>> rose: welcome to our program. we beginn this evening with a conversation about religion and politics. with jon meacham, matt dowd, richard land, and e.j. dionne. >> i think the point is we need to save religion from the religious. santorum is pushing things to an extreme where it's going to be very hard for religious people to argue that religion has a place in the public square when you have extremist views taking over and taking such a central place in the conversation. >> i think rick santorum is completely mishandled this whole entire issue and how to talk about it. voters want somebody that they believe is faith-filled. they want somebody that they

believe is religious. they want somebody that they believe answers to a higher authority not of this earth but they don't want somebody that constantly talks about it and constantly says every decision they said is going to be informd by it. to me being faith-built and being religious is lot like what margaret thatcher said about being a lady which is if you say you're one you're probably not. if you have to say that over and over again, prove it by what you do in the political marketplace. prove it by that. the more you talk about it, the more people are turned off by it especially people under 30 years old in this country who do not want a moralistic, judgmental, religious language. >> rose: we conclude this evening with a conversation about politics with jon huntsman, former presidential candidate and former ambassador to china and former governor of utah. >> you can break it down into 100 different reasons why somebody doesn't catch fire. but i felt throughout that probably the greatest drag was the fact that i had crossed a

partisan line. in a highly partisan charged year, if you crossed a partisan line, that's held against you. if you're not willing to throw red meat out when they want red meat, they're going to look for somebody who will. and in some of the early primary contests that's what it's all about. if you can get beyond that and get into the general, you're perfectly positions. we have the greatest universities and colleges on earth and people still flock here from all over to aten them. they have our secret weapon si with is most innovative and creative class of people on earth. that's our engine of growth. today they're a little down on their luck. they don't know what tomorrow brings so they're less active than they ought to be. they need to be fired up against. we have a pretty brave and courageous armed forces. you look at every attribute and we're ready to go. we have everything a nation would want for success. we're just a bit in a funk. we've lost our mojo. >> rose: a conversation about religion and politics and a

conversation about politics and the republican primary process. when we continue. funding for charlie rose by provided by the following. it feels like help is never far away. it feels like you're protected against life's little mishaps. it feels like you'll make it home. that's what it feels like to be a member. >> rose: additional funding provided by these funders.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. we'll look at the role of religion in politics. there has been a growing focus on social issues in the weeks leading up to the primary contest to be held in michigan and arizona. tomorrow over the weekend, republican candidate rick santorum questioned the need for an absolute separation between church and state. here's how he described his reaction to john f. kennedy's 1960 speech about the role of religion in the public sphere. >> earlier in the campaign you talked about j.f.k.'s famous speech to the baptist ministers in houston back in 1960. here's what you had to say. >> i had the opportunity to read the speech and i almost threw up.

you should read the speech. >> that speech has been read as you know by millions of americans. its themes were echoed in part by mitt romney in the last campaign. why did it make you throw up? >> because the first line... the first substantive line in the speech says i believe in an america where the separation of church and state is absolute. i don't believe in an america with a separation of church and state is absolute. the idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. this is the first amendment. the first amendment says the free exercise of religion. that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. kennedy for the first time articulated a vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. i will keep it separate. go on and read the speech. i will have nothing to do with faith. i won't consult with people of faith. it was an absolutist doctrine.

>> rose: richard land is the president of the ethics and religious liberty commission. from washington e.j.study on, a columnist for the "washington post." here in new york jon meacham is executive editor of random house and matt dowd a contributor for bloomberg news and abc news. i am pleased to have all of them here. let me begin you with, matt dowd, tell me what you know about what the polling says about where we are in michigan. >> we've had a great change over the last ten days. ten days ago 14 days ago mitt romney had a lead. everybody thought he was going to win it in his home state. then rick santorum wins those three caucuses and primaries. he takes a slight lead after that. today i think mitt romney has a very slight lead going into it. if you waited three more days, rick santorum might have another lead in this thing. i think it will be close but i think in the end because of where momentum is today, mitt romney probably pulls it out but in a close race in michigan. i think he wins arizona going away.

it's not even close. >> rose: richard land, does that measure what you're hearing from your frondz in politics? >> it does. i think he's going to win arizona and romney is. he'll probably squeak out a very narrow win in michigan. but it will be clear that it's santorum and romney. and the other two are out. >> rose: does anybody expect a brokered convention or is this romney's now to lose? e.j.? >> i think if romney wins michigan, he goes into super tuesday pretty strong. i have to say that the one thing that makes me think santorum has a chance to win michigan is that all the pundits and all the journalists right now think romney is going to win michigan. that's been a great indicator of something going the other way. but i think it's very hard to get a brokered convention unless romney loses. and then you may have a crisis in the republican party where people are saying, if romney can't beat santorum, how can he win the election?

