Skip to main content

tv   After Words  CSPAN  July 3, 2014 9:11pm-10:10pm EDT

9:11 pm
rule-based order in the global economy where people have to play by those rules, and where there are measures of accountability if they don't, if we can't demonstrate our economy is working for everybody. so, the book is about my time as secretary of state, but i carry with me all of my life experiences. so i'm not ready to stop and think about legacy because i want to keep thinking about what my life has meant to me and what my obligations are to my grandchild and everyone else, and i'm going to do that through the work of the clinton foundation and other ways, but it is -- [applause] [cheers and applause]
9:12 pm
[cheers and applause] i will hasten to add, it is a question and a responsibility for all of us. and a hard choice, and a very hard choice. and it is a very hard choice, but i think all of us have some hard choices about what kind of citizens we're going to be, what we're going to ask of our leaders and also what we'll ask of ourselves, and what has always made us strong as americans goes back to that incredibly astute observation of detocqueville when he tried to understand what the country was about and looked at our organization and the democracy and the institutions we were building. he said it came down to the habits of our heart. and i think we have to ask yourselves what it means today to be an american in the 21st 21st century and what we expect from each other, what we
9:13 pm
expect from our government, what we expect from our businesses, our academic institutions, because i am more optimistic and confident about what-under potential is, but i know we have some hard choices to make to try to realize that. so thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry we don't have more time. thank you all very much. thank you. thank you all. hi, how are you? >> the day after her conversation at the politics and prose book store, mrs. clinton was in arlington, virginia, for a book signing. this portion is 15 minutes.
9:14 pm
[inaudible conversations] >> hi, everybody. applause >> okay, let's get started. >> hillary. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:15 pm
[inaudible conversations] >> hi, how are you? >> very well. thank you. >> you live here in the washington area? >> in maryland. >> that's nice down there. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:16 pm
[inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming today. >> hello. [inaudible conversations] hi, how are you? >> hi, how are you? thank you for coming. it turned out to be a beautiful day. hi.
9:17 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> take care of yourself.
9:18 pm
>> thank you for coming today. how are you? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] thank you for coming.
9:19 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming today. >> you're fine, you're fine. hi. how are you today? bless your heart. thank you for coming. really appreciate it. [inaudible conversations]
9:20 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] hello, how are you today?
9:21 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> how are you, ma'am? how long did you have to wait in line? >> hi, how are you today? [inaudible conversations]
9:22 pm
hi, how are you today? >> no picture. no picture. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] hi, how are you today? nice to meet you, too. [inaudible conversations] >> hi. how are you today?
9:23 pm
thank you. i appreciate that. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] oh, my gosh, yes. nice to see you here. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming today.
9:24 pm
hello, nice to meet you. >> thank you very much. >> we hoff -- we love you. >> thank you for being here. >> how are you doing? i'll be back. >> how are you? >> i'm great. how are you. hello. nice to see you both. a beautiful day. glad you're here. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you today? looking forward to having a grandchild. excited. thank you. [inaudible conversations]
9:25 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:26 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much. >> thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> oh! celebrity draft time. oh, my gosh. i'm doing great. how are you? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] conversation [inaudible conversations]
9:27 pm
thank you, dear. [inaudible conversations] hi, guys. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] how are you doing?
9:28 pm
>> i'm good. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> booktv sat down with former secretary of state hillary clinton in little rock to discuss her new book, holiday hard choices." >> getting to the point where you can make peace is never easy because you don't make peace with your friends. you make it with people who are your adversaries who have killed those you kerr about you own people orthos you're trying to protect and it's a psychological drama. you have to get into the head of those on the other side because you have to change their calculation enough to get them to the table.
9:29 pm
talk about what we did in iran. we lad to put a lot of economic pressure to get them to the table, and we'll see what happens, but that has to be the first step. and i write about what we did in afghanistan and pakistan, trying to get the taliban to the table for a comprehensive discussion with the government. in iraq today what we have to understand is that it is primarily a political problem that has to be addressed. the ascension of the sunni extremists, so-called isis group, is taking advantage of the breakdown in political dialogue and the total lack of trust between the maliki government, the sunni leaders, and the kurdish leaders. >> more with hillary clinton saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, and sunday morning at 9:15 on c-span2's booktv.
