased their projected deficits, because the assumption that they had made in putting together the original program turned out to be far too rosy. >> rose: made those assumptionsm the democrats, didn't they? >> not t assumptions. >> rose: no, but the decisions.e were pressures within his own party, presses from the democrats, and i think that was constructive. i'm talking about the policy decisions. >> rose: yeah.the underlining an were a function of what their office of budget and management did. by the time presiden clinton took office, the deficits had been increased between the election and his taking office, and that was a serious threshold prlem we faced. >> rose: back to the question o- >> all of this is germane to where we are today, and what we need to do. >> rose: that's why i wanted yo. when you talk about raising revenues today, would you limit that consideration to the

reduction of corporate deductions and oil deductions and the bush tax cuts for the wealthy? >> if it were me, what i would do, i would take the bush tax cuts for the people in the high income group $250,000 and above, i'd go back to the clinton rates. it's absolutely a red herring to criticize that as increasing taxes during a recession, because what i would do is exactly what the bowles commission rallied, wh president obama talked about in april, put in ace the progra now, or as soon as we could, but defer the effective date for a couple of years to give the economy time hopefully -- although i think we'll have a difficult time, but hopefully to get some traction. then i would add to that, as president obama said in his april speech, i would add to that additional revenue increases from dealing with so-called tax expenditures, deductions and credits. >> rose: you also know politicsy choices? i mean, is this a case where two

people were playing -- in automobile parlanc-- chicken? and if you think the other guy crazy, you'll have to make certain decisions. >> i think the president did what he needed to do. >>ose:hich means that he hadno . >> i think that -- >> rose: did he?the solute impes to increase the debt ceiling. >> rose: and in order to dothatd to their will. >> ultimately he had to find a way of reaching agreement with the republican majority in the house. >> rose: which was spending cut. >> and the only way to get there, at this moment in time, under this pressure, was with that program. >> rose: so he conceded to figh? >> you have to ask him. >> rose: you know, you talk tot. some of them work for you. they're advising him. >> i think he did what he needed to do under the circumstances he faced. >> rose: politically, are youno,

because you don't want to say that the president got the bad end of this? >> no, i don't think -- >> rose: this was reality?i thid dealt with reality. >> rose: that's the only option? >> the final analysis, he needed to do what he did. there were two parts that he accomplished, which we should be very fortunate -- i mentioned this before. we avded any cuts in this'11 and '12. had we had significant cuts that would have added to our difficulty. >> rose: right.secondly, at leae defense part was made part of it. >> rose: so now defense is onth. >> having said that, charlie, we go back to what you said before. now we need to have a discussion in the public domain about what we toot do so weet a public understanding of the consequences of the various kinds of decisions we face. i believe that if that happens that we can -- it's readily doable for people with very different views, if they will base their decisions on fas and analysis and not ideology to

find common ground so we can move forward. >> rose: what argument do youwan the public domain over the next two years? >> in the first place, i'm not going to be presumetive enough to suggest what the president should do. i was in there for 6 1/2 years. when you're in there, it's very different from commentg outside. there are tactical and strategical operations that have to do with what the president decides to do with his public position, how he plans to go forward, how he pns -- the case he plans to make. i think fundamentally he gave a eech in the middle of april which he set out a perfectly sensible program, put the country on a soundtrack if adopted as announced. i would do something a little bit differently, but fundamentally i agreed with it. i think he could very usefully,

and would be enormsly effective if he did it. even if he cldn't enact it rit now, if our elected leaders would agree to try to reach common ground and would agree to base, as i said a moment ago, to base their decisions on facts and analysis, that in itself could create a better environment, and that environment becomemuch safer to do an additional stimulus at the end of this year, along the lines we discussed before, an extension of the payroll tax, extension of unemployment benefits. >> rose: that's political lievi? >> the blocks are complicated. i do think it would be, but -- >> rose: he took note of that i. >> yeah. i saw it. i try to keep up. i watch this stuff every day. >> rose: have you talked to the? >> i made a decision, i wasn't going to speak to people who spoke publicly about speaking to me.

