from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight a conversation with catherine crier. the former cnn and court tv host is out with a book about the state of american politics called "patriot acts." we are glad you have joined us. a conversation with catherine crier coming up now. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

tavis: catherine crier was the youngest elected state judge in the state of texas before going on to cover national and legal affairs for cnn, abc, and court tv, and others. she is a best-selling author, her latest text is "patriot acts: what americans must do to save the republic". good to have you on this program. >> good to be here. "patriot acts: what americans must do to save the republic", is it too late? >> i worry. i really do. ideologyy quotes, is the science of idiots. oftentimes they are defending things that are destroying the

constitutional republic. and unless people understand that as the first line of defense, we have to sustain what the founders gave us. we can have our great fights on the right and left but we are invading the structure of our republic in dangerous ways. tavis: how are we affecting the structure? >> i was reading about -- the bush lawyers, who are defending that presidency, empowering the executive branch. national security issues, very objectionable. they are objecting to obama doing many of the same things and the people on the left to are concerned about specific rights, the patriot act, this sort of thing and i argue in the book that you have got to understand and play by the same rules. it is not who was in power but what our officials are entitled to do under the constitution. and there are so many examples

where we are basically destroying the foundation. it is quite frightening because you cannot rely on the judiciary which can be politicized. you cannot rely on a legislative branch, we have to be out there as citizens understanding this in defending it. >> if i said to you the problem is the structure itself is undermining the republic, the supreme court renders certain decisions, citizens united. they are helping to destroy this fragile system, you would say what? >> i would say you're right. as much as we would like to believe the courts are truly independent, we can go throughout history and i talk about this. in 1886, corporations got personhood. the bench was driven by

corporate is to influence -- corporate influence. there is no question the bench can be political. usually we correct those mistakes and sometimes with -- like with citizens and united, it will take an amendment. we have to overturn that decision. we have to get corporate money out. think an anything you amendment would fix? i knowing that i -- i ask that knowing it is difficult. almost impossible to do. it does not get tried often. is there anything a constitutional amendment would fix? >> i believe most representatives, members of the house and senate do not represent the people who sent them there. red and blue states. they represent the big money interests that keeps them in

office and both democrats and republicans. unless you get back to actually representing constituents on capitol hill or the state house, we are not a democracy. yes, the constitutional amendment, if you can get that money out, that in and of itself is not enough because we see how easy it is to get around. right now we have all these nonprofit groups that are raising money and supposedly doing it for social welfare programs and we find out the majority of the activities are political. corporations are contributing to nonprofits, deducting the contributions. it is political money going into the system. to think that we're getting out of the silver with a constitutional amendment would be incorrect and what you said, we cannot rely on that if you -- unless you have a major grass- roots movement threatening

politicians was being tossed out because their interests are so aligned with big money, they are not going to support a constitutional amendment. we will not get it unless the american people understand this is a government of, by command for the people and the people have to act. tavis: tell me how you would fix the problem. both sides are needy. you have the republicans and romney in the race at the moment who are activating the super pacs religiously. gingrich would have been gone were not for the super pacs. mr. obama has done a 180 and he is playing the super pac game. who do we expect in washington is going to fix this one the people that we did send there are playing this game on both sides of the aisle? who has the magic want to fix

it? -- wand to fix it? you cannot rely on the executive branch. mr. obama did a 180. you cannot rely on the legislative branch. the judicial branch made corporations people. you ain't got the three branches of government. >> we have 320 million people and how many of those are voters? we had a big turnout in our election system. we take this system for granted. the american people have on occasion rallied objective things. you have seen a transition. bank of america threatens a fee on cards and we have legislation, telemarketers on saturday night come overnight, we can get rid of that. we still have a democracy. we can do this.

i happen to advocate for this campaign. remember that $10 check off? we cannot give 10 books on the tax return to go to our electoral system? that is the answer but i can hear the screams and hollers, speech and money and the rest of this. we have to understand that we are destroying what has made this country so great, so unique, and the beacon for the world with our constitutional republic. and we are turning into a banana republic. tavis: if i said part of what is aiding and abetting that is the media itself, it is grist for the mill, there is money to be made, or ratings to be had. you know how this works. that msnbc gets something out of this. fox news' get something out of this by playing the right game.

