. >> welcome to our program, we begin this evening with a look at the middle east and the gulf and a conversation with one of the advisors to the prime minister of turkey, ibrahim kalin. >> sooner or later, obviously, he will -- he will be toppled in one way or another, i don't know, i honestly don't -- i don't think anybody has the answer. >> but i it will not happen because of outside forces going into syria? >> no it is a long-term process, one has to look at it from a long-term perspective. tunisia and egypt it happened relatively quick, and with different dynamics on the ground. >> syria is different, as all the experts have been saying but it doesn't change the fact that this regime lost its legitimacy.

therefore, you know, sooner or later, we will see the fall of that regime and a new syria will be established. >> rose: we continue this evening with francis fukuyama and gideon rose, and look at the ideas and the clash of ideas that have shaped the world and will shape the future. >> but i think that you do not solve the problems if you kind of complacently believe well we have been through this before and we have seen worse and get through this in the future, unless people feel there is a kind of really pressing sense of crisis about self correcting the problems of democratic capitalism, then we actually won't get to this future and that's what we really need to do now. when you look at the problems of today, things steam really difficult, there is a challenge here, will is an iro iranian nur problem, political paralysis and there seems to be a lot of trouble, china rising and so forth but if you look back at where we have come from, my god, i mean we over came depression, we over came complete segregation and lack of

opportunities for vast majorities of the population, we over came total tarian challenges from the .. outside and over came atomic threats, i actually came away from this thinking i am not exactly sure how we go forward, i am not exactly sure how we get get the economy and the political system moving forward again but it can't be nearly as difficult to do as the things we have managed to do in previous generations, and so if we can actually overcome the depression, win the world wars, create this wonderful model, generate social mobility, racial inclusion, women and others getting opportunities, surely it would be possible to actually make things go better. >> rose: ibrahim kalin, francis fukuyama, and gideon rose, when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: we begin tonight with a news brief on stir, i can't the united nations security council question demanded today the syria cease its crack down, the regime accepted the kofi annan plan for a cease-fire and claims it has begun withdrawing troops but military operations in the civilian centers have continued and more far reaching action is urgently required. >> abuses continue to be reported daily. >> the military -- for his part, the government has written to me stating, troops continue to assault government forces, civilians and property. we must silence the tanks, helicopters, mortars, guns, and stop all other forms of violence

too. sexual abuse, torture, executions, abduct shuns, destruction of homes forced displacement and other abuses, including the children. >> rose: also announced he would travel to iran, syria's only major ally in the region on april 11, questions are growing over whether there will or should be some form of international intervention in syria, the u.n. estimates at least 9,000 have died in the yearlong revolt, for perspective on syria and the region we bring you a conversation with ibrahim kalin, a top advisor to turkey prime minister. his country has been at the center of the conversation on syria, has been hosting the offices of the opposition, syrian national council and the rebel free syrian army. over 20,000 syrians have also taken refuge in turkey and i spoke with him on march 22nd here in new york. i also asked him about iran, egypt and turkish politics here is that conversation.

>> rose: so let's just talk about syria first. where are we in your judgment? >> well, the world has changed since last year, you know, when the arab spring started and the revolution in libya, in tunisia and egypt began to take shape, he was one of the first arab leaders to come out and say arab governments should listen to their people, should cater to their needs and carry out reform, et cetera. and we were encouraged by those statements and in fact our prime minister has a role to play in cultivating some of those ideas with bashar, unfortunately, he realized in a matter of a couple of months that it was not genuine interest in any kind of serious stems for reform, for listening to his own people but just trying to buy time. now,. >> rose: stay in power. >> stay in power but at what cost? now right now look at his country. a year ago syria, you know, was ruled by an authoritarian he rule but at least there was no

killing, that's when we had a good relationship with syria. >> rose: so why should he negotiate? any other road leads him to lose power. >> he will lose power in one way or another. >> rose: because he is overthrown or lose power because of what? >> well, because he cannot sustain this. you know, what is happening in syria is not sustainable. >> rose: the sanctions as well as -- >> the sanctions will continue, the opposition will get stronger, they will get more organized, and increasingly, of course they will put up an armed resistance against -- >> rose: there is armed resistance now, isn't there? >> yes. a in the short-term, military gains that as sad, assad has made in the last couple of weeks for example, i don't think it will change. the fact that the march of history is against him. and the syrian people have realized it. so. >> rose: should the march of history be accelerated by some kind of action from outside in terms of weapons? in terms of support? in terms of organization?

