tv Book TV After Words CSPAN March 3, 2013 9:00pm-10:00pm EST
to interview moises naim for this episode of "after words." umar a note to columnist, international economics and globalization. you were also a scholar at the carnegie endowment for international peace, and formerly editor of foreign policy magazine and former minister in venezuela. so, all that said, you have also now written a new book called "the end of power" and that's what we are here to talk about today. let's start at the beginning. which i think is how did you come to write this book and how did all of those various experiences and for what went into this? >> guest: delighted to be here.
thank you. in that introduction you encapsulated many of the -- by giving a lot of those things that you mentioned, i arrived at having that intuition about what was going on with power. we all know that power is shifting from the west to the east, north to south from a very big companies through start-ups and from people in the presidential palace is to people in the streets. we know that is happening in the world. that is nothing new. but i detected the that there was something more profound happening to power, that power was experiencing innovation. power was buying much less. people with power could do less with it. that doesn't mean they are not very powerful, the pope and the head of the pentagon and the president of china, russia, the united states are very powerful people but they can do less. the are more constrained on what
they can do. therefore i started looking at that. it also coincided with a period -- i get in the editor of foreign policy magazine as you said for 14 years. so i was trying to distill what did i learn in this 14 years. but are important trends that came into my mind as i was trying to summarize that experience. >> host: why don't we stop for a moment and you tell me a bit about how you define power because i think the definition you rang out in the book is central to your thesis of how it is declining and its different from how we talk about power conversationally today. >> host: as you know the power has been discussed in the memorial and there are many definitions and it can get complex and develop that idea, and it has become very complex. for the book and for the
conversation, it is not to say that power is the ability of one actor to make others deutsch or stop doing something. and influencing -- power and influence are interrelated and influence in the book of use influence as an ability to change the perception of the situation in order to market people in terms of moving in that sort of direction to stop doing something and creating incentives both sticks and carrots to get people to be given a certain way. >> host: so how exactly is it declining? because i think if you ask a lot of people today coming you would say okay maybe there are new ceos of the top of the organizations, but they are still making enormous paychecks and yield a lot of power, and we see more and more countries that seem to be emerging as strong players on the global stage.
how is that not just a shift in the redistribution of power? how was what we are witnessing actually eight equine? >> guest: it's one of the players you mentioned. well paid ceos and heads of state and countries that are coming into play in the geopolitics arena and have more say than before, all of the players have less power than before. they can do less with it than their predecessors could do. take any one of those and you will see that they are more constrained. think about the ceos of the banks after the financial crisis there were just a few banks that came on top. the banks that navigated through the crisis and their ceos became the top leaders in the financial sector. but many of those today just a few years later have lost their
job. they're quite constrained. others have been implicated in scandals that have greatly lessened their ability to do things. and as i said, they continue to be extremely well-paid and have shorter tenure. it's very slippery both in the world of politics and in theory that it is hard to stay on top for a long time and there is statistical evidence in the book about all of these things. >> host: and so there is that scientific principle that math is neither created nor destroyed. it's just transferred. we wouldn't say that applies to power as well. >> guest: power continues to exist and there are some important players. vladimir putin is a very
important powerful player let vladimir putin today has more constrained than vladimir putin himself just ten years ago or five years ago. and so, power is there but it's easier to get and hard to use and far easier to lose. >> host: what is driving this decline? >> guest: the common wisdom about this is the main driver behind the erosion of power how fleeting it has become in the social media. and through facebook and all of that we have seen that in of the arab spring. of course i don't deny that. it's very important. the internet is a very powerful informational tool that has altered the way power is acquired and used and deployed. but there are other things going on. the internet very often is just
a tool that the realities have made more important. and i am thinking for example of the increasing size of the middle class around the world. there is a very important restructuring of the social structures on the socio-economic distribution both negative and positive and the rich countries the embattled shrinking in the countries that are expanding very rapidly. and so, all of that is arriving at one of the factors that is driving the issue on power. and then i talk in the book about three important revolutions twilight. >> host: do you want to talk about more on those you have the big toe with the revolution, the mobility and more. >> guest: we just have more of everything. there's more guns, more computers and more tools of every kind. there's more income per capita,
more wealth, trade, containers, everything, more people importantly. so, more countries. and more political parties and ideas. there is more of everything. if you have more of everything and you try to maintain power, well it's more complicated. it's much easier to keep control when there is this explosion of everything. so that is the first thing. the second evolution, the more revolution from the second has itself phones, social media but it's also migration and trade and the cost of movement of ideas, people, money, services and how would then combines with more and therefore it makes it harder to control.
