tavis: good evening. first of, a conversation with david fromm. recently he left a conservative think tank following controversial statements he made about the republican party. we talk about what he said that caused such a furor. also, an environmentalist is here. she is looking at the dangers of consumerism. we are glad you joined us. >> there are so many things wal- mart is looking forward to doing, like helping people live better, but mostly we are looking forward to people -- helping people build stronger communities and relationships.

>> nationwide insurance probably supports tavis smiley. working to improve financial literacy and the economic empowerment that comes with it. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> david fromm is a former speech writer for george bush. his most recent book is called "come back." is now out in paperback. david joins us tonight from washington. good to have you on the program. i will give you a choice.

do you want to start at the top or the bottom. good >> let's get it off the table. >> what happened? >> on sunday i posted an essay on my web site saying that what happened with the republican position on the health care bill was a catastrophe, but republicans tried to defeat the bill, failed to do so, and missed the chance to shape the bill, so you not only had a political defeat but a bill that was much worse than the one i believe could have been negotiated for, so this piece of a lot of attention. the next week there was an article in "the wall street journal" denouncing the peace and me. later i got of e-mail from my boss. we have lunch a couple days later, and i was invited to stay

as an honored guest but without pay and without an office, and i said, under those circumstances, you can have my resignation and we will part ways. >> that makes you feel how? >> i completely understand what happened, and i have no complaints about it. republicans are under a lot of pressure. we have been having an argument for 18 months about whether to try to do business with the president or not. now i have been saying i thought that was doable and it was important to try very others felt strongly the other way, and when it ended badly as it did with republicans, i said we ought to have some learning, but i could understand why it was difficult to have people around. all these think tanks have to raise money. feelings are running very hot

now, and my call for feelings not running very hot can be of little counterproductive. >> you have experienced this on the right. i have gone through this on the left in terms of people not always agreeing. what do you make of the fact that we cannot seem to have civil discourse? we cannot seem to disagree without being disagreeable? if you have a point of it differed from other people, they want to cast aspersions on you. your point is they are right, but what does this say about our discourse in america? >> we are playing with big space. i am playing in this game, too, and we are debating the future shape of the republican party, the kind of party it is going to be, and that involves whether or not we're going to take account of this health care problem, so i think there's a lot at stake and i understand why people feel strongly.

i ve no complaints. i think what we have to decide as republicans -- if someone has given you bad advice, get them out of the building, but maybe it is good advice, and i can make the case may be the vice i was offered was the right advice. >> what do you make of all the turmoil existing now in the republican party? they are calling for the ouster of michael steele, the parti's share -- party's chair. is happening on the right as you see it? >> let me talk about michael steele, who has made many steps in -- missteps. i will defend him. i think the republican party needs him. it need him as a voice and a symbol. we just had a sharp reminder of why that is so. gov. bob macdonald of virginia,

someone who ran as a pragmatist, someone who is leaving behind his hard conservative origin, he just issued a proclamation for confederate history month. he was actually trying to avoid controversy, and it was not written in the inflammatory way george allen did a decade ago, but running through the proclamation, it completely take for granted that all of virginia in1861 was white. all of virginia was for secession, and all of virginia was fighting for a self-ruled. that is not true. a third of virginia was black. much of virginia was loyal to the union, and they were fighting to on other people. if you have someone for whom that history was more than they had read in the book, we would be having a firestorm with the

republican party had immolated its own hopes of building a bigger base. bob macdonald should have had a big carrier in politics. he has done himself a lot of harm, not out of malice, but out of blindness, and that is why someone like michael steele is really necessary, not as a racial thing. if you are the democratic party and everyone in leadership is a school teacher, it might be helpful to have a businessman in the leadership. some people see the world differently, and at the same way, the republicans need the same kind of voice. >> what say you about what is likely to happen as you see it come november? >> november 2010 is shaping up to be a very good year for republicans. it is very rare for any party ithe lose three times in a row.

history shows they must win in 2010. there is a difficult economy. plus, it is an odd year, which means the electorate will be older, more affluent and wider than the presidential electorate, so all this points to a good republican year, but the year after that is 2012, and if in 2010, the republicans go so far to the extreme, they may have a good outing, but that may set you up for trouble the next day. tavis: tell me what can be done between now and november to moderate where the party is going to find itself in november. >> the elected leaders of the republican party are not in moderate people.

