tv Book TV After Words CSPAN March 7, 2010 9:00pm-10:00pm EST
think i would be more inclined to vote for hillary clinton. now, that doesn't account for the fact for what might unconscious biases might say about sexism. that's why come back to the ideas of the unconscious that in some ways i personally have less of a problem with a prejudice. i have less of a problem with people who say overtly prejudiced things because it's out there. as much for a problem when it was unspoken and people are making decisions entirely based on policy come entirely based on the merits of the candidates and then coming to a conclusion that is unconsciously bias. ..
influence in the ways we don't know because our brain is constructed the? >> i think you can find any number of things because of our brain is wired to find simplicity appealing and one of the early chapters of the book i write about an experiment that was conducted on the new york stock exchange where though researchers looked at companies
with easy to pronounce names and easy to pronounce stock codes. obviously the company's name has no bearing with this company does and how they are going to perform but with the experiment found was companies with easy to pronounce names vastly outperform companies with difficult to pronounce names for the first year when the companies were new entrants under the stock market. so at an unconscious level people use fluency with which they were able to, you know, say the company's name or the stock code and purely unconscious level they associated this ease of pronounced ability with their riskiness of the company. you had a question. >> juan when i hear you speak
the author is counseling as not to believe. otherwise we regulate for my scenario where we think we understand what's going on. would you in general say that we should be less on autopilot and more on pilot? >> i think it depends on context. there's times in our lives the autopilot serves us well and look posting that have their mentioned on the blog, hidden brain.org i write about research conducted that shows people loved usually overestimate the quality of their partners. the idealized their partners and think their partners are better than they are and think their partners closely match their own vision of the ideal partner and the estimate of the partner is usually better than the partners own estimate of his or herself so in other words people in love to not see reality accurately.
however, it is the case people in love who have this illusion tend to have much more stable relationships and tend to be much happier in their relationships. so at a functional level this is an example where the body is is useful and to do away with it would result in a vastly increasing the divorce rate because we would see our partners for who they really are. [laughter] there are numerous other examples of course we're what you're saying is true where there is a nefarious effect of a hidden dream so i think this context will and what i am arguing is not so much that we should let our lives consciously or all of our lives on consciously but to try to make more of the decision whether to do something consciously or unconsciously at a conscious level. >> do you think we are entering a historic time ought to seek less control on automatic pilot and stop thinking --
>> my opinion is these have been with him and begins as long as there have been human beings. but it is true that human beings today can cause more damage to other people than they might have been able to do 200 years ago or 300 years ago so the bodies is no longer just a fact ourselves and those in the immediate vicinity. they affect people in distant lands as i talk in the final chapter that looks how we make moral judgments and unconscious by agassi's that affect us in the moral judgment. thank you. [applause] miers' a correspondent of "the washington post" and wrote the part of human behavior column for the paper from 2006 to 2009. for more information, visit hiddenbrain.org.
coming up next, book tv present "after words," an hourlong program where we invite guest hosts to interview authors. this week former massachusetts governor and republican presidential candidate mitt romney discusses his new book "no apology the case for american greatness." ki examines what he believes are the greatest challenges to the nation today and provided his own blueprint for american progress in the years to come. the expected 2012 candidate talks with juan williams of national public radio. >> host: im speed williams. today on "after words" mitt romney. governor, thanks for joining us. mitt romney's new book is called quote code no apology the case for american greatness." mitt romney, everybody assumes this book is the kickoff to the 2012 presidential campaign; are
they right? >> guest: it's too early. i haven't made a decision in that regard and frankly, the book has come from my experience over the years working at the private sector working in other countries and seeking some of those countries are making a lot of progress. we've always assumed we are ahead of the rest of the world and other nations are catching up and my concern is if we don't recognize the source of our greatness and take action to shore of the fundamentals of america's fatality we can find ourselves being eclipsed by the nations of this is a book saying america looked weak and do what we always do and rise to the occasion. let's rebuild our strength and provide for our kids and their kids a bright future. >> host: now, part of this seems to be an especially in the early parts of the book a critique of present obama in specific it's caught the attention of people around washington that you said that his outreach to some nations in specific muslim nations has been here i quote can leave for