>> not troops coming from outside but as it was, some kind of air cover and other support? where is the debate? >> well, nobody is interested in an external military intervention, because it will create more problems for everyone there, but on the other hand, inaction is not an option in syria either, we can't just sit back and watch the carnage continue. therefore, we are putting more political pressure on the regime as well as those who support him meaning russia, china and others. and assad's regime is actually hanging there not because it has the military capability or the popular support as it claims to have, but rather, because the precarious balance of power in the region, meaning that because russia wants to assert itself in the region, they are backing up the assad regime but now we see some change in the russian attitude they realize the long-term interest is not lies

in supporting this regime but the syrian power. >> how long do you think he will remain in power? >> it is hard to say, but, sooner or later, obviously, he will be toppled in one way or another. i don't know. i honestly don't -- i don't think anybody has the answer. >> rose: but it will not happen because of outside forces going into syria? >> no. it is a long-term process, i think one has to look at a it from a long-term perspective. you know,, in libya, tunisia and egypt it happened rather, relatively quick, and, you know, with different dynamics on the ground, syria is different, all the expert have been saying, but it doesn't change the fact that this regime has lost its legitimacy, nationally, regionally and internationally, therefore, you know, seener or later we will see the fall of that regime and a new syria will be established. >> rose: iran. your relationship with iran. >> well, iran is our neighbor, and we have had good relations with iran, you know, for almost centuries you know, our borders

haven't changed since 16 -- >> rose: how do you feel iran having nuclear weapons and what it would do to destabilize the region. >> we said from the beginning we are free for a nuclear free region, iran, israel or any other nation that may want to have nuclear weapons and that has been our policy from the very beginning. so we are communicating -- >> and israel is not prepared to give up its nuclear weapons what does it mean. >> it means it gives all the arguments that anyone looking for to have nuclear weapons and that, you know, goes through for iran or any other country also. so the fact that israel has nuclear weapons, even though officially they say they don't -- >> rose: and they haven't use used them. >> that doesn't help at all, to the contrary, it gives all the pretext to other countries, you know, they say well, i mean they have them and nobody is talking about it. >> rose: but you talked to nerve the region and you know there is a strong feeling in the region it would be just a terrible thing if iran developed nuclear weapons. >> sure. >> rose: and every other country in the region would want

nuclear regions forget israel for a second. >> definitely, it will lead to a terrible proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region and we don't want that, obviously, that's why, you know, we keep engaging iran our prime minister will be visiting iran on his way back from the nuclear summit in south korea, and we will be talking about the issues. the iranians have confirmed that they would like to continue the conversation and a diplomatic channels with the penalties, b 5 plus one. >> rose: right. >> and that's a channel that still needs to be used, obviously, i think it is very easy to say that well we have done this over the last two years, three years we haven't gotten anything out of them, why should we continue? but what is the alternative. >> rose: what they also believe, those people who are part of that negotiating is iran has used opportunities it had for delays while continuing to build more enter fiewnls and more centrifuges and more capacity to producer uranium.

>> yes, but it is kind of a delicate process there, before they build the actual bomb and have the nuclear capability -- >> rose: is it okay with your government if they have the nuclear capability? >> no, of course we have said this on record, you know forks the iranians to themselves we don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. >> rose: what is your relationship with israel today, turkey's relations. >> since the incident of the freedom flotilla incident. >> rose: you asked for an apology. >> and we haven't received it. >> therefore? >> therefore, relations are suspended at the moment. >> rose: even though there was a very good relationship between turkey and israel and conversations and turkey even served as kind of middle person between certain governments? you were kind of an -- you were kind of an intermediary between syria and israel. >> between syria and israel and that is before the gaza war of

2008 and nine, and the whole story, i don't want to repeat it here, until then, our prime minister had a good working relationship with the previous israeli governments but within the netanyahu government it has become impossible to do anything not only for us but look at any other country in the region. israel until recently had embassies, i mean, as a symbol of relationship, you know, or ambassadors, in egypt, turkey, jordan, several other countries and look at where they are now. they are not even there, there are am bass, their ambassadors are not there, they don't have the kind of relationship that they used to have, and especially with the arab spring, i believe israel has further isolated itself in the region, when in fact, you know, they should have reassessed their priorities and looked at the map again and what is happening in the middle east and realized that in fact whatever happens in egypt, libya or other places in yemen, et cetera, the palestine issue remains at the heart of many of the conflicts and issues. >> rose: let's stay with

israel and iran what happens if they attack. >> it would be terrible for the whole region because it starts a new war between iran and israel that would start a war, an actual war, you have a cold war going on for a long time, an actual war, fighting, it will not stop between israel and iran and engage many other countries and actors in the region, and believe me it will not serve the purpose for which it is fought if that is the idea. you know, iran is a big country, i mean they have national pride, and they have the military capabilities to strike back. so if that is -- >> rose: where will they strike back? >> israel, of course, through all kinds of means. >> rose: you think they may try to hit in europe and other places trying to get israel that way? >> i am not sure about that. why should they go to europe or somewhere else, that is a distraction. >> rose: so maybe attack with missiles -- >> i think if you look at all of the dynamics and possibilities it will be just terrible.

