tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 29, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
she has served in that role since 2007. in her address, she said, "the university is not about results in the next quarter. it is not about who a student has become by graduation. is about learning that molds a lifetime. it is about learning that shapes the future." i am pleased to have drew gilpin faust back at this table. welcome. i want to talk about universities today, some criticism they are receiving, and how they can confront challenges in the future. tell me, how is harvard today? you went through some fundraising difficulties, a challenge to you, as you have taken note of. there were questions about the merits of a college education, and people not being able to find jobs, raising questions about what people are really
getting. tell me how harvard is doing, and what are your answers. >> this is an interesting time for higher education, and a time in which it is going to change more than it has changed since the end of the 19th century, when the research university was invented in the 1100's. it may change as dramatically as when it was invented. it is hard because of the kind of transformations we see in the world that we live in, the digital revolution, and what that means for teaching and learning with the globalization of higher education. those are important factors. i think there are significant sets of expectations that have been articulated, partly in the aftermath of the financial crisis. how does it contribute to a
life, a future? how does it contribute to a society? how do we evaluate what universities offer? >> it is the best time, when those questions are being raised, to remember what universities were for. and some of that, you make sure you the best of the past and look forward to the future. >> exactly. i worry somewhat that we will focus narrowly on the immediate outcomes that have become so pressing in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the question of what is the contribution that the university makes to the employability, the life of an individual, and to the economic structure of society. those are absolutely important things for university to, but it is also important that we keep the long term in view and ask ourselves about how universities contribute to building citizens for the future, people who will be the pillars of our democracy in the years to come, people will be able to adapt beyond a first job to a future that we
can hardly imagine the shape of. we will have the kind of habits of mind, the kind of ways of thinking, the kinds of ways of understanding of the world from which they come, to be ready, ten years after graduation, 20 years after graduation for jobs that have not been invented yet. >> i think i remember this in a speech you gave in which you quoted charles elliott, in which he said, "we want engineers, architects, and chemists. but we think they will be better at that if they learn something of the humanities and what it means to be a citizen." >> yes. and, what it means to be part of a world that is not necessarily like the world that you came up in, with your own origins and own immediate experience. the globalization part of higher education, part of all of our lives is critical here. the students who go to harvard are going to be lawyers, doctors, business people, or public servants in a global context. they're going to have to deal with individuals from societies that are quite different from
their own. they speak languages different from their own. how can they put themselves into those peoples' heads in order to understand what motivates them? those are critical questions to come from. they come from humanistic study, as much as from other fields. >> another critical question is access. former secretary clinton raised this question. universities are so expensive today. and i know you feel strongly about university support and financial aid for students. but that is an issue for so many people, of what it costs to attend a great university. >> you talked about the criticisms that universities are being subjected to, and the kinds of doubts people have about them. those are coupled with an appetite for what a university can be, and a desire to be part of one and have one's children be part of one. how can we make the university affordable to the wide range of people who can benefit from the experience? i think we need to look at in a
couple of ways -- >> it is not only good for them. it is good for the university. >> we greatly extended our financial aid programs the last decade, so we increased our spending on financial aid by 90% since 2007. we have a program that permits families making less than $65,000 a year to come with no parental contribution at all. we are working very hard to make harvard affordable. in fact, it is the cause of education that have gone down at harvard. 60% of our undergraduate students are on financial aid. if you're on financial aid you pay about $12,000 a year for your harvard education. i think that is important commitment we have made. making higher education affordable is a much broader challenge than that. we have been very lucky to benefit from the kinds of resources that are alumni and friends have given us over the years to support the financial
aid commitments. aid commitments. that is not the case everywhere. let me say something about another aspect of affordability. if you look at what states have extended for students on higher education, and the public higher education in the united states, that is gone down 26%. >> per capita. >> per capita. >> you're talking about the individual states of the 50 states. >> university of california berkeley, university of north carolina. the rising cost of public higher education is closely related to the declining support -- >> they have to raise the price of tuition and everything else -- >> yes. part of what we have to ask ourselves is how do we make college more affordable by being
much more cost-conscious? we also have to ask ourselves, as a society, what are we willing to invest in higher education, which i firmly believe is a public good. does our society still believe that? >> you raise the question in public statements and speeches that, in fact, the level of support from the federal government to higher education is declining? relative to where it was. >> a significant portion of what we could harvard is research. about 16% of our operating budget -- >> 16%? >> comes from federal support. >> and is declining? >> it is declining. in the last decade the purchasing powers from the national institute of health, which is our biggest federal funder, has gone down about 25%. where is the united states going to do the scientific research under those circumstances? i can tell you a story about a wonderful discovery that was made, announced this last week.