and santorum can't win the election. there will be a lot of commotion but actually arranging a brokered convention creating a result that gets here is very hard. >> rose: how much do you... how do you figure what santorum is doing with respect to all of the conversation about social issues, about separation between church and state? where is he going with this? >> other than what he genuinely believes-- and he may well, and i think.... >> rose: i assume he does. >> i think he's playing to a kind of mythical base that's in about 1955 in many ways. he, by wanting to throw up when he heard the speech in houston, which was a classic statement of jeffersonian separatism, of church and state not of religion and politics. it's an important distinction that in primary campaigns gets messed up. separating church and state is

a institutional, legal and actually comes out of the theological condition. you had the wall between church and state not to protect the state from the church but the church from the state. it comes from richard hooker used by roger williams, picked up by jefferson. stayed out of the language until hugo black brought it back in 1947. so the idea that church and state are separate is an american tradition. the only mention of religion in the constitution is no religious test for office. president kennedy said in the speech in houston, if you don't want a religious test, if you want a religious test, get out and openly argue for that. and i think there is a de facto argument here about returning to a much more overtly religious politics that at our best in america we have avoided.

>> rose: what i think is... we'll come right to you. >> what i think is fascinating about this, having grown up in a very irish catholic household and been in a lot of irish pubs with j.f.k.'s picture in them throughout my life is what's happened in the last 50 years. j.f.k. gave that speech not because he wanted to give a great treatise on church and state. he felt he had to give that speech in order to get elected because he knew the bigotry and a lot of the prejudice of many fundamentals protestants towards catholics. they saw the last catholic to run to serve as a nominee was al smith. he lost for many people thought he lost because he was catholic. >> rose: the ideal was that a presidential candidate al smith would take orders from the vatican. >> he had stood before the holland tunnel and a number of people said that was a tunnel to the vatican. bob jones said he would rather have a saloon on every corner than a catholic white house back in that race.

j.f.k. draws this big, dark line for political reasons feeling he had to get elected because of what he felt was prejudice from fundamentalist protestants. rick santorum for political reasons thinks he needs to erase that line in order to get the votes from fundamentalist protestants. he would be the first catholic. no catholic has ever been a nominee of the republican party in the history of this country. the fact that he did that is such a change in the last 50 years. it's a different republican party obviously but it's also how rick santorum i think he's made a huge mistake in how he's talked about these issues. people want somebody that's religious and somebody with a sense of values and somebody that is moral, but they don't want somebody that comes across as judgmental and is going to wear that on their sleeves. that's one thing i don't think the american public likes. they want to know that somebody is vested with those values and somebody that practices religion on a daily basis but how he says things and what he's says he's reflecting values cultural conservatism is very popular

in this country but i think rick santorum is offending more people than he's getting. >> i wish he had used more presidential language in describing his reaction to kennedy's speech. i'm curious how that goes over with voters. but i think that is absolutely right. think about the difference. john kennedy said religion doesn't really matter to me. in order to win the votes of evangelical protestants. rick santorum is saying, religion means almost everything to me. in order to win the votes of evangelical protestants. that tells you that the whole idea of a religious wall in the public square is so much more important now than it was in 1960. and the other thing is that when you go back to the al smith race, i think we go through cycles here. we also had a long period in the 1920s when religion really really mattered a lot. prohibition was the hot issue in the '20s, and al smith's

catholicism. and then something happened. then the crash of wall street happened. and for a very long time, religious issues receded as being central. religious and cultural issues. they came back in 1980. i think this economic downturn has not pushed them back as far as honestly i expected it to. there is a kind of... there is still this very strong republican constituency that santorum is speaking to. >> rose: richard land. >> yes, sir. first of all, i don't think that kennedy said religion wasn't important. he said he would be guided by his conscience. we have to believe his conscience of being informed by his catholic background and upbringing but no external religious authority weigh gs to dictate to him. i was living in houston. i was a 13-year-old teenager at the time. my pastor went to that speech that was for the greater houston ministerial association. he came back and got up in church the next sunday and said i've listened to senator

kennedy. i've heard his heart. it's okay to vote for j.f.k.. president kennedy when he was senator kennedy said he would be guided by his conscience and that he wouldn't be of go earned by external authority, but he would be guided by his conscience. to do otherwise would be shameful. so i think he was making this very clear distinction between the separation of the institution of the church and the institution of the state but not between religiously informed conscience and moral values. i happen to agree that i think santorum is doing this and talking about this in a way that is more... he can do it in a much more positive way than in a negative way. he can do it by talking, you know, don't talk about satan. talk about evil. don't talk about denominations. talk about traditional morality versus modern post modernism. do you believe in traditional values then you're going to believe in absolutes. if you're a post modernist