people who hate america and wish america the worst. is that right? >> guest: i think that he made an error that hurt his credibility and hurt our national interest by carrying out a few well the first months of his presidency a form of apology, a series of statements saying that america has been divisive, we've been dismissive, that america is arrogant, we don't listen to the concerns of others, that america has dictated other nations. i don't think that is historically accurate. i think america has freed other nations from dictators. we haven't been dictating to other nations but that being said i think it's created the impression that our conviction and our principles is wagering and it is not. i think that was a mistake on the president's part and i think instead that a foreign policy consistent with the values and the prescriptive that were described by harry truman and dean acheson follow the second world war is the more appropriate course of america's
we forward. >> host: i think in the book he said the u.s. is good and it's good for the u.s. to be strong. but then in talking about some of the things president obama has done especially in the foreign policy area it received to suggest he is diminishing american as you just said to be the democratic national committee by the way then issued a statement that says americans in the last election rejected radical foreign policy offered back by cheney and wholeheartedly adopted by mitt romney and this policy would alienate allies and emboldened enemies. what you think it? >> guest: i don't have a lot to say but the dnc, what kind of a screen they are going to put out the areas where i think the president disappointed a lot of folks including myself was for instance when the honduran supreme court said that there anti-american process of this president violated the constitution and their military removed them from office our president said put them back
which i think surprised folks, and i think that was inappropriate action. when colombia seeks a special status with the united states on a trade basis, colombia standing up to hugo chavez leedy naim this special status. that i think is a mistake. when he goes before the united nations and speaks for the first time and chastises israel in front of the united nations but has nothing to say about the palestinian group hamas launching 7,000 rockets into israel that is a mistake and of course i think the decision to withdraw support from missile defense from poland and the czech republic led those great friends to be very concerned about america's willingness to stand with them and at the same time perhaps designed to reset relations with russia as the president indicated. we got nothing from russia so i'm afraid the steps that he took of confuse our friends and made our foes if you will continue had long in some cases and of course it's not helpful
to the world. you have both iran pursuing its nuclear folly. north korea of course did nuclear tests. even as the president was speaking carry out various tests. this as in my opinion and indication they felt the president was not going to be a strong defender of american values and american principles human-rights, democracy, free trade, free enterprise. those words of apology and those statements i think has emboldened those who find us as a weakened in any. >> host: in the book to make the argument it's important to keep america strong and as a leading presence in terms of world affairs and in specific in dealing with iran for example and their rising nuclear ambitions you say it's important to say right now to iran before anything happens if they were to take any action that america
would devastate them. that there would be a response would be nuclear and devastating. >> guest: i think to some degree we've made that statement to the world but i think it's important that the world understands that if nations are going to seek nuclear status as iran is quite obviously doing. if they seek the status and obtain fissile material, if that fissile material finds its hands or its way into the hands of people who use it somewhere that our response will not just be to the terrorist organization that uses it but potentially as well to the nation that provided, and as a result i think the people of iran might already ask themselves to we want to have fissile material in our country? do we want to have the risk of being called into the circle of suspects in the event of a nuclear event in the world sometime over the next couple of decades? i think people should realize becoming a nuclear has enormous peril and that is your material
might get out, it might be used and the united states might respond against that nation as it was against whoever used a nuclear device. >> host: so you think the ayatollahs would be fearful? >> guest: i think the people of iran would grow in recognition becoming a nuclear nation isn't a matter of pride but becoming a nuclear nation has associated with it and enormous downside that there is a risk to be nuclear that it somehow your regime does not carefully managed the fissile material and it becomes used somewhere in the world your nation might be the subject of retaliation. i think the people of iran needs to understand clearly the downside of becoming a nuclear nation. i also wish that this president and prior presidents had been successful in dissuading iran from its folly by exacting and an acting very tough sanctions against iran.