you know, and personally, i don't think israel will attack iran. >> rose: you don't? >> personally, my assessment is they will not. >> rose: i understand. >> but it raises the issue all the time, iran is a threat, iran is the greatest dang her to israel and other countries in the region, et cetera, partly because there is an element of frustration, no doubt, with the fact that, you know, things are not moving on the negotiation, and but what is alternative? again senate the basic question and the second thing is, again, my personal assessment, it serves this whole iran issue serves as a distraction from the middle east peace process. >> rose: you seriously believe they think iran is the biggest threat to them? >> they believe that. >> rose: they don't think having a palestinian threat is as big a threat to israel and in fact they say they would like to negotiate some recognition of that. i don't think they think a two-state solution oppose pose it is kind of threat a nuclear iran may pose and they make that point because of what iran has said about their right to exist.

>> but what matters is not word, it is actions. >> rose: right. >> you know, what do you do, for example, about a two-state solution? yes, many israeli governments and politicians, you know have said that, they support a two-state solution, the prime minister still believes in that idea. >> rose: he does or doesn't. >> he hasn't done xy and z to make it happen either. and now especially at the time when hamas and at that at that are reconciling their differences and they are finally going to have a united states palestinian, you know, government -- >> rose: that is going to happen? >> yes, i think it will happen. >> rose: hamas has to renowns any of its charter or anything else? >> a good part of it the has already happened. the fact that they have sat together in egypt and went over all of the issues and president abbas was in turkey a couple of weeks ago and told us the negotiations and in fact he thanked us for our efforts. >> rose: if they have elections where does it stand

after the elections? >> well, the prime minister made that point in egypt, as you pointed out and it created a very interesting debate, at first i mean the first reactions were how can the prime minister say these things to egyptians? because secularism in egypt means basically, authoritarian rule of the number wrecker are a and, mubarek era and it has been used as a smoke screen to justify all kinds of injustices, totalitarianism, et cetera, what the prime minister was saying basically is that there are at least two different versions of secularism, if you look at the french version w where secularim is an aggressive part of having the state dictate a particular ideology upon the people, upon the citizens, that we don't have this in turkey. where that model of secularism has created or delineate add good part of the people from the state, created an elite, which

believes that they have everything, et cetera, but it really did not create any social cohesion and didn't secure freedom of expression or belief or civil liberties. but there is another version of secularism, the secular democracy model which we are now trying to implement in turkey, and that is the anglo american model where the state remains and equal distance to all different ideology and faith traditions and in the context of egypt this is what you have because you have christians in egypt and different, you know, groups with different ideologies, different political views and if you have this kind of a secular democracy enshrined in your new constitution, then you can have a united peace than everybody feels they are equal citizens. >> does the prime minister and you believe the in the same kind of secularism that at&t a turk lived in. >> he lived in the conditions of his time, in the 1920s, 30s reflected of course the spirit

of the time, is the zeitgeist of his age, and democracy was not the first priority for many of the leaders of the early decades of the 20th century, whether in russia or in turkey or in britain or france or spain or other countries. but we have come a long way and turkey society has really matured about many of these issues, at at that turk is the founder of the republic, no down buzz the way his ideas and principles have been interpreted over the years has created a lot of problems for a fully functioning democracy to emerge and to sustain itself in turkey. now, i think we are overcoming some of those excesses in that tradition and people are -- they just see themselves as equal citizens of the republic now. they are also increasing criticism domestically of turkey, not amount sort of

secularism, but about authoritarianism, dexter fill kins a friend of mine and reporter i know and respect, you are quoted in this, written a piece called a prime minister's enemy's list, dexter fill kins on the conspiracy trials in istanbul, this is what he says mthe eyes of american european leaders, irdawan who has been with much thanks to you and him, on this program a number of times, has fashioned turkey into an indispensable islamic democracy, setting an example for tunisia and egypt so far you agree with that. >> sure. >> but there is a darker side which the west seems intent on ignore, an increasingly harsh campaign to crush domestic opposition in the past five years more than 700 people have been arrested including generals, admirals, members of parliament, newspaper editors and other journalists owners of television networks, charitable organizations, some 15 percent of the active generals and

admirals are now on trial for conspiring to over throw the government. i. >> i get scared when i read this kind of stuff but i don't because i know the full picture in turkey, the reality is that first of all the opposition, there is a legitimate opposition in the parliament, there are several hundred or so opposition in the parliament and do their regular work and they go on tv and criticize the government, et cetera. >> rose: they run elections? >> yes of course and secondly they organize politically, and there is an opposition in the media, and on the internet and other places different groups, et cetera, they criticize the government on a daily basis, i mean if you are just familiar a little bit with the turkish media, et cetera it is very clear. some of those people who are in prison, some of them are there because they are charged with some plots against the government for military, secondly we have this problem of the pkk, terrorism. >> rose: right. >> which is posing such a big

