tv After Words K.T. Mc Farland Revolution CSPAN March 16, 2020 12:00am-1:01am EDT
america has been through viciously divisive periods before far worse than what we live through today with the hindsight of history we can see that as the inflection point between an old system that is broken down and a new one sorry at the inflection point? >> absolutely right in the middle of it the best example is that in 2016 with the republican primary there was a real civil war and the republican party the establishment representatives like jeb bush and others didn't get the nomination or the support of the american people it was donald trump the democrats are going to the same thing right now they are having a civil war in their party is it going to be a traditional democrat or the outsider or socialist and then to govern the people but after
a long period of thoughtfulness to go through the divisive periods we are a dynamic country geographically economically we are costly reinventing ourselves as individuals and as a nation and government by our very nature and then they get stuck so all of these revolutions but ever since then mostly have the revolutions that play out. >> one of the things you said at the beginning of the book
and that talking past each other before we spoke today we had a conversation and then and the more productive conversation is common ground. >> so explain what you mean by nationalism and more populism. >> the four things to define nationalism and populism and globalism. for decades i had jobs in those administrations with over the last ten or 20 years i rejected a lot more - - a
lot of thinking i had about globalism. in my mind the idea of a sophisticated economy at the world is flat national boundaries are not important if you think of the internet monday -ish - - internet so they are less important because it is the free flow of information and ideas and individuals and finance of business the internationalist globalist that's new world so we really don't need to think so much about the national laws and regulations we need to have so with that elitism from a complicated world and
to have graduate degrees in nuclear weapons so those two together. but experts do and to say we only have this group of enlightened people they could better govern the world we would be safer. that's where i was. the elitist are not taking care of all the people i really believe the people are not self-selected group of experts to have the right to choose their leaders. but the other part which is globalism versus nationalism
we have spent far too long dominantly and militarily the what we did is we were very generous and to have those societies devastated by world war ii entering into that security agreement as well as trade agreements to our disadvantage. putting up 75 percent of the resources for nato for example and then at the expense of the industry and the devastated nation of japan so that is how
things were 60 or 70 years but i didn't think that made sense anymore because the world had changed they had not only recovered economically but surpassing us. we did the same thing with china where we said to ourselves we will give a helping hand and help them economically develop and they will be our friend. that didn't work out the same way. that's why i broke with globalism and elitism well before donald trump came along. i was already there went around the country and im and elitist i live in a nice cocoon bubble in new york but as i went around the country
so i did my own informal polling and would say how many of you think to have the opportunities for your children's generation. and to get kicked around the country's we should not be getting kicked around. and what we think of as american values of self-reliance and independence and ingenuity. how many things it's washington's fault. and women's groups in college students and security groups and foreign policy experts we were not suffering and that is
when i had the awakening and the convergence so the country had kept the peace and govern itself for a decade just wasn't working anymore. i became a committed nationalist, my version and populist, my version before donald trump ever came on the same one - - on the scene but i do want to point out to me it is an xena phobic where you hate to the other guy and my populism isn't we don't have to do anything. give everybody everything. that is somebody else but for me it is getting back to our roots. >> talk about your own experience. so to talk about your time in the white house between
national security advisor. and then to in the marines and the need for the expertise dealing with the world's most conflict - - complex problems those who have psalm experience and with the ideas. >> absolutely. we get the best advice you can get and then you decide if you want to take it or not. i have known her for years from the brookings institution and i thought she would be a really important addition. i knew she wouldn't agree with
me but i thought before trump took office to improve relations with russia. but i thought that doctor fiona hill would be a very good advisor to trump because i had hoped he could get into negotiations with putin and i wanted her to be able to say to him let's have the back story. let's drive a harder view. sadly that's not how it worked out because of the russian investigation but i thought that would be a very good advisor and that he would respect her views. but that's not the way we worked out. now, what i thought was good about him was experience and
journalist world and the marines and he wanted to take a much tougher stand on china that i trump wanted to do. >> talk about china you have been very clear they have not recognize the rise of china is the challenge for the country. i'm interested your thoughts of competing with the economy and your thoughts the president has been tough with china and other presidents have not. [laughter] with that balance or a symmetry. and in the state run economy. >> that's why would like to finish. so let's start who are they and where have they been the