iranian citizens, business people and political leaders ought to know when you finally to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that the consequences are going to be severe. they ought to know military options are on the table and that while those are on the table those that are actively employed will be very crippling sanctions and we simply have not been successful putting in place this kind of actions. >> host: but you say in the book that america remains the military power in the world. >> guest: yes. >> host: at the same time you say there's a need for increased spending on defense and you worry in the book that this administration and others have not put enough money into the defense spending. you tell a funny story seeing a guy with a sign that says more than half of the u.s. budget goes to defense spending but when you break it down actually and conclude money spent by the chinese and the like the chinese aren't spending. others are trying to diminish our lead in terms of military money. >> guest: of course you can
understand the sentiments of other nations is they would like to get stronger. you're not going to try to dissuade the chinese for instance by saying they're going to build their military but we have to make an honest assessment of the threats that excess in the world and the missions our military might be called upon to carry out and our military is a far broader array of responsibilities and missions then let's say a nation like china or russia or other nations in the world and to protect ourselves and respond to humanitarian crises to have a nuclear deterrent against a nuclear threat to have missile defense the list goes on and on and on of the challenges the military has. in my view it requires an annual budget of roughly 4% of gdp. right now about 3.8% of gdp and total federal spending but approximately 20% of the gdp. so we are seeing the the defense budget ought to be about 20% of the total gdp. a lot of percentages. i apologize for taking that
course. but i think sometimes we say we are spending so much more than any other nation in the world why should we be spending any more on the military? because they spend for less than we do actually as you go behind their numbers and find they don't report all of their military spending and the costs for instance standing up an army where they have conscription, not paid volunteer army, the costs are lower so when you look at a more comparable basis china is spending a lot at 10% the level of the united states but something closer to half the level of the united states if we were paying with the same cost of fuel for the various resources and russia likewise spending a good deal more than they support. what that suggests is we can't continue to pare down our military might, that we must keep it intact if we are going to be confident that we and our friends and interests are able to be protected around the world. >> host: you outlined in the
book and again in the title is "no apology the case for american greatness" you argue in the book competing powers: russia, china, iran and the terrorists jihadists. when it comes to russia let's talk about it for a second. you said russia is building on its energy and energy economy becoming richer and more powerful. china becoming more of an authoritarian state and then you have iran conquest and compulsions. >> guest: i think following the collapse of the soviet union and the demise of its power after the success of the cold war strategy our nation pursuit we had a glorious point of time we thought they had lost and we felt the world was great to be safe. i remember the it was charles that said this is america's holiday from history. we wish that history would stop the way it's been in the past
but the truth is some of these powers have great ambitions becoming world superpowers of not becoming the dominant player on the stage you mentioned at first russia. we thought russia had lost and we had one and we didn't need to worry about them again that russia's energy resources are so extraordinarily rich and they are able to use that wealth to reestablish military might. the have more natural gas than anyone in the world. the tie with us for the coal reserves. they sold more energy last year than saudi arabia. so they're using that extraordinary wealth in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year of revenue to help rebuild the military that can be competitive with our own. it's a long way from there today. but that is what the arc intending to do. >> host: i think you also write they feel they are supportive of iran because it would give them more control of the world's energy supply. >> guest: i think that as russia looks up their strategy and their attempt to reassert
themselves as the leading or at least one of the leading players on the world stage they recognize that energy is the key to the reassertion of that kind of status and that means not only their own extraction but pipelines going to europe and other places if they can control the pipelines they will have more power, more monopoly power of the likewise have relations with iran and if iran were to become the superpower of the middle east by virtue of its nuclear ambitions they might have more influence over the energy in the middle east. likewise venezuela they make efforts to get close to venezuela. again venezuela is an energy rich nation. their strategy i think contemplates the power associated with energy. china on the other hand is building there might in the old-fashioned way which is they have adopted in some respects free enterprise, not quite like ours with all of the rules and guidelines and scriptures is a
free and balanced enterprise system they've adopted free enterprise and they are winning in a lot of respect and of the wealth they are creating has allowed them to ramp up the military in a way on the scene since the german build up prior to the second world war. they built 30 submarines over the last tender's. they've both the capacity to create their own fighter aircraft. they can go up against the f-16. they are going to be a serious contender literally and of course the jihadists don't have any of those capacities, they don't have the wealth and productive resources and the military might but they don't intend to go head-to-head with us. the intended instead to terrorize and cause the destruction of the system by virtue of the more selective or guerrilla type of approach is. >> host: when you stop and think about the presence of china, russia escalating forces,