threat, not only to the safety and security of our ordinary citizens and the police and the soldiers, but to the very texture of our democracy, what do i mean by this is the prime minister irdawan took a bold step in 2009, started a process of democratic opening, and he said, i will solve the kurdish issue through negotiation and i will open up the political space to anyone who wants to come in, so those who are in the mountain, who are fighting against turkey. >> rose: kurdish fighters pkk terrorists come in and lay your arms down, and participate in politics? and this is the way to solve our problems. and the government took a big risk, the prime minister started even sending his special o envos to meet some of the representatives of the pkk which became public knowledge later on so he took all of the risks and steps as any prime minister can take, but what has been the response? more violence, no

disarmament by the pkk, more political -- >> rose:. >> so? i mean a lot of people recognize that about the pkk, so? so what is the point? the point you have got to arrest journalists because of the pkk? >> no they are not in prison, the question of journalists, i think it should be understood properly here, those who are in prison some of them are journalists or they claim to be journallies because they have some sort of an idea, et cetera, but they are in prison not because they are journalists but because they have been implicated in either terrorism -- >> rose: but it is a legitimate implication is the question many people ask. >> #02: well if the evidence is there. >> rose: or just to shut them down. >> no, as i said if you look at critical media in turkey they are out there and they are writing their columns, news pieces et cetera, they are out there but those who are in prison, some of them, are directly related to the pkk organizations and the different communities or committees as they call them. so what do you do? you see, the

difficulty is, in many western countries, it is very the difficult to imagine a journalist getting involved in the kind of activities that some of these people are involved in. how can a journalist be part of a military coup? how can a journalist be part of a deep state, kind of like an illegal organization. >> rose: and you are saying journal lists were in fact part of conspiracies? >> i don't want to say journalists like in general, i don't want to generalize there, but some of those people have been implicated and they -- i mean openly some of them have come out and said -- >> rose: they acted undercover as journalists you are saying? >> yeah. >> rose: in is owen matthews, wrote a piece in newsweek, march 5th, 2012, march 5th, 2012, irda an came to power by getting the army out of politics for the first time in modern history which a lot of people would like to have seen happen obviously and first he did that, earning warm support from europe for its

support. began membership but the bold reform system began to fall apart after police discovered two secret orders of weapons and snroafs, investigators accuse add shadow group, again -- and i have talked to the prime minister about this as you know and alleged ultra nationalist conspiracy supposedly plotting a coup and the roundup has been growing ever since. alleged sympathizers of the kurdish workers party, pkk, 3,500 kurdish politicians and activist two, 49 senior military officers have been jailed, the former chief of staff who we referred to who denied all the charges as we have said, along with more than 100 journalists. >> well, the last number is not correct, i mean, they keep repeating this number, 100 journalists. >> rose: that's why you are here. >> i mean, first of all, it is not 100, it is much less, some of them are not journalists, it is very easy to call anyone a journalist in turkey. you know, when you get down to the details of it the, like who

is really a journalist, anyone who writes for some web site, you know, can be classified and is usually classified especially in regards to these people as a journalist, but the point is, that that is why i said the pkk poses a threat to the very texture of our democracy, as long as you have this organization doing the kind of things that it is doing, you know, until just recently, they kill another five policemen and they do this on a daily basis, we just had a new celebrations coming of the spring which is celebrated almost universally in central asia, in iran, in turkey, you know, by many, many other people. they turned this into, again, a mass, political demonstration which is fine, but, you know, what is the point in attacking buildings and the police, et cetera? wha what is a response government supposed to do here? you just let them, you know, burn -- >> rose: but the pkk is an enemy of the state, they don't represent the turkish minority,

i mean the kirk dish minority, kurdish minority so they will use whatever means available to stop them? >> well in is what they are doing, but we are still acting within the limits of the law, and, you know, if you look at again the bigger picture here, in turkey, i mean they are organizing politically, and they are in the parliament, they have their web sites, they have this and that, but, you know, when you step outside the law, you know, as a government what are you supposed to do? and they have been given chances over and over again to disarm, to be part of the political process, but they have refused to do so, because pkk is an entity which cannot see its own ending at the moment, they have been used to this kind of political posturing and military tactics which will

be classified as terrorism, basically, for so long that, you know, they can't imagine a situation where they will disarm and become just a normal political organization. >> rose: there is also this european union, where does that stand? turkey's desire to be part of the european union? >> our desire to be part of the european union still remains, but the question is, where is the eu is going, where their own kind of self perception with the way they see themselves in the world and the earth and industries a advice other countries, that is a big question for europeans, so with all of the financial -- >> rose: are you asking to do it like you were five years ago? >> we are, yes. the popular support for eu membership, is still about 50 percent and it can really go up if there is some progress on the ground, but the fact is, we have to open and close 36 chapters to be a full member in the negotiations, and so far, we have been able to open close and