third, you mentioned the mentality of the revolution is that all of the affluence in general a ride on the middle class's of information coming changes in the way people think, the way in which the authority is treated, the way in which people relate to elders to customs has changed and so the first revolution, the more revolution undermined overwhelmed the story is just too much, more overwhelmed. the mentality, the mobility of evolution circumvents the barriers that shield of the powerful from rivals and the mentality and reminds them. so, those are three sources,
baskets of a series of factors of each one of them that either overwhelmed come circumvents or undermines the barriers that allow them to stay in power. >> host: take the arab spring as an example. as you mentioned, a lot of people have focused on the role of social media has played in programs like writer and facebook that have brought activists to catalyze change. but what you talk about in the book can you talk about now are much bigger, slower building but more important forces that are at work underneath that. so maybe if you could just take the arab spring as an example and talk about what's really going on beneath the surface. >> guest: the common wisdom is that the arab spring was by the social media.
the facebook and google and twitter or important drivers. but think of where it started. you don't start in tunisa. we know the story in a small town in tunisia. the street vendor just in immolated himself because he was set up with the local government limiting his ability. but if you think about tunisia coming you discover that tunisia was a country that had the fastest economic growth and the fastest expansion of the middle class, that has the most stable economy, it was the most homogeneous in terms of affinity and religion and the demographic characteristics and social characteristics. so it was a very in probable place for the eruption to have been coming yet that is where it
all started and as bread. and what happened there is that it was essentially a story of a group of glasses that was expanding the educational opportunities have been expanding very fast. you have a whole class of professionals that couldn't find work, they had expectations and they were nurtured by the educational attainment and the knowledge and the formations that created a strong instability. of course then when that happened other things, other factors played into the explosion. the wikileaks learned that their government dictator in practice was very corrupt as was his family and created a cauldron
that ended up in the thrill of the government. that example then moved to egypt and libya and elsewhere, and we know the story. there is a very interesting recent study by a think tank in washington called the u.s. institute of peace. they tracked but wider traffic and they discovered that a lot of that letter commentary was taking place outside of those countries. was people like us tweeting about what was going on. that was double the exchanges and social media. because the people in the square, they were not -- of course they were tweeting and face booking, but they were always far more that created the conditions that enabled twitter and face the death of the social media to play the role that they do.
>> so, given all of this, what do you feel was the implication for the leaders today? not just arab, but if you look across the heads of state to the heads of business, military is another example that you given the book. but -- if you sit at the top of a big institution today, i mean, what should you be thinking about doing? >> guest: have a vision look at the puerto rican have a bigger scope and your competitor will come from places that you cannot even imagine. if you are -- and there is a tension between being highly specialized and good at what to do and requires the attention to do that highly specific, highly concrete set of things that the company and the organization successful it's very medical to then start looking sideways or behind you were up or down to
see where is it coming, where is that challenger to your position that is coming? and so the first is to pay attention to the balance between house specialized and attentive you have to be in your core competencies, but at the same time, do not neglect the forces that are behind you were around you that can surprise you. so that's one. and the second is the community, just be aware that people like you lose their jobs very often. >> host: do you think that good leadership looks different today or tomorrow from what it looks like ten years ago? >> guest: i think so and there is a lot in your own work i think you have highlighted that leaders now are leading by the sheer force of authority and
just trying to get things done because they say so. it's not that effective anymore. you are dealing with employees and competitors and clients and customers and suppliers that are far more reactive and less prone to be accepting of orders. so hierarchy and authority have declined as the main features of how to report a power. >> host: can you think of specific leaders that he would say you look out across the country, across the world you think they are getting it right or others the you could point to and say they are trapped on the old road? >> guest: the classic example i fink almost has become a
cliche but it deserves to be repeated is nelson mandela, someone that was freed from decades of imprisonment. the first reaction from his first instinct is to do a consensus, not to use rage and revenge to fuel his followers, but to call his followers and have a view that is inclusive and that was not based on the use of force, and he ended up being a very powerful and influential in a very subtle and cunning way. >> host: what do you think about within the organizations themselves have you seen anything about what mostly when we are talking about a business leaders being effective we are talking about, you know, within