the terrorists you say wait a second. the united states must remember its goal is not to be popular but to be strong, that that is the bottom line yet you talk about increased use what you call soft power. soft power in specific terms of selling america to work countries areas where i think you described for example of the russians, the chinese were interested in places like yemen, somalia, where people are impoverished, young amana looking for work open to radical ideas jihadists so how does the soft power figure into your calculation? >> guest: soft power is a very effective tool enhancing american and western values around the world. it's always good to have a strong faced a few well as teddy roosevelt said speaks softly and carry a big stick. that is a part of the national power but soft power meaning the ability to influence the thinking of others and encourage them to adopt principles that
are peaceful and promote human rights is critical for the country and i think that we under use the resources we have. we are an extraordinarily wealthy nation and trade with people around the world. they want access, they want our technology, health care technology, education skills all of these things we can provide in such a pace that nation's would think more kindly and be more likely to work with us but i keep on hearing when i was in latin america for instance about the miracle cure or the miracle operation. and i said well what's that and they said fidel castro provides cataract surgery to people throughout latin america. surgeons that traveler and latin america and bring site to people and i thought he does that for a tiny fraction of the investment we make in latin america and is appreciated because he branded it so he effectively. but americans can sell coca-cola and pepsi all over the world for
half a day's wage for a can of coke and we are not selling democracy as well as we could. we are not selling our values and the things america has done to help lift the world. rather than if you will apologizing for who we are and for what we've accomplished i think we should be drawing on the very best of our skulls from the private sector to make sure that we communicate we are and exercise the soft power influence we could be exercising to draw more people to the kind of the values that will enhance their lives and promote the stability and peace in the plan at the right >> host: in the book when it comes to writing about something like global warming would use it as we the second, look at the developing countries in specific look at china. china use it cannot be trusted to put in place any regulations or limits on the emission of greenhouse gases because they have such a strong belief and of course economic growth. that's what they are all about so use it for us it would be in some sense futile on the
international stage to unilaterally say we are going to put in place some cap and trade standards if we are going to compete with the chinese. what does that say to the world about our commitment to limiting global warming? >> guest: they don't call it a miracle warming. they call it global warming and if one's primary concern is global warming you have to look with the missions are going to be on a global basis and make sure that actions that are taken don't just put america and american workers at a disadvantage but the instead make an adjustment and changes for the entire planet. that's why the president's cap-and-trade plan that would end up affecting americans and american employers would end up with what say the largest theaters, the largest users of energy would say why build a factory in america? as a matter of fact why keep a factory in america going when i have to pay far more expensive prices for energy in this country why not go to other nations like brazil, indonesia, china, india that don't have
those cap and trade costs and therefore can be more effective and cost-effective. >> host: what about american leadership? america acting as a role model? >> guest: if the role model causes the largest theaters in the world, which are china and other developing nations to simply smile and say they've made our life a lot easier america is cutting and going to veto cutting. we really haven't helped the world and that's not the kind of leadership the world needs. what america can do is we can pursue a course which in my view has perhaps even more compelling reason to pursue and that is to pursue a course of energy independence and the course that would allow us to become energy independent has as a byproduct an important byproduct production of greenhouse gases to become energy independent we need to use a lot more natural gas. that is a far less co2 emitting energies worse than coal and oil to become energy independent we
need to meet more nuclear power plants. that is a mauney matter of co2 so we have ways of making america a far more, take a leader role in the world with at the same time putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage with nations that are competing for the very jobs that our workers want. >> host: getting back to this idea of soft power in the book when you are talking about muslims do you make the case that these -- the archaeology is an evil one? on many levels, that the whole notion of the moderate muslims doesn't conform with what you read in the kuran? that you see in there, do know, instructions for people to dominate the world to capture takeover and not simply go out and proselytize but in fact go out and conquer and use a people would recognize this as part of what muslims teach. >> guest: i would apply that
principal to the muslims as a group. i think the nation of -- excuse me the religion of islam is by the great majority of muslims a religion which does not seek to dominate the neighbor or conquer their neighbor were carried out jihad against america or the west but there is a strain of islam referred to by various names but i use the term radical violent jihad which traces its roots to a number of intellectual scholars who believe the role of the koran as the read it is a very aggressive militaristic conquering approach which the great majority of muslims in my view do not accept that very narrow group is of course led by names like osama bin laden, and they seek to draw support from muslim youth and
others. most people reject that. you look a place like afghanistan my guess is a great majority of people there would be the delighted if they never saw al qaeda or for that matter the taliban again. but nonetheless that phenology does exist and it is a theology which looks at us as somehow being very evil. it is a theology this is everything that is america is wrong and is a threat. the sea for instance democracy itself is blasphemy. their view is that the law, shariah should come from god and the idea that individuals will create their own law from a space process is in their view a form of blasphemy so almost everything we do from their perspective is contrary to their view how god wants things to be and as a result the take a very violent means to try to overthrow the modern movement within the muslim world. i think our way forward in the