only one chapter, and this is since 2005. i mean, in seven years, i mean this is just way too long, and i believe personally, i mean, i really believe this, it is because the europeans are really confused about how far europe should go in terms of enlargement and all of the internal problems they have, they cannot even think of turkey as a candidate but i think they are missing out on a historical moment here, with turkey in the european union, the eu will be a stronger political and economic unit. >> rose: and you believe turkey can be a bridge to the community and other places, iran and everywhere else. >> yes, and what europe is lacking right now strategically, economically in other areas, they can really, you know, make up for by including turkey in the union, but unfortunately, only half of europe supports this view, the other half opposes, but those who oppose are louder than those who

support. >> rose: how is the president's health? >> he is very well and recovered fully now and back to his regular -- >> rose: recovering from? >> from two operations that he underwent, but he is now back to his regular hours. he is feeling strong again, and now he started traveling and that is a good sign. >> rose: was it cancer? >> no. it is not cancer. there was a lot of talk about that. there as lot of speculation about that. i mean how can you hide something like that when the prime minister of a country like turkey has cancer, how can you hide that. >> rose: great to see you. kalin is one of the most important advisors to the prime minister of turkey, i don't have to tell you and this audience that turkey plays an increasingly important role in the region because it has relationships across the spectrum and it has an economy that has been strong and it has influence within the islamic community across-the-board. so thank you for coming.

>> thank you. . >> rose: the future of the west has become one of the key debates of this century, francis fukuyama made it famous in 1989 when he wrote his book the end of history, the sa turned book chronicles the victory of western liberal democracy over all other forms of political thought, more than 20 years later with china rising and a european financial crisis, many question whether the world order has begun to shift, these ideas and others are explored in this year's commemorative issue of foreign affairs magazine, joining me now is francis fukuyama he is an author and fellow at stanford university, also with me is gideon rose, he is the editor of foreign affairs magazine. i am pleased to have both of them sit here and talk about these big ideas which we hope in part this television program and television series is about. you talk about making modern at this world, what we did in this issue is all this talk about how the ideological crisis, and how

the western model is falling apart and other models may be coming on board, and we thought it would be useful to go back and trace the origins of the model, because i actually am more optimistic than most and i think the real story of the age is not so much ideological crisis but ideological continuity, continuity that is of the postwar model that emerged basically from the wreckage of the depression and the inter war years and that reconciles capitalism and democracy because capitalism produces all sorts of wonderful things but with a lot of turmoil and a lots of volatility and a lot of inequality and democracy requires the mass of people to basically approve of what is going on, and so the question has always been, for the last couple hundred years how do you get the dine mism of capitalism but most people want to keep the game going, essentially in the inter war years, you have the

welfare state force regulated capitalism of a mixed economy that still had a free political system but actually managed to spread enough benefits, spread the wealth as the famous saying goes to enough people to have the system world w well and if u look at the last 50, 60 years compared to the previous century before that there is an advance in the industrial world a lot more social harmony, and i think we are still in that period of general harmony and consensus, although the model is fraying around the edges so we basically have an issue that explored how we got to that point and then had gloom and doomsayers like frank talk about the problems that are coming down the road and why this whole wonderful ed fice might have a lot of problems and is falling down. >> rose: is this the debate china has to face itself? >> it is a slightly different debate because china has an older model of sort of thorn tarian state, authoritarian state capitalism which is doing

well at the developmental state china is in now but no precedence for that model working at higher levels of development. >> rose: so the question do, they have to have a debate whether they needle to change the model to continue. >> absolutely, and that debate is already starting to happen and it will happen increasingly over the next ten to 20 years. their debate is, do we have to go from authoritarian state run capitalism to something more liberty federal? >> rose: some form of democracy which we now defin and not necessarily the western model. >> our problem problem is we have this system but it is not working that well, social equality is declining, we are in a lot of debt, how do we energize. >> rose: political paralysis and. >> and we are in a global rised worker our workers are competing with ever everyone's workers it is what we wish for, you just might get it kind of situation the rising orders in china and, hordes in china and india are competing with our own workers and it turns out the middle classes in the advanced industrial world are not in the

best position to compete against middle classes elsewhere. so our problem is the slightly different from the china problem, they each will have debates that have to go forward,. >> rose: all right, how did you choose to get people that you decided ought to be there as explaining where we are today? >> yeah, and we went back and looked at our archives an didn't go for the authors, we went bore the pieces and turned out there were a bunch of interesting pieces, sometimes like people i had never heard of, that i don't know called the rise of hitler, that i don't know called the rise of stalinism and the soviet union, that i don't know called the, chronicled the .. laissez-faire liberal, an economist in the 40s, just a wonderful piece and never heard of the guy, and as we looked forward, we thought, as we put it together, okay whose name is synonymous with the brand of big think about the future of ideology in the current state of the world and obviously it was frank fukuyama so after getting all of these face shots, no, so