the industry that they are in and among other players how adaptive they are or not. but have you seen anything come any trends in the organization of leaders who is more or less effective at managing the people who work for him or for her? is that dynamic changing at all? >> guest: it is a broker question committed this sector specific. in some sectors you have the steel mill, the culture is far more determined by the technology, the distribution channels, the structure of the business. that means you have to start up somewhere in the silicon valley and you can't imagine this web based photography site that was just bought for $0 billion it had a few years of existence not many employees. compare that with kodak that
just went bankrupt that at some point was almost a monopoly for the equipment, just compare the difference between that that went down and was bankrupt to this new cover and so just imagine how different is the culture, how different the ways of behaving and how different insurer the way this respective field for the customers and competitors that fought ahead and used technology and capital. >> host: going back to your nelson mandela example on the consensus in the coalition building you talk about in the book as well as being really important aspects right now in the world where power is declining to actually be able to get something done could you elaborate a little bit more on
the increasing role like coalition building plays today? >> guest: yes and that is a very important aspect of conversation and the implications of what i am saying i mentioned there is something in all of this in which there is a lot to celebrate in the decade of power and the way the power is now shifting and spreading and the new actors are coming in and do have less dictators, you have less monopolies, you have less authoritarian ways of doing things. so there is a lot to celebrate. and so, if you move in that curve you love in terms of the benefits to society. the curve has dissemination and the power in the access to and
benefits to society on the vertical so you move up and the more that you move towards more dissemination and dispersion of the power being distributed, the better it is for the society because he moved away from the monopolies and concentration and all that and you get to the point in which more of that dispersion becomes - and starts slowing down. and it's because of what you said, imagine the situation which you can't do anything unless you have the coalition's and you have to consult everyone and every one that has the power to veto. no one really has any power and therefore you end up with the governments around the world in some companies in which you have just a distribution of power between the different shareholding groups and
management groups in which nothing gets done with the speed and the quality of the decision because you don't really have someone that can make things happen. i don't worry as much about that as when that happens in the government and we are seeing it here in washington. we are talking about it is quite irrational. everybody knows that that shouldn't happen and making the right decisions i think it is because we are overdosing on the checks and balances. we have just developed these wide a raise of checks and balances that postpone decisions
can kick the can down the road you find the minimum common denominator that pleases everyone that doesn't solve the problem, you find decisions that are effective and that created the illusion but not much is happening. >> host: i hate that idea that they are overloaded with checks and balances and to this day congress for a moment which capitol hill has walked away from here and is one seat of so much a symbolic power but then if you look at the sort of definition you give of what it means to have power, which is to be able to actually get something done, it seems like one of the powerless institutions we have right now, so what is going on right now with that dynamic and how much of the dysfunction that we are seeing in congress is attributed
to these system lactide in the decline of power, and how much of it is that we don't have great people on the hill right now? >> guest: - you put your finger on the essence of that story coming and i do believe that we see now in the u.s. congress is a manifestation of the revolutions and many of the forces that i discuss in the book. essentially we have these organizations that are very powerful that seem unable to get anything done and the american people are recognizing the level of support and respect for the congress and the all-time lows. it has a lot to do in the book i discuss it and i make it one of the centerpieces of my concluding chapters. it has a lot to do with trust
and the loss of trust. so if you don't have -- if you have these been you fill the plate with checks and balances to to make it impossible to take initiatives that are quite significant without including everybody else to monitor scrutinize, limit, constrained what the powerful are doing it. and in turn i also make a big deal of the decline of the competitiveness of the political points. >> host: i want to return to the concept of trust, but first i'm curious if you think if we elected better leaders right now and put them in congress, do you think that we would see a function better or something at a deeper level needs to change? >> guest: i'm always suspicious of hoping were looking for a proverbial mythical good leader.
