from washington, the mclaughlin group. the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. the mclaughlin group is brought to you by seamans. every day, seamans answers are helping build a future of america. seamans, answers. just wanted to check and make sure we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind. >> mom and dad, i have great

news. >> issue one, pacific pivot. >> i said many times, the united states is and always will be a pacific nation. america's security and prosperity is inseparable from the future of this region and that's why i made it a priority to renew the asian pacific. in the corner stone out of our strategy and the region's security and economic progress is our historic treaty alliances. including with japan. >> president obama is in asia on a four-nation tour that brings him to japan, malaysia, and the philippines. it's a trip that has long been on hold, the president had to cancel his scheduled asian trip last year. during the government shutdown and canceled twice in 2010. the bp oil spill and debate. forcing our traditional asian

allies to feel skeptical. about the so-call the pivot. notably the series in syria and ukraine. the president is there to reassure, stop japan where mr. obama was treated to a formal state visit. japan is the u.s.'s fourth largest trading partner with $203 billion in goods flowing between the two nations last year, 2013. but there's an on going trade in balance. u.s. exports, $635 billion while japan exports $138 billion to the u.s. in order to level that playing field, president obama wants to boost the tpp, the transpacific partnership of free trade zone that does not include china. if the tpp were to become reality, it would comprise the biggest trade accord in u.s. history, but there are hurdles. the u.s. wants a bigger

foothold than japan's automobile and agricultural sectors. only 6% of autos sold inside japan are foreign made. and there's agriculture. the japanese government protects japanese farmers. also this. the security front. japan is in a dispute with china over a group of islands in the east china sea that japan named. both nations claim the islands. now for the first time, a u.s. president, obama, has sided with japan. ahead of his visit, the president told the japanese newspaper that the islands fall under the u.s., japan mutual security treaty and said quote, the policy of the united states is clear. the islands are administered by japan. we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine japan's administration of these islands. unquote. >> question, one of the main objectives of president obama's

trip to asia, the asian pivot. >> japan is in a conflict with china. japan add administered these islands, china entered a claim for them. this could go to a shooting war. if you go to the philippines and malaysia, both of those places have islands in the south china sea. the philippines are in a conflict with china and they want the american military support behind them. >> in the philippines. >> south korea has a treaty with the united states to defend it against north korea or to fight on its behalf and the japanese and the south koreaens have a conflict over islands, john. but the point here is, united states has commitments to go to war for south korea and for japan and for the philippines that date back 60 years to the early and mid 1950s. what has happened to america at the end of the cold war, we

made a terrible mistake. we failed to review all these security treaties and war commitments as lord solsbury said, one of the great failings in politics is to remain to the carcasses of dead policies. >> to deter china's expansion ambitions, that's one reason and an important reason why he went. do you agree with that and his exposition of that? >> i think the administration views china as a friendly economic rival. i think they do see it as a rising power and they do like the idea of lining with the other countries in that region as a buffer. but i don't think it's as direct an attempt to contain as you put it. i also think these security arrangements are not, even though they haven't been reviewed, i think they probably have. i think the u.s. is sticking to them. the islands do come under, or arrangement or alliance with japan and i imagine if china

actually invaded, they aren't inhabited. they are a pile of rocks. there is the u.s. will stick by that. >> let's not get hung up on the islands, so to speak. there's another reason why he went there and it's a big reason. what is it? it's called the t.p.p. do you know? >> the free trade agreement we are trying to reach. >> the transpacific partnership. >> it's a huge free trade deal. it's politically going to be very hard. we saw that this week. people always like to talk about deliverable as a horrible word. what are you going to come away with? the americans will have some sort of gesture of real progress from japan, but despite all the sort of state visit and the delicious sushi that president obama was given, he was given a cold shoulder when it came to the trade site, the prime minister said, we are very, very concerned about

protecting our farmers and these are extremely high cost, extremely boutique farms that are protected. and that's a real disappoint for the americans. >> we have crimea going on, or having taken place, and now you are having a possible extension of that. does obama have to reassure those allies over there that he is not going to do anything? he's not going to do anything to encourage any kind of a crimea arrangement, any kind of a move on them, you follow me? >> look. crimea raises a big issue for the united states, which is its credibility. and that is being an issue that affected american policy ever since the president walked away from his commitments on syria. nobody has any great confidence as to what the united states is going to do in the face of whether it's incrimea or the soviet union or the philippines or in asia. it's a real issue for the united states and he can go there and say the words, but he doesn't have the credibility to in effect, deter his opposition. >> we have a treaty with japan.