you'll be a situationeth tonight. you're going to believe in american exceptional. if not you're going to believe in internationalism. let people identify themselves around these issues. >> rose: my question is that he's using what kennedy said in a sense twisting what kennedy says. >> i think santorum is playing with fire here. i think he is probably doing it consciously presumably. but even if he's not, he's putting religion in politics which is a project that e.j., and that richard afternoon that a lot of folks have spent a lot of time trying to find a way to have a mature conversation about how religion is one factor among many in the republican, lower- case r, construct. how it should be a force like economics, geography and partisanship how it has to be a place in the public sphere. a lot of people have worked really hard to have that conversation. and we have, we as a country

have come to the point where we have done that. i remember in 2008 you couldn't go three hours without hillary clinton and barack obama going to a faith forum. it was the damnedest thing you could think of. there were so many of them. >> rose: or a prayer breakfast. >> bagels and jesus. i'm all for it. i think the point here is that we need to save religion from the religious. and santorum is pushing things to an extreme where it's going to be very hard for religious people to argue that religion has a place in the public square when you have extremist views taking over and taking such a central place in the conversation. i honestly believe that. >> i just think that these politicians-- and i think rick santorum has completely mishandled this whole entire issue and how to talk about it-- voters want somebody that they believe is faith-filled.

they want somebody that they believe is religious. they want somebody that they believe answers to a higher authority not of this earth. but they don't want somebody that constantly talks about it. that constantly says every decision they make is going to be informed by it. to me being faith-filled and being religious is a lot like what margaret thatcher said about being a lady, which is if you have to say you're one you're probably not. and most people think that if you have to say that over and over again, prove it by what you do. prove it by what you do in the political marketplace. prove it by that. the more you talk about it, the more people are turned off by it especially people under 30 years old in this country who do not want a moralistic, judgmental, religious language. >> rose: to go what charlie just said seconds ago, santorum is mischaracterizing what president kennedy said. president kennedy was talking about the great american tradition of religious liberty. he mentioned his brother died for it and he fought for it in the south pacific. kennedy was not talking about religion not playing a role in the life of the country.

he was simply saying it should not be the force. we are no a theocracy but a democracy. >> to i have... i have to say it's mediated through the person. in other words, john kennedy said i'm not the catholic candidate for president. i'll be guided by my conscience. i think americans are comfortable with that. they're not comfortable with something somebody saying i'm the christian candidate or i'm the protestant candidate. they want somebody who, i think... i think they do want somebody who is a person of faith but someone who is being working from their conscience. look, i know santorum. he's a sincere and honest guy. i just think he's talking about this in ways that are needlessly divisive. >> could i just say i don't agree with santorum on this. but i think his view of the kennedy speech is a very widely held view among a lot of intellectuals on the right, religious intellectuals on the

right end of the scale which is that kennedy's speech really was trying to assign religion a very minimal role in american public life and that he did that for a good reason in a campaign where he needed protestant votes and in a different time in our country's history. i think it's hard to analyze santorum on this because i think he is actually saying what he thinks. the definition of gaffe is when a politician tells the truth about what he thinks. the problem politically is i think he looks like he's running to be the very best teacher in a jesuit high school not running for president. you love a good teach teacher to challenge you and go at you like santorum does. even when you disagree with him. and i don't think it goes over well in a presidential campaign. >> i would disagree with one thing e.j.said. he would not make a very good teacher in a jesuit high school at all because his version of catholicism is a

very small boxed-in version. his version of catholicism which is another interesting thing about this, he says that i've practiced my practice. i do these things. therefore, contraception we shouldn't be practicing contraception which is majority of the country is for. he's totally against abortion but he doesn't make one mention of the fact that the iraq war which was american bishops and most of the catholic church came out against it. he's for capital punishment which is the catholic church is against. there's a number of positions that rick santorum is not in sync on his own church that he's faith-filled on. so i would say he's not... he's of the vein of i have a particular set of issues. the other thing i think that is very interesting about this is i would have thought the most intense conversation about faith in this campaign wasn't going to be around the catholic. it was going to be around the mormon, that everybody thought was problematic. we are having a conversation around the catholic of running for president by virtue of what he said. >> rose: what do you make also of what he said about college

and this idea that obama wants people to go to college because it will shake them from their beliefs? >> you know, i was really struck when he talked about indoctrination because i teach at georgetown a good jesuit institution. in fact, i begin every class i teach with a lecture where i say, my job here is not to indoctrinate you into my views. i want you to hold your own views in a more critical, thoughtful and persuasive way. so i think it showed a complete misunderstanding of what colleges do. now if he wants to say, not everybody who goes to college... people who don't go to college should have opportunities. well, i agree with that. but that's not how he said it. >> it's a class... i mean basically santorum has managed to start both a religious war and a class war. >> rose: and a cultural war. >> and they're related. they're totally related.