9:30 pm
>> up next, after words with former representative rick santorum. ... the folks out there that are working people, most of whom don't have college degrees,
9:31 pm
folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility in people that understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. you say oh wow those are conservative republican voters and in many cases they are not. in fact a lot of them aren't voting at all because they don't really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have been trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. if you look up the democratic party they talk about these voters a lot and in fact they talk about how they can give them certain things whether it's free health care or subsidize health care or increasing their wages with minimum-wage increases, a whole laundry list of things that they try to help but of course most of these folks don't want to be on a government program. they want to work. they want to have jobs that are well-paying jobs that create an
9:32 pm
opportunity for them to support themselves and their families and that sounds like more a republican voter but unfortunately republicans are economic message is you know tucker you have seen this over the years. we talk like economists. we are sort of wrapped up in the rightness of our position but we talk about balancing the budget and we talk about cutting taxes for high income individuals to create jobs. and then cutting government and particularly a lot of benefits. you are the average american listening to this economic plan you say where my map plan? what you doing for me people who are seeing their wages stagnating and not getting increases and not saying inflation it away and that's really who this book is written for and for republicans to understand why they are not succeeding in these votes. fresco it's a little perplexing as you pointed out because some of these voters seem winable by republican winable by republicans so why wouldn't the republican party be talking to
9:33 pm
and about working-class voters? >> guest: well because it really requires you to not think macro, but mica and that's a very difficult thing for republicans. the idea of economics is a rising tide lifts all boats. while i agree that a rising tide lifts all boats unless the boat has a hole in it and then the rising tide is a very dangerous thing because when that tide rises your boat sinks and you are not in very good situation depending on how high the tide is. so you have a lot of folks who have holes in their boats so everything from not having skills to get jobs that are well-paying jobs to sustain a family and not having an education, not -- may be having a drug or sentence abuse problem or a difficult family situation. there's a whole laundry list and all of us have some holes in our post but there a lot of americans who don't see this rising tide necessarily helping
9:34 pm
them and so what i have done in this book and what i tried to do in the campaign is specifically address areas where blue-collar america were average americans can see some direct and economic benefit and there's an opportunity for them. that's why i talk a lot about specific sectors of the economy where large portions of these types of workers will find employment that's actually going to be family sustained employment in the area of energy, manufacturing and related spin-off in the service industries related to those in them focus on the other side because it's not just economics. one of the problems is culture and families breaking down communities breaking down so we talk a lot about the importance of marriage and the family is part of building a healthier american dream. >> host: present a bonus talk a lot about income inequality and its rise. is he right and should republicans be echoing those
9:35 pm
sentiments? >> guest: the numbers don't bear out the rhetoric. in fact these chains -- things haven't haven't changed but they haven't gotten better. i think that's really the issue and relative to europe and canada the opportunity of mobility in america is not as good as it is in some of those countries. and so while the idea that there is this exploding gap of income inequality does not necessarily bear out the facts. the fact is that there are serious problems in america that need to be addressed and there are people in america who are not getting ahead. i think instead of arguing the debate as to whether we are better or worse, let's just focus on the fact that there are millions of americans out there who are not seeing seeing their quality of life improve and what can we do to address those? there are substandard things we can do everything from i mention looking at the economy and looking at the culture and looking at education. one of the things i talk about
9:36 pm
in the book is providing vocational education, career tracks other than tracks that lead to college. 70% of americans don't have college college degrees about numbers and going to change much. what are we doing to provide the necessary skills in high school as well as technical schools after high school to provide the skills that are necessary for people to work with their hands as well as their heads? >> host: how did this all have been? what happened to working-class america, to. [roll call] america? the stock market is obviously on fire but it hasn't helped a lot of people in the interior of the country. something has changed. what is its? >> guest: i would say that writing things. obviously the economy has changed and we have much more globalization in the markets. when that happens there's competition that comes from overseas and overall i think the argument is and i think there's a legitimate argument to made here that our overall america does better when we have that
9:37 pm
competition from overseas that drives down prices because the prices are lower for everybody. competition as we all know is a good thing. globalization is a positive but it also can be a negative if you are the person that's losing their job with all of this competition. i make the argument that look i'm not against globalization. i understand the global economy but we have to be understanding of what the impact case-by-case of those free trade agreements and other agreements we have two be -- to the american worker. i voted for a lot of free trade. i didn't vote for nafta because i didn't think -- i thought that would be devastating more than helpful. that is then born out at least it certainly hasn't improved the situation for america. we need to look at free trade agreements and we also have to look at the fact that america is not being competitive because our taxes -- we have the highest