last 23 or so president xi has essentially said to them give up the power you have no individual rights and we promise you will have prosperity and peace. that would be the glue that held the country together. communism has faded away. there is no real ideology. and may be ethnic pride and historical pride. with chinese history. and then and prosperity has increased and china's leaders advance it's not like america
or the west and in the united states senate together or the old candidate or the young candidate. so you start out may be ten years old as really smart so the chinese advance with their age group. so they have seen all the leaders they are now dealing with in their government bureaucracy and they have been working together for decades. you don't move with your class or with your age group. so people in their sixties. where were they in the formative years of their life? in the middle of a cultural revolution. in the sixties through 1972 and 73 a lot of the leadership
of china was the leaders of china than the cultural revolution happened that was chaotic and disruptive and universities that the wrong kind of populist revolution and sent them out to the country. president xi was one of those people. so for his childhood experience and his colleagues a lot of them had been in the top positions when they were young and all of a sudden sent to the country along with her family to be punished and beaten. so president xi to his group that's the worst that could happen as a disruptive society
people going crazy and order breaking out and are revolution of the wrong kind. so what they want to do it all cost as make sure china doesn't go there again. that drives the whole authoritarian system and their position in the world. they want order at all cost i don't think sometimes revolutions are good or individual freedom she will not have those. as the government tells you. that's where they start out. they don't want disorder but they want prosperity. so the united states really tried to help china to modernize just like her rate one - - iran or korea but it didn't happen so the to go 20
or 30 years and they are very conscious of that people that were in starvation situation 20 years ago now building modern cities. so the united states we could safely say that america never really retrain those people we have unemployment or underemployment so we enable their success. but now the times have changed and it is time to recalibrate that relationship we don't need to treat china like a third world country with finance and market economies that they have enjoyed as a third world developing
so we have done three things geographically and militarily in one is the south china sea. and the waterway through which all trade flows from europe and africa and the middle east on its way to china philippines japan and korea and they have aggressively moved to say that is an earned on - - internal chinese straight we have violence here we will build them up for the fishing fleet but no they militarize those islands now claiming that is the world's greatest see laden of commerce should be internal. so that's a big problem so the chinese attempt to take the countries from to the middle
east and then to re-create that it is called one belt one road so they would build this physical highway but also the virtual highway by going through all these countries. not unlike the romans did during the roman empire in europe and that the maritime ambitions so the chinese look at pakistan and east coast of africa to say we will build ports and just like the south china sea because we want to trade chinese goods but in fact some of those ports are militarized so now they are building a maritime route, a land route and trying to control the world's global
commerce route. in addition to that they have something called made in 2025 the chinese leaders tennis shoes and technology artificial intelligence to say we want to be good leaders and to steal intellectual intelligence and to turn over intellectual property all those things added to gather a much more aggressive attitude. the chinese look at the world
and say we will dominate the world and the technology with the huawei global network and dominate communications according to our specifications. >> and the multilateralism to say that would be china but one sample is where america and the dozen states decided in the trade agreements that they could constrain china's ability and benefit but certainly the united states. >> that would be a great thing to revisit and trump second term but he understood if you
rebuild the american economy to make it the strongest economy in the world there's a lot of leverage just like middle eastern oil you have a lot of leverage of the energy world and also because we are the recipient of most countries goods others need to sell it to us so trump understood that and if you could fix the american economy with middle east energy and could use trade wars to renegotiate with china and japan and south korea not on - - korea and mexico and canada. but the united states in a better position with much more leverage and then start negotiating so my advice to hear them is now that you have a trade agreement with mexico
and canada and japan and south korea probably with brits by the end of the year now we have a consortium to go to china a lot of us have the same complaint and then go with the block led by the united states to say we demand a new deal stop exploiting the generosity we have given you over the decades. >> the what we visited and what we speak about china we have seen american interventions that has been seen as a complete waste so how do we extricate ourselves? we know there will be a vacuum and there are concerns.
how do we get out of that at home? >> it's like childrearing you pick your fights and while isis is problem and all these other things but you don't want to lose track of the real problem. and he was really great understanding what is the real game? it is nuclear weapons. so why get sidetracked with all the other stuff that might prevent you from dealing with the major issue. what trump has allowed the energy industry in the united states and we are three or four years within a short period of time.