we had, we put together left sky and per lynn and a whole variety of previous authors, including the former editor, armstrong who did a wonderful report in there on germany, premonth after germ, hitler took power what happened later already in train with history having ended essentially in the 30s. >> did you come away with this, with a firm idea in your mind as to what 25th will look like? >> you know, i came away thinking that we faced a hell of a lot worse problems in the fast and overcome them so this detour through history, this excursion back into the problems that liberal democracy has faced and overcome, let me actually much more optimistic because when you look at the problems today, things seem really difficult, there is a challenge here, there is an iranian nuclear problem, political stag, economic stagnation, economic particle

sills, political paralysis, and china rising but when you look at where we have come from, we over came depression, we over came complete segregation and lack of opportunities for vast majorities of the population, we over came totalitarian challenges from the outside and over came atomic threats, i actually came away from this thinking, i am not exactly sure how we go forward, i am not exactly sure how we get the economy and the political system moving forward 15 but it can't be nearly as difficult to do as the things we have managed to do in previous generation, so if we can actually overcome the depression, win the world wars, create this wonderful model, jen rate social mobility, racial inclusion, women and others getting opportunity, surely it will be possible to actually make things go better from here. >> rose: so you do not argue that western liberalism has runs its course? >> i think not, i think we are in the triumph and only looks -- we are going there uh a rocky patch but that rocky patch is a rocky patch on the right path, on the road and all of the other

fundamental options have proved to be dead ends, everybody who has thought over the last 60 years that they have had something better than the postwar order of political liberalism with mixed economies has been wrong, and so the odds are that anybody who thinks they have a better answer is going to be wrong again, and the question, is how do we make the existing model we are in work better? and i think we can do that with some tinkering around the edges. >> rose: can liberal democracy survive the decline of the middle class? which is happening in america. inequality, the decline of the middle class and if you look at emerging nations it is the rise of the middle class that is propelling them forward from china to brazil, and around the world. >> that's absolutely right so in a way, there is a zero sum contest going on between the chinas and brazils and south africas where the middle class is really why there is more democracy, the arab spring is really driven by educated, 2 in additions and egyptians to that is a very positive force, but

unfortunately they have got pretty much the same skills that middle class people have in developed societies except they get paid a lot less. the other big problem is technology, i live now in the heart of silicon valley, and although we rightly celebrate the entrepreneurship and the productivity and the gizmos that come out of this place, basically what people in silicon valley do is sit around and figure how to destroy jobs and the in the rest of the economy which is what economies overall impact has been is to replace low and medium skill labor with very smart machines. >> rose: they do that by developing software. >> software and robots and automated processes and better communications that allows you to ship the jobs to india and china and places like that, and so we have got, we are dealing with some big kind of global forces that are making it much harder for people wit with modee education and skills to earn the kinds of incomes that they earn, and democracy really depends on

not just having a middle class but really have having enough wealth distributed relatively evenly across the society so that as gideon was saying, you know, people buy into the legitimatlegitimacy of the systs you are in a situation where an investment banker makes, you know, a million times more if you are a plumber and it is not obvious -- >> rose: million times more than a teacher. >> a teacher, yes. and it is not obvious that they are contribute ago million times more to the overall wealth of the society, then, you know, that is the point in which democratic institutions i think get delegitimated. >> gideon is optimistic on the way i have been, i agree none of these problems are insoluble but i think that you do not solve the problems if you kind of comai extently believe, well, we have been through this before, we have seen worse and we will get through this in the future, i think unless people feel there is a kind of really pressing sense of crisis about self-correcting the problems of

democratic capitalis then we actually won't get to this future and that's what we really need to do now. >> rose: well does political paralysis in washington prevent us from having a serious conversation about it? >> well, everybody talked about polarization i would use a slightly different term which is de-- >> we have a political system in which we have very powerful entrenched interest groups, each of which is strong must have to stop things that hurt their particular interests. but there is no mechanism that force it is aggregation into something like a general national interest, so we all have an interest in fiscal health down the road, ten, 15, 20 years from now, requires tradeoffs, but everybody is very god at protecting their subsidy, their tax cut, you know, and so forth. >> rose: well is that a call for political leadership of a kind we don't often see? >> well, it can be done through political leadership, it can be done if people get scared enough as a result of crisis, either external or internal, i think