9:38 pm
corporate tax in the world in a hostile regulatory environment this country. it has got multiples worse under this administration. look at the litigation environment here. look at the educational gaps that we have for worker training for manufacturing and those types of jobs. so the government, the role of the government in making us uncompetitive is pretty profound. that is one of the reasons i wrote the book. i think american manufactures can be competitive in a global economy if the government creates a level playing field vis-à-vis our competitors. so i have a whole laundry list of things i go through the book that talk about how we can do just that. >> host: the trade gap with china has resulted in cheaper consumer products for everybody and i guess that's a good thing but it certainly hasn't helped the american manufacturing. you almost never hear anybody complain about that. why? >> guest: well because most people have lost their jobs or
9:39 pm
are getting lower paying jobs. a small percentage, relatively small percentage of americans are participating in manufacturing. certainly substantially less than it was before so if you are a professional or someone who works in the service industry and you are looking at getting something for a substantially lower price because it's been manufactured overseas you are happy to go to walmart but as you know tucker walmart is now very focused on the ad campaign for the last year almost talking about how they are trained to moving back to america to try to encourage manufacturing here in this country. i think even those who have benefited like walmart from this globalization and having these products made overseas, see the benefits of having these products made here. there's a famous conversation that occurred between henry ford and walter luther who is the head of the union that ford had
9:40 pm
to deal with the ironworkers union. he showed lutheran machine and he said this machine is going to replace i forget how many workers and luther responded well that's great but how many cars will this machine by? that is the tension here. yes we can replace workers with foreign competition or automation that you've got to have wages to buy these products in america. so there is an understanding now by walmart and many others that we need to look to how we can be competitive. i'm not looking to rig the game. if you look at the proposals that we put in the book i think they are conservative and orientation. they are not subsidies. they are tax cuts. they are regulatory reforms in education which government is heavily involved in so there are things we can do all consistent with what i would call conservative politics conservative philosophies that give us the opportunity.
9:41 pm
>> host: why not rate became? the u.s. government exists to protect and make americans free and prosperous so why wouldn't the u.s. government do all it can to help americans? >> guest: first of all you have to trade rules that you have to deal with. so when it comes to trade laws for example that's one area that we really don't get into that much because when you start looking at trade laws you have retaliatory efforts on the part of the other country particularly china. so i think you have to be very careful that you structure it as a level playing field and you do it consistent with the trade laws that are in place and the limitations of what countries can do to favor manufacturing one country over another. >> host: you don't mention immigration really in the book.
9:42 pm
if you are persistently having high unemployment obviously don't have a labor shortage. why would you say is we do a million low-wage workers from other countries into our country every year? how does that help unemployment? >> guest: i do talk about the importance of having a trained labor force. you are right, certainly with illegal immigration, anything we would do in my opinion that would quote solve the problem of illegal immigration through a form of amnesty to these workers will flood labor markets in this country. we have an immigration policy that is today a fairly generous immigration policy and we need to examine the immigration policies see how it impacts the american worker, where are we bringing people and from what are the skill levels of the people we are bringing in and certainly factor that end when
9:43 pm
it comes to the labor markets. i don't think we can do that candidly. we have done it in the past. this is something immigration policy is dealt with throughout the course of american history. it's not something i think we should be afraid to do. we should look at it from the standpoint of people in this country making sure we have the opportunity but my focus was not on immigration policy per se although there is a point to be made. i specifically didn't want to deal with the whole concept of illegal immigration because to me barack obama had two years as president of the united states with complete control, supermajority control in the house and senate could have passed in a illegal immigration law that he wanted and he never proposed a bill. to me that says this issue is not a substantive political issue. this is an issue, substantive policy issue. this is a purely political issue. this is the issues that the
9:44 pm
democrats want to use to drive a wedge between republicans and hispanics. my suggestion is we do not play that game. we don't get drawn into that breyer patch. we say simply this and this is what my position has been on immigration. first and foremost with secure the border. let's take this problem of 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and make it a finite problem or resolvable problem. when you don't secure the border to the point where you know you're not going to have another flood of immigrants depending on what you do on illegal immigrants then you create another problem. you have created amnesty to the existing group. from my perspective let's have a discussion on legal immigration and how immigration and halle set out to make sure it's good for the country. the other immigration leaving it aside. >> host: was just take the legal side.