but it is, in fact, a politically he is speaking to a base that again i would argue is some combination of inherit the wind and the bells of st. mary's. if that base is big enough to get the nomination, god be with him. >> rick has a strong among, you know, protestants and catholics who are pro-life he has a very strong following. he's making some very important points about the fact that when children have two parents and those two parents stay married to each other, they're six times less likely to end up in prison. they're several times more likely to not try to commit suicide. they're far more likely to finish high school. they're far less likely to have children out of wedlock. there is something to be said about encouraging stable family formation. >> the funny thing to me about what's happened over the course of the last few weeks both by rick santorum and some things that mitt romney has

done is these two guys have concentrated on michigan. michigan was a battle ground swing state three weeks ago. it was dead even between romney or santorum and barack obama. the president was actually flew to michigan to give a major speech because they were so worried' michigan and what would be in the fall. they knew they would have to spend money there. that state is no longer a battle ground state. it's no longer a state that will be on anybody's list in the fall primarily not fully but primarily driven by the type of kpin campaign that has been waged and conducted between romney and santorum. >> i wouldn't discount the $7,000 bonus that each member of the united auto workers got from the obama administration. the pay-off. >> or the fact that the auto bailout which so many people were against has actually worked. i think some of these.... >> an auto bailout that was started by george w. bush and continued by obama. >> rose: here's kennedy's speech. there's a paragraph early in

kennedy's speech where he says the real issues in this campaign are the people in west virginia, i just spoke to who are hungry, the cold war and the alleged missile gap. here are the real issues. we're being distracted by this catholic issue so i want to talk about this so we can move back. i think all of us would agree that the moral compass or a presidential candidate informs everything else. john kennedy ended his inaugural address which was one of the most militant cold war speeches you can imagine by saying, on earth god's work must truly be our own. that was the last line of the speech. >> and that our rights come from god not government. >> i love that speech, too, jon. i've always thought there was a lovely ambiguity about here on work god's work must truly be our own. he's very invested in god or it actually kind of distances god and says it's all on us to deal with this.

i think kennedy was quite brilliant in his use of religious language in sounding religious to those who wanted him to hear him that way and not so religious to people who didn't want to hear him that way. >> rose: i would argue that that's exactly what the greatest american politicians have always done. >> lincoln did it too. washington did it. fdr did it. ronald reagan did it. bill clinton did it. >> eisenhower did it. >> what i would argue is that there is a covenant in american life largely unspoken in which we allow religious appeals and language and illusions into our public and political discourse as long as we don't push it too far. when you push it too far, you begin to break the covenant. there are all sorts of intellectual problems with that. are you really pray to go a different god when you're at a prayer breakfast than when you're at church. all of that is totally legitimate. all of that is for theological debate and consideration.

the truth about the american experience is that we have found a way to have this religious imagery in our public life without going too far. >> politically the question tomorrow will be, i'm inclined to think that he should have stayed away from this extreme religious language, focused more on his standing as a working class hero against romney. that might have won in michigan. if for some reason we're all wrong and santorum wins michigan it will mean that this very intense, some would say divisive language, turned out a whole heck of a lot of voters in western michigan. and the republican party is at least perhaps even a more conservative party than we thought it was. >> rose: richard land, what about obama and how he handles all these issues? >> not deftly. in terms of most religious conservatives not deftly, the

fact he's gone to church so seldom since he's been president. not deftly at all. in fact he's going to have a lot of people don't underestimate, do not underestimate barack obama's almost unique ability to unite those who oppose him around his opponent. >> the only thing i will say is barack obama-- and this is when i first started paying attention to barack obama-- he gave a speech in early 2006 on faith and politics. especially aimed at the democratic party's seeming reluctance to ever talk about it. it was an unbelievable speech. when he wants to, he can talk about this issue in a way that says faith is important in politics. it's an important practice. its not that we should be sermonizing. it's an important part of how we should judge morals and what we do. i think we are arriving to election day but what we've seen take place in the last 30-