so to get off their energy they have been fighting each other for thousands of years with tribal warfare they don't belong in the middle of that so that to me is one of the important things and if it distracts you dealing with asia and china and the five g global technologies of the future then you should have a very different approach. yes. i was critical not going into afghanistan but we should not stayed around to rebuild afghanistan and we shouldn't have stayed to rebuild these countries that don't want rebuilt. >> you talk about the idea overnight even if that is 20
years but to build a society a better institution and to create a democracy that comes from the countries so with your views i have appreciated your candor with the presidents tweeting for example but the importance of institutions in this country as the backbone of democracy i know you are not fan of arguably one institution but we have seen those that have meddled some way or another so talk to me about the importance of the institutions.
>> so freedom of speech and freedom of the press so trump understands like reagan did tha that. [laughter] >> no but you can see some presidents get better and george washington talked about that with the newspaper men. >> trump has understood the same way reagan did i think all great revolutionary presidents did you have to find a way to get directly to the american people to jump over the heads of the establishment. reagan did it by going around the country into cities and towns across the country and local radio and television stations. fdr did the fireside chats
directly to the american people trump did he understood the washington press corps does not like him. but he found a way to reach directly over the heads of those people by tweeting no say i don't like the tweets but on the other hand it has been very effective to get directly to the american people and so for that it's an institution that he and reagan and fdr and lincoln going all the way back have preserved the free speech of the american leaders to talk directly to the american people. >> how do we find that balance that if we did not have watergate or the wall street journal the "washington post" so where is the balance between getting in the way of
a president and ask the questions from the american people? >> so figuring out we talked about this at the very beginning of the conversation. you can't reason it's like trying to reason with a tired two -year-old toddler. you will never breakthrough. [laughter] so what happens is eventually those people become irrelevant. . . . .
>> i can't believe you just said that. [laughter] professional women in midtown manhattan you and you are going to talk about nuclear weapons. how cool is that. >> you talked about elites and the way there are certain parts of information or policy that the average american doesn't get access to. the nuclear non- proliferation is one of those places they don't feel they have agency over that issue and it doesn't really come up in politics. putting that aside, one question straight out of the gates, should prisoners sign -- the bilateral treaty with russia
that is basically a nonproliferation agreement putin has said what are the pros and cons? >> guest: i worcons?guest co. ie nixon administration and i worked for reagan and there were the classes between the two of us. at the beginning of the administration, one of the things i did as the deputy national security adviser is take the review of the american foreign policy in the next couple of weeks. where are we now so one of the things that was clear is the russians had been cheating for years on the class of weaponry and it was also pretty clear the chinese were developing them and they were not part of any deal so our advice is let's get to
where we need to get to. if we cheat, every reporter will say we are cheating. but nobody calls them on it so i think it was the right thing to do. but what i learned with reagan and trump if you have to have chips to play in the game and where is your leverage if you don't have the class of weapons. if they were able to say let's cancel this we have a lot of leverage and the threat of the defense missile system. trump has gone to the right place. >> moving on to north korea, we have a sort of cycle that you've explained beautifully in your
book of committal and noncommittal and promises when they understood we were building a nuclear weapon program. what are your views on whether this is a solvable problem? >> we've tried republicans, democrats and you have sanctions and economic problems. it's like working with a tired to year-old. i think trump has done the right thing and we had the review of the american fork in policy --
foreign policy and there were treasury, state, defense, intelligence, military. what are we going to do about north korea and they basically had the same policy. come back in about a weeks time and i want to hear all of your ideas and think outside the box. so there was a good td style and i said i want you to think of may be accepting the nuclear weapons state and regime change. come back and let's shake this again because you probably haven't been a reassessment of the position. we all come back about a week later and i spent the time in between learning and relearning a lot of of korea that it was
probably about a decade before you were born. so anyway, they come back and have these ideas and there was no easy thing but there was a little bit of economic stuff that you could do it a little bit of military. if you put them altogether, you could have instead of thinking of a dial either on or off you could have a dial and start turning. 75% of the transportation fuel comes as a sort of gift from china. they may have said we are going to help you but they never did. the other thing is if he is the missile on his own us all the expertis all theexperts that heg
advice from, they didn't understand as a negotiator understands that with trump it was always personal. he doesn't care about his genitals. he will feed them. was about his father or grandfather and i think they found a third way and he's played to the ego. let's go meet in singapore which very carefully chose them. singapore is the most modern in the world and that is a demonstration of. we were at war with each other
just like we hadn't have good relations with cuba to look at how close we are now so i think those are carefully calibrated to show these are the possibilities. then the other think trump did that was brilliant and most people thought it was corny but he did a trailer that is like a movie trailer to be the world greatest leader -- >> host: modernization and with the economy could look like. >> guest: who knows, what do you deal with and how do you deal with north korea but at least -- >> host: like how did you solve a problem in north korea. >> guest: it was the right thing to do. if we had a different relationship going forward, north korea might be in a different position.