9:45 pm
the democrats are for it because a lot of these people become democratic voters. republicans get rich with cheap labor but why is it good for the average unemployed average american citizen working at walmart in western pennsylvania where you are from twice a good for him to have to compete with someone from another country who just got here for -- who worked for a much lower wages? >> guest: one of the reasons legal immigration is a good thing is because the country is growing. we now have, we are now below replacement rate of a population this country. i think there is something to be said. legal immigrants do a immigrants do we bring a vitality and energy to this country so i think legal immigration is a positive thing. i think the fact that but for immigration we would not be growing i think america is, there's lots of room in american
9:46 pm
we want to be a country that continues to grow and expand and that's a positive thing. it's a positive thing for markets so yes i these people competing against jobs? >> guest: they are also consuming and at their work and buying products, i don't see that necessarily is a zero-sum game. if you do it in a way that you make sure you are getting afraid it different workers from skill levels to be competitive. i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. >> host: if i'm an employer and hire someone immigrants are not and i pay minimum wage november found that so the slack is taken up by the taxpayer in all the social welfare programs we have. the taxpayer pays for that person in effect to be able to live. why should employers get what is in reality a subsidy from the taxpayers to hire cheap labor? >> guest: well the cheap labor is labor based upon the value of
9:47 pm
what the labor brings. the subsidy is a decision that the policymakers have made. we have made the decision that if someone is making a certain amount of money than we are going to provide support for them, income support. we are going to provide food stamps. that's a decision that i think is separate from the business decision. i don't think we are subsidizing cheap labor. i think we are basically saying that this is the value that businesses have said that this labor brings to the enterprise. if we are driving up the cost of that by hiring minimum wage laws which is what president obama is proposing them what we are doing is driving the cost of labor up which will result in employment and loss of jobs. >> host: there was a study that came out this weekend that showed the top 25 hedge fund managers made in personal income for themselves not investors but
9:48 pm
for themselves about 29 billion people. 25 people made 29 billion people running hedge funds. when you hear that what is your reaction? >> guest: my reaction is the capitalist system works very well for people who have resources and if that person obama's world of economics is one that encourages that lie because he is put forward all of this policy that favors to big to fail and provides backstops for people who take big risks. if those risks don't come true than the federal government backs them up. we have created a tremendous opportunity for wall street to do very well under this administration and not a particularly strong effort to help main street or small-town and rural america. i'm not surprised to hear those numbers. you know, that's part of the american dream. i have concerns though that when you look at the tax on capital
9:49 pm
versus the tax on labor what ronald reagan attempted to do it in the 1986 tax act was to say really to back up one of the things he was famous for saying, if you want less of something tax it and if you want more something subsidize it. we subsidized labor, we subsidized capital and doing exactly what you're suggesting by having low capital gains tax. in fact one of the concern of republicans is way to eliminate capital gains tax. what you will do that and say okay please keep investing in capital. keep investing because you will get a huge subsidy for doing so but if you invested labor and employ people to accomplish the same purpose to get a return on their money than you will be taxed and labor will be taxed heavily heavily and you'll have all sorts of regulations that will be costly. what reagan did in 86 was lowered income tax rate to 20% and raise the capital gains tax to 25% say you had labor and
9:50 pm
capital priced the same from the standpoint of taxes which encourages investment in labor and employment. today we have the tax structure with 40% rate and regulatory environment that the obama administration is created. we have an economy that greatly favors capital over labor and that is why you are saying hi and employment rates persist. >> host: also does not send a message to the tax code that we don't value work? why would you work for a wage when you are paid twice the tax rate is someone tax rate is someone who is investing? >> guest: warren buffett secretary and we have heard this all the time. warren buffett is making millions in pays a 15% tax on it in his secretary and i'm sure she gets up my salary so without my salary she is paying 40% of the top rate. it doesn't make any sense. i'm someone who has been very blessed.