ukraine is a friendly nation. crimea is really dealting to russia. these are very different situations. and frankly, if john mccain had been in the white house, we would have been in wars in all of these places. the president kept us out of wars. >> i think mort's point is exactly right. it was an idiotic thing tosh to issue a red line. you aren't going to follow through on it, but there's no doubt, american credibility all over the world and certainly, john, in eastern europe now, the republic and also in poland and romania, they are terrified that the americans are going to do exactly nothing to stop putin if he moves into eastern and southern ukraine. all the way -- >> we can see american forces. that's a big deal. he didn't have to send ground forces. >> 600 troops in four countries. >> i want to hear more about the pivot to asia. okay, why the pivot to asia? >> that's what clyde wants to know. the president of the economics

strategy institute and a trade negotiator during the reagan administration. in the financial times this week, he says it's not asia that should feel neglected. but the u.s. quote. listening to the asians, you would never know that the u.s. 7th fleet has been stationed in japan and tasked with patrolling the western pacific for the past 69 years. all that there are 30,000 american troops stationed in south korea and another 50,000 in japan. america is committed to defend japan and south korea if they are attacked. those nations are not committed to defend america if it is attacked. similarly in the economic realm, the flow of benefits, they have been heavily in favor of the asia pacific countries. most of them have based their development on export lead

growth policy. using protectionism and currency manipulation to generate with the u.s. to what threat do these countries need reassurance of support isn't the obvious answer is, china. consider that china poses no direct threat to the u.s. it is not going to invade america. nor is it going to try to seriously disrupt our economy. nor is it promoting a dangerous global ideology. consider that the asian countries calling for a u.s., are also expanding their trade and their investment with china as fast as they can. so it is not exactly clear what the u.s. gets out of the deal. instead of answering the asians questions about the steadfast nest of america's commitment to them, the president should ask them what they are prepared to do for america. unquote. >> is clyde right that it's not exactly clear what the u.s. gets out of the deal? so should president obama press

japan and south korea on what they are prepared to do for america? >> yes, john. clyde is an economic nationalist. what he is saying is, basically japan has been cleaning our clocks with trade surpluses for decades now. the chinese has been doing it. the asians have been doing it. we have been providing them basically all free of charge with their security. maybe it's time for the greatest power and world when we provide security to get payment for it in some kind. maybe we run trade surpluses and they pay for the defense we are providing. >> japan could be a nuclear power overnight if they got the green light. this is a security arrangement that benefits not only our country and that benefits the whole world. the security arrangement that goes back 60 years and i think it's going to be honored and you don't toss that over and say okay, now you're going to fend for yourself. >> why don't they pay for their defense? if we're providing it. why don't they pay us?

>> we didn't like the way they paid for their defense once upon a time and i'm sure you remember that period, and i think our policy is still based on that. i'm sure you feel the same way about germany and parts of europe as well. but maybe they could pay a little more. i don't think you undermine the arrangement we had. >> i was based in china as a journalist. china is an extremely disruptive rising power potentially. think of all the american companies who manufacture, who supply chains include a lot of manufacturing in china, but also here. these are all stitched into the global patchwork quilt of globalization. at which america is a master mind. very well globalization, whatever pat buchanan may think. the absence of war in america as the preeminent security, it's expensive in terms of what we spend on ships and planes.

we don't want to see japan arming to the teeth under a conservative nationalist prime minister picking fights with the northeast. >> isn't it comforting to you that capitalism serves as a restraint? you understand his reasoning. can you appreciate that and can you echo that? >> look. i think the problem that we have here in the united states is we have a weak economy and weakened economy that we can look forward to for the next three to five years, according to the congressional budget office. woe don't have the resources we once had to pay for all this military support. so we have to rebalance those issues with countries like japan and indeed with certainly with japan. >> that brings us to the t.p.p. is the t.p.p. going to resolve any of our imbalances that you're talking about? economics. >> it will certainly help. transpacific partnership. >> that's a free trade zone.