people like the leaders in the senate, these are very reasonable people. they are trapped fire crisis of followership. the republican base has persuaded itself to take such a negative view of the intentions of people in the other party, well beyond this agreement. i think barack obama spends too much and taxes too much and borrows too much, too, but i do not think he is plotting the and of constitutional democracy in the united states, and you can get yourself in a position where it becomes impossible for the leaders of the party to do the things they need to do to be effective leaders for the vague electorate. >> this is that age-old question, which is whether or not moderates are welcome in the republican party of 2010. are they? >> moderate is a word a lot of people in politics have strong

views on. it means you are not intensely committed. a moderate is someone with a passion left out, with the commitment left out. i want to talk about being moderate, about excepting the party as if it -- the country as it is, about excepting thej@ oft from 1980. in 1980, republicans had answers to the problem of over- regulation and inflation. today we have very different problems, beginning with the heal-care crisis and global terrorism, and they require different answers. now we are having a huge argument about the nuclear posture of the united states. i tend to agree -- to disagree with the president's view, but nuclear weapons are not going to help us much in afghanistan. tavis: what say you about the news of late that seems to suggest the white house is starting to back out of it from mr. karzai, that he might not be

at the white house as he would. how do you read that? >> president karzai erupted in this tirade against the united states, the president. americans are in afghanistan, among other things, keeping president karzai alive, so you would think he would have better manners. he is an unreliable partner, and there are other partners, some of whom they have gotten more votes in the actual election if they had been counted. >> finally, i do not want -- i want to raise this quick. since you are in washington and i am sitting in california, i read a fascinating piece by you the other day where you believe republicans have a chance in 2010 in this stage? ronald reagan's state? >> i hope they have a chance, but the main thing i want to emphasize is the republican

party desperately needs california to be that as part of the republican coalition. back in the 1980 costs when the republicans for the stronger of -- in 1980's when see the republicans were stronger, it was a sun belt party, not just a southern party, and it did reach into the midwest and northeast. when california dropped out after 19 in 1990, that made the most important state taxes. -- texas, and that is how you get yourself into these problems like confederate history month. you are cut off from the rest of the country. i think there is a hope of defeating barbara boxer. i think there is more than a hope of defeating men and women, but much more important than republicans winning intel -- defeating meg whitman, but much more important is california is a moderate state of big state.

if it rejoins, it will change the coalition for ever. >> we will see what happens across the nation, and we will follow the career of david fromm. i am sure his career bodes well. good to have you back on the program. >> always a pleasure. tavis: up next, leonard. in the leonard is a noted environmentalist, filmmaker, and author. his latest book also features a companion piece you can>> have e all the stuff we by comes from and where it goes when we throw it out? i could not stop wondering, so i looked it up, and the text book says self moves through a system from extraction to production -- staff moves through a system from extraction to production to

disposal. i looked into it a little more. i spent 10 years traveling the world, tracking where our stuff comes from and where it goes, and you know what i found out? that is not the whole story. there is a lot missing from this explanation. tavis: what is missing from the explanation? >> almost everything. all this stuff has all whole life before it comes to us, in the mine, in the forest, the ocean, factories where children and women are working hard, exposed to carcinogens, working horrible hours, and then it comes to us. we have it four minutes sometimes, throw it away, and then it goes to an incinerator and goes back into the sea, so all this stuff really has a long life, and we only get to know it in a tiny part where we see it, which is the beautiful part, so there is a lot of hidden environmental and social health impacts. i became so interested are related travel the world for

over a decade and visited hundreds of factories and places where our stuff is dumped. >> does that mean you are anti- stuff? >> i am actually pro-stuff. a lot of people ask me that, or occasionally i get those e- mails, like why don't you live in a cave? i am pro-stuff in that i want us to have more appreciation and reverence and knowledge of where our stuff comes from. it is this culture of consumerism where we are buying and shocking stuff without bothering to thing that metal. was it some child in the condo -- bothering to think who mined that metal? was it some child in the con go. i just want us to start thinking more critically about where this stuff comes from and what impact of the have beyond our field of vision. >> does that mean we are wrong

to make assumptions about companies being responsible in the making of stuff they passed on to us? >> there are companies that are responsible and trying to do well. i am sorry to say those are the minority. the general practices companies are using enormous amounts of toxic chemicals in their products. a lot of people didn't realize how much toxic chemicals in our products, furniture, cosmetics, electronics, and those than get into our homes. there have been studies where they have tested it -- test of the gustin people's households. it is full of toxic chemicals -- tested the dust and people tousles. it is full of toxic chemicals. i try to be as vigilant as possible. i do not use scotchgard, do not have pvc or teflon pans. i keep them out of my house, but i had my own tests to see which chemicals are in my own body, and there are dozens of toxic

chemicals in my body. it goes to show how we cannot solve this problem in terms of individual vigilance. we need our government to be more protective in limiting the toxic chemicals companies are allowed to use. tavis: where do you assume the talks if come from? >> they come from everywhere. food is one source. electronics, skin care products, cosmetics. cosmetics is a technical term that means all personal-care products. deodorant, sunscreen, all those things are loaded with toxic chemicals. one thing that is exciting and infuriating is the european union has taken a different approach for personal care products and electronics. the european union has said you have to get coccyx out of these products. the european union has banned -- to get these toxins out of the products. the european union has banned thousands, but ours are still allowed. they have banned mercury, cadmium, flame-retardant, all