9:51 pm
i love to work. i work hard and i get very little in the wave investments. i can't remember the last time i paid game on a piece of capital investment. i have a fair amount of income coming in for labor and guess what? i get taxed to the hilt. so you just have to work, for me i have to work that much harder. when you have kids you don't have a choice. or for a lot of people they say what's the point? why my doing this so it is a discouragement for a lot of people. >> host: at a certain point do you risk social instability? >> guest: well the point you are making when you have people who are making huge amounts of money like these hedge fund operators and they will be taxed at 15%, and for the quote work they do. and if you are working for that hedge fund operator and you are the secretary or the
9:52 pm
administrator or whatever you are paying 25, 35, 40% on your income and you say how is that fair? ronald reagan made the argument. it really isn't fair. we shouldn't be rewarding one over the other and what i approach in the book and i don't get into it in detail about the comprehensive tax policy but what i approach in the book is lowering marginal rates. it's a very important aspect of increasing the demand for labor. a big part of what i have suggested is making the tax code simpler but lowering those marginal rates is very important. >> host: you are famous as a social's conservative and yet this book does not really tackle abortion or marriage. neither one is in the index. why is that? >> guest: iunknown is a social conservative because i'm the one of the few conservatives willing
9:53 pm
to talk about these issues. most conservatives conservatives when the issues, they dive under the table. it's sort of funny that you are known as a social conservative because you are one of the few folks answers questions on the subject and is willing to articulate a vision. in this book we did talk about culture and as i mentioned earlier i talked about the importance of the family and marriage as an economic good for society. the word economy comes from the greek word orifice which means palm. it's the first everything in a child's life. it is the central foundational building block of society. i do talk about marriage and the family as an important part of the economic well-being of our country and that we as americans are losing this foundation.
9:54 pm
40% of children are being born outside of a marriage. if you look at the numbers i am sure you know this talker but if you go to a person in america you will find 85% of american prisoners were raised in a home without a dad. we know the social consequences of large sectors of society where children don't have dads and marriage is impossible anymore. it's not a positive thing and economically for the families or for the country generally. the real question which i address in the book is what do we do about that? is there anything that a the government or a public policy can do and the answer is clearly yes. there are lots of things we can do and they are important for us to do. if you look at the left who in there i would argue sincere compassion to help people who are struggling particularly single moms they structure all these programs that depend on it not being married. i'm sure that's not the way they
9:55 pm
designed it but the net effect is that i use this example in the book, in wisconsin if you are single mother with two children and you earn $15,000 a year working part-time, you get $38,000 in welfare benefits. if you get married you lose them also to get married her husband would have to make 50 grand year to get married. i'm sure that's possible but it's not highly likely. what happens is we have created marriage traps. we have created barriers to marriage for the very people who it's important and i'm sure for many of them to have a stable and solid relationship with the man who can help in the raising of their children. instead what we do is encourage that other economically either not to get involved or if she does have a very dangerous relationship with having a man living in the home and of course you know that's most dangerous
9:56 pm
relationship for both the mother and the children of that mother. so we are doing things that are destructive to families all in the name of helping people when in fact we have to change these incentives to create incentives for people or at least stop the barriers to marriage. >> host: one of president clinton's most reliable constituencies as women. he is never a single:people to get married as a solution to poverty. i can't remember the last time i heard a republican candidate talk specifically about the importance of tailoring policy to encourage marriage. >> guest: i do, and i did. i did in the last election. in fact i was talking about in wisconsin i found out about that. i use that on the stump and you may remember when i wrote a book in 2005 called it takes a family.
9:57 pm
it's direct response to hillary clinton's it takes a village. i do believe family as a voting block of society and marriage is an essential public good. if you look at the work has been done by arthur brooks and others who have talked about the issue of having this and look at studies over time about what makes people happy again i address this in the book. it's not even close. married people are by far happier than single people. and they have better economic prospects and children useless drugs and less crime. you are right tucker republicans have been reticent, not reticent to have been downright hostile to embracing and talking about it because they don't want to be seen as telling people how to live their lives. no one is telling anybody how to live their lives. what we are saying is anymore than we are saying you shouldn't smoke the government all the
9:58 pm
time has all sorts of messages coming out saying that smoking is bad for you or texting and driving is bad for you or hiring veterans is a good thing to do. we recognize certain public goods as a government and as a society we get behind them. what i've suggested in the book is that the popular culture i'm talking about hollywood in the news media and the educational industry. i'm talking public schools as well as private and colleges, businesses labor. they should be something we should all agree with. they want to develop a positive marriage culture in america. >> host: so just a fear of seeming unfashionable? >> think that's what prevents republicans and anybody who has googled knows what the numbers are. >> guest: they don't want to be seen as moralizing. when i talk about this, what are
9:59 pm
you telling people? are you saying that single moms are are bad. [inaudible question] not saying anybody is bad. i'm saying we are in a situation where marriage is failing. marriage is an institution and one of the reasons we are attempting to redefine it is because we have sort of lost what it is. it's important for us to reclaim marriage for what it is which is not just a romantic relationship between two people although its earthly part of that and not just a contract where people receive benefits because of that relationship. marriage is unique in that it provides a very unique benefit to society which is the joining of a man and woman together to our of all other options the only two that can have children that are their children they can have a mother natural mother and natural father raise those children in a home that supportive.