actually the design of our institutions also contributes to this, because we americans take a great deal of pride in the fact that we have got a constitution that enshrines checks and balances, exempt that these checks and balances have been multiplying like rabbits over the last couple of generations to you have got the fill bulls search and you have senatorial holes and lots of ways in which small groups can hold back important decisions. >> rose:. >> and so, you know, again these are not insoluble problems and this is not the first time, and gideon is absolutely right it is not the first time the country has faced an institutional, political leadership crisis, but, again, unless you own up to the packet you have got to fix these problems you just won't get there. >> rose: how did we come out of it the last time we faced a political, institutional leadership crisis? >> well, there are several of them, i mean, i think that the depression really -- >> rose: political or economic crisis? >> well, it was both, i mean the republicans were discredited in

their policies and from the 1920s, and it was such a severe crisis with 20 percent unemployment that it brought in a whole re-alignment election. i had actually thought that the financial crisis of, you know, that we just went through in 2008, 2007, 2008 would mock the country into a different, you know, course where it would be more consensual -- >> a now more urgent mindset. >> a more urgent mindset and it is terrible to say but i don't think the crisis was severe enough because, you know, the fed and congress acted quickly to put a floor under it, we got through it, it was bad, but it wasn't so -- you know, it wasn't like the depression that really created this very powerful sense that fundamentally something needed to change, and so i think in a certain sense it was a tragically missed opportunity. >> rose: in other words, it wasn't so bad we weren't force good making changes, on the other hand, people like hank

paulson and the chairman of the fed and others will argue that in fact that is exactly what they were facing, that's what they understood and that's why they went to congress and said, you know, give us all of this power to do something and we have to have tarp and other things, almost kinds of unimaginable power. >> uh-huh. >> rose: in order to stop what is the collapse of our financial system. >> well, no, that's right, and -- >> rose: i mean -- that is drastic circumstances. and drastic response. >> no, and i am very glad they did that, and that's why we don't have 20 percent unemployment right now. but it did mean in terms of building a political consensus in favor of the really difficult kinds of decisions that will have to be made further down the road, i think if, you know, it may not have pushed us that far. so many the future, i don't know, it may take a clams of the dollar, it may take some really big, you know, event to actually force the political system back into a mode where it is more, you know, serious about actually facing some of these problems.

>> rose: the political leadership in washington, does president obama recognize this? would he read this and say i understand these issues? i get it, i just have an inability to create a political consensus because of the way washington is? >> that would be the basic argument and the argument that people in power of any political cast say that their more dogmatic powers, look you don't understand the constraint on me, i am trying to do things, i am going as fast as i can i can, you keep pushing but i can only do so much in time, i think, and there is some real truth to that if you look at the deck of opposition which relatively nonradical policies have met, they have been treated as if they were incredibly radical policies, i mean the idea to sort of relatively modest regulatory reforms of the type that have been broaded, have been attacked as if they are the arrival of socialism is just remarkable and bizarre. maybe after an election, if obama wins, if there is a slight

change in congress, if things happen maybe there will be more opportunities to move things forward overtime, we will see, i think the occupy wall street movement was useful not because the things they were saying or the people themselves of their gender or lack of them or all of that were interesting or creative. >> rose: more than 99 and one. >> yeah and a lot of the specific concerns they had were crazy, but the general feelings that this -- something is wrong, the trends have not been going in the right direction, and this is not just a right wing tea party problem with government, but it is also a progressive problem amount who uses government for what and who gets what out of government, and the progressives should be angry as well as libertarian conservatives, i think that sort of evened the playing field a little bit, and served a useful role and now a real sense as you get to some of these debt crisis

questions you can't just stonewall, everybody seems to agree that both, you can't manage permanent debt of the kind we have been having and that the existing revenue mechanisms and the existing structures are kind of tilted in the wrong direction towards upper orders. so you have to -- there is obviously some kind of compromise that needs to happen, it is not beyond the bounds of genius to figure out what that compromise could be, the question is whether you are the political will and coalition to do it. >> rose: and you come close with opportunities like bowls simpson. >> exactly and i think it is interesting in like bowles simpson has become a talking point that a lot of people are in favor of, it was not that way when it first came out, i think maybe that is the answer. >> rose: i do this tale, and what i have found out is both republicans and democrats will say, bowles simpsons, there was a proposal but we couldn't get the president to accept it or people in the administration say, bowles simpson we couldn't get the republicans to accept

it, it is back and forth. >> do you think they will do something about it? >> rose: do i? i don't know. i think it will have to do with the complexion of the congress, obviously. >> but it is the power of ideas that people believe in, you know, if you believe that the cub, this country, and i am talking specific about the united states but beyond the united states, if you know that you have to have for the lack of a better word and i don't know one, an investment in education, otherwise you can't own the future, you have to have an investment, in your own environmental landscape, or you can't own the future. you have to have an investment in a range of things that have to do with building a structure more the future, you know, and also has to include central and has to include a language and a common purpose, you know. unless you can do that, and everybody understands that, i think, the problem is they don't know how to get there. >> how -- they. >> rose: and the other guy and all of that. >> you have to have the investments you talk about and