the notion that things will get solved if we only have a better people. we have the people that the american people elected. and that has been the case for a while. so, i'd think there is a more powerful forces at work is the structure of incentives that defines who gets interested in this, who gets the call, who wants to run for congress, who wants to be a senator or congressperson, and then what does it take to get elected but those are forces that are far more powerful at deciding the kind of leaders at the end of getting in congress. so rather than looking or hoping that we can get good leaders out of some magical process i would look at the structure of incentives that determines who gets interested, who was willing to spend his or her life and
congress, and what does it take for that person once he or she decides to run to really make get? >> host: you mentioned in the book though that this equine in power is opening up more opportunities for bad leaders to get a foothold. is that i mean even so we can search for medical great leaders do you think that's still true that we do have more bad options out there as well these days? >> guest: i refer to a culture that has been out there for awhile but i think it's very important and that is the concept of the terrible. they are leaders that come up with ideas for one-liners that captures the imagination and is important for people and they have very bad ideas. we have a bunch of them around and you see them resurfacing and
becoming embraced by people. so i think it's very important to again create institutions and process these that will limit how that and that takes me to the point on the political parties. i think that what is happening in the decline of the political party, the lack of competitiveness. and i would like to explain what i mean by lack of competitiveness or the political parties. i think it's important both in getting a trust and limiting the influence and the potential of the terrible simplify years, and in limiting the grid lock we have. >> host: and so what do you mean by the lack of competitiveness? do you mean we should have more parties, or do you mean -- >> guest: i mean we need to have better parties. i say that political parties need to learn from all the successful organizations to rethink for example imagine that a group is 20-years-old and i am
launching a non-governmental organization that is going to try to save a butterfly in indonesia that is in danger of extinction. raise your hand, those of you that would like to help me in saying that a butterfly. you will find that among the 20-year-olds, and you will find people are interested in doing that, which is great. then go and ask the same group who wants to join me in the political party, who wants to join the republican party or the democratic party, and you will see that far fewer would be willing to volunteer their time and effort and passions in joining that political party. and that's very bad. i think political parties need to modernize, need to become more attractive to young people come to young professionals. because political parties, the essence of coming you know, you can have democracy without
strong political parties. >> host: we are going to take a short break and then we will come right back. >> on the go? "after words" is available podcast through booktv.org clich podcast on the upper left side of the page. select which podcast you would like to download and listen to "after words" while you travel. >> host: so you say in your book as well that political parties need to learn something from the occupied movement and even from al qaeda. what exactly do you mean by that? what should they be taking from these? >> guest: just think about how effective al qaeda has been in recruiting young people and making them do horrible things. and i'm not suggesting that political parties have to become
colts or transform the societal murderers. not at all. what i am saying is what do they have, what does al qaeda have that can be at least used to provoke some new thinking about how to recruit and motivate and in reenergize everything for young leaders and followers. and the same happens with the occupied movement. you saw these very large groups of young people taking to the streets around the world. and, you know, and some places they have some consequences as just an expression of anger and anxiety and the point that about this attrition. but the fact of the matter is that a lot our empathetic and disinterested political and the troubles became highly publicized and there is something there that political parties want to be more competitive, but to attract and
retain young leaders, young people ought to learn from those examples. and again, it has to roll with the fact that the last decade has been horrible for the political parties around the world and a very good for a number of organizations. >> how powerful do you think the position of u.s. president is today? >> guest: there is no doubt that it's very powerful. it's one of the most powerful places in the world. all i would say on the basis of researching the book is that it is less powerful or that it used to be. there is a recent interview with president obama in which he explains that she was reading the story of a think it was president ronald reagan but decided to build a pool somewhere in the white house, and that president about life
reflected how difficult would that become today not just with the position but the scrutiny of the media and of the commentary became. become an important national the date that would distract from other things. so that was a powerful example of how more constrained the very powerful president hs and all presidents are tom orval but i think that the the range of things they can do on their own is shrinking. >> host: we hear a lot today about is china going to be the next superpower overtaking the united states you point out that that is really not the type of conversation we should be having when we talk about power. what is it that you see has fundamentally on helpful about that we've thinking?
