captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: justice sandra day o'connor is here, in 1981 she became the first woman to serve on the united states supreme court. have called her the most important woman in american history. in 1952 when she graduated from stanford law school, most firms would not hire her because of

her gender but she was not deterred. for 25 years she was the swing vote on the can court on issues ranging from affirmative action to abortion to campaign finance. she left her post as associate justice in 2006. she's written a new book about the history of the supreme court. it is called out of order. i'm pleased to have justice sandra day o'connor back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, it's good to be here. >> rose: business first. >> all right. >> rose: business first. you gave me this. >> i did. >> rose: when i saw you a couple days ago. >> i did. >> rose: and you're not getting it back. >> no, i didn't expect to. >> rose: but i have this one which has my name on it. so i'm giving it -- >> is that right. >> rose: that's exactly right. >> but this is weathered and has a name. >> rose: that's why i wants to you have it. >> and gold on it. >> rose: that's another reason i want you to have it. >> all right. i'm arneed indeed. thank you. >> rose: everybody needs a constitution. >> yes, they do i.

because it's the fundamental of our country. it's the basis of our government. >> rose: yes. >> i just think everybody needs to know about it, what it does. and take it around so that we know you take it seriously. and i just think it's important to have one with you. >> rose: keep you in touch about what makes this country. >> absolutely. >> rose: you've written a new book out of order. stories from the history of the supreme court. the first book was about, i remember wonderfully about you growing up in cow boy land. >> yes, about lazy z ranch. >> rose: and the second one is about the speeches. and this one. >> this is some stories about the history of the course. >> rose: do you have a favorite justice. >> well, i'd have to work on that. >> rose: i'll suggest justice marshall to make it easy.

>> he got it started and he gave it a good start. don't you think? i do. >> rose: i do. >> it was so hard in those days. they had to roam around the country and justices had to sit with other court. >> rose: before the marble edifices they have now. >> right they no place. i just think it had to be brutal in the early days. >> rose: had no respect. >> no respect. >> rose: that you have now. >> no respect. >> rose: not since the final arbiter of the rule of law. >> that's right. >> rose: come a long way. >> it has. >> rose: and john marshall did what. he established the rule of ... >> well we call it the -- we didn't talk about the rule of law in his day. that has come later, i think, with some success of the courts and i think it is a common term these days. >> rose: how do you think the courts change beyond what we have just pointed out over the years? >> well, for one thing, it

doesn't have to travel. they come to washington. and for another of the justices tend to serve rather a long time these days. and they didn't always in the early days. >> rose: why did you retire? >> well, because john connor, my beloved husband had alzheimer's disease. and that gets worse as time passes. and he was reaching the point where he was going to have to go in a care facility. and i really thought he should be in arizona where our children were. and i wasn't there, and it seemed to me at that point i better get down from the court and be available for john. >> rose: you're comfortable with your role in history? >> oh, i'm honored to have been the first woman on the court. how could i ever imagine doing anything like that. i certainly didn't when i was admitted to law school. it was not anything to which i

as spired. it was inconceivable. >> rose: when ronald reagan called you up to say he wanted you. >> he was on the phone and i was in my office in the chambers on the court of appeals in arizona. and he said sandra, i would like to announce your nomination tomorrow for the supreme court, is that all right with you. and i just you know, i knew that they had been looking. but what do you say to something like that? >> rose: yes. >> well, i said mr. president, i would be honored. and it was an amazing turn of events. >> rose: what did you love about being on the court? >> well, having challenging, interesting questions to answer. that was my job. and imagine, being lucky enough to have that be your job. and that's what a lawyer dreams of is to be able to address challenging legal issues and answer them. what could be better than that.

>> rose: is there a perfect experience for sitting on the court? i mean, do you need to come from the court of appeals or at the district court levels or state court. >> it wouldn't hurt it wouldn't hurt. i had served just on state courts but you need a little experience in deciding appellate issues, i think. and you certainly need to have been straight at a little skill in your academic life for deciding issues of the court. >> rose: so once you're sitting as a justice and you know you're going to have two advocates coming before you to argue. and this has got to be for them a terrifying moment. >> it has to be challenging. >> rose: exactly. how do you prepare? do you have a list of questions that are unanswered for you? >> yes. you do have occasionally some. i would jot some down at time so i wouldn't forget it. when i was preparing for the case i would read everything and i'd have some thoughts and then i would put it aside until the day of oral argument so i didn't