iin this authority in domestic politics and all these things both domestically and internationally. you said about the president watch what he does and says and i'm interested in your thoughts of how that has worn out. let's just start with what he does and says. it's about what made john f. kennedy. hold about winning and he' he is from the new york real estate world he created the genre of
television with good writing and bad writing. everybody claims and so i think for him it was all about winning and it doesn't really matter it's just getting to where you could win. i think that he looks at those as things you have to do to get the front where you win. the media goes nuts and the political establishment that is just absurd. trump thinks that it is absurd but that is in the opening bid he expects to settle. i think to a certain extent he says a lot of strange things. one week he trashed talks him on
twitter like my missiles are bigger than your missiles and the next week he says we are sending each other love letters. he doesn't care who she humiliates a. he was overruling himself and just wants to win. >> host: the southern border wall in 2006 in the house and the senate with bipartisan support now we are on this crazy place where we have the supporters and detractors fighting on almost the same thing.
the way he's talked about it. it may be beneficial in the end and i will give you a quote when bush talks about the secure census act on the announcement is still requires the tradition of the melting pot. nobody wants to give the other guy a win. they don't like it because they don't want to give the win. democrats and republicans and i think right now we have done such a stock place how you solved it is nancy pelosi doesn't want to give donald trump the win right now. >> she did a lot of work with.
they didn't invite her to the announcement. there is a little bit on both sides. i think the difference now is that we are in a period of the revolution trump wants you to think that it's all about him. they say we went a different direction so that is what is different is the political war that there is no middle ground somebody on the other side it's
going to fade into the background. a. airlines are refusing to fly to china. borders are important knowing who's in your country is important. interested in the rhetorical argument around i'd like to talk a little bit about russia and putin as we have seen with 2016 election interference is warfare going on and the nuclear state but it has the economy losing
its grip on energy independence what is the best approach to make sure we retain and don't allow russia to get into other enemies and create an access that would be threatening to our global predominance. >> that is one of the great disappointments of american politics today could they have found a way of working with russia and i would prefer we would have an agreement of noninterference but i don't think that is politically what is going to happen. no matter who the next president of the united states but i do think it will be donald trump. any kind of relationship with russia is possible right now it's a shame because we are in a very good position.