it is a discovery about a protein that inhibits the development of alzheimer's, made by a young faculty member in our medical school. he applied for nih funding and got the highest possible score. but because of declining support for nih that did not guarantee that you would be funded. when the qualifiers relisted, the top three were funded. it used to be that maybe six or eight of those were funded. he was number four. >> yeah. >> the cutoff was three. >> no funding. >> so how could he advance extraordinary work without the funds out there? that is a lesson to us of a very specific sort. and also a very troubling one -- >> so it is going to happen to him --
>> he has funding, but he has been doing it more slowly. he has not been able to advance as quickly as he would have. i hope he has a good result and his next grant will be funded. i hope you will break through on that. but is a lesson to all of us. here this extraordinarily destructive disease, destructive human capacity -- >> and would have be slowing down one of the important elements in trying to reduce the impact, yet at the same time, you got one of the largest single grant it never received for $150 million. >> that is a philanthropic gift, it is not a federal gift -- >> that is what i'm saying. you launched a capital campaign. you're not getting federal money, but you seem to be getting gifts of significant size. >> we are. that gift was for financial aid
for one of our highest priorities, for access affordability. it was from ken griffin, an alum who wants to make places like harvard open to students of talent. if you think about how much federal money we get every year, that is $670 million year -- >> 670 million? >> yes. what substitutes for that? that is annually. it takes a lot of the length of -- a lot of philanthropy to compensate for what the federal government has done. >> are you able to reduce your things on the expense side through wise financial management? >> we are certainly attending to that in a variety of ways, administrative ways of consolidating functions and
thinking about costs. also, asking hard questions. again, the downturn in 2008 was a challenge. what can we do different than what we were doing? what can we do less of? what can we do more efficiently? >> do you believe that members of the academy make good managers? >> all of them? >> no. is it a rule though? it is a very different talent. >> it is a different talent. >> after all, you are a historian who writes books? >> people ask me what does history have to do with being a university president and wasn't that a complete disjuncture? it makes me a better university president then if i did not understand history because leadership is about change. it is about envisioning change. managing change. bringing people to embrace change. what is history about? history is about change. what is the civil war about?
it is about a very concentrated period in which everything changed. that equipped me very well, i think, for the kinds of changes -- >> and it is true that if you don't understand history, you will be doomed to repeat it. >> correct. when you look at online education, is that a positive thing for universities? because i loved my university experience. i loved being on campus. i loved everything about it. everything. at the same time, there are people who cannot do that, for whatever reason. now they get to access a great university and great teachers online. >> online education will never replace base runner things that happen when you bring people together from around the country and around the world to learn together. when you think about your university education, when i think about what goes on at harvard everyday, this
serendipitous encounters, those are irreplaceable. but what online education can do is supplement. it is extraordinary. we, together with m.i.t., founded an organization two years ago to produce online content to share with people all around the world. and we do our content part of the delivery system of the platform. so far, we have more than one million individuals who benefited from those courses. one of my favorites of those stories related to this was a public health course that was offered in the very first fall that we were involved in this program. i'd just been to india several months before and was made so aware of the public health needs
in india, and so many people come up to me and said, can we get more of your faculty here to consult? i came back feeling very passionate about trying to do more with india because of the challenges. they were so enormous. this basic health course that was offered in the following fall, and it was not for just this basic health course that was offered in the following fall, and it was not for just beginners. it was building blocks of public health. it was taken by 50,000 people worldwide. it was taken by 8000 people in india. there, in an eye blink, or is the kind of impact for public health knowledge and the dissemination of that knowledge that all of the partnerships that i was going to dream up would not have approached. the partnerships are still important. we will still do those things. but here we had a level of
outreach that would have been unimaginable. one of the things i love about it is how the users figure out how they want to take these courses. we had one instance where someone who's taken a course in mumbai said, i want to see who else is taking the course. he created a kind of flash mob of statisticians who came together. all whole hospital staff in india took a course together, so they could share the experience and have a face-to-face dimension of the online course. think about that impact, and thing about what can be available in that mode, simply is not available and cannot be made available, readily in a face-to-face mode. it is very striking. >> you went to gettysburg for the university. >> the 150th anniversary. i did.