want to forget. i jot down some of them. if there was a question i thought it was very important to ask. >> rose: the advocates, you call daniel webster, one of the great advocates before the supreme court. >> yes. >> rose: a talented. >> yes, he sure was. >> rose: advocate. >> and in the early days you know, they didn't have time limits on arguments. the arguments went on and went and went sometimes more than a day. can you imagine. >> rose: of all the justices you have seen while sitting on the court, who exhibited the most piercing analytical interrogation. >> of the one that i saw? >> rose: yes. who. >> i'm not sure. i think bill rehnquist wasn't bad. he was a sharp guy. he was in law school too. >> rose: you both went to stanford. same class. >> same class. >> rose: was he number one. >> i don't know. stanford actually didn't rank but he had to be marvelous.

>> rose: he's a pretty good chief justice too. >> i thought so. >> rose: he knew how to manage a court and bring them together make sure. >> i thought he did well. >> rose: when you think about the cases, what was the hardest case for you. >> i can't remember and go back now and rank them but some of them are very hard to figure out. you aren't sure. you spend a lot of time on it and you're still not sure. but at the time of the argument how you resolve it. >> rose: so you wouldn't decide until you heard the argument. >> sometimes i would have decided based on what i read. i know what i'm going to do in this case. other cases were just so tough that even after reading everything, you weren't absolutely sure. and then you'd say well i'll wait and hear an argument. then you hear the argument and you'd have to go back and think about it some more. a few of them were that challenging. >> rose: you might change your mind and make you think. >> yes, absolutely. >> rose: you believe that the

values you learned on the ranch were the same values of that served you on the court. >> well, yes. i learned about hard work, really hard work. and being self reliant because there were many things you had to do on your own. there wasn't somebody there to help you. we had to do it and do it well to make that happen. >> rose: do you, once you get to the court, and you're sitting on the court and you get to play the role of a swing justice. >> now, i don't watch -- >> rose: you do. >> i do not. i mean it sounds like you don't care what it is, you're just swinging away. >> rose: you don't like that at all. sounds like the person you're there for sometimes rules with the conservative and sometimes rules with the liberals and whatever decision she makes will be the determining factor in te

decision of the court on that particular case. it gives you immense power and you knew you had it. >> setimes. >> rose: and you cared to exercise it. >> sometimes that's correct. the court was divided in such a way that a single vote could turn it from an affirm to a reverse. and i found myself in that situation. >> rose: why, just because you saw both sides of many cases. >> i don't know. i mean any other justice could say the same as i. they could say i could change my vote. >> rose: but they pretty much voted in a certain way and you would go from left to right. >> no, i don't think that's quite fair. >> rose: why isn't it fair. >> because i didn't just run around going from one to the other. god that just isn't. sometimes -- >> rose: i can't believe -- it made you powerful. >> well, i wasn't looking for power. >> rose: it was history. >> i had enough power with my single vote. i didn't have to swing around to gain power. >> rose: i believe you liked it. you liked the fact that you --

>> i liked being on the court. >> rose: of course you did. but you liked the fact you could decide. >> i had to decide -- >> rose: it wasn't more than one vote. it became a vote that would decide. >> some of the cases, a few of the cases. >> rose: and you liked that. >> i didn't object. it wasn't something to which i aspired. i didn't want to be in that situation. it isn't what i wanted to do. i thought everybody should agree with me. it ought to be nine zip my way. >> rose: how many nine zip cases did you see, many. >> yes. >> rose: more than we think. >> oh yes. >> rose: of all on -- >> yes, yes. that's what i liked, yes, the role. >> rose: how did you like bush versus gore. >> well, that was tough. it was not nine zip. >> rose: exactly right. it was five. >> five four. >> rose: five four. >> it was a hard case. >> rose: what did you think of that case. >> hard case sometimes makes bad law. >> that's what is said sometimes and that's possible. but that was a very challenging

case and an election was riding on the outcome. >> rose: some people believe that the court heard that election and realized that and therefore politics got involved. >> well, people tend to say a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. and i don't think that was the point. we had some tough issues in that case to decide and we did. and we thought, and the florida vote counters did not do the kind of job that one would hope they would do. >> rose: do you regret your vote. >> no. >> rose: you don't. >> no. i think we did the right thing based on what happened down there. >> rose: deciding who will be president. the court deciding who will be president. >> that was the result of a decision on something else. >> rose: right. >> how the election was conducted. but the end result was an outcome of the election. that wasn't the intended objective of the vote. >> rose: when you look at the