muslim world is to support the moderate voices among the muslims and support moderate governments among muslims and help them in rejecting this violent extreme ideology. >> host: why don't you think those governments are doing it themselves? >> guest: many are and others can use help. the philippine government for instance was dealing with a al qaeda-like movement, was finding it difficult. there were several thousand members of this group that were terrorizing the people of the philippines, and our military was invited to work in partnership with the philippine military exercises carrying out if you will humanitarian efforts among the people in the communities or the islands where abu was most active and with this kind of soft power application by our military and special forces and intelligence forces. we were able to turn the tide
and the numbers are reported in the hundreds. >> host: let's look and by the way in the book to give a toast to the special forces. and we need to do more with special forces with a smaller footprint in terms of going in and taking action but let's not look at the philippines but the middle east at a place like saudi arabia. why do you think the saudi regans seem tolerant of this kind of radical violent face? >> guest: i don't know that the marquee in saudi r. dee degette is enthusiastic about the violence has i think they realize that by having funded over the years wahhabism that preaches this extreme form of islam that maybe in some respects they put themselves in great danger. i think it was governor sunni -- no it wasn't sonny perdue, but i had someone mentioned to me in old churchill line which was they are paying the cannibals to
eat them last to read this support of radical islam on the part of the marquee over the years may have ended up and being a significant threat to the monarchy itself in the world of islam there's somebody of of these different strains and sunni and shia but different national interests and so jihadists some takes different shapes in different places. but nonetheless, the strain presents a threat to the local governments, to the local muslim governments which these jihadists don't believe for sufficiently fundamentalists and it presents a threat to the entire world. >> host: on this book to worry understand you're going to 19 or 20 states including this district of columbia and the states include new hampshire, obviously iowa, missouri, so people are going to see it looks
like you are on a campaign tour, and the ones laid in the book is critical of president obama is given all of the foreign policy issues you touched on this president seeks to present himself as somehow transcending, transcendent of america and american values and interest as opposed to being an advocate for american values and american interest. that would seem to be almost like a campaign slogan you have to reduce in size. but the idea is you believe we need an american president who stands for america and you do not see that in this president obama who seeks to consent to be greater were larger than america. >> guest: any time the president of the united states travels the world and is critical of the united states that it's going to lead to the kind of stories that came out of the british press. this president has been more critical of his own country on foreign soil than any president
in history, and that creates the impression he somehow thinks he is above america or there is something he needs to distance himself from. that is a mistake. harry truman and dean acheson following the second world war said america would adopt a new strategy having tried isolationism and having been drawn into the two world wars despite that they said america needs to be active in the world but we also need to promote or values, human rights, democracy, free trade, freedom and finally we need to be strong standing with our allies and fighting fellows wherever they might excess. those principles of the foreign policy i think the president has questioned in his first year and i think that he would be wise to return to them with an iranian stick to the streets for instance and protest and election they think was on the chair i think the president should have spoken out clearly and sharply saying we support forces of freedom wherever they are. you could imagine ronald reagan
would have something to say and so would bill clinton in that kind of sitting in my view. >> host: what you're saying is this president in a way is sailing to properly promote america to the world. >> guest: i feel when you try to distance yourself from american history, when you suggest that you somehow america needs to apologize to the world that that elevates perhaps the individual who makes the apology and curries favor with those who are the blame america first crowd but it does not stand as a kind of strong indication that america has values we recognize hour in during and are right for us and others to obtain them. that does not mean by the way that we force hour will on other nations. but it does mean we stand beside those other nations who are seeking freedom. >> host: when you hear the criticism that came from the
bush administration and the terms defined weapons of mass destruction or cowboy diplomacy being too aggressive, too highhanded, come and get them all that kind of thing, don't you think there are those who might be wary of an aggressive foreign policy? >> guest: there is a mittal posture where one does not have to be seen as being timid in the defense if american values as this president is seeing or moving to excess and if you will you don't want to speak loudly and carry a small stick and there's a posture shoving american strength of a commitment to american values and ideals following through on commitments we make standing with our friends and allies and i think president bush did so time and again he made it very clear we were going to stand with our allies and people who oppose us would receive the strong response from america.
we were hit on 9/11. we believed we were receiving threat from saddam hussein who could have removed the threat instantly by seeing come in all of my facilities are open. the international inspectors can look in the palaces and the military fissile, anywhere they would like to go and take a look because we don't want to have america come after us. he did not do that, he could have done that and it wouldn't have suffered this fate he did had he been willing to open up his knees into that kind of inspection. but that being said, i respect president bush's strength defending this country and i think president obama is going to have to move in that course or he will be seen as a weak president of the international stage. >> host: we are going to take a break. mitt romney, his book is called "no apology the case for american greatness."
