which is a chance he can of some gerrymandering. [laughter] it is a fundamentally nondemocratic approach because what it does is the elected official chooses the voter rather than the other way around. this is an area you can have an impact and the states you are seeing the referendum in which the average voter gets it. >> i agree with you and i think that if we could get to the point that independent commissions were drawn in the district lines it would be

wonderful to. we see this in part because they recognize what is currently in place is not working. it has to do with the people who are there and if you don't kick them out it's not going to get fixed. i'm sure you have a list and i

have a list and some of them overlap. [laughter] if you don't change the incentive structures you will continue to see these problems. good people will burn out and get discouraged. voters will continue to be frustrated. those who garner attention for the most divisive controversial outlandish statements to when. the degree to which the united states.

it isn't in the most obvious ways but if there is a problem around the world, people do not call moscow or beijing, they call washington. they expect us to solve problems and expect us to keep things running. and when you start getting the dysfunction in washington in which it is difficult to get made. it is one of an extraordinary civil service and career staff. it doesn't just weaken our influence it provides opportunities for the disorder.

there is a line between dean acheson and george marshall. this was a conversation among the secretaries of state he would be possibly over here on the spectrum but it was a coherent conversation. were you surprised in the past

24. the institutions the president is talking about and the institution that you drew on the united nations within the gulf war. this institutions were pretty effective through this man's presidency. did you see that coming? >> i did not. i certainly agree with you and i knew president obama would agree the leadership in the world is absolutely imperative.

we had alliances that leveraged the power that we could rely on and of those alliances were evidenced by nato of course and by the security agreements with japan and korea and in the economic sphere the world bank, imf and so forth. those institutions were created by america in order for us to do with the rest of the world needed us to have done. we don't need to denigrate

institutions or attack them. do they need some of them reformation, absolutely. as someon someone who spends a f time working with the imf, there is a good one. even nato. they have what they've agreed to pay and we know we shouldn't be required forever to pick up the tab. but these institutions make america stronger and we have got to be running them down. [applause] here is a question assess the validity of the statement if you would. american politics between 1933 and 2017 can be understood as a

kind of figurative conversation between president roosevelt and reagan on the field of which we made most of th the worst foreign-policy decisions was about the relative role in the marketing of the state and the projection of force against commonly agreed-upon rivals. this moment from your leaving the white house until now feels like an incoherent part of that story. do you agree that you have governed in a boat that was basically shaped by those american traditions, and if you agree with it, how does one go withouabout recovering and restg that conversation? >> i think it is correct that despite all the difference is, i was listening to jim talk about tip o'neill and ronald reagan going at it, but the truth is during that period that you

described, the ideological band of american politics was pretty narrow compared to most other countries. there was a broad consensus around a number of the core issues" principles. and there's a reason why i was comfortable asking for examples bob gates to stay on as my secretary of defense when we were still in the middle of the two wars. and there was a reason why i could consult with brent scowcroft or jim baker about a particular issue comfortably. it wasn't a strain. there were values around certain

issues. over the course of the post-world war ii era it was hugely beneficial to the world. it didn't mean we didn't screw up or make mistakes when we were not hypocritical by politicians so the world have all kinds of opportunities to say the united states doesn't believe what it preaches. it's supporting folks that are not democrats they are doing things for me and all those things. at the end of this period let's call it 60 or 70 years, the world was wealthier, less

violent, healthier, more tolerant and the average person their life as were improved across the board. the chinese essentially were free writers of the system we built and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. it's justifiable to say stop writing for free. you've got to carry your weight now that your status has changed. but we did something very valuable. here is what is also true for any political system and consensus over time the