ever since they've been in office, i have -- >> rose: i'll take that as ayes. >> i wouldn't take it as a yes. >> rose: okay.i wouldn't take is anything. if you asked me if i spoke to the person who guards the door at the white house, i'd give you the same answer. oig have you talked to people who advise the president? >> i'd give you the same answer. >> rose: fair enough.one critict was that he should have been an early adapter of bowles-simpson, he should hav gotte behind it foursquare, because essentially it had a lot in common with the gang of six at the end, of which he subsequently said he admired and thought was a way to go, because it had, in his words, balance. >> uh-huh. it also had a lot in common with his april speech. >> rose: right.i think it's a me complicated question the cricism you just repeated, because i think -- >> rose: referred to.or referre. this is my interpretation, charlie. i don't have inside information

on about what i'm about to say. at least this is my interpretation. let me put it that way. he fundamentally had a choice, which is that he could either set out his position asde in the middle of april and continue to an environmentn which he could morereadily negotiate with the republican majority in the house or he could out and argue virously for the position that he took. i think either one of those would be -- would have been a reasonable tactical dgment to make. you have to judge it, that is to before the fact, not with hind sigh he obviously veered more toward creating an environment in which should try to negotiate. having that, we are where we are, and the qstion is going forward. i wouldn't be critical of him making that decision. i think either one would have been a reasonable decision to make. >> rose: within the spacebetwee, what impact can the president have on the creation of jobs? >> i think that the president and our elected leaders more generally can have a very substantial effect on the

creation of jobs, although i think it's likely, unfortunately, charlie, that we'll have a difficult period for an extended time -- >> rose: even beyond theelectio. >> yeah, both through and beyond the election. i think public policy can make a difference. i think what we need -- not just the president, but our elected leaders -- i think very wellof where the president positioned himself, as you can tell from my earlier comments. but i think the president and elected leaders have to seriousness of purpose, that is the willingness to come together, to find common ground, so we n move forward meeting our critical issues. i've said many times i think our critical issues very much resolve around putting in place a budget that over time gets us back on track and at the same time within it has robust public investment -- >> rose: over time is 10 years?r correctly, president obama made it 12 years in the middle of april. i don't think that makes any difference. >> rose: $4 trillion or$5 trill.

>> over years, whatever it might be. >> rose: right.both of thos post to the pot where the deficit came down to the point with the debt-to-gdp ratio, the ratio of public debt to our economy, gdp, began to decline. that is the holy grail, the objective, objective, wha wheret to, even we defer the implementation of that program for a couple of years. one more piece, we've got to get control of the rate ofncrease of our healthcare, the cost of our healthcare more generally. >> rose: that's not a newproble. that's been an old problem. >> it's not a new problem, but it's a second stage at some point. >> rose: how would you suggestt? >> that drives the federal healthcare plans, including medicare. >> rose: how would you do that?.

i don't have a ready suggestion to it. one of the problems, as your guest said last night, there's so much disagreement around periods of time, i don't think we're ready to try to do -- take that step yet. but i do think that in the healthcare reform bill that was adopted, there are a number of pilot programs that at least have the possibilityf being effective. if over time they're effective, you can take those and try to scale them. >> rose: the president alwayspre reform was deficit neutral. is it? >> the congressional budget office said it is deficit neutral. >> rose: right.the proponents ol will say, charlie, thoughtful proponents of the bill, like peter orszag, as i just head, will say there are a number of pilot programs, comparison effecte reseah, and then there's this new organization that's been set up to try to find ways to constrain costs, which they think are highly likely to work. we won't know for years probably how effective that really is going to be.

the critics are more skeptical and only time will tell, but if those programs, or at least some of them do turn out to be effective on a pilot basis, it provides us at least with part of what we need to d for longer-term cost constraints. >> rose: in terms of the public, would the president have been better off t postpod healthcare reform until a hoped for second term? >> well, i'm not -- >> rose: because othe economicc. >> i'm not a political analyst. i don't know whether he would be better off or -- >> rose: it certainlycontributen success in 2010. it was their rallying cry. >> it was eful to them,it would appear. again, i'm not a political analyst. he believed deeply, rightly in my opinion, that we needed univerl coverage, and cost containmen there's a lot in there that

deals with cost containment. the disagreement is whether it will be effective or not. propents say it will and opponents say iton't. certainl i'm not a political analyst. he believed deeply in getting universal coverage, and probably rig iright in thinking was doint in that first -- >> rose: clearly that's true inl opportunities, but this one was different because of the terrible circumstances of 2008. >> yeah. he inherited a very difficult -- a terrible situation economically. i think he responded to it in the right way and effectively. on the healthcare piece itself, it didn't interfere with what he was doing economically, but it was complicated politically. we can argue whether it was approached in the right way or not theright way sort as a matter of pcess, but if you believe deeply in getting universal coverage this was his

best chance to get it. >> rose: clearly, but there wern the table that it demanded attention, even those people who are supporters of his, that's the argument. >> yeah. i don't know what he would have done in its place that have ma -- >> rose: in other words,everyths he had for the economy, he did everything he could? >> i think he prably did. the period there was, at thathet think so. >> rose: looking at the next twn referred to this -- you know, what happened to e necessity this country and its future to invest -- invest -- in science and education and so many other areas that are crucial to where we will be as a society in the next -- rest of the century? >> charlie, i'm going to china twice in the next six months.