court today. >> yes. >> rose: how, do you believe it has the same quality of the same court you served on did. when you look at the quality there. >> as far as i can tell. yes, i haven't served with them but i see what they do and i think we have a court with capable justices on it with people sitting there and serving and trying to do their best. >> rose: what have you hoped to achieve since you left the court for the love of your husband. >> i am hoping, i am involved in some very hard work to try to teach young people civics. did you know we've stopped doing that. >> rose: no. >> all right. well i want to educate you a little bit. >> rose: i need all the help i can get. >> okay. young people, i'm talking middle schoolers and high schoolers. today can't name the three branches of government.

a high percentage cannot. >> rose: that's like the ninth grade, tenth grade. >> right. and it's pathetic. they don't know anything. and so i think it's vitally important that we teach civics. after the constitution was adopted, we had a system of government, some people began to circulate around to the states and say look, we have this good system of government now, we should develop public schools to teach our young people how it works so they can be part of it. that's why we got public schools. it was to educate people on our constitution and our system of government. today, they have apparently lost the message and aren't teaching civics anymore. and i think -- >> rose: why is that. >> well, we're into math and science and reading and other things. all of which are important. but i think it's vital, no matter what else you're doing that we teach young people how our government works and how they're part of it.

that's critical. >> rose: what, how will your effort -- >> i started a website. it's called icivics. we have ipads and ipods and everything and we have icivics. it's a game teaching young people how the government works. i have a marvelous group of teachers who add vices on what needs to be thought. they're encompassed by games. we have 19 games and the 19th game is one to help them learn to write more intelligently. write their papers. i think we're going to do have to do more than one game on this. >> rose: when people come to me and talk about what's the perfect kind of education. there's no perfect education but clearly you should know history. clearly you should know civics, clearly you should know languages. clearly you should understand basic principles of economy and

the political system. all of that will make you, you know, a person that can more fully enjoy life and participate in life. >> right. >> rose: but you also, the thing that i find is missing is the ability to communicate. the ability to speak well and to write well. >> and to write well. >> rose: to know what you think and be able to express it. >> that's right. so one of our programs for icivics now is to teach them to write better. write well, i hope. and that's important. i've been very enthused. i have chairman now in all 50 states. and we're averaging right now having at least 30,000 students a day get into and play these games. it's not enough. i would like 70,000 a day but we're getting there. >> rose: talk to me about women in america today and the fact that you still in terms if you look at the number of ceos

and look at the number of people in congress lagging behind. >> yes, but so much better than it ever has been. i look at it and feel encouraged not discourage. it's really changed. we've made enough progress that we're going to make, we're going to close the gap. >> rose: so when you got out of law school and you had all the, you had great grades, you were a wonderful person. >> i don't know about that. >> rose: oh really. >> i tried to get a job. >> rose: what did they say to you. >> i could not get an interview. they wouldn't even talk -- >> rose: an interview. >> no. there were at least 40 names on the bulletin boards, law grads call. i called every single number and not one of them would talk to me. >> rose: did they return your phone call. >> when i got hold of somebody they would say well we don't hire women. it was unbelievable to me. >> rose: do you think it was

crazy. >> i was shocked because i had a good record and i felt sure i could do a decent job. and i couldn't believe that i was not going to get a job interview. and i didn't. and i then learned that the county attorney in san mateo county california had once had a woman on staff. i wrote him, made an appoint to see him. he was very nice. they are glad handers. they are elected so he was. he said oh you would be fine. but right now i'm not funded to hire another deputy. i spent my money the supervisors gave me. so i said really want to work for you for nothing. if you awe point me. for nothing. i know you don't have any money but there's a secretary and there's a room in her office with another desk if she didn't object. and this was my first job out of

law school. no pay. and i put my desk in with the secretary. >> rose: how long was it before they started paying you. >> it was a while. it took a number of months. but that's how i got my foot -- >> rose: explain what was going on there. you showed a lot of initiative. you wanted it to happen. you did not let their failure to recognize your talent. >> i had to have a job. >> rose: how did you survive. how did you afford sheltered. >> john's parents were very nice and they would give us meals, they would bring food once a week. >> rose: you also were a politician. >> well eventually, yes. i ran for office in arizona and served in the legislature for some time. >> rose: in the senate or house. >> senate. >> rose: did you ever think i could be governor of arizona. >> i did. but as a matter of fact, i was thinking of running for governor. but bruce babbitt came along. >> rose: democrat. >> yes. and he did not want me running.