>> because of the address in the honor and that, and lincoln talking about making sure that those who died did not die in vain, would you tell them when you had a chance to be there, but also remember the problems they were having today? >> as i was thinking about the anniversary and thinking about going to gettysburg, i wrote a piece for the washington post that kind of summarized my thoughts, and what i focused on was the notion of how much sacrifice had been made for this extraordinary nation that lincoln described as the last, best hope, as democracy was disappearing around the world in the mid-19th century. lincoln roused the north to take on this remarkable set of commitments to keep the nation
home. if we do not want people to have died in vain for that -- >> and we lost a lot of people -- >> 700,000 of them. what have we abandoned? as we were approaching the anniversary, the government was closed. we were in deadlock in washington. we had a congress that was unable to exercise their responsibility of democracy. >> and they were examining the very role of government. and you're saying to remember, how do we ensure we have a government by the people, for the people, and one that shall never perish. >> and remember that what we have inherited, in the way of responsibilities to those who built this for us. and what we owe to that past into the future, and our obligation to sustain it. >> when people talk about great universities, they talk about the united states.
i think the top 20 great universities on most people's list, 18 of them are in the united states. oxford and cambridge would be exceptions. what is required for china and india, and other places, but they have some resources there, to build a great university? how quickly can they build a series of great universities? >> it is a very interesting question. both china and india are thinking hard about that. one of the aspects that china has identified as of increasing importance is how american students and universities are filled with curious, imaginative, creative people. part of that, i find, they
believe to come from the liberal arts. from the breadth of training. from not being so narrowly focused on just a very particular and specific area of knowledge -- >> like computer science -- >> but to enrich that with a perspective from somewhere else that may give you a different angle and enable you to make a new discovery that you would not have thought of -- if you were just stuck in a prescribed path. >> in terms of enhanced creativity. i just thought about this, the interesting thing about china, for example. there's this myth that they are into rote learning. some of that may be true. and rather than a full understanding of humanities and history. yet they talk about the richness
of their history and the longevity. that is one of the things the most proud about. >> how is the integrated into an educational system and how one thinks about a particular set of subjects, as part of an educational system? that is what they're trying to figure out. >> take you coming out of a small town in virginia, with a good education and wonderful opportunities, and a big brain, and all the things that you've done. if you're coming out of there today, and knowing what you know now, would you make different choices? >> my life unfolded as a series of surprises because i was entering a world in which things are changing so rapidly for women that, if i had said i want to be the president of harvard when i was 10 years old, people would've thought it was crazy. as i came up to each choice in my life, it was almost miraculous luck that suddenly something would open up, and i would be a will to do something that the generation before me would not have been able to do.
when i got pregnant, my daughter is now 32 result, so you can date that very clearly, at the university of pennsylvania, there was no maternity leave well. no one knew what to do with me. but there was a lot of goodwill. so we sort of invented it. i ended up, perhaps in the early version of the online future. i taped my lectures for the time of a month and a half around when i might have the baby, so that when i started delivering the child we could show the class lectures online. after he delivered the baby, is out of my colleagues and said, we need a policy here. we invented a policy. now it is taken for granted
everywhere. >> were the things that you thought, i might do -- my impression is that the answer is no. -- but that you might've done, but there was not an opportunity for woman so you thought, i will not go down that road. or did you go down the road you were interested in, and it turned out, i achievement and people looking at options and saying, what is the best choice, they end up with you? i didn't ask that very well, but did you not go places you might've gone? >> i can't think of anything i wanted to do that i didn't do because i was prohibited from it. maybe initially i might've been. i feel very lucky, in that regard. >> i do too. i come a very small town with parents who did not go to college. they said, you can do anything you want to. and i believed that. and to believe that is so important. >> that is why we have to make college accessible and make sure that students like you have the opportunities that your parents promised you do it have. that is what our nation is
about. they gets back to what you are asking about the gettysburg address. that is part of the last, best hope for earth, too. and that is the engine of democracy, education. thomas jefferson recognize that early on. we have to see it as a public good for the nation. >> everything that i read. every leader that i know, waking has elements of wisdom, looks at education is the key to the future. how do i change and make education better? there is a checkered history of doing that for lots of reasons, and certainly the world this pool of people who do not want an educated populace. but those that think about the future, and genuinely thing about change, it begins with education. >> and it has to be an education that teaches people to ask questions. that is how we invent the future. >> thank you. great to see you. >> great to see you too. ♪ >> george will is here. he is a pulitzer prize winning author and columnist. he has been writing for more than 40 years.