i think it is absolutely totally and completely imperative that we have robust public investment in the very areas that you just mentioned, because they are doing that. if we're going to be competitive, we have to do it. that's why we're going to have significantly higher revenues at the same time that we get our fiscal position back in shape so that we have a sound fiscal position and within that context, within that context, have robust public investments. >> rose: when will we be able t? >> we could do it right now if we had the political will. >> rose: on the parent of you?t? e congressr owe >> on the part of congress. >> rose: they have defined thei. >> no,they haven't unfortunately. they defined the issues as spending. that is wrong. >> rose: they make bothargument- >> they equate the t and the two are not at all the same.

the issue is we need to have an effective government that meets the needs that our country has, and we need to have a revenue structure that pays for what we need to do. the difference between the two is the deficit, and the problem is the deficit, not spending. i think that's part of what, as i said before, needs to become broadly understood by the american public. >> rose: if you were today theps issue that he had facing the debt limitation today, the debt ceiling issue, would you be arguing that he ought not to focus on the deficit for the next several years, he toot focus on getting the economy growing -- he ought to focus on getting the economy growing again? >> you're making a distinction i don't think exists. >> rose: okay.i don't think we a healthy economic recovery unless we get our fiscal house in order. >> rose: fcal house in orderande same time? >> absolutely, because i think if we get our fiscal house in order and put in place a serious

fiscal program, that will engender confidence, exactly what happened in '93, and build confidence and reduce uncertainty, and increase confidence in our political system. i would defer the effective date for a couple of years so we don't hav a negative demand effect in the next coue of years in the hope that our ecomy will get on track, and create a much safer context for putting in place a fiscal stimulus, because you would reduce the risk that would adversely affect confidence or possibly markets. >> rose: you were supportive oft bowles-simpson had it about right? >> i thought bowles-simpson's framework was right. they reduced the rates. i would increase them. in other words, i would have had some of the ecifics quite different. i'd goack to the clinton rates for people earning over $250,000. >> rose: they eliminated --dedud reduced the top rate to 25%. i don't remember. i would take the top rate to

where president clinton had it. when president clinton raised rates at those levels, he was criticized, and i remember one republican lder went on television and said, we'll have a recession, every single job that's lost is president clinton's responsibily. instead we had massive job creation, as well as increasing incomes and the rest. i would raise the rates. the general framework of doing it n, deferring effective date for a uple of years, robust public investment in areas that we need, yeah, i think that framework is -- and the $4 trillion over 10 years, getting to where the debt-to-gdp ratio goes down. i think that's right. >> rose: if they had eliminatedg over $250,000, the effective rate would have been the same as when clinton was president, correct? elimated or about the same? yeah. if they eliminated the bush tax cuts for people over 250, it would take you back to the clinton top rate of 39.6%. it is said that one value you brought to the white house,

beyo your experience, or in part of your experience, was understanding markets. you helped the president undetanding markets and what confidence and markets met. where are we today in what markets might do to influence where we are? >> well, markets are always very complicated. and i think they're particularly complicated right now because we're in a different global situation as well. europe has tremeous problems. japan is in difficult shape. our economy certainly is operating very slowly. but i think -- i think that the best way to try to deal with the question of markets -- because markets do reflectconfidence, i think that's right -- to put in sound policies. >> rose: were you particularlyc? >> in '83 wead a different situation. i was very concerned about the bond market. we felt if we put in ple a sound fiscal regime, we could have lower interest rates, and that's what happened, and they would be conduve to growth. now you already have very