10:00 pm
so it does bring something unique and it is good for the public to have children raised in that environment. it's also a very important good for men and women. not just for happiness but a whole host of other reasons are that relationship has benefits to men and women. i don't think there's any reason for us to shy away from it and in fact tucker what i'm hearing is what i'm saying is many on the left are recognizing this. they are seeing the statistic that came out in the last six months where you had all this talk about income inequality. every single study that talks about income inequality came to the same conclusion. the number one factor that overcomes income inequality is marriage and if people get married before they have children and people who are married stay married, that event that results in a better economic condition and someone who is single, single mother or single dad or divorce. >> host: you say attempting to
10:01 pm
redefine marriage. from my perspective that over. is there a chance that marriage won't be the law of the land pretty much everywhere? >> guest: i see that as a similar debate going on 40 years ago. the supreme court came down and decided abortion was right and abortion was legal. it was a public good something that should be pervasive and accepted. if you look at this generation of young people i think most of the polls that i have seen young people, the youngest cohort in the poll are usually the most pro-life right now. right now i think you are recognizing that just because the court said that so just because it's something that was affirmed or proved up by the supreme court doesn't mean society is going to accept it. at least in the case of abortion it's not true.
10:02 pm
more and more people are recognizing and pushing back. the same thing will happen on the issue of marriage. as i said we lost the definition of marriage because we have lost what marriage is. it's going to take may be losing something in seeing the consequence of that and the consequence of losing liberty and a whole host of other issues to recognize that maybe we made a mistake here and need to pull back. >> host: it seems like you have a real problem problem with libertarians. i remember a couple of years you are on fox and you called ron paul disgusting and you take shots at libertarians. what objection to have to libertarians? >> guest: i didn't call him disgusting. his attacks on me coming he was
10:03 pm
saying things that were ridiculous and outright lies about me and my record. i called it disgusting. i don't think ron paul is personally disgusting but what he was doing was. i do have concerns about the impact if they were is among the conservative movement. i don't think it's consistent with conservative thought i think the idea that libertarians and i'm not talking about libertarian conservatives because they are conservatives that have a libertarian spin who are stronger in some of these issues particularly the issue of constitutional protections and limitations. i think that's a healthy debate within the republican party as to how much government does to the issues of privacy. i think those are very important issues and so libertarian conservatives not as big a concern that libertarians and some of the folks that pretend
10:04 pm
to be libertarian conservatives are not necessarily so. they are libertarian strain to change what conservatism is. there i have a lot more problems, everything from their isolationist view of how we approach national security. i think we have seen in the last five years of the obama administration what isolationism in america taking a backseat will mean to the world and to our own security and probably the best example of why it won't work is in the last five years if they maintain. the other area i'm concerned about is just sort of the fundamental idea of what libertarianism is based upon. i think it's based on a flawed view of man. ultimately the libertarian view is that people were free to do whatever they want to do in the government is removed and people just have this freedom to exercise their own will the world would be a better place.
10:05 pm
i don't buy that. i don't understand why you have seen anything in human history that would suggest that would result in a good or decent virtuous society that they believe i think the fundamental understanding is that humans are essentially good if left to their own desired things would be fine. i believe man is basically fallen and needs to have the families of institutions and the government to have laws in place and conventions in place to shape and mold that relationship. >> host: interesting. everyone agrees that there were problems with the occupation of iraq in the last decade that the original decision to invade iraq in the spring of 2003, was at a good idea do you think? >> guest: i go back, guess i can answer this in two ways. at the time i made the decision, i thought i was the right decision. i look back and i would have
10:06 pm
made the same decision. knowing now what happened and how the occupation and having involvement in that area of the world and the complexities in dealing with the radical islamists and frankly the muslim culture, i certainly going forward would be a lot more cautious about engaging in those activities in the future. i think we need to learn a lesson that once the long-term prospects of doing what we attempted to do when going into iraq i'm not optimistic about positive results and taking that type of approach again. ..
10:07 pm
10:08 pm
10:09 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on