45 days is a combination of a republican primary process that has devolved in whoever comes out of it is going to be a very damaged candidate with a president each day that goes forward, pieces of economic, positive economic news seem to brighten. his job approval number which had seemed to be sitting at 39 or 40 at the end of last year is now sitting at 50 or in the high 40s. anything could happen this summer but the combination of both the lack of enthusiasm and emotions behind either candidates as low as it's ever been in 50 years behind the potential nominees of a pear. much lower than when john mccain won the nomination 25 points lower than it was. that combination is beginning to show signs that this nomination which we thought was worth having by a republican maybe not as much worth having. >> rose: last word. thank you very much. jon huntsman is here. he is the former u.s.

ambassador to china, governor of utah. he was a candidate for the republican presidential nomination last month. he ended his bid in january after the third place finish in the new hampshire primary. the race remains volatile. i'm pleased to have jon huntsman back at this table. welcome. >> thanks, charlie. honor to be with you. >> rose: thank you. we took great pleasure of being able to talk to you. what do you think it accomplished? >> i think he's now able to check the box of having been through the diplomatic drill here in the united states which for those in the beijing audience very closely watching and analyzing how he conducted himself was a very meaningful event. in other words, how you're seen, how you come port yourself, how you handle the western media is a critically important part of it. how you handle some of the thorny issues with respect to their core issues, tibet, taiwan, human rights, south china sea. he got through it all. as i suspect everyone figured

he would. he's a talented party functionary. and now instead of being 99% or 95% of the way there, he's 99% of the way there. >> rose: who chooses him? >> well, he's the first non-ping appointee. if you stop to wonder that we're beginning a new dynasty. ping was around long enough to anoint the last leader of china. now we begin a new period. left pretty much up to the standing committee of the politburo, the nine members of the standing committee would have deliberated and continued to deliberate about that. and then the back drop would include two or three former senior ranking party cadre.

there were some who were fairly instrumental. you don't them but behind the scenes they're still very important players. they probably were part of broader deliberations about the next party secretary. >> rose: was he their candidate? >> everyone has a different candidate. sometimes you're the last man standing. sometimes you're, you know, you're not necessarily the frontrunner early on but you're the one who survives the obstacle course. politics can get pretty brutal. in china. sometimes we don't see it that way or realize it but there are fierce politics that play out behind the scenes of these appointments in china. there would have been deliberating behind the curtain with some of the retired elders. there would have been a lot of deliberating within the politburo. >> rose: the face of chinese leadership is much younger. >> this is the fifth generation. this is the fifth generation. you know, the first generation really to come to the forefront during a time of stability.

during a time of economic prosperity. so you have to say what's in their head? what's in their head isn't necessarily the anguishing times of greatly... 1960 to 1964 or the travails of the cultural revolution 66 to 76 so many would have experienced it. what they're informed by more than anything else are 30 years of 8, 9, 10 percent g.d.p. growth. the world is theirs. they're on the world stage. they have to now figure out how to deal with that reality which they didn't figure would be theirs for another 20 years. >> rose: they've got to shift their economy from an exporting economy to a domestic command economy. >> they do. and that's not an easy transition to make. you've got to cover the social safety net issues which are extremely expensive: affordable housing, social security, health care. >> rose: wages going up. >> minimum wage. all of those are issues that they have to deal with that are not easy for them. >> rose:.

that's the transition that they're beginning including how to wean s.o.e.s narcotic state roll. >> rose: do they believe it's not a level playing field or do they say yes we know that but that's because we started late. >> they hear it. they look at the world afternoon they say it's unpredictionability. europe is a question mark. america is is a question mark. japan has faulted all of their key export and trading markets. they say if we're going to survive as an export platform we have to be able to predict where the global economy is going to take us so we can predict some level of stability for our people going forward. that's all been called into question. do them want to abide by the rules of the road? not yet. not until there's greater certainty and clarity in terms of what the global economy looks like. because it all comes down to one word, charlie, and that's stability.

they need to maintain societal stability so that the party can prevail. that's their ultimate goal. >> rose: is there par now a about instability real? do they have a reason to worry about the absence of stability? >> of course they do. >> rose: because of social tensions between have's and have-nots? >> we look at china. we seed 1.3 billion people, the second largest economy in the world. largest consumer of electricity. largest... you know, $3 trillion in the central bank. they look at china, and they see 700 million people still living in poverty, a buck or two a day. they see vast income disequilibrium between the haves and the have-nots. they see 14 or 15 nation-states surrounding them, some of them basket cases. they see themselves as 99th in the world somewhere along

where angola is. >> rose: $4,000-$5,000 per capita. >> roughly. >> rose: do they worry about the qlidz? do they fear the united states? do they think the united states wants to contain them? >> it's a love-hate kind of thing. they're so invested in our economy that they want us to succeed. they want their investment to be a stable one. while at the same time their people, the chinese people are making the same kind of accusations toward us that many people in people are making toward china. we say they're manipulating their currency, they're engaging in unfair trade practices. there are people on the blogosphere and on the street corners say the united states is heming us in. they're disrespectful of our traditions and our history. you get finger pointing on both sides. that's what makes it an extra complex relationship, but the interesting thing having lived over there in china for the last two years, been in asia four different times, there's an underlying reservoir of