low-interest rates, so that isn't a problem forow. the piece of '93, people so often forget, so critically important, was the effect a sound fiscal regime had on business confidence. >> rose: some say it's about th. some say it's all about consumer demand. >> well, i think demand- >> ros there's no demandthere, o confidence to go out and invest in new factories andnew inventory and hire new people. >> i think demand is important. i agree with larry summers with respect to the importance of demand, but the fact is we won't have an enormous growth of demand right now given that the consumers are still fairly highly leveraged. what we can do, to increase both consumer confidence and business confidence -- i don't think we'll have the confidence that we need -- i would probably do -- i think i would do -- the

stimulus in the way that i described before, even if we didn't have the fiscal framework that we need, but i think it doestake -- i think it does take -- itoes create risk with respect to confidence. i think we're far better off doing it -- even if our leaders can't act until after the election -- i think that's a real possibility. if they committ to work together, ross party and ideological lines to reach a sound position, i think that itself could be very confidence-reinforcing. >> rose: are you in approval of? >> i think on the whole dodd-frank was sound. i don't know necesrily agree with every single piece of it. i think the consumer protection piece was very important. i wrote a book which came out in 2003, in there i talked about my concerns about derivatives, and the dodd-frank derivatives

were -- i said in the book -- i think what we really need in derivatives is t do what dodd-frank did, but also go further and have much higher and capital requirements, because it would give you a larger cuson. that's what i said in the book in 2003. >> rose: what ought to be thepuo years? one big idea is it ought to be about the role of government? that's one idea. what else? >> yeah, i think it's the role of government. i think it's what our fiscal position should be. >> rose: the balance between --. what dwe think the government needs to do to best promote our economic and social interests, and how will we pay for it? that's rely the debate we shouldave. peopl fully understands the coequences of the various decisions, i think bynd large, even though there's differences of view, there's plenty of common ground to enable us to

move forward. that's probably part of the debate. let me add, there's a critical moment in 2013, when this comes to a hess. the bush cuts expire in december of 2012, and will probably be at the debt ceiling again. so i think it's critically important that we not only have this debate, but a movement that i talked about before these three mega issues come before us to end up way sound economic policy if people night working toward that now that alone could have a positive impact on confidence. >> rose: in your pr role in thee house, and secretary of the treasury, you still stayed in people around the world. what are they saying about us? >> i think people are troubled, charlie. there's still tremendous -- it'

interesting. i was with the head of a central bank of an asian country a while ago. he said the united states has strengths unlike any other country owe he was talking about the long tm. you have long-term strengths, and you really can be a major factor in thisistorically transforming gbal economy of the 21st century. i think that's right. but he said, on the other hand, your political system has to have -- these are my words now, not his -- has to to have the will to do what is necessary to get yourse back in the appropriate place in terms of policy. actually his views were on track with my own, to get a sound fiscal policy, do what you said before, to invest in areas that are critical for growth. i would just add to that, we do need a decent social safety net. >> rose: the role of govnment?y. >> ros thank you for coming.chay good to be with you. >> rose: tonight we look atchanh top commander and three service

chiefs resigned after clashing with the governor over the arrests of dozen military officers accused of plotting a coup. it could reshape the political nature in turkey where the military has long held a role. joining me ross wilson, steven cook, and bulent aliriza. steven cook, we talked about turkey on this program not long ago. we talked about some of these things. how would you assess the significansignificance of what d with e resignation of these army officers? >> it of great significance. traditionally in turkey the military pressures the government into resigning rather than the other way around. so this is certainly a change in the pattern of civil military relations in turkey. the military in turkey has undertaken four coups between

1960 and 1997. and was widely believed to be dominant almost all powerful. the officers have resigned, and that seems to be the only thing that they can do in the face of the investigation of numerous currently serving as well as retired military officers for plotting against the government led by prime minister tayyip erdogan. >> rose: i was in turkey, andcos in the press, a the idea that erdogan had forced them back in the barracks at the same time there was a trial. what's the trial about? >> there's wide-ranging investigation called the erdogan investigation, something that broke in 2007 in which allegedly the government uncovered a pl

on the part of some military officers, some shadowy figures allegedly from the intelligent services and organized criminal activity that s intended to undermine the government. this has inhe subsequent four years turned into a much wider, larger investigation, and a larger conspiracy. while there's some evidence to suggest that the initial allegations were accurate, it has turned into -- erdogan has turned the investigation into something in which he can hire his political opponents. one group that he has taken a particular interest in hammering and undermining is the turkish armed forces given this dominant role that the military has played in turkey in undermining governments and really compromising the quality of turkey's democratic practices. >> rose: other than to --beginnf lessening the power of the military, ross, what else does