and that's when he then reached out and put me instead of a trial court judge, pop on the court of appeals because he hoped then i wouldn't run. >> rose: he was right. >> he was right. >> rose: you probably could have beaten him. >> possibly. >> rose: would you rather have been a supreme court justice than say a senator. >> oh yes. clearly. i mean that was an amazing experience to be on the supreme court. to have those very challenging issues that you're part of deciding. and to be able to help craft opinions, that was a great great privilege. it really was. >> rose: i read you the last time i saw you, a quote from justice ginsberg who said when you left it was just different. >> well i think when any of the nine leave it's different because we all participate in one way or another. >> rose: who are you closest to among the judges other than rehnquist. >> i was close to him because i had known him forever.

>> rose: and he left. >> that's so hard to know. i didn't have another woman for a while. i eventually got judge ginsberg and we saw eye and eye. we had very similar experiences in law school. >> rose: you had different philosophy didn't you. >> to a degree. we didn't differ that much on what principles to apply to cases. >> rose: you really did not. >> no. >> rose: people would say you have a different record than hers. >> well my conclusion might be different than hers having applied some of these principles. >> rose: she said to be a great friend of justice scalia. >> i think she is, yes. that's good. >> rose: the court makes strange bed fellows. >> i know but just because your outcome in cases are very different doesn't mean you can't be close friends. you can and should be. the court is very unusual you might agree on one case and disagree on another and that's fine. >> rose: did you ever think

about being chief justice. >> no. >> rose: not once. >> no i didn't. i didn't think that was likely. that just didn't enter into my thinking. >> rose: you liked the life in washington. >> well, it was okay. >> rose: did john work as a lawyer there. >> he did. he had a pretty good time but it wasn't the same as what he experienced in arizona. >> rose: can you talk about when he went into care because of alzheimer's. >> oh it's so sad because you see them. they don't always know you even. >> rose: even you. >> no. he knew that i was someone he recognized but the notion that i was his wife i don't think penetrated. i'm not sure how much he would relate to the fact that there's such a person as a wife. you just don't know. >> rose: you must be devastated. >> oh it breaks your heart. >> rose: you see the person you know and lo.

>> i breaks your heart. he was so darling. he had a funny sense of humor. as sick as he was, as difficult as it was to the very end he tried to make the nurses laugh, someone else laugh. make a funny face or do something. >> rose: he developed a relationship with them, a friendship with another woman there. >> oh, yes, sometimes. i mean he would with anybody. >> rose: did you ever think you would remarry. >> well, i didn't think about that. that hasn't come up. i haven't been asked. >> rose: would you like to be. >> no. no. >> rose: so are there unfinished objectives for you? do you have goals that you still beyond icivics, beyond writing books? >> well i have one more book i want to get out. >> rose: what's that. >> well i don't want to tell you because that would be premature but i have one more that i think maybe ought to be told. >> rose: about the court or

about ... >> well i'm just not going to say. there's one more book. >> rose: is it about the way we select justices? >> no. it isn't. and there's one more thing that i really want to see finished and that's my icivics program. i wanted to really educate youg american, the middle schoolers about how our government works and i want to do it well. i want to make a difference and i think i can. it's happening. >> rose: and i think you have. >> well it's started anyway. >> rose: just with your life you've made a difference. i adore you. >> thank you, thank you. >> rose: do you think i would give up a copy of the constitution for me. >> of course i would, all right. >> rose: out of order, stories from the history of the supreme court, sandra day o'connor. she is indeed one of the great women in american history. back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: tariq ramadan is a

color and scholar of islam in a world that's more varied than ever. he tried to show what race means in a modern age. he helps es lawmsic identity outside the majority countries. his latest book is called islam and the arab awakening. it asks the question what will islamic democracy look like. return for traditional islamic values seen through critical eyes. i am pleased to have him back on this program. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: why do you use the term arab awakening rather than say arab spring. >> that's a very important question because i have the very beginning i didn't buy the fact that we were witnessing the spring and even revolutions. from the the very beginning i said i'm cautiously optimistic about what is happening saying that yes there is something which is irreversible. that the people in egypt, libya to start with and then other countries, are now aware that