you have to control the debt. how do you do those two things together. and the lack of debt there is no unanimity we can't live with that. >> absolutely. >> rose: so you tell us what the solution is. >> i mean other than a great disaster. >> well, how do we get to where an enlightened vision? or an enlightened enactment? >> yes. i can come up with a list of kind of techno cratic fixes i would make to our institutions .. and altogether they are not going to add up to that. >> rose: do you think there are political science solutions? >> yeah, i am kind of a political scientist so don't dump on me. >> rose: no, i am not dumping on you, i want to know where we are headed. >> there are some changes at the margins you can imagine on inls constitutional reform but i think, you know, it really is a change in the social consensus. right now there is a huge amount of populist anger out there, they are mad at the bailouts and

mad at wall street, but it is very unfocused and i think it actually aims at the wrong targets targets, it aims at the government that is trying to protect the people from wall street instead of the proper target it needs to explain what the problem has been and then t propose some kind of a plausible solution to this. but i do think the conversation has changed and actually this is where the occupy movement has probably had an important impact. five years ago, you really couldn't talk about inequality as an issue, and when obama -- >> rose: talk about it and nobody listens. >> nobody listens and when obama used the word redistribution in the 2008 campaign, everybody was down on him immediately, including a lot of democrats -- >> rose: including john mccain, he cited that and there you go, this is what he wants to do with the american economy, redistribute the wealth. >> right. and that is just off the table. and now i think there is a recognition that, in fact, inequality is a problem, and

that, you know, the disappearance of middle class jobs and the extreme concentration of wealth at the top of the system is having deleterious effects on the political system and even, you know, charles murray, famous conservative has just written a whole bunch about the kind of split between the upper and lower classes among white america. >> rose: argue that the upper class has to do more, has to almost proselytize for things it believes in. >> that's right. >> rose: because the middle class is losing its ground. here is what brzezinski says, the united states central challenge over the next several decades is revitalize itself, revitalize itself while promote ago largest west and buttressing a complex balance in the east, a complex buttress in the east that can accommodate china's rising global status. don't we want to accommodate china's rising status? >> most do but not everybody. >> rose: most everybody does? >> yes. >> rose: all right. i thought most of what john

merchant wrote amount was israel before israel he was on china. okay, successful u.s. effort to enlarge the west making its it the world's most stable and democratic zone, corporate west from europe through eurasia by embracing russia and turkey would enhance the appeal of the west core principles for other cultures thus the gradual emergence of a democratic culture. >> yes. and here is the optimistic future, three basic examples, not including the bottom billion, the advanced industrial west and you have to get north america, japan, europe, a few others and you have to get them going more, more dynamic, more lively, you have the rising powers who are democratic and who are taking off but not fully members of the top club, india, much of latin america and

brazil, other places like that, you have to make room for them and incorporate them into the system and bind them tightly to the older advanced countries, and then you have rising powers like china, which are growing and getting stronger and prospering, but are not yet politically liberal and not yet convinced they really want to join this whole system and they need to have some kind of evolution in which you coax them in now as they are and hope they transform overtime and if you can combine all three of those groups together then the 21st century could actually be really good if the global warming doomsayers are wrong, i think there stay lot of upside and, you know, eventually, who knows but the global market, i don't think that frank was saying, wrong it is a zero sum gain, the good thing about capitalism and liberalism and democracy, good thing about peace is there are positive sum games we don't lose if other countries do well. >> rose: has the united states, i mean its leadership, and its people come to understand that? >> no. >> okay.

there you go. >> no. >> rose: have not come to see that. >> they see a rise of china see the decline because i it is somehow a zero sum game or something else? >> yes. >> rose: do you agree with that? >> well, in general, yes, obviously everybody benefits from peace, china's peaceful integration from china's economic prosperity, there is, however, you know, a real competition, i think, you know, in certain levels of the work force, you know, for who is going to do manufacturing, for example, and i actually think we have kind of been taken to the cleaners by china in that regard over the past decade. but, you know, in general, that is the central international challenge, i think is accommodating the rise of a very big china, because one way or the other, it is going to be a big player and that is really -- that is a tough issue. >> rose: you know what the china worry about? they worry about unemployment because the manufacturing will move to somewhere elsewhere there is cheaper labor than there because

they can't stop the rising wage level in their own country. >> this is why actually i think gideon again was right early when he said the chinese model is not going to -- it is not a sustainable model, it depends on these ever expanding export markets, high levels of employment, the legitimacy of that system is very weak, and the moment it ceases to perform in terms of creating new jobs, i think they are in big trouble. >> rose: this is an exciting debate, the clash of ideas that make the modern world, in is really it. these series of articles help you get a beginning understanding of all the great clashes that we will face in the 21st century. thank you. >> thank you very much.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org