erdogan want to accomplish by these -- by the trials and by the pressure on the military? >> ll, i think, first prime minister erdogan is trying to assert the authority of civilian governance over e country's miliry institutions. >> rose: that's a good thing.thl thing, it's a good thing, something in general we should be happy about. prime minister erdogan is trying to modernize the country and change the standar of the way that it wos in ways this are more response to the majority of voters in the country. the difficulty that arises is that the longstanding political balances that steve referred to are disrupted by these changes. it has political repercussions in turkey. the specific resignations, i think, really reflectio reflecte that's been underway for some time in civil military

relations. it codifies what has taken place and codifies the superiority of civilian institutions in tha country. >> ros how much control doeserd, another institution? that's a controversial topic in turkey. and the government's sway over judicial institutions has been expand as a result of constitutional changes approved by the public in a referendum last september. as aractical matter, though, at present, st of the sitting judges in the constitutional court and throughout the jucial system are pointed by -- we appointed by other judges. d they reflect -- they reflect the inherited traditions, the inherited political views, i think, of jurisprudence going back some time. the government does have more influencamong certain elements in the country, and that's been an instrument that e

authorities have used in these cases and other investigations. >> rose: bulent, put this in thl changes that the prime minister says he's moving ahead. >> well, we had a statement of intent by the prime minister before the elections, which he won by aost 50% of the vote. he has huge majority in the national assembly, that he would proceed to change the constitution, what he calls the first civilian constitution of turkey. he has not proposed a draft yet. of course the national assembly not in session. it comes back in october. the country is very much polarized. there are those who believe mr. erdogan ould proceed as quickly as possible to a new constitution that will recognize that govnments do have responsibility toward those who elect them, and to implement them.

then there are those who are very much concerned about the accumulation of power on the part of erdogan and his party. there will be a trial that you mentioned dealing with an alleged coup, projects that were undertaken by his enemies, is just one example of how the country is divided. there are those who see tt as a way of strengthening the power of the government, and there are those who say this has to be done for turkey to move into a fully democratic state. >> well, many people believe also that the prime minister will become president if the constitutional changes are enacted. >> well, i think that it's quite clear that he does not want to move into the presidential palace unless he changes the turkish political system to one which is presidential or quasi presidential. as of now thepresident largely has symbolic powers. if he manages to get the constitution changed, i have no

doubt that he will want to move into the palace, either next year or three years from now. >> rose: each of you, intheturke region, turkish relationship to europe, and turkish relationship to the arab spring, what this means. >> from my perspectiveif i fact this is a -- one of the major ments in which the civilian leadership in turkey can actually bring the military under control the -- let me disagree with what ross sd. i don't believe these resignations codify anything. i think these are resignations of senior officers that provides an opportunity for theçó civilin leadership t codify tir superiory over theilitary. but to this point there have been only half efforts to bring the military fully under the control of the civilians, but if they manage to do this, if they take advantage of this opportunity, it will go a long

way toward resolving some of the problems that the european union has with turkey, which has the -- brussels has long pointed out the oversize role and influential role of the military establishment in turkey as a problem that needed to be resolved before turkey could become a full member. if we're talking about what kind of role or role model, though the turks don't like that, that notion, for the arab spring, bringing the military under control, which is a hallmark of democratic politics, is important in a region where militaries are now playing important political roles. in tunisia, in egypt, potentially in syria, depending on the way things go there. if the turkish militar can be brought under control, you can foresee arabs looking across the mediterranean saying that is something that we need t do as well in order to have a more democratic open, freer political system. >> rose:o turkey will belooked s

going through the arab spring right now? >> i think that many arabs are looking to turkey to learn some lessons about a transition from authoritarian politi to a more democrat politicalystem. it makes it more interesting for arabs, that a party of islamist patrimony led a reform program in 2003 and 2004 that's made turkey more freer and democratic, if not exactly more liberal, but nevertheless this is something that's spurred the interest of arabs even before the uprisings in the region and now afterwards as they grope for ideas about how to rebuild their own political system and society. >> rose: ross what, about thisay where, it stands with respect to the islamic majority? >> i think that's an issue that

turkey is having to grapple wit now. there's been tremendous change in turkish society over the course of the last 20 or 30 years, a massive move in the population that i think is still accelerating from the countride to the cities. the country was 50% urban, 5050%. todayt's 7 75 you are the cities and to the country's political life. and for many of those voters the estrangement of islam from urban life, from national life, is -- looks strange and looks odd to them. that feeling of estrangement is something that prime minister erdogan has used, exploited to his political benefit, but it's a general underlying set of