it's possible to get freedom through leaderships and it can change. this is something that should happen now. in political terms and as to the future we still have a lot to see and to do over there to get something which has to do with the democratization process. >> rose: you believe that in fact what has to happen is that middle east has to produce new models of democracy. >> yes. i think when it comes to the principles, you know, all the discussion about is i lam compatible with democracy. that's this question we have to start w i think that nothing in the democratic principals are against the islamic promises. >> rose: why do people make that argument. they think religion will dominate the powers of the state rather than democratic values? >> yes. i think for many reasons. first is the historical reasons is that when you look at what is happening in the middle east to reduce islamic world so to

speak. i speak about most leave countries to the arab world. if you look at the arab no will democracies over there. so we think it has to do with religion. i has nothing to do with religions first because the arab world is not islam. the great majority of the muslims are not arabs. that's why this has to do with democracy. the second thing is the perception that islams alien to all the values and islam has no take on all these principles. that's why they should say rule of law equals citizenship, universal coverage, accountability. these principles are not against islamic frame of reference. >> rose: but are they principles where there are islamic majorities in government that they, those islamic majorities want to either create

or to put in the process. >> i think it's what we saw whatever was, whatever were the reasons of the uprisings in what the people were asking for about freedom and liberty. they wanted dignity and they wanted freedom. they wanted democratization. now the modelsn't if you look at what is happening in the united states, the democracy model in the united states has nothing to do with the swiss model. i'm a swiss citizen. we have models coming out of our history and collective psychology. this has nothing to do. we have same principles different products. let's see if it's possible. in most countries, in tunisia or in egypt, let's see if it's possible to have models of democracy that are not against islamic principles but at the same time very very clear on the dignity of the people. >> rose: what part of islamic principles might be considered

against democracy and democratic principles? what part? >> i think this discussion about the fact that muslims of islamic references that's not different between politics and religion. that islam and this was the writ rick at the beginning of the -- is saying islam is religion and power and state. and we had the secularization process. democracies came to be a reality in the west out of this secularization process. it's as if the muslims, they haven't experienced this. and more than that, we had actors within the must lump majority countries saying no for us it's the same. and this is where we have to be quite clear. that from an islamic view point the fact that there is negotiated authority coming from the state, and we don't want authority of religion to take over this principle which is not

against islam and we need to understand and this is what i'm saying in the book. the point is all this we have today between second arrests and islamists is not the true question. the true question if we want democratization we have to fi issues. the first one is corruption. because it's confident informant. the second is education. there's no democracy without people being educated. and education is the starting point of having citizens who are responsible, and the third one is the economy system. what is happening now. why i'm talking to you now in the middle east is unsettled societies and economic existence that is completely destroyed. without economic stability and a vision of social justice which is a third challenge. and also the reality of empowerment for women. because this is a problem. very often we speak about what is happening in the media. >> rose: there's a question. speak to that, the empowerment of women and what some people

believe that certain muslim states look at the role of women in society. saudi arabia. >> yes, exactly. this is why we have to be critical. when you have a state where for example it is said it's impossible for a woman to drop. to have access -- >> rose: islamic perceptions of islamic principles. >> exactly. interpretation which is a narrow literalist unacceptable interpretation of islam. nothing in islam can support this position. so this is why. we need to say look instead of having people from the west say do you know what, there is a in the majority of the muslim society because we are wearing stuff more than yesterday. that's not the point. lib rations for women have nothing to do with the way you dress it has to do with two things. the first access to education. and second, access to the job market. if you can get a job. and with the job having the same salary from the same skills

because we still in the united states of america are dealing with these issues. that sometimes a woman get the same job with the same skills but less salary. >> rose: okay. you've said that tunisia. tunisian is true democracy coming out of arab spring awaking, yes. >> yes. >> rose: assess what's happened in egypt since the election. what happened. >> i think this is where i was by saying -- even with what happened now in tunisia. what we have is we have something quite interesting in tunisia with the president and some secularists saying the future is to acknowledge the fact that like it or not, the islamists have the say in the future of our country. let us come together and try to