>> "after words" and several of their c-span programs are available for download us podcast. more with mitt romney and juan williams in a moment. did you know you can view book tv programs online? go to booktv.org. type the name of the author book were subject into the search area in the upper left-hand corner of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. he might also explore their recently on book tv box or the featured programs box to find and you recent and featured programs. "after words" with mitt romney and juan williams continues. >> host: we are back with governor mitt romney, the author
of a new book "no apology the case for american greatness." you describe the book as a display of positions on key issues it's really an intellectual journey, so many books you read, so many ideas but not a very personal book in some ways. so just for a second let's talk about the person, one of the things that caught my eye is your dad was born in mexico. >> guest: yeah, his parents at the state persecution of the folks of their mormon faith and i guess it was his grandfather and his parents moved to mexico and while they were there they were enjoying a pretty good life, comfortable life and then there was revolution and disruption in mexico so my dad was five for 6-years-old they packed up, on a train and conduct to allow paso and moved to idaho and they were in california, idaho, salt lake and
from then on his death was not terribly prosperous, he went bankrupt more than once in his construction business. my dad worked as a laborer putting the plaster i think was the precursor of wallboard and he never put enough money and time together to complete college. but he went on to have a very successful career also politics as well. >> host: he didn't run for president? >> guest: he did. >> host: how could someone run for president born in mexico? >> guest: that's a good question. the study this at length when he was running in 1968. the constitution says if my memory holds the president must be a natural born citizen. he was not naturalized by virtue of the fact his parents were both u.s. citizens. he was a natural born said is and therefore could become the united states president in the same way a service man or woman living abroad that child wouldn't be prevented from becoming the u.s. president
simply by having been born on foreign soil because that case they would have become a u.s. citizen by birth. >> host: he went on line only to become the governor but the hud president for nixon. he was a saving force for american voters. the gremlin plays a big role in your book. you were not too proud to have a gremlin in george fifer. people were driving fancy cars and he made them rich and was successful. >> guest: he was very successful. when he came the company selected him some years before as the vice president but the chief executive officer was well known and respected, his name was george mason. when american motors was formed with the merger of nash and old names, george mason shortly thereafter passed away and the board elected my father to become the new president of the company and the stock went down dramatically when that happened
and i think it dropped to about $5.50 a share and a couple of years later it was trading over $90 a share, so i'm pretty proud of the job that my dad did, he was able to help turn the company around, shore up its financial base and did the product sells people wanted and that allowed him to obviously saved a lot of jobs and create a successful enterprise but i'm afraid that the rambler he vigorously championed is now gone. jeep is a round, but in hands that are different than when he was running the enterprise. >> host: one of the interesting things about this is at the start of the book use it when your dad ran for president he characterized the campaign in humorous terms of being like a mini skirts, short and revealing and then you say that your campaign and 08 was a little longer but also revealing. what did you learn? >> guest: you'll learn a lot about just how challenging it is to be in a presidential campaign. there are mistakes made as well.
i felt that i think i was defined in people's minds to a great degree by the questions that were asked by others, the questions asked by the media for instance and debates that's how most people see. i think we had 13 or so presidential debates on the republican side so how to respond to those questions is how it was defined in people's minds. you like to define yourself by the things you want to talk about and not just with other people want to ask you get this part of the difficulty of the campaign. it's one of the blessings be able to write a book is you can lay out these are the things i believe the country needs to do so i can get beyond the questions and get into the meat of the concerns i have. >> host: it picks up on president obama wrote a book before he ran for president, john mccain had a book, many presidential candidates now write books before they run for office today when you talk about your father's campaign one issue
on a personal basis would be a religious faith, your mormonism. do you think that is a problem? you don't talk about this in the book also you are open that you are a mormon. of our economy. the foundation of our economic strength and my concern that we are weakening the foundation and we are in peddling our future i don't get into a lot of political issues that i find of interest, social issues, i don't even get into homeland security and much debt because they don't relate to those economic foundations to the extent i felt was appropriate but as to the views of my faith i am proud of my religion, don't try to distance myself from it in any way shape or form. i sure for some people would was a problem because they don't know the face of very well. for others they tell you the fact i'm a person of religious belief but i think for the great majority of american people they
don't care what religion someone belongs to. they are pleased to select somebody based upon their skills and experience and their views on the most important issues that may exist. >> host: you don't think you might be being pauley and negative? i know in the last campaign one of your components was mocking mormonism and the devil is jesus' brother and that kind of thing and a certain percentage of americans in the polls especially evangelicals seem to view mormonism as notte of christian faith. >> guest: i think there will be some people for who that is an issue and i'm not going to be able to do very much about that. that's just the reality of political life. there's other people for whom it's an advantage and i take the bitter with the sweet. i am hawaii and and people can accept or reject it. that's the way i felt when i ran my last campaign and i gave the speech i did that related to religious diversity in america.
that is after all in the nature of the founding of this country where people who were seeking opportunity also seeking religious freedom and we welcome and why is the freedom that excess and would be a hollow concept if we only allow certain people to serve in public office or in other positions of responsibility based on some religious test that was particularly and specifically prohibited by the founders. i don't think that's an issue for the country. i hope it's not agree to be for anybody that runs with there were not ideal time will tell buchtel wasn't at the heart of my campaign. i found other things to do wrong and i think senator mccain did an effective job touching the american people as the primary process is proceeding. >> host: where do you stand on abortion? >> guest: i am pro-life. >> host: was it clear do you think to the base of the party that you are strongly pro-life?