tensions in the society, because there's a large swath in turkish society that fearshat it might mean, what it might bring for turkey in a region where there are a number of countries that have been dominated by radical ismist ideolies. >> rose: buletn, what do you se? >> half the country supports him. from the start, he said, yes, we have o roots in the islamic movement, but we're committed to join the european union. frankly all the changes, the unthinkable changes that have occurred with respect to the military/civilian balance have been done reference t referencee

european now. now it's looking less and less likely. nonetheless, mr. erdogan will want to undertake the changes, if he can change the constitution reference t with ro the european union. the difference who are looking at turkey as their own model, the traditional islamist movements that have been excluded from the political process, what they see in turkey is mr. erdogan leading his party and turkey to a new balance between the commitment to traditional islamic values and a relationship with the west. and mr. ergan has a vision of leading, becoming a leader of the middle east, as an example to these countries, and yet retaining the links to the u.s.

and europe, and in effect saying, if you want to have better relationships with this part of the world, frankly, you have to go through me. >> rose: are there changes,reces relationship to israel, which went to, i guess, a new low after the incident having -- at sea. but i read recently in the last several weeks of some communication taking place. do you know anything about that? >> after a long period of time, in which there was no communication between the two countries, there have been some efforts to restart discussion about how the two countries are going to get beyond this incident that happened on memorial day of 2010 when israeli commandos boarded a turkish ferry bound for the gaza strip and killed eight turkish nationals and one turkish american. there's a war of words ever

since, the turks demanding a apology and compensation, and the israelis saying they have nothing to apologize for. as a result, we've been at a deadlock. i think that the primary constituents for a strategic relaonship with israel was the turkish generals staff, and the israelis have lamented the chipping away at the power of the turkish armed forces. now, therere others who had businessommunities, tourism and etc., but the primary driving force for the increased alignment with iael in the 1990s was the turkish generals staff. it was in part good -- made good strategic sense, but it was also in part a function of domestic politics, in that's litary at that moment was demonstrating its superiority and its ability to pursue a foreign policy independent of the civilian leaders that were elected by the

turkish people. >> rose: i'm reading fromforeigd something by you dated august 2nd. read any newspaper, mazine, journal article, about turkey over the last few decades and the odds are that the turkey military establishment was described as powerful, autonomous, dominant, all of those things. at times it seemed that observers were commandos, armed as they seemed to be, with a will to act to ensure the political order. the ideals, cohesion and strength in cob as to the weakness and corruption in the 1990s of turkey's civilian political leaders. is tt gone now because of these resignations? >> it's not just because of these resignations, but because of what has happened in the previous -- in the previous three or four years. one of the reons whyhe military is not as powerful as it once was is because the power

of the european union. i think bulent is right, i think the notion that turkey is going join the eu is farfetched, but in 2003, in 2004, when the justice developmental party was pushing through constitutional reforms in order to harmonize turkey with european norms, it altered the political balance in turkey because those reforms were so popular. it constrained the military om intervening and undermining those reforms. that was beginning of the decreasing, ever slowly decreasing power of the turkish armed forces. >> rose: i have to send itthere. thank you so much, steven cook, ross wilson and bulentaliriza very much. >> rose: on the next "charlierof legend arnold palmer at his home in pennsylvania. there's a famous story about you, when you were on the range, driving range, and people talk

about how you were hitting the ball. then you went to the masters. and there's a story that hogan en said, who is that guy, after playing a practice round with you, and why is he here. what was iabout you th made hogan say that? >> i got the feeling that he didn't really care much for my actions. he was a student of the game, and he -- >> rose: yeah.and you played itn and feeling and all the passion that you ar >> that was it. >> rose: did you know he saidth? did you hear him say that? >> i was in the locker room. we had just played -- >> rose: you played in afoursome round. >> he and jackie burke. and my buddy, and for years still, and we played hogan and burke. we beat them for 35 bucks. >> rose: in the practice round.. and he didn't kevin to the table

wittable -- he didn't even comeo the table with us. he went to the table with burke. i heard him say to burke, how in the hell did he get in this tournament? that was 1958. >> rose: who won the tournamentd [laughter] captioning sponsored by rose communitions captioned by media cess group at wgbh access.wgbh.org