part of what this keeps this divide between the parties to live is the media itself. forget free television time, public finance campaigns. it is the media. there is money to be made on both sides. are we part of the problem? >> any time you try to reform -- campaign contributions, advertising for campaigns, the media says we are making big money off of commercials. we are not about to squash any of that. to be candid, before a row this book, -- i wrote this book = -- tavis: the publishers say they will not take that book. we can't put you on the list. >> the fourth estate, remember what jefferson said.

the choice of a free government and free press. he would take a free press to let the people know what is going on. the media has let down the american people across the board. we cannot scream on the left and right without disaffecting the silent majority. without telling people subliminally if not directly, there is no rational, pragmatic voice in this country. if barbara bush -- barbara bush said when she was expressing her disappointment, compromise is not a dirty word. a democracy is built on compromise, working together. elections have consequences. you accepted defeat and to rally for the next two or four years, electoral cycle but you work together to move the country forward. we have lost that and the media has exacerbated that mentality. tavis: maybe americans do not understand or appreciate or embrace the fragility of our republic. maybe there is a moment for some

traction here to be gained because they do understand the economic malaise that we are in. i wonder whether or not the economic troubles we are i and give us an opening to address these broader questions. >> it does if people take a moment and learned some lessons from history. i spent time on this book taking people back to the foundations of capitalism. i went back to adam smith. people talk about the free markets, deregulation, do not touch that capital. that is corporatism. the series of capitalism to protest park until -- mercantilism. the small entrepreneur or in a bitter had no chance and he said the only way that you have economic justice, liberty, opportunity for people is if you do not allow the concentration of wealth and power on the

private side. if you do, the only counterbalance is the government. the people's government, he was hoping. that is because they cannot counter the big guys. the concentrated wealth and power, corporatism stores capitalism. he talks about workers' rights. the need for a safety net. capitalism by its nature causes disparity. great disparity. you are constantly trying not to level the field, not to equal outcome but to bring it back together. he said you have to have to create thets, stability needed for capitalism to survive. if people go back and understand to defend capitalism is to defend appropriate regulation. it is to defend appropriate workers' rights, appropriate social safety nets, all the sudden, you can have a different

conversation about where the country is going, what we need to do as opposed to this nonsense right now that anything for workers or social security, socialism, any regulation is suppressing capitalism, not adam smith would be rolling over in his grave. tavis: i wonder if it is time to rethink capitalism. >> my argument is, yeah, but go back to what adam smith said. we're not defending today. capitalism. i have literally spent chapters taking people from 7076 -- 1776 through the 1800's. when a corporation did not fulfill its mission statement, it lost its charter. citizens could object to a

company coming in their environment and say it is not right for us. corporations could not say we have property rights here, you do not have a voice anymore. we are seeing this around the country. right now, citizens in florida are objecting to private prisons. there is fracking issues in upstate new york. citizens are saying we do not know if we want this in our community. where is the balance? there is a balance. if you look at the evolution, we have a corporate system. we do not have a capitalist system. capitalism in kyrgyz entrepreneurs -- encourages entrepreneurs. what concerns me about -- if you go back to the early 1900's, you have the rockefellers, the robber barons, the gilded age.

we could object about a lot of their activities but their money stayed in the united states. universities and hospitals and all sorts of things. there or objections but the money circulated here. now with the global corporations, they may be in the u.s. but in 1909, there was a white house economist at fort the first time, there was no correlation between the gdp and well-being of our domestic economy. you realize what is happening is we are getting overseas revenues reported people -- revenues reported. there is no correlation between these big multinational corporations and how well they are doing and the well-being of our domestic economy. until we i understand -- we understand that is not workers, that is the united states of

america on the global arena, if we do not protect and preserve that, we're in big trouble. tavis: i want to go back to what you said a moment ago. i am thinking of a quote, "one man's verisimilitude is another man's fakery." i am trying to figure out how you get the conversation about these robber barons of today either by name or by corporate affiliation. how do you get that conversation off the ground when to talk about income inequality is to get pushed back on for engaging in the politics of envy. >> the problem i have with that whole conversation is, if income inequality was simply because meritorious individuals were succeeding and the lazy slobs of

the world were sitting back taking welfare checks, that is one thing. when we are talking about a system that is read -- rigged, the big guys are getting all the books not because of merit or contribution to our domestic economy, but because of a rigged political system, we are not talking -- we're talking to different games. they have rigged the system. you do look at those who are doing well in the system -- i consider myself blessed. i was born to a white family in the u.s., it was a middle class system. we were not wealthy but i know the kind of opportunities i had walking out the door. i cannot say i started on the same plainfield as other people. -- playing field as other people. i want the opportunity for fair