tackle the main issues. up to now, there were not able to find an agreement, not because of them, because sometimes what we had is other trends, very very narrow secular trends -- there is something happening in the muslim majority countries now is a new type of -- yesterday they were not involved in politics. >> rose: i want to talk about that. since you're there, explain to me and my audience which they are and how they're different from other islam i. >> sale fee is a term. in the beginning salife means to come first -- it's a positive consent saying we come back saying are saying to the literal understanding and the others to the creativity of the origin. today we have many facts of sale fee. you were talking before about saudi arabia, they don't call

themselves -- it's literalists. they want to implement -- >> rose: it's not the same. >> no. in fact we are talking about salife. the point is they are literalists. >> rose: they are the same is the question of definition. >> exactly, the term. and the second thing is that we had over the last 15 years is a new type of salife. remember in egypt they were saying we aren't involved in politic. few months before the election they started changing it saying we are involved. now we have salife involved in politicians and there are literalists involving the party of light as they call themselves are now being involved and we think it's the same. the muslim brotherhood in tunisia are the same. >> rose: tell me what salifes in egypt want because they did okay in the election. >> they did 23%. so what they want is two things. first the constitution, the only

reference should be to she awe law. >> rose: do you agree with that. >> this is the reading of the islam which is literalists and i think they are using the democratic system to come to say to all the people we are the only true islamic references and this is the literalist trend and this is what i'm saying to the muslim conscious today if we don't tackle this issue and not clear about the fact that the literalists reading of the sources are wrong that we need a new type of understanding of the text. clear as to the principles of our text, we are faced with the text. but often critical and challenging to our times. and one of the challenge is women as we said. >> rose: some have argued

this debate. people who have argued even during the midst of the iraq war and all of the thing that have transpired after that took place and have argued that the debate, the debate and even before the iraq war with something that had nothing to do with the iraq war but happened at 9/11 the debate ought to be within islam between -- a point of view that you're recommending and that debate has never really taken place. >> i think it's true. we need an internal debate. >> rose: right. >> amongst scholars. when i was talking about for example implementing the penal code, i was saying to the muslims stop. we now have to stop implementing and open an internal debate amongst scholars, amongst plight toes. tend of the day every society needs an internal debate. if you are democrats in the united states we better open a debate about democracy in this society when it comes to the

african american and the latinos. every society. so the muslims are not alien -- >> rose: but you could argue in america you just saw the power of the latino vote. >> fine. no, i'm not saying -- >> rose: and that that demographic change is reflective, you know in a sense of where they have so fully participated that they have power. >> they have power but not always the same rights. so the debate is still open. and in the muslim countries as you said and i think this is very important we need these debate. we need an internal debate. and i'm saying and this is from where i am. i a few years ago was saying the western muslim we have a tremendous impact on the majority of the muslims. because i can talk. because i can talk with you. i have this critical debate and come and say what we're experiencing in the west -- when i talk about islamic applied tactics to economy and

environment. this these debates coming from the west to the majority of the muslim countries i'm heard -- >> rose: in egypt you can speak your mind and have a debate. >> i didn't go yet. i will go because you know it was bad from the country for 60 years i was banned from tunisia. and -- >> rose: are you still banned. >> so far i don't have -- >> rose: why not. >> that's the point. because my record was with the army. you know what i said in this book -- >> rose: i don't understand this. why don't the egyptians now in which the muslim brother hood is in charge of the government. why don't they let you in. >> no no, they think from the very beginning even on the mubarak they were saying you can't come in. my problem is not the state or the president or the new army, as you know up to now the army is very powerful in egypt. i wrote it in the book saying be careful. all what this said is it might be what we're experiencing now

is the new positioning of the egyptian army within the citizen state after mubarak. and i still waiting to see how it is going to be in the book. >> rose: would you like to see happen in egypt what happened in turkey with respect to the army. >> of course. >> rose: putting them back in the barracks. >> exactly. this is what is remembered in the current administration they were quite smart with the european union to push through the european union the army by saying we are not going to be democracy if you still have this power within the country. >> rose: -- is the champion of secularism. >> he is -- >> rose: he goes to egypt and talks about it in cairo. some people look at it as a model of secularism. is there residence for that in the middle east? >> i think that you know, he's carrying something. >> rose: it's not an arab -- >> when he went to egypt in july one and-a-half years ago he said

we do not care for secularism, he was talking from his own experience. i think there's something we cannot deny was the islamists when they were asked about the situation they are saying we're much closer to arab and the turkish model than the iranian. we don't want the iranian. so he tried and the administration that's current turkish administration are trying something which is completely new. and they are, this is a secular state, a civil state with islamic reference. >> rose: so that is a model you would look to. >> no. i'm critical in saying they are doing good things but still there are lots of things to do. for example when it comes to minority, when it comes kurds or the economic model. it's not enough to say you are economically successful. what's important for me is the south south relationship. >> rose: south south.