>> guest: i believe so. since the time i was serving as governor and isasi initio that relate it to life i came down on the side of life and wrote an op-ed at the white about my position. it hasn't changed since that time and people understand where i stand. >> host: so many people see you as a capable businessman and i might add this is your second book. the first was about your experience running the salt lake olympic committee and your success. the question then becomes how do you view the fact so many americans at this point in our history are anxious about the economy and see the economy as a problem and the question would be has president obama pursued a policy that you feel would help revive this american economy because you see that as one of the pillars of america's global strength.
>> guest: we are facing short-term economic distress and longer-term economic weakness and the competition is particularly troubling right now. the short term crisis that we face was the result of many people and many failures. it's popular to say that it was only wall street. wall street is certainly to a large degree to blame for what happened but so was main street and the mortgage bankers that gave mortgages to people who had no capacity to pay them so were the individuals who signed for the loans that were in excess what they could pay, the speculator is if you will and so were the regulators who didn't see what was happening and blow the whistle and so were the rating agencies to set these instruments washington was selling or excuse me wall street was selling or somehow highly secure and even the president i'm sure said look the buck stops here. he shares responsibility as well with president bush that is for the economic distress which has
occurred. i think this president, president obama has not been as effective as he could have been getting us out of distress if he frankly scared the heck out of the private-sector when you say you're going to raise taxes next year that scarce new investors. when you say we are going to have cap and trade if you are an energy intensive industry that will cause you to pull back. when you say we are going to have carte check and take away from the american worker the boat for the secret ballot in the union that scares away workers and in players and the trillion dollar deficits obviously frightens the financial sector and anyone who needs money to grow and thrive so it's been a policy which has not been as effective as it could have been but longer term the foundations of our economic vitality relate to the entrepreneurialism of america and the educational basis of the country, the family formation and investment parents making and children are energy independence, all of these things come together to form the basis of our economic vitality
and those foundations are very much in distress so not only to we have near-term problems and we will come out of the near term slump. it's worse than a slump, severe recession, but longer term we are not wait to be strong unless we address the more fundamental problems. host could you think we are out of the recession or that there's the possibility of a double-dip? >> guest: i think we are on the way out. it may double dip. it's hard to predict whether there will be another downturn but we will come out. there is nothing permanent about recessions. we've come out of all the others we have endured. i think the president could have helped us get out faster and could have kept us from having 10% of employment. that number will hang like an albatross around his neck. he spent $787 billion saying he could hold of employment 8% and if we did it spend that money would go to 10%. it went to 10% after we spent all that money so it was not as effective as it needed to be that we will come out of the
recession but will america continue to lead the world in productivity per person and gdp per capital or if you will income per capita? only if we have the foundation and fundamental strength of a leading highly productive economy and that is something in which our energy, education, health care, tax and in thailand problems call to question. >> host: it's interesting to go to the specifics for a moment. in the book you praised secretary paulson in the bush administration for helping to bail out the banks, t.a.r.p. money and the like were critical of secretary ten geithner for continuing what looks to be the same policies. explain. >> guest: there's no question in my mind that at times secretary paulson and president bush said look, we are in real distress and we can have a financial calamity, it was
essential to do something to provide confidence to the people around the world that america was not going to have all with its banks go under, and i think there was a very real risk we would have a cascade of the bank failures first with the big ones and then throughout the country and we could ultimately have virtually every bank in the nation go out of business and people say things gone, the dollar worthless. we could have had a true financial system calamity and t.a.r.p. kept that from happening but it wasn't implemented terribly well and i don't mean to say that secretary paulson did it perfectly and secretary geithner did terribly. i'm sure they both made mistakes and both did things well. but undersecretary geithner who's been the champion if he will or the master of this a long period of time well over a year the process has been relatively opaque as to what banks got money and how they got it and with the provisions would
be providing the funds i think for instance if you are going to put money in a bank that saves it that the shareholders should have been virtually wiped out. if the government has to step in to bail them out wide to the shareholders keep the majority ownership in the bank's? they should have had to pay very dearly for the government having to come in and rescue and enterprise and when the government can the taxpayer should have gotten a healthy state is not majority stake in the enterprise saved so i have a number of criticisms on how the plan was implemented but was it needed to keep our financial system from collapsing? yes. and those people who today go back and say it's terrible you build of wall street, you know, i didn't hear a lot of these voices that time we thought we were going over the cliff. benefit of hindsight now that we've come back from the cliff face a we didn't need it but at that point there were lots of people who had the white knuckles and were very concerned about where we were headed and did what was politically unattractive to make sure we did