>> guest: that is what i call the elevator approach of the jeal policies, who is up, who is down, and also happens with companies, the rankings, the horse race, the fact for example if you center that, you lose sight of the fact that china is a very poor country that has very, very important challenges that are hard to tackle. you lose sight of the fact the leadership is also constrained. more constrained now. if you just think about the power that the leaders had for some of the successors, the people the leadership, the mass of opening of china, the economic reforms in china that brought china to the global economy i don't know that the current leaders can have the
same ambition because they know that they are far more constrained. again, not saying that the chinese leader in general are not powerful i am just saying they are less powerful, they can do less today than the predecessors were able to do. >> host: let's return to al qaeda for a moment on the topic of the military, and some of the big changes that were seen in the way that the war as of today -- is fought today. tears a conversation of cutting the defense budget which is coming you know, potentially a moment to take a look at the way that we as a country have thought about force and how we use it and how we invest in that power that we hold. what are you seeing as the way
that takes place and for a country like the united states that has relied on this big hierarchical institution that is the u.s. military for so long what could it or should it look like five years from now, ten years from now? >> guest: i have a whole chapter on the military and what is happening to the military power. let's start with a small example. those others in somalia in the coast and the gulf, these are people with a very primitive guns that to go out and the hijack some of the largest ships in the world. and the international community has reacted to that process, that by deploying a the largest and the most inferential in
terms of technology it's a very modern fleet. and everyone is now patrolling the seas and you of the ukrainians and european union trying to stop the pirates from hijacking and they have not been able to do it. so that tells you -- that example shows the we are not even talking about what has become common which is symmetrical image you have groups and one of the challengers is far less powerful than the most powerful army. it is a deeper example of how you have a lot of the war that
are no longer fought between the armies in the nation states but you have different kind of combat since and different kinds of technologies. and then you have a capable. they would never defeated those armies, but they can get away with doing what they want to do. and they are constraining the options that the large armies half, and we saw that in iraq and in afghanistan with the use of the improvised explosive devices that created the largest source of casualties for the united states military in those places and for the coalition forces. the united states and others have had to spend millions of dollars in trying to see how to contain, stop and let what is created on these improvised devices, and we still some
progress was made that we are still not there and another example is the drones because our conversation in the united states is what is the legal framework that we use and while the united states is consumed in the debate which i think is very important and very valid, the drones have become unpopular. everyone can have their drones. a lot of armies and groups around the world of the above individuals around the world now, you know, they are very inexpensive, so that again is an example of how the military technology is becoming far more not only to the military's and to the state sanctions but also to the insurgents and combatants
>> host: they are constrained as you said by the rules, the rules of the war that there are all of these players emerging who don't sort of respect or care about the rules of the war. >> guest: you not only have the signature early in the types of weapons but you also have a signatory in terms of the legal frameworks by which you abide to conduct the war. >> host: if you're the incoming secretary of defense would do you think then you would be looking at for how to make a big institution like the u.s. military adapt to all these changes that we are seeing? >> guest: what is very striking is how much thinking there is in the u.s. military about the transformation.