he is a syndicated column in the washington post. he is also a lifelong chicago cubs fan. his book is called a nice little place on the north side. it tells the story of wrigley field, one of the most legendary field in baseball. i am pleased to have him here today. welcome. >> glad to be here. >> the washington post, you're still writing a column. has it changed today? >> not a change, whatever. it is syndicated to other papers. when i first started writing, charlie, i wrote from home and my column went to the post by motorcycle. by carrier pigeon. [laughter] >> then you emailed it in. >> yes.
you switched from abc to fox, why? then the show that i was on on day one -- >> and that was with david brinkley -- >> yes. that moved to new york. george stephanopoulos. superb talent and wit, but i got a little weary of saturday night to new york. nothing against you. >> i can guarantee we can give you a better time with saturday night in washington. that is a debate, i guess. but washington is interesting. if you came to new york, i would take you to a restaurant. the violet washington, it would be entertaining in my home, depending on the level of my friendship. illinois is your home. your father was a professor. >> a professor of philosophy. >> what was the great divide between being a cardinals fan and a chicago fan? >> good sense. [laughter]
chicago >> i grew up midway between champagne and chicago the university is there. at the tender age of 7, which is supposedly the age of reason, and an age to tender to make like shaping decisions, had to choose between a cardinal and cub fan. all of my friends became cardinal fans. they became cheerful. i became conservative. i chose the wrong team. and then you feel the sense of loyalty. football combines the two worst features of american life.
a violence punctuated by committee meetings and a huddle. football is a spectacle. it is a big spectacle. baseball is a habit. i was on a major league committee called baseball and the 21st-century. we did research. we came up with a conclusion about 90% of self identified nfl fans have never been to an nfl game. television makes nfl fans, going to the ballpark makes baseball fans. >> is it still a way? >> i think it is. the important things were jackie robinson, free agency, and camden yards being built. we had all those hideous multipurpose stadiums that were
good for neither baseball or football. a guy would come to the plate. he could not tell if he was in san diego, st. louis, pittsburgh. then camden yard said -- you know that the old axiom quote you cannot turn the clock back." >> what was at memorial stadium before them? >> it was memorial stadium. it was for baltimore fans. the people who build camden yard said, look, baseball is a uniquely observable game. people are spread out on an eye-pleasing green field. it is the most observable of team games. you turn people back in and return the game, and look what happened. we have had 22 new ballparks. every one of them is superb. ask how you like the nationals? >> very good. >> season-tickets? >> six. i have a handicapped son with down syndrome.
he works at the clubhouse, he is at 81 games a year. he is a better job than i have. he is up in the nature league ballpark. >> he is probably happier than you are too. he is right there with his passion, right? this book. wrigley field. the wrigley family. the story of the baseball stadium? >> no one would care about it if the team did not play their. it is also the story of chicago, which is just breathtaking. the first fact about it is it is very old. wrigley field is the second oldest major leg ballpark. the oldest is dodger stadium. fenway park is of years older. the third oldest and the second oldest in the national league as dodger stadium, believe or not. >> dodger stadium. >> you and i are sitting in midtown manhattan. the chrysler building. the empire state building. >> the new world trade center. >> wrigley field is older than those.
it is older than the supreme court building. the lincoln memorial. mount rushmore. the golden gate bridge. in our still-young country, a public-use structure, is still -- it is old. >> is it better than fenway park? >> i think so. the charm of both eyes at their put down in an organic neighborhood. fenway park is an eccentric configuration because the city got there first. what the giants did with their wonderful park right down in china basin in san francisco is try to replicate the wrigley field experience. they only have a 13 acre
footprint. that is very small. they said, we're going to see what happens to the neighborhood. the terms of the neighborhood booms. it has this pastoral past, nonsense. one of the early teams playing in the first half of the 18th century played on the field right near murray hill in manhattan. boston and new york had semi-evolving baseball versions. >> characterize your relationship with the cubs? >> robert frost said he had a lover's quarrel with the world. i have a lover's quarrel with the cubs. they have not been a winner since tolstoy died. we need a win. it is no long time. they have not been to the world series since 1945 when i was for his old. that hardly counts. the only one because a lot of the great athletes were still in uniform in the second world war. the cubs, just randomly you would think you would when. -- would win now and then. how
did they manage to have this futility? >> all of a sudden, teams were getting in the world series. >> 1962, the mets are created out of the scraps of other teams. 120 games. still a record. the manager famously looked down the dugout and said, can't anyone here play this game? seven years later they win the world series. they beat the orioles. the cubs, nothing. part of the problem may have been wrigley field, in the sense that when william wrigley, one of the early owners of the cubs, after whom the field is named, when he died, the club was inherited i his son. a nice gentleman who had no business being in baseball. he did not like being the owner of the cubs. the cubs were not very good.