start at the beginning and the chips fall where they may. when the system is skewed from the start, for the corporations, for certainly a lot of members of society, and for them to say, you are born on third base and you think you hit a triple. c'mon, guys. i am not interested in taking from those individuals. i am interesting -- interested in balancing out for everyone else. >tavis: the problem is for many who were born in the middle class or who have the chance to elevate, the bottom is falling out. i have said the new poor in this country are the former middle class. the numbers are bearing that out. i believe -- my sense is that the thing that most puts is in danger of losing the republic right now is poverty. we cannot -- i want to believe

the future of this democracy is connected to whether or not we're going to get serious about reducing and eradicating poverty. we cannot sustain itself -- with the gap widening every day, what does poverty have to do with saving the republic? >> forget the empathy or sympathy for the impoverished. we are a consumer society. our economic well-being relies on -- i will go back to that disconnect between gdp and well- being. it relies on the ability of consumers to buy stuff. right now on a multinational scope, we do not need you anymore. we do not need to build up the domestic economy because our consumers are india or china or elsewhere. we need to understand that they are not always looking out for our best interests anymore. i am not at all saying that corporations are malevolent and they are bad.

everyone, we want to make money, no problem. we have to understand that unless we have a consuming class, i held the class, an educated class, we are going to lose the world game. the united states, not individuals, not working americans, not the middle class. our country will lose. poverty is an issue we should be concerned about for a lot of moral reasons, personal reasons, but economically, the united states will fail and when you look at businesses that have said over and over again, countless studies, you hear from republicans, keeping business from getting ahead by regulation. we do not have consumers. we do not have people with homes who can buy our products. that is not -- why we are not expanding. unless you have a wage and salary, unless you can take care of your family, you do not have money to go out there and buy

stuff. which is the heart and soul of our consuming economy. tavis: we have indicted -- you have. tried and found guilty on the body politic. we are talking about corporate america, the media, we're talking about the media and the role they play in helping to save the republic. i am sensing that you recognize as i do that there is a de evolution of our culture, there is a decay in our civilization. our morals, our values, our social mores. i am trying to figure out what the role is of we the people play in saving it. >> there is an interesting debate and i talk about this in the book between jefferson and adams when they were talking about theories of the country. adams and hamilton wanted a monarchy. they wanted a country built on

the british system. jefferson believed in the common man. really believe individuals could -- the citizens who drove our former government. that means we have to actually be those individuals. we have to play that kind of role. i was on a bar association committee awhile back. justice o'connor was on the committee and she told the story and i am not going to mention the school to save them but upperclassmen at one of the military academies were discussing the three branches of government with justice o'connor. she asked some questions and they could not answer them. upper castes -- upperclassman, top cream of the crop. one of them was trying to reinstitute social studies and we do not talk about these things. this country was not built on the same blood or religion. we are not united by -- we are

united by ideals and ideas. if people do not understand them, know their responsibility in keeping them alive, if we do not pass and assimilate all the immigrants come others, into these ideals, they die. we cannot sustain them. every citizen in this country, jefferson believed would step up to the plate. adams, on the other hand said there has never been a democracy that did not commit suicide. and he thought we would end up with that aristocracy and the people would willingly abdicate their role. tavis: scary come in 2012, that is very scary. i want to ask, what this debate , this war on women as some have

called it, what that has to do with advancing in saving our democracy. women's rights will be under attack again and thereby the rights of children. what does this moment say about this? >> i think women in this country better get the fact that they are the majority. we need to get aggressive. we are 78th in the world in terms of women representation in our governmental system, we are not activists on the right and left in the way they should be. but more is another cycle where the notion of expanding rights, which to me, the founders supported from the inception of the right and left. it is a good thing in a democracy. any time there is that fear of losing power, and you watch

certain groups try and close of voting rights, close off rights to protect and insulate the powers they hold, it is a struggle, it is a battle. this is cyclical. we have to understand that sharing expanding rights is a democratic principle, as in democracy. you cannot take them for granted. you have to fight the fight generation after generation. >> the book is called "patriot acts: what americans must do to save the republic", written by catherine crier. always good to be in conversation with you. you make me think. >> thank you. >> that is our show. until next time, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation with meat loaf on his new cd.

that is next time. we will see you then. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more.