good will for whatever reason. it's based on history. whether it was still well during those years the building of hospitals and schools, pre-world war 2, our assistance during and after the japanese invasion. they like americans. i traveled to virtually all the provinces. people have a reservoir of good will towards americans. we don't realize that sometimes. we do well, people to people. americans do well in china. chinese people do well here in the united states. i get that can't be said for everybody. but we do well on a person-to- person basis. >> rose: we do well in terms of people who want to come here. the idea of wanting to come to the united states. the lines at visa offices around the world even among people who have serious policy differences is a long line. >> it's true. >> rose: they all want to come here. >> that's true. under 20,000 students now. they just overtook india as the number one nation.

>> rose: including the vice president's daughter at harvard. >> including a son also at that fabled institution. >> rose: do you regret running for president or do you look at it as a wonderful experience and you got to know america in a way you didn't know it. >> it was an extraordinary journey. first of all, let's face it. coming from china and jumping into a presidential race you go from an environment where the party dictates everything and there's no such thing as a free... freedom of expression on the street corner or questioning candidates. to town hall meetings in new hampshire. where nobody forces people to turn out. they just do. because they care so much about their future. and they care so much about their country. if alexis de tocqueville were to make a return visit, you know, from when he left off in 1832 or 1834, he would find the same kinds of things at

play that he wrote about democracy in america. people at the localist levels of government still taking ownership in their future. that is what was so heartening in the run. you believe once again in the american political process and the passion that our citizens have. most of them. in the political system. because it's the only conduit through which they can fight for a better tomorrow. >> rose: do they believe that tomorrow is going to be better than it was yesterday? >> i have never seen fear in people's faces during a political campaign before. as i did this year. i've seen anger. i've seen frustration. i've seen bewilderment. but i've never seen fear. having run a couple of races for governor before and having been part of presidential campaigns in years past, i saw fear in people's faces. i think they're beyond angry. they're to the point where

they can't make sense out of our future. and their place in our future or their family's place. >> rose: it's a fear of not knowing you'll have a job or not knowing whether you'll be able to provide for your family and not knowing whether you'll be able to provide shelter or not knowing whether your pension will be. >> all of the above. it's fear, broadly speaking, of whether or not the american dream is still within reach, is still viable for their kids and for their grand kids. >> rose: what do you say to them? >> we say it's only as good as you want to make it. that is, if you want to maintain this american dream we've got to fight for it. we've got what i used to say on the stump and people used to pay attention because no other candidate could say, hey, i've just lived in china. let me tell you what i saw from 10,000 miles away. that was a nation that today is in a funk. we're just dispirited. we're dejengted for all kinds of reasons. it's been built up over many years. but you walk the streets of beijing. you walk the streets in china and there's energy.

there's blue sky. everyone thinks their time has arrived. we get, you know, that china has had the largest economy in the world for the 18 of the last 20 centuries. >> rose: that's an interesting point. they never thought they came from nowhere. they are returning to where they had always been. >> that's right. you look at the hierarchy of economies in 1820 and you have the chinese economy, the indian economy and we're there at number nine. people don't reflect on history a lot when they look at the world economy today and where it's going. but i'd like to share with people on the stump that the view from 10,000 miles away is a great country that has every attribute for success. we sometimes don't realize it because we're too close to it. we have stability. we have rule of law. i mean how important is that in today's topsy-turvy unpredictable worlted? we have a constitution. longest surviving in the world.

we have the greatest universities and colleges on earth. people still flock here from all over to attend them. we have our secret weapon which is the most innovative and creative class of people on earth. that's our engine of growth. today i think they're a little down on their luck. they don't know what tomorrow brings so they're less active than they ought to be. they need to be fired up again. we have a brave armed forces. we're ready to go. we have everything a nation would want for success. we're just a bit in a funk. we've lost our mojo. we're kind of status quo and not moving forward as quickly as others are rising. that gives cause for concern. when china owns so much of our treasuries, you name the narrative. they onus. they dictate our policies. whatever. i think our adventures in the middle east have been long. difficult, painful. taken their toll. >> rose: from iraq to

afghanistan. >> to iraq and afghanistan stan so everyone you seem to look on the map, where are bright spots? where are the wins for the united states? in town hall meeting after town hall meeting you have these kinds of discussions. i would imagine in the mind of the average voter would be when have we last had a victory as a country? we've had two serious body blows over the last ten years that we're still trying to make sense of it all. we had 9/11. we're still trying to make sense of that what means in terms of the first time ever that american has been hit domestically like that. the response. the new bureaucracy built with homeland security. shakedowns at the airports. and then second we've been hit with an economic catastrophe. the great recession where people on average have had a haircut... have had a cut in their assets, homes and retirements. that has thrown so many people for a loop. they're still trying to make sense of it all. they're saying this is the greatest country on earth. we keep hearing that.