that would help the american economy significantly. that's one of the issues we have with japan. >> you know where he's going over there and do those locations and reenforce the idea that the t.p.p. can be revised, that's not the right word, rejuvenated and make something out of it. >> he will have some influence on it, i just don't know how much. but clearly it would be in the american interest for them to do it and that's what one of the things? wait a minute. if it is fully functioning, is the yield? >> not going to overwelm everything, but it's going to be a big step forward in terms of our own balance of trade. >> we're on a $500 billion trade deficit every single year. all those factories in china used to be here in the united states. as far capitalism preventing wars, 100 years ago, the two greatest trading partners in europe were germany and great britain. just before they went to war with each other. >> why don't you impress, do

out and have a drink and stay for three or four hours. don't forget the mclaughlin group has its own website and you can watch this program and earlier programs on the web at any time from anywhere in the world, mclaughlin.com. okay. all points bulletin. april 20, mclaughlin stated on air that canada and the u.s. have literacy rates of get this, 49%. a grossly erroneous figure. canada and the u.s. have literacy rates of 99%. chalk the error up to last minute note taking by the host. and thanks to our canadian viewer, dianne garrett, for e- mailing us on this. issue two, affirmative inaction. >> though supreme court this week struck a blow to affirmative action. affirmative action is defined by the ensigh encyclopedia, improve employment or

educational employees for women and members of minority groups. it was undertaken at the federal level following passage of the civil rights act of 1964. designed to counteract the effects of past dediscrimination. it consistents of policies and programs that give preferences to minorities and women. college admissions, governor contractor wars and allocations of other social benefits. the main criteria are race, ethnic, religion, disability, and age. unquote. but there have been challenges to affirmative action, namely residents of the state of michigan in 2006, eight years ago, voted to amend the state constitution to include a ban on affirmative action, end quote, preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

this affirmative action ban extended to publicly funded colleges in michigan. and this week, in a 6-2 ruling was justice elana sustaining. upheld michigan's ban. justice anthony kennedy wrote the main opinion, quote, this case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. it is about who may resolve it. unquote. in other words, who may resolve it are the voters. the 58 page descending opinion was by justice sonya. quote, as members of the judiciary task with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we aught not sit back and wish away rather than confront the racial inequality that exists in our society. unquote. by the way, black students at the university of michigan in ann arbor, today represents slightly more than 4.5% of the

student population. that is a 33% decrease from what the population was in 2006 when voters approved the affirmative action ban. question, does the supreme court decision indicate that the u.s. has outgrown the need for affirmative action? i ask you, david. >> i think that is there a problem with helping african americans into good colleges? yes. what the court was making a technical call. the american public opinion is hostile to quotas, extremely hostile to the bumping people up in the schools. i think what they said in justice kennedy's ruling, which was right, there are other ways to do this. there are smarter ways to do this. targeting low income schools, targeting inner city schools. that is where the american public. >> michigan joins seven other states, including california, that have these similar bans. if you look at the public universities in these states,

the number of minorities has fallen. so, no, you can't say that we've passed the need for affirmative action. but it is challenging. the other states to try to find other ways. in texas, they admitted top 10% in all of the high schools to colleges and that assumes that these high schools are pretty much segregated, black, white, hispanic. >> it's not exactly right. >> i get to finish my thought. you get a diversity. so there are other ways to achieve this. but i think this is a setback. and her decent, which is based on her personal experience and illegallistic argument is persuasive. >> i don't think it's a conservative talk show i get enough here, john. >> justice went to law school

on affirmative action. they are doing well in california. if they had a legitimate contest, 80% of berkeley would be asian american students because they do so extraordinarily well. but this decision, john, all it said was, that if you want to do away with affirmative action, you can do away with it by referendum. the voters can decide this issue. but i think, the supreme court has the test coming up where it's going to hopefully knock in the head all dediscrimination or preferential treatment based on race, so we can get back to the ideal of 1964. >> once you get rid of the dediscrimination on race, we can get back to the segregation we like. >> the nfl players are 65% of the nfl, they compete very well. they are over represented 5-1. >> okay, mclaughlin group preview. the u.s. congress has failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. the house speaker, john boehner, gives us a hint as to why speaker boehner, when it