these toxic chemicals 50 you says is not allowed to be in electronics, but we still allow them -- chemicals but you says is not allowed to be in electronics, but we still allow them. tavis: what is the as the nation for why they are progressive and we are not? -- the explanation for why they are progressive and we are not? >> they have a different relationship to the state. there is a broader social relationship and a sense that it is appropriate for the state to take precautionary action to protect public health, while there is still a hesitation about the state getting involved. we have allowed corporations to dominate the political process. in europe say -- they say, take the chemicals out, and they say i do not know how, and the government says i do not care. here, they say, you do not have to. tavis: i think it was calvin

coolidge who said the business of america is business. if we believe that and behavior in that way, how do you flip that? >> i am all for business and economic activity. i do not want to go for living in burlap sacks of living in a cave, but i think the economy has to serve the greater goal, witches social equity and clean, healthy environment, thriving region which is social equity and a clean, healthy environment. as long as they are contributing to those goals, let's turn it up. tavis: how do you do that without being labeled anti- american, anti-capitalist? >> those labels baffle me. the anti-american one baffles me, because i consider it an incredible tribute to my country that i am saying, we are not doing as well as we should be. if i did not care, i would say, drown in your toxic chemicals.

i am saying, we can do so much better. we do not need to kill ourselves or trash the plan. we have 5% of the population and use 30% of the resources. the america i know cares about furnace and health. --airness and health. tavis: what do you think drives our obsession with stuff? >> one is excessive commercialization. we are bombarded with commercials from day one. anyone who has the kid knows it is from day one. the result is we have a population that can identify hundreds of friends of shoes or cars or blue jays and does not know where the city council meets for how to engage -- blue jeans and does not know where the city council meets for how to engage in democracy. i speak, and it lays out a broad systemic critique of our

economy. i cannot tell you how often someone raises their hands and says, what can i buy differently to solve the problem? we have two different parts. we have a consumer part and a citizen part, and the consumer part is spoken to and nurtured so much that we really have this over-developed consumer muffled, and vanessa muscle has -- and the sensory muscle has atrophied. i say, what else can you think of doing, and i am wondering, why don't you think, we can do this. what have we ever achieved as a society by one individual? it has always been a collective action from the political process, yet we are getting these messages that if we recycle or carry our own bags it will be fine. it will not be fine. even if we did all those green lifestyle things, it is not enough to get our economy on a healthy and sustainable path, and it is letting the beauty of

this country and democracy go to waste. tavis: i am trying to figure out if the people giving us these messages about what we can do, and a good message, no doubt about that, but i am trying to think about whether these people are well-intentioned but not thinking big enough, or whether or not there is a benign neglect on the part of those who know what we ought to be doing, but they have reasons for not really telling us we have to be more aggressive? >> that is an excellent question. i think there is both. i think there are a lot of environmental groups who think region who care about the planet, and their analysis has not gone deep enough. there is also very concerted effort to convince those the being a responsible consumer is all we need to, and one of the industry's at the forefront is the plastic industry. in the 1980's, there was a

growing concern about plastic, and people learned if you earned it, it would release toxic chemicals, said the plastic industry got together and said, let's convince the american public, and you remember those commercials with the station wagon and the milk spilled but it did not break because it wasn't plastic. that was a concerted effort to get us to recycle plastic, because that will make us feel we are doing our part, and it works. when people throw something in a blue been, you feel better than when you throw it in a garbage, so it is kind of a panacea that deludes us into thinking we are doing something to help when we are not really. tavis: you have these seminars around the country. you give your talk, and they ask, what is it i can do, how do i learn more. part of the problem in america is there is so much coming out.

how does the average american find out the stuff you have found out? we have not got the capacity to travel around the world for 10 years doing what you did. how does the average american discover what you know and it prompted to do what you are telling us we need to be doing? >> there was not internet when i started, so now it is a lot easier. you can research hundreds of stuff on line. you can go to our website, which is storyofstuff.org. lots of organizations to. it has lots of details about what i saw at garment factories in haiti or toxic waste dumps in south africa where we four years send our toxic waste under apartheid and it was dumped in black communities, and we were doing that for years and years forget i went to india, the site of the largest industrial accident ever. >> her new book is called "the

story of stuff." a wonderful documentary comes along with that. thank you for the book. good to have you on the program. >> thank you so much. tavis: that is our show for tonight. can just online. you can access our radio show at s.org. goodnight, l.a. thank you for watching, and as always, keep the phasfaith. >> for more information, visit pbs.org. tavis: for man who blew the whistle on bernie made off, next. >> there're so many things wal- mart is looking forward to doing, but mostly we are looking

for do helping you build stronger communities and relationships, because the best is yet to come. >> nationwide insurance probably supports tavis smiley. tapas and nationwide insurance -- working to improve financial literacy and -- nationwide insurance, working to improve financial literacy. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] [captioning made possible by kcet public television]