we know it. when are we going to have a victory. >> rose: you were there in 2008. you started in 2009 but right after the collapse in september of 2008 still early enough in that economic collapse that we faced for the chinese to say to you-- and i'm asking a question-- what's happened to america? >> i had said to me by the commerce minister-- and i'll never for get it-- when i was sitting reviewing with him some agenda items for upcoming trade talks. he turned to me at the end of the meeting and he said, "remind your people in america that they should not lose their confidence because when they lose their confidence, the whole world suffers." i thought this is a surreal moment. i'm sitting here being lectured to by a senior economic official in china about america losing sense of confidence. it all kind of hit home at that point that the dynamics are changing to the extent

where you have a senior chinese official trying to lecture the u.s. ambassador on a relative level of confidence and what it means to the world. i think that's probably reflective of the sentiment of so many. they know america is a great country. they send kids here to school. they admire our ability to assimilate people from all over the world in integrate them into our economy and make it work. i think that is one aspect of american life and society that everyone envys in the world. second, they envy our innovative spirit. they can't quite crack the code on innovation. they try. singaporeans try. they haven't been able to do it. we've always had a marketplace. the best in the world. we've been able to translate those innovations for purposes of job creation and economic success. that's where they see that weary roading a little bit and they have a chance to pick up the pace. >> rose: if you could determine the debate in the

2012 political campaign after both parties have their nominees on the field, what would you make that debate? >> i'd make that debate about the next big thing for america. because i think that's where most people in this country are drawing a blank. it's in that vacuum, in that void, that we have a sense of dispair about not understanding where this country is going. so we've had the cold war. during the cold war we all knew our place in the world. what our instructions were. what defense spending was all about. what our foreign policy was all about. and then that was followed up shortly thereafter by the war on terror. for ten years. we all knew kind of what that meant and why the shakedowns at the airport. why department of homeland security. why our adventures abroad. that's coming to an end after ten years. no one knows what's next. there's a void. for the greatest nation on earth 25% of the world's g.d.p., you know, the country that provides the rhythm, the

lyrics for the rest of the world not to have a sense of what comes next, what is that thing? what is it that we're all kind of to rally around? that should be a major debate among the candidates. >> rose: in a moment of change, where is america? >> where is america? what is the vision for this country and its people and its values and principles? we got it all tied up here. we own the greatest values in history that have changed and transformed this world from free market activity to human rights and the emancipation of people. >> rose: the president has argued this, that part of what made him success in 2008 is that he had a narrative that resonated. i don't know what the narrative is in this presidential campaign. >> that's it. that's exactly right. that narrative then feeds into the vision. the vision feeds into an energized population. that energized population gets active during the election

cycle. that's how our system works. that feeds into innovation, education, our economic performance, our relationships abroad. there's got to be some organizing theme or set of principles. we've got the principles. it's the theme. it's the vision that is lacking right now. >> rose: do you think about writing a book about that? >> i wish i had an answer. >> rose: you don't think you have an answer? don't you see how the pieces fit together? you may not have an answer for paralysis in washington but you certainly should have an understanding of where we have and how we address the issues and the components of the challenge. >> i have a sense of that. i can tell you we're at a unique moment in time where if we can rally some of our attributes as a nation and as a people around, first of all, uniting which is what has been the most painful chapter in recent american history, the division among our own people, when we rally we can do

anything we want. but the second part is when you look at the world, we have an opportunity to get back on our feet economically in a most unusual way. an energy revolution driven by sources that we have right here in great abundance in our own backyard. that can fuel and unleash an economic revolution that i think could be transforming. >> rose: we have demographics that work in our favor unlike some other countries. >> unlike europe and japan. we have demographics. >> rose: exactly. >> we still have the most productive work on earth. we have the greatest universities and colleges. the thought that we could sort of reengineer or launch a new manufacturing and technology renaissance, europe is going down. it's not going to happen there. china is losing a lot of its luster. they're going to probably hit reality at some point. we're the only act left in the world that can pull this off, that can kind of from a sheer economic growth standpoint