in fact, the year i became a cub fan, 1948, they took out ads in the chicago papers to apologize or how bad the product was. he said, we are not very good, but we have atrophic ballpark. -- a terrific ballpark. let's market that. the grass will be so green. the sun so warm. the beer so cold. they will not care what the scoreboard says. [laughter] interestingly, they instructed cubs broadcasters to call it cubs park, as if people were going to the park. george carlin, the comedian, there was this riff about baseball. wanted to go home. >> is a metaphor for life? life is cruel? >> no. life involves a lot of
losing. baseball is the great sport for democracy. it's the half-loaf. no one gets everything they want. you go to spring training, every team knows it is going to lose 60 games. it is like a marathon to sort it out. if you win 10 of 20 games, your mediocre. if you and 11, you get the plan october. the difference between good and mediocre, and no good at all, is pretty small. >> you did not like harry kerry. >> he is one of the reasons why i chose the cubs. there is a statue of him outside the ballpark now. >> he would leave singing at the seventh inning. >> and they still do that. it was a tradition he started,
and it lasted. >> what is the difference between a cubs fan and he white sox fan? >> geography. cubs on the north side. southside, mayor daly family. big white sox fans. >> they were going to fool around with that their field either. are there changes that you think baseball needs? >> let me give you the really good changes. 22 new ballparks since bud selig became the active commissioner. he took over in 1992. it was aa 1.4 billion dollar industry, now it is an $8 billion industry.
three of the five most common surnames are like perez and martinez. we have from this ocean of talent from latin america, particularly in the dominican republic, but all over the world. >> baseball is so -- >> you can put together an all-star game from the dominican republic. >> how about japan? there are some good players. >> exactly. you asked about what we can do better. i suppose it is the pace of the game. not the length of the game. >> i think the length too. >> i would like to ban batting gloves. they step out and adjust their batting gloves. babe ruth never wore a batting glove. none of those guys were batting gloves. john miller, and the terrific baseball broadcaster, watched
recently. it was game seven 1953 world series with the dodgers and yankees. it did not get any more tense. not once during the game did a batter step out of the batters box. not once. if we could just change that. they've been playing baseball since they were four years old. playing t-ball. i took practice swings between pitches. >> is your favorite player ernie banks? >> i think so. yankees versus red sox, who are you for? >> do i have to pick? i have to pick the team they'll make the most liberals unhappy. how do you pick? and in him and him and i suppose the yankees. >> do you play any sports? don't play tennis. >> no.
>> don't play golf? >> no. i read. i walk. and i walk listening to books on tape. seriously. i'm have on my phone 34 books. right now, i am reading, gosh, what is it? a biography. >> the guy in the lincolns cabinet? >> yes. "seward's folly." he bought alaska. >> you seem to argue the idea that it is good for at least one house of the congress to be in opposition to the president? >> i do. the american people intuitively agree. i do not think they vote like that. without that, there is an
absence of oversight. without oversight there is an abuse of power. you and i may disagree and irs scandal. i think it is a scandal that ought to be investigated. if the republicans did not have the gavel in the house, there would be no investigation. >> what do you think would come out of it? >> i do not know. the justice department investigation is not very good. i've been in washington for three serious scandals. watergate, iran scandal, and this. >> watergate was much more popular. >> and it was much worse. but it is in the same ballpark. john dean, the guy who is in his neck and watergate sent a memo to the assistant chief of staff saying we should use the machinery of the federal government to screw our enemies. they did.