not have the kind of calamity that would have devastated not just wall street but every street in america. >> host: as the son of a carbide do you think was smart to bail out the big car companies? >> guest: wind wall street -- excuse me, when the detroit ceo showed up in washington saying give us money the the right answer was to say no you need to pursue a managed bankruptcy process shedding yourself of exceptional costs and debt so that you can re-emerge as a stronger in any. that was the right course ultimately that was the course that was taken and dietrich is now in a much stronger footing than it was prior to the managed bankruptcy is being carried out. but washington spent a lot of money to get tens of billions of dollars that was not necessary and was wasted and instead of the company's management teams and boards guiding the bankruptcy process ultimately the government guided the
bankruptcy process so we gathered the right solution managed bankruptcy but only after we wasted a lot of money >> host: i'm wondering if you think somehow the tea party movement and people on the right in this country that look up the bailout of not only the car companies but the banks and say washington is too big, too intrusive, this whole notion that too big to fail is lining the pockets of bigger executives who take these huge bonuses at the end of the year without any concern for the little man from a mean streak in america. >> guest: there is no question but this idea of the too big to fail that should not be part of the lexicon is a major institution has -- is on the brink of disaster either let them go bankrupt as we ultimately did with gm having them go through the bankruptcy process that is the right thing that should happen. the bankruptcy doesn't mean close the door everybody gets fired, it means the shareholders get wiped out or nearly wiped
out. that's what ought to happen if other shareholders the enterprise has failed to shareholders shouldn't be bailed out and the executives shouldn't be bailed out. and ford has done it right. >> host: with exception of ford i think the other companies might have gone to was up. >> guest: i don't think he would have long toes up. they want to manage bankruptcy a share excessive cost and now the are emerging. that's the right course. host with a tremendous help from the government. >> guest: post bankruptcy the guarantee to help in enterprise keep going and thrive. the money went into the tens of billions of dollars prior to the bankruptcy could have been better spent. >> host: what then about the reaction that really is at the base of so much of the tea party movement which is this money the government should not be helping out the car companies or helping out failing financial restitution on wall street. >> guest: there's no question but those the think government is too intrusive and too big is
absolutely right. there's no question the government has grown to be a massive player much larger than the founders would have ever imagined and i think people like myself things it makes sense. right now, the portion of the gdp made up by the government is roughly 33%. that's federal, state and local government. that is excessive and it should be less than that but then we can go through item by item and say there are certain things the government needs to do to defend the country. everybody agrees with that. needs to manage the judicial system. certain safety net features the government can provide that we can agree on and then go piece by piece and say was the government right doing what action or another and we are not going to agree on all of those actions but i can tell you with regard to the car companies they were wrong to bail them out. the right course was to move to managed bankruptcy up front. they ultimately got there and with regard to t.a.r.p. that is something that should be ended.
there's no reason for the government to continue using that money. we backed away from the cliff, the financial institutions did not collapse to keep our entire system from collapsing. >> host: let's talk second about unemployment numbers which at the moment seem to be stable but stable at a very high percentage near 10%. you are antiprotectionist. you believe in free trade and opening -- open trade but isn't that something again people would say we need to protect the american family and look at those unemployed in the country might find objection? >> guest: they might find objectionable but if they think about what's happened around the globe and in history they will realize that protectionism has always been associated with economic peril. the nations to try to put barriers around themselves find themselves falling into deeper and deeper financial blow. there's a number of people who
feel for instance the protectionism that was put in place at the advent of the great depression was one of the reasons we went into depression. one of the reasons for that is that america sells a lot of stuff to the people and if we put balls up around us it's not only keeps foreign goods out it keeps american goods from being able to go other places and there are a lot of jobs in this country and a lot of good paying jobs and growth in this country in the jobs of things going elsewhere so you've got to realize the sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. >> host: you introduce this idea of the worst generation and talk about the idea we don't manage debt. in fact the chinese told so much debt and there's other countries that do have protectionist practices our competitors so how do you put those ideas together? >> guest: mauney view on america if you will worst generation and i put a question after that because i wanted to if you will alarm the reader when they get to that chapter to
say what is he saying here. i want to point out that if we don't change course we will very seriously in peril the future of this nation and its ability to defend freedom and to protect our prosperity and the overspending we are carrying out and over borrowing from china and people like that is very much one of those elements that could imperil the future. the inability and unwillingness to deal with entitlements to make them sustainable leaves us with tens of trillions of dollars of obligations for the next generation. our failure to deal with our failing schools, our energy dependence, these likewise are elements that are frightening and disconcerting to those who want to make sure the future is bright. i don't think for a minute the way to deal with these challenges is to point and say that it's someone else's fault. it's china, brazil, immigrants, trade, let's be honest about their own problems and deal with