>> relationship, economic relationship. when it comes to helping the other countries to just economically being in power. they are trying something which is almost 40 embassies open in african countries, turkish. and i think this is interesting but i'm still constructively critical towards the turkish. >> rose: while i have you here in the united states in this conversation, i want to move to what's happening in syria. what you think might happen in jordan and what might happen in saudi arabia and what might happen in bahrain. syria first. >> it's very sad situation. i think unfortunately i'm quite cynical about this. i think that -- >> rose: cynical. >> cynical yes. because i think from the very beginning we need to take positions of principle musharraf had to leave. now the position is divided and

we don't know exactly who is who within the position. but i think the west in the whole process not following what was done in libya, i don't think that is an intervention. this is not the way. but to be quite clear on position of principle that is helping the country to find a solution. and i'm cynical because i think today that there is an agreement not to agree between western countries and power in the united states. >> rose: an agreement with the western powers and? >> and russia and china not to agree. >> rose: you think they agree not to agree. >> yes. >> >> rose: for what purpose. >> to destabilize the east now, it's very weak. for economic reasons, strategic reasons, very weak syria is not

at all helping the middle east find a way. >> rose: what you would have with assad either leaving the country stepping down or whatever would be destabilizing that would offer or perhaps suggest a very detrimental problem. >> i think it's very different. if we go and have a stabilized free syria with people voting where the situation could be also new relationship between shiite and sunni because one of the question is the divide between shiites. and i think this situation now with syria is helping to nurture the divisions and nurturing the division. >> rose: between sunni and

shia. >> this is not new, the reality of the country between iran and iraq. >> rose: some of the strange, the shia and syria are not the same as the shia in -- >> you are completely right. if you look at who is supporting who now in iraq, you will see that iran, and lebanon is also porting, and the people supporting the opposition are qatar, saudi arabia. so you have this divide and i think that today in the middle east, in strategic terms when it comes to the united states or israel or european countries, this divides paradoxically is helping just to control the region much more. >> rose: so it's a western

conspiracy to have. >> no, no, no. i told you from the very beginning, don't, it's more complex than that. i think that the first is not the conspiracy. the power of the wells is to play with the weakness of the nuz -- muslims and they are to blame. >> rose: you're saying the weakness to the muslims is to have very very deep divisions within and the west plays off those divisions for its own gain or to maintain, prevent united muslim or islamic. >> no no, not the united. i think at least to get stability in the region. to get you know the people for example in the meetings. when it comes for example to the relationship with israel, they're not happy. so the more you have division over there, the more you will have people not being able to support the palestinians for example but not only an even freedom and democratization between the country. so i think when it comes frequent left us be clear and

this is what i'm add indicate - advocating in the book. we're dealing with colleges and -- challenges in the middle east. who are the actors. the united states? no. european countries. e. coli know, russia, indonesia. knees are the new players and the new middle east have new economic actors. the power of china now in the middle east is something which is unprecedented. >> rose: how is it expressed? >> expressioned with direct relationship in economic terms withal a the countries. for example the relationship with russia and iran in the beginning and even mubarak's sob who was to come after his father, he was turning towards china. qaddafi he was in force he was turning towards china. i think all this discussion

about democracy and political terms is something that is missing. if there is something missing if we're not talking about the economy challenges. >> rose: just as a caveat to this argument, there was a time in which the saudis were unhappy with the absence of support from mubarak. and it is said that the saudi leadership the royal family made some opening to china and considered but they withdrew from it. they came back to maintain the relationship with the united states. >> that's right. and i think all the countries saudi arabia and qatar and others within the region, they are still very very much dealing with the states. i'm not saying the united states has no power there, i'm saying that the new middle east has to do with economic terms with new actors. and these new actors are changing and shifting towards

the east. this will have a tremendous impact. i will say the waiting is not only to be considered in political terms, it has to do with economic and strategic. >> rose: it's not just the middle east. >> exactly, of course. >> rose: many people in the west including the obama station would like to see stability and democratic stability. i think the president has expressed that idea. with institutions, strong civil institutions and they would like to see it because and they would like to see syria stabilized and they would like to see a restriction of iranian power because they are trying to have influence with syria right now and hezbollah and hamas. they would like to see counterveiling forces within the islamic world against iraq. >> i think once again, you know, there is the discourse. >> rose: also about the arab spring. >> this is what they said.