that is what the irs scandal is about. >> is there a link to somebody high up in the white house? >> we do not know. >> that is the big question. >> that is the question. and we will not get the question without an investigation. we will not get an answer without another investigation. look at him in terms of your experience in washington, pursues other people who fill the office, for better or worse. you would think that you, a man of intellect, would be attracted to him, as amended reads, as a -- as a man who reads, as man who has a turn of mind. and people who know him well, respect him. >> he has been wonderful for me and my profession because he brought us back to arguments about real first principles. there is a long pedigree of his ideas that go back to woodrow
wilson, one of the first editors of the "new republic," and senators of the new republic. woodrow wilson was the first president to criticize the american founding. it into a peripherally. he said, don't read the first two paragraphs of the declaration of independence, all that natural rights philosophy. he dismissed that to as fourth of july sentiments. he said the problem is, our government was fine for a republican. but now we need a robust, unfettered executive good and a more robust central government. the idea of a government that is limited is anachronistic, he said. we went from there to lyndon johnson, to franklin roosevelt. then do lyndon johnson who came
to washington during the new deal. and now, i think, barack obama had it in mind to complete the roosevelt project with health care and all the rest. >> the problem is we have these huge problems. we have a congress that does not seem to have the capacity to look at things in a way that treasures innovation, creativity, and a commitment to science, and those kinds of things that are the life blood of our economic engine. >> i agree. we should be booming right now. energy surplus. we have all of the great research universities. national institute of health. goodness. >> so what happened? >> we are in one of those times of intense heat in politics. we are dealing with fundamentals.
it will not last forever. we had those times before. go back to the rhetoric and the newspapers, which were party newspapers of the 1790's when the parties emerged. go back and read the rancor of the 1850's. >> here's my speculation, that if in fact, you could select a viable republican nomination, someone who has the opportunity to get the nomination, paul ryan would be your guy. >> he would be on the shortlist. >> who is on the shortlist with him? >> governors. scott walker. >> from wisconsin. we can take a break, if you need to. let me come back to you. governors.
wisconsin. mike --, the governor of indiana. >> the governor of ohio? >> the governor of louisiana, sure. they have run something. they have had to deal with legislatures that are not controlled by their own party. it is good training. >> if the republicans do and up with control of the senate and the house, and in 2016 a republican is elected, do you think they can beat hillary clinton? >> yes. for a number of reasons. i will tell you why it is doable and what the problem is. it is doable because the
american people do not often give a party a third consecutive term. it is failing rare. >> george bush was the last one. >> that is right. they wanted a third reagan time. and i think she may be overrated, politically. she was the odds-on favorite to win in 2008 and did not. her one political effort on her own was health care in 1993 and 1994. remember bill clinton said vote for me and get two for the price of one? they produced a health care plan so implausible that neither the house nor the senate, both controlled by the democrats, house or the senate, both controlled by the democrats, would bring it to a vote. >> let me turn to russia and your sense of where we are, as a
country, and whether putin will be satisfied with crimea, as long as russia has some influence in ukraine. >> no. he will not be satisfied. he will not be satisfied with crimea, as a bit of the ukraine. he will want all of it. and he will not be satisfied with that. the baltic republics, which are members of nato have large russian populations. people get in trouble for citing hitler. hillary clinton got in trouble for saying something intelligent and correct about hitler. >> just to make the point, she was not comparing putin to hitler. she was comparing the tactics and rhetoric.
>> google the speech he gave speech he gave in 1938, two days before the munich conference. he said there are 10 million germans living outside the reich, in areas contiguous to the reich. czechoslovakia, poland. this is exactly what putin is about. bringing home to mother russia the russians outside. just as hitler would use the ethnic and linguistic germans to stir up trouble and justify his defensive actions on their behalf, this is what putin is doing. he is not hitler. but, he has read hitler's playbook. >> he will not be satisfied until he has brought most of that population back into some relationship with russia? >> i think that is correct. >> and you think the united states and the west has to do what to stop them? >> i am not sure they can stop him.
they do not want to incite him by weakness. we are, at this moment, and this is a long-term project. you cannot liquefy natural gas and ship it overseas. but we are net carbon exporters. this gives us leverage against his leverage. remember this. people say, oh gosh, the europeans are addicted to his energy. but his economy is addicted to selling it to them. russia, it is a third world country with a first world military. he needs the foreign earnings. if the price of oil would go from $107 to $110 a barrel, knock $20 off of that, and russia is in horrible shape. >> if you believe the president is right, economic sanctions can
stop them? >> they're the best chance. i'm not sure they will. economic sanctions presuppose that these dictators, that they are economic regulators. no. putin has another approach to politics. he is not sitting there with an adding machine and a catch you -- calculator, saying, how does this affect my bottom line? he has serious nationalistic -- >> but he does have some sense of ambition. >> i think we are right to try sanctions. i do not think it will stop iran from getting nuclear weapons. >> you think they will get nuclear weapons? >> yes. >> and we will do what? >> then we will be in a postion to try to stop them. we will need to contain them. >> and there will be proliferation throughout the east?