pull the rest of the world forward. >> rose: you can make the argument that the world would like to see that happen. it needs an engine of growth. >> they're looking to us for leadership. >> rose: jon huntsman had a more impressive resume than many of the candidates. several of them are still running while he's groped out. almost all of them enjoyed temporary surge in the polls while he always languished at the bottom of the pack. why didn't you get traction? >> we'll let the pundit class exhaust all of their thinking. for me, i wouldn't trade the experience for anything. we learned a lot through it all. mary kay and the girls were very, very actively involved. they gained enormously. we entered.... >> rose: they were huge assets. >> huge. we entered late. we entered having just come from service under a president who was not well thought of in republican circles. >> rose: do you think that was

held against you? >> i crossed a partisan line. i would do it again by the way. i believe in putting my country first. >> rose: any question that you were violating the president's confidence in you by resigning after giving you the opportunity to serve the country or did you have the stock answer which is i wasn't serving the president. >> the president asks you to serve. you serve your country. you're a free person to do whatever you wish. that's just the american tradition. i wasn't willing to pander if i can put it that way. i wasn't willing to sign the silly pledges that everybody signed on the debate stage. so if you're not willing to do certain things you don't go up in the early iowa straw poll. i didn't do well in the iowa straw poll. i didn't even compete in iowa. i wrote it off completely saying it's not.... >> rose: you were in new hampshire. >> we did new hampshire. and so the money then follows michele bachmann won that by the way. followed her. and then they had the straw poll in florida. michele bachmann lost that one. we even did better than she did.

herman cain won that. the money followed him. you have the ups and downs. you pander. you sign pledges. you do whatever you need to do. i thought and i still do that politics is based on big ideas that are realistic and do-able. that are presented to the american people in a way that spks to reality, in a way that speaks to the best of our history. in a vision.... >> rose: you argue that that in fact is true but you just didn't do a very good job of articulating those big ideas. >> you could absolutely say that. you could break it down into 100 different reasons why somebody doesn't catch fire. but i felt throughout that probably the greatest drag was the fact that i had crossed a partisan line. in a highly partisan-charged year, if you crossed a partisan line, that's held against you. if you're not willing to throw red meat out when they want red meat they're going to look for somebody who will. in some of the early primary contests that's what it's all about. if you can get beyond that and

get into the general, you're perfectly positioned. but i just wasn't going to play the political game. >> rose: is mitt romney less than a perfect candidate because of what concessions he might have made to get the nomination. >> i think.... >> rose: if he gets the nomination. >> if he gets the nomination then he has a certain straitjacket that he has to wear. you can only move to a certain degree beyond where he'll find himself at that point. is that enough to bring back the critically important independent voters because this election will turn on independent voters who, let's face it, charlie, the fastest growing party in the country these days is the unaffiliated party. >> rose: your conclusion is that the possibility of a third party to be built is there? >> i think it's inevitable. i think a third party is inevitable. this election cycle maybe the next. i'm not sure it's altogether not a healthy thing to see happen. because how are you going to shake up the duopoly, the

republican-democrat duopoly. you have to somehow shake up the status quo while articulating critically important and timely issues like campaign finance reform. like term limits. like redistricting done by independent commissions, things that are going to give this democracy of ours some life and sustenance and some believability by the next generation. i don't see any other way that you're going to get traction on the critically important structural issues that must be addressed. >> rose: was mitt romney a much better candidate this time than he was less time and therefore there's a lesson in that for all the people who want to be president. >> i think generally you get better over time as a candidate. the question now is, what do you have to sell off or what do you have to contort yourself into? as that journey progresses. at the end of the journey, are you still sellable to the independents who are again going to turn this election

one way or the other. >> rose: do you expect to see a third-party candidate? >> i think there will be. there always is. >> rose: i mean a viable one? >> it's hard to know. the american-elect group, they've gone to great lengths to get on the ballot. let's face it ross perot cost him $15 million in earlier years to get on just a few of those ballots. that is the structural barrier to any third-party movement is getting access. they've done that. their challenge will be to find a viable candidate whom they can writhe. ... write. >> rose: would you consider that? >> not this election cycle. i wouldn't. i'm not sure that i would ever be in a position to do that. i don't know that we'll ever be running again. who knows. but i do believe that an alternative voice in the form of a third party or a third movement will happen. i believe that it will be viable. i believe that the internet will give it life and

sustenance from a fund raising standpoint and from an message delivery standpoint, from an organizing standpoint. i suspect it would be a pretty healthy thing politically too. >> rose: what are you going to do now? >> we're taking our life and dividing it between some good.... >> rose: reclaiming your life? >> i've taken my daughters to school for the first time in 12 years. i can't believe that. i was delighted by that. >> rose: this table is always welcome. i hope you'll come back. >> thank you, charlie. always a pleasure to be with you. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org