i have been talking to the u.s. military planners and senior officers and it's quite impressive the quality of their thinking and how they know everything. so it is not a problem of lack of ideas. it's a problem of the black power to implement them, and that is another example. it is very, very hard to convert the ideas about how to make the american military more nimble and effective, less expensive, while at the same time retaining to protect the homeland. so those ideas are not there. what isn't there is the power to execute them. >> host: zooming out a little bit from the military. you have mentioned some things that seem troubling that come with the decline in power and other things that seem like improvements, so what is at
stake? what are we looking at in terms of what we stand to gain and what we stand to lose because of the seismic shift? >> guest: my biggest worry about what i described as both a national level, and i already described my concern about countries like the u.s. federal overdosing on checks and balances to the point at which everybody can veto an initiative and no one can impose the view that is moving. so that's one. but then no one that really is striking and the most worrisome one is when you take that at the global level. and in the ability of the international community to make decisions, what we now have is a saturation which is globalization and the country's of interdependence and all of that that is going on in terms
of integration, international integration of economies of society's and so on what individuals is creating a great need for collective decision making that transcends borders. international, beyond one border. and while the need created by the organization for what to do with problems that no country can tackle alone is willing of the devotee of the international community to work together and to deploy effective responses to the problem is rhythmic. >> host: so let's take, as an example, climate change. and, you know, the sales of the copenhagen summit where we saw firsthand the inability for countries to come to some sort of consensus to work together towards a big pressing global
issue, what would help us push past those challenges? >> guest: in the book i propose an idea that i called unilateralism to be instead of the multilateralism, what you try to get his 192 countries to agree on something that has some bye eight and can make a dent in the problem. in order to get that, you have to have the minimum common denominator and have a variety of views and nothing happens, as you said, copenhagen was an example. but what if you bring ten or 20, 15, whatever the number, a small number of the biggest players both in terms of causing the problem and also being a part of a solution and trying to get an agreement among those in climate change ka for example, that number that can create a huge change in the world is too, the
united states and china. so, instead of 192 countries, why don't we have two countries reach an agreement on how to move forward in the united states and china, and then hopefully bring the alias of the world and brazil and south africa and malaysia of the world and see if the smaller number of countries can get things moving. that would be announced as anti-democratic and exclusionary because countries that are not invited to that table with say why are you deciding on the future of the world in a climate change without including me? and they are right. but when we include everyone, 192 countries, nothing happens. so, if i have to choose between, they are both bad, but i would rather have one bad that it's part of a solution during the in
having an employer generally highly space system in which every single country has one vote, even a small island of 100,000 inhabitants has the same vote in the united states or china and nothing happens. i would love to have an impression a racist and but i would rather have things happening because of these global problems are becoming a crisis. >> host: so how could we -- let's say everyone got on board with that idea. how would that actually play out who could put forward an idea like that that says sari, we care about you but you are not on the list of people that get to be involved in the decision? >> guest: that is issues specific. the number of countries that you would invite and which countries he would invite to deal with
climate change are different than the types of countries he would invite to deal with the lower panamax for the global financial crisis or immigration and migration and intellectual property. there will be some countries that will be in a lot of these staples of the problems are defined by different types of countries. and so you know, it just makes for some governments, not just the governments, the populations of the countries to demand that the government's start giving something. the governments are run by politicians and politicians are very sensitive to the signals that the voters send it will happen in the homes around the world. the citizens start demanding action to deal effectively to
these global problems. >> host: that i think brings us back to trust which you mentioned earlier and which you mention in your book is one possible path forward to helping us in power some institution, some groups over others. but i guess let's start with what he is trust the linchpin that so important to capture if we are going to find a way not to just, you know, dissolve into a million checks and balances that lead to the inaction. >> guest: it means trusting your leaders to do the right thing and writing a blank check. you don't write a blank check to someone that you don't trust and to trust them you need to know them and to know then you need
to interact with them and be very cognizant. one of the problems come again, i bring back the political parties where the non-governmental organizations and social group can center one issue and one issue alone and have a common vision. my example you can't afford a few are part of a group just worry about what is happening in that. but if you are in a political party, you have to have opinions about the economic policy in the country and the use of dogs and the military. a political parties are very important training places for leaders especially for young people and that is where all so you can create the knowledge of the issues. you can bring people to understand the wealthy government. we don't choose between the wonderful option and a horrible
one that in the government's very often you have to choose between a battle and an even worse one and those sort of a dilemma as needed to be better understood, and you need to have more trust and understand people that the government is making the decision that is not making everyone happy. it is not by choice but because they are much worse. here in the united states we have this terrible decisions in which cutting the size of government and the budget cuts and the increased taxes that we are talking about will mean making very terrible crisis between a bad option and an even worse one and that is where the public will be very confused by the terrible sympathizers and the demagogues and the portions that are trying to distort and confuse the modeled issues.