comes to immigration, what is the attitude of your fellow republicans, sir? >> here's the attitude. oh, don't make me do this. oh, this is too hard. >> you should hear him. we are discussing immigration next week. exit question. with this ruling of the supreme court, has it moved america closer to martin luther king, jr., dream of a color blind society or does it move us further away from that dream? i ask you, mort. >> i think actually it has moved us a little bit away. we have to find better ways of dealing with it than this particular solution of having minimum numbers of blacks or whatever it is, because pat says if you look at the asian population, they would get a much larger representation and almost all of these higher schools of education. so it's very complicated issue. i have no way, no easy way to solve this problem. >> do you think the nation feels the nation moved beyond

the need for affirmative action? >> the answer is yes. even santa drey o'conner said we should do affirmative action for 25 years more. i think the vast majority of americans believe look, get rid of all racial preferences, all dediscrimination as justice robert said, the real way to end dediscrimination by race is to end dediscrimination by race. issue three, lawyered up. >> when it comes to attorneys, congress is lawyered up. more than half of those serving in the u.s. senate are lawyers. as are more than a third of the members of the house. and that is not counting congressional staff. no other profession has dominated american politics since the singe signing of the decloration of independence. our founding fathers were attorneys. some foreign observers, like the alexis, author of democracy in america, see this as a natural outcome for a country

whose constitution has a separation of powers. and a further separation of powers between the federal and state government. the political tug of war thus created leads naturally, adjudication. others are dubious, quote, a legalistic approach to politics is no longer serving america well. politicians of both parties are too eager to denounce the conduct as not just wrong, but as illegitimate. what room does that leave for compromise? unquote. so, says lexington, who is with us today. in the economist magazine. >> we uncovered you. >> i am. >> you say here the dangers of taking a legalistic approach to america's budget wars. lawyers beware lawyers. what points are you making in here that lead you to us

conclude we should sack them all? >> the problem with having so many lies, the house of commons, it's like one in 12 is a liar. the problem is, a lot of the disputes america is facing, or essentially political arguments, there's something unique about a congress full of lawyers where instead of saying you're right or you're wrong, it's let's impeach the president. this is unlawful. this is an illegitimate use of power. that's a lawyer way of approaching things. it's striking. i used to cover politics in europe. processes in europe, the prime minister should resign. protesters in this country very often say impeach the president. you have that very legalistic approach. the problem with that is not allowing your opponents to argue the politics. very deadlocked. >> instead of seeking compromise, it's all or nothing at all? >> if they are unlawful, there's no room for compromise.

>> the impeachment goes back -- we don't have a parliamentary system where you can get a government to resign. you have a system where you are elected for a particular period of time four years and you just don't have a government that resigns. you have to impeach them if you want to get them out of office. it's very different than it is in the european system. >> what do you think of that? >> you're right. it's not a parliamentary system. you have numbers of liars. half the senate, a third of the house, does make them keen to make legalistic -- >> john. >> what do you mean by legalistic? >> congress is, you know, when you're having a political dispute about shutting down the government, you end up with members of congress saying the president is over stepping his legal boundaries. >> did richard nixon complain about excess of lawyers in the government? >> the problem is not the lawyers. the problem is deep and irreconcilable conflict and

divided power in government. >> eleanor, quickly. five seconds. >> it's the fact they are bought off by business interests. >> precisely stated. i'm not saying well stated, are you? >> i'm not saying well stated, no. >> globalization is dead, putin killed it in crimea. the rules of order are disorder. >> too much. >> wrong, way too simplistic. >> anyway toe is still there. >> that's way off the mark. >> more right than wrong. bye bye. the mclaughlin group is brought to you by seaman's. every day, seamans answers are helping build a future of america. seeman's, answers.

i wanted to check and make sure we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind. >> mom and dad, i have great news. >> is now providing answers. seaman's. answers.

next on kqed "newsroom": should police be able to examen the contents of cell phones without a warrant? a look at the changing face of san francisco with mayor ed lee. plus, comedian brian copeland brings back his hit one-man show "not a genuine black man." >> i don't talk ghetto. when i hear the word "ax" i think of it as a noun. [ laughter ]