>> rose: do you believe that. >> i'm not sure that it it is as good as this, you know. >> rose: conspiracy. >> it has nothing to do with conspiracy, it has to do with politics and studying history. can you tell me if the united states wanted for example more democracy in the middle east. they would be supporting saudi arabia the way they are. >> rose: do you know what the united states would say. they would say it's a case by case issue. >> dram -- democrat cease a matter of case by case. >> rose: they make exceptions. >> you're right. >> rose: saudi arabia and bahrain. >> bahrain for example the people who are protesting, they were not only shiite against sunni. they only wanted freedom. >> rose: here's an interesting point. you are saying the people at the heart of the arab spring and who were the people first in tar

rear square were people in relationship with the wealth. that's some of the values they were trying to promote in their own country. >> not only the values but the cyber dividend were training in the west and pushing towards more freedom and democracy. and all this business they didn't know what was happening that's not right. so the point here is that to push towards democracy is something that could be done and supported by the west. my only concern is when it comes to politics, you made the points. you made the point is that we are for democracy. >> rose: you would argue that they would like to see the principles evolve at different times. here's what you wrote. when nations have so often so long been visibly supporting dictatorship in the name of frequently undisclosed economic interests it would today be denied to make the excitement to consider the global norths

support for democratization as unselfish exsuppression of love -- devoid of strategic calculations. >> is this wrong or is this -- >> rose: i think anything is devoid of strategic calculations. >> so that's the point. and i think that if we want to be consistent. you know -- >> rose: in other words you have strategic calculations and then, and also have a respect for democratic values. >> exactly. at the same time, you know, for example in iraq. who was supporting for so many years, saddam hussein. it was the u.s. administration. the point i'm making -- >> rose: also strategic calculation there that you know the notion was that saddam stood out as kind of a weapon against iran. that's part of the reason they supported him in the iranian war. >> no, it was more than that. it was even before and i think they are still now supporting dictators in a way where we have to be critical. so as much as where we are here in the states, we have to be

critical by saying and asking and this is my responsibility. i'm a western european citizen and critical towards my own governments and saying do you know what, if you want democracy in the world, you better be consistent with democracy values. don't preach democracy when it suits you and forget the people. and don't tell me now that you are so caring about the blood of the people while you are leading so many people where 170 people are being killed every day in syria. we forgot the united nations in iraq with saddam hussein because of weapons of mass destruction we got this and lied about it and now we are following the united nations. the united nations once again when it suits us. i don't think this is consistent. my position is very much to say as citizens and as scholars and as intellectuals, the best way we can help the west as much as the muslim majority country is

to be principles, to know that politics is politics. but we still need more, we need more politic. >> rose: even secretary rice when she was secretary of state went to egypt and said essentially that perhaps we need to reexamine who we've been supporting, do you remember that. >> yes, that's completely true. to reexamine is not enough. >> rose: thank you. this book is call islam in the arab awakening. thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time.

at an all time high. breaking the previous record set nearly 5 1/2 years ago. the question now where do stocks go from here and what should you do to be ready, whichever way they turn. and laying the foundation as stocks hit new highs, the housing market shows strength of its own in tonight's in focus, housing's rebound. good evening, everyone and welcome to our public television viewers. i'm tyler mathison. susie gharib is off tonight. she's receiving the eliot v. bell award from the new york financial writer's association

for her lifetime contributions to financial journalism. it's a great night for her and nbr and we congratulate her. our top story aside from that, of course, is the dow. it surged to a record high close today, rolling past the previous highs setback in october of 2007. now for its part the broader s&p 500 closed at a fresh 5 1/2 year high and the nasdaq finished the session at get this a 12 year high, reached just before the tech bubble burst back in the year 2000. all in all a day for the record books. the dow more than doubling since its bear market low almost exactly four years ago but the question is why? why so high? and why now? so why is the dow so high when the economy is so cool? gas prices so high. and consumers still smarting from tighter take home pay. well one reason is this man,