>> host: for an average citizen that is confronted with all of this, how do you even know who to put your trust in these days especially when we both are in the media a bit and there's just send such a proliferation of information, and with that, misinformation making those kind of decisions means it isn't actually getting any easier for citizens >> guest: there isn't a silver bullet, but there is the need for people to eat their homework more, get better educated. it is that we have too much information and it's very confusing and its hard to know who is saying the right thing and who is distorting what happened. but if you do your homework and if you spend time, you will find people that are -- that you can trust and don't have necessarily a vested interest but are
looking for the tools and looking for a more objective take on the saturation coming into the other thing is to become more active, just by sitting at home and come planning is not going to solve anything people need to become more active and more participatory in the politics and get engaged and by getting engaged the wonders and more on what are the issues and they will understand more who to trust and they will understand more the policy issues ahead of us. >> host: and on the oversight for the leaders who are looking to repair or build that trust, any advice for them on how to do that? >> guest: i do not have a silver bullet on that but we do know today that transparency becomes very important and honesty becomes even more important. it's always important, but now
there are many, many reasons why those in power are scrutinized to levels that have no precedents and they believe that they can get away by being unclear is going to be hard although in their recent years we have seen this in a way the terrible synthesizers have gained a lot of power. >> host: all right. so, we are getting near the end. but i'm curious, your book is called the end of power. and you have described this trajectory power and concentrated on a few big institutions to at the very end of power the dissolution, the type of anarchy if we go all the way back. we're on that spectrum do you think we are right now?
>> guest: in the political system in the united states we are in a bad place. we are in a place where it isn't there with the kind of decisions it can make. they are in part to make decisions that are needed but as i said before, what is really bad and worse is the global level has a need for these booming lists companies expanding lists of problems that wouldn't be solved by any country acting alone in a superpower and we are not getting at because the governments have to make those compromises in many ways they are limited and constrained so building back in power to make the decisions in the global
level have an urgent task ahead. >> host: it's been a pleasure talking with you. the book is "the end of power" and i wish you all the best with it. >> guest: thank you for a very good conversation. >> that was "after words," book tv signature program emmet authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with their material. "after words" airs every weekend of booktv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 p.m. and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" on line. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book tv series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. are you interested in being a part of book tv's online book
club? every month we will feature a different book and author, and you are invited to join. interested? send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, post a comment on facebook or send us a tweet @booktv. political judge has written a book unexpected lessons i learned as a single mom. tell us a little bit about it. >> the book is my story about being a single mom for 23 years. i became a single mom when i was pregnant with my third son. and there are rough days and good days, and what i did is throughout that time i never heard a positive message from the right or the left, encouraging words or instruction may be that help us get along because the odds are against kids that have only one mom or one parent in the home. so i wrote the book for a can-do book. look you can do it, it is a
healthy positive message not only for single moms but for all parents. i think we can all relate to some extent. and inside those covers are my heart and soul, those are my best years. >> people who know your career know you as a republican. is this book free of ideology? >> this book is a political. i don't care how you can a single mom it makes no difference to me. this book is about helping you be successful pivoted and making certain those kids have a chance to be as successful as any other child, independent of other circumstances are. as a, that is the key is so much is out there and so much makes you feel as a single mom that you somehow failed or that the odds are against you already or that it's too much work. and it's time for single moms and most of them do i must admit, but the single moms to realize look it doesn't matter how tough it is, i've got to do this. i have to fight for my kids and
insure they have a chance of there and i have to show them the way. that is what my book is about and it's what i learned along the way. and it has lessons in there, chief lessons of single parenting, how to be a good parent. and there is a lot of great stories, great fun stories. that is why all parents can relate to those times when your kids and various you to death or make you nervous about what is going to happen tomorrow because of circumstances in your home. but its -- it's a great read and enjoyable i think for all. >> you have three boys, now three men. what do they do? >> my three boys have made great decisions. i can't take off a credit. i set the path. my oldest just graduated from law school, and he stood in a court should and is married with two kids and one on the way. my second son is married with two children and he