they've done the same thing twice. they spread around the world and definitely had a big military buildup and then when reagan came in the 1980s he was able to because of the price of oil going down and because of the american technological superiority and begin confidence of the economy was able to drive them into bankruptcy and collapse over the economy so then what did putin do? into this is also somebody i've spent time looking at. it was a great nation, superpower to go to toe with america to look forward to a
great future but then everything collapsed in the late '80s or early '90s. so putin himself was to graduate school at that point and he wrote a dissertation in russia and he talks about how to make russia great again and that they would use the natural resources and state control and then the price of oil would eventually go up and they would be rich again and that is the plan in this dissertation. and russia did become rich again when the oil prices started. then it all collapsed after that but instead of taking the windfall profits that he would have had say 2010 and reinvesting them into the economy he went on another spending spree. the social services have consolidated control now that the price of oil is down and i don't think it ever goes up to those levels again is kind of
broke into this would be a very good time to force the deal with the russians and let them have their dignity at the collapse of the soviet union. sadly because of the american domestic politics i would put a lot of that right into the lap of the democrats and obama administration and the intelligence community. it's one of the greatest geopolitical threats the chinese and russians getting together again. is it not anothe that not anothr the multilateralism so that we can collectively show the american values that built. nato is strong and the alliance is strong and friendships are
maintained. >> guest: if everybody does their fair share. the part organic out goodies atr expense to those that don't want to ante up for their own defense or their own economy area i don't think that is a fair alliance at all. >> host: i would like to talk about you. it's been so interesting to talk about some of these bigger ide ideas. you start with a part time job and night secretary during the nixon administration and the last job you have at the white house was the deputy national security adviser. talk about what you have learned
along the way because you started in the white house had ended in the white house and i'm just really interested in those things and how did you end up after? >> immi middle-aged 60 60s and for me it was the first opportunity for women to have equal access to education and eventually equal access professionally. i was from a working-class family and went to school on a scholarship for the first job i had was freshman year of college i was 18-years-old and got a job for henry kissinger and that was 1970 the most that you could sort of aspire to in the white house would be even the
administrative assistant. they just were not open. and it's not -- was just the way it was. so, for me i didn't have a grand plan of how to be a glass ceiling breaker or a pioneer but it turned out that way because they took advantage of opportunities as they came along. but, to end my career sitting just a few feet away from my first job as a secretary to end it as one of the most senior people in the american government studying foreign policy in a job that would never even aspire to do think it's routine that they have these jobs. >> host: they've grown up in a place -- >> guest: now in fact my older daughter is about to have her
first child probably by the time this ayers but the fact there are so many opportunities. and to a certain extent, i love working with women and talking to women of all ages but i think that the big problem now is to have it all and how do you juggle it. i had a great education on a great career and in my middle 30s retired. we won the cold war it was a nuclear weapons expert so i retired to be a housewife and mother and di get it for well or a decade and it was the most rewarding time of my life but then got back into the swing of things after september 11 and had a pretty good background so i thought actually it was my older daughter that said i think the country is under attack, you should stop having lunch with your girlfriends and do what you're good at so i it so it was about changing chapters.
i had five children, grandchildren, but also had a great career. >> host: you write about this notion of how we get back to a place where there is opportunity where we have equality and for ten years off as a working parent. it's sort of almost miraculous that you could do that and then go back with your qualifications and possibly your network. you could start here today and end up with a very interesting and fluid nonlinear path. spin it for anybody, man or
woman, there are a lot of opportunities. but don't let those opportunities get in the way of a fulfilling life. i've also got personal fulfillment and five terrific kids. married, grandchildren and every single one of them is different. if i hadn't been part of their growing up or haven't had an opportunity to, i don't know, school defense. >> host: i have a quote from you. the future is in all of our hand. it isn't up to the elites or the government class or power ideologues were self-appointed saviors.
what could we the people do to make sure that the hell did we make a difference? >> one of the big problems in america 40% check out. i'm not political. i don't get involved in the politics and what trump has done in part what he's going to these rallies is he's taken a group of people who felt disenfranchised and they were neither rich nor powerful nor politically active for influential. whatever you say about the policies and politics the fact that more americans now. they are in the arena and as
long as we are there together i think that everybody can do is get involved and show up at the rallies and the polls. they shouldn't govern for you or for your salt. the eligible voters lost cycle so your point is well taken, you don't get to have a say. it's the responsibility and i think that for too long a lot of people have said it's not my response ability. that is. is so you have that right and responsibility. >> host: i'm going to end with another quote.
it is a statement about the theme of your book also a statement about you. it makes the personal reinvention possible but even more profound is that we have also had the power to remove the nation. you've written this book that is politically opposed. it's been a pleasure. >> guest: it's been an honor. thank you.
resilient and you can see that very easily with the comparison to what happens in canada. they laid them off in detroit and ontario canada often by the same company. the expanded benefits to people got more money buwith more moneo lost their jobs and their health care which is a huge stress on the family. over in canada what happened is they lost their job because canada has universa universal he and then the government intervened and looked where the demand was for other types of jobs and they found out that nursing had a demand so they had to arrange for training programs for the workers to retrain to go into the field and yes it's not their dream job that they were able to get back into the world
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on