tv After Words John Kerry Every Day is Extra CSPAN September 22, 2018 10:04pm-11:03pm EDT
this is only the 5700 and that tells you something. and the journey continues. in which we have gone through with your journey but really to talk about the jewish new year and that is one of the frustrations from the secretary of state that there was no happy ending. for those two states for israel and palestine. i remember you telling me some time ago as he was working in boston. >> i remember we met at the
charles hotel with a nice conversation. if you are ever in a position to get things done i think we could get great things done together. >> and i also remember sitting at dinner one night and you had a napkin and you were passionate. if only we could do these things. so all of those tuning in to c-span would like to know the frustrations. >> i am passionate about israel as a member of the senate 20 years with a 100 percent voting record. so many friends and that
remains a passion i took my first trip and claiming climbing and swimming in the dead sea. and to fly a plane over israel. to learn and care about it unanimously. and it's not possible to make the pieces come together but frankly the dynamics are promulgated right now with a government which is said publicly they don't believe in free speech and the prime minister said they will never be a two state. so how do you move the government that requires a change of coalition or
something? >> that's very difficult. at the same time the palestinians were not ready to move either. and that is one of the problems politically. there is a rightness of politics and in life. and then you can bang your head against the wall. but to make a huge difference and to agree for the first time publicly to change the out peace initiative. so it was 1967 that we would bring 90 percent of settlers with those particular communities. and that was a big step forward before we left
publicly and acknowledge as a jewish state. that is a huge step forward. with the outlying areas but the critical country said this is what we will do and it required to guaranteed israel's security which we thought was paramount we have to have is real defend itself by itself and that's what the prime minister laid down. so he came up with ways that we could do that. >> there are roads yet to travel everybody in the region deserves it. >> your efforts were heroic and with the us policy that
there is two states i don't think that has changed. i think something has changed us policy but the capital of israel is jerusalem and our embassy should be there as a member of congress in the mid- nineties to adopt that policy but the timing is up to the president in this president decided to do that now and he moved the embassy at least temporarily from where the consulate is. but i guess i would express my sadness as somebody who happens to be jewish and has made 25 trips to the region as a member of congress that the lack of progress is tragic both for those in israel and
it's not a state of the palestinian authority. so over over time among arabs mt be very hard as a pluralist democracy. >> that is the dilemma. and it's on the jewish holiday because they are very observant so that is the administration plan and what the plan is what you said not to states not now or not ever
is a compromise that was designed by the founders of pro- democracy in the home of the jewish people. >> yes. but the great challenge already the population between the jordan river now is not majorit majority. now. so if you want the full-fledged democracy people are citizens of the one state that what happens if everybody goes? >> and has it maintained its character? >> we will see what happens. i will always work hard for a fair piece that guarantees the end of conflict or the claims to provide for israel's ability to have it security guaranteed by israel because that process is inevitable and
you need that. the palestinians can have a state that is viable and maybe that is one of the key questions if the state is offered will that be viable? >> if not then it's not accepted. but times have changed in the region that there are many countries there that are willing to work on counterterrorism and i put forward the idea that there is a new regional security arrangement that could be made if people tumor to move down the road. so to have remarkable sites to
have this extraordinary burst of energy and any other part of the world with an incredible opportunity with leadership. >> that one of the frustrations. >> there are serious challenges. like qatar and its support. so i do think there are ways to lay the groundwork. >> i could not agree more and to make the courageous steps that is jordan and egypt. but it is tragic.
>> you are right. i write a chapter that tries to do justice and i am candid in the chapter things could be different but also with the opportunity those moments were not seized. president obama when i am an optimist that i believe that my book is really the answer to bob woodward's book who lays out the problems of washington today. the journey tells the story of how you manage to deal with the things that seem insurmountable or to face richard milhouse nixon breaking the law and spying on people. firing archie cox so you run
the list and though they carried 49 states he was gone. that's what we need to do. >> but our journeys overlapped very similar of course you are much older. [laughter] but to be inspired by john kennedy and robert kennedy. both of us but i certainly knew ted kennedy quite well i worked five years in the early seventies for kennedy in the nixon .-period. during his time at law school so he was an enormous mentor to me.
we canceled the subcommittee in the senate when he was a senator. but the idealism shines through the whole book how you are turned on to politics with those successful moments but that's a test but then you finally end up not just as governor is massachusetts but then the united states senator with a sick unsuccessful run for president. i remember it. i was supportive and i was in congress then. but then you were back in the senate in a very senior role. the senate foreign relations committee is huge but then you go into the administration to do three or four big things that is the right thing to do that is the iran deal.
>> it is a big deal. >> but my last chapter in the book is called protecting the planet talking about climate change and paris and how we got there and our position. they would not do anything for years until from my mom - - finally they cooperated that with the two biggest economies in the plan is what created momentum wondering if we would ever get paris done but as we sit here today, not only are we not moving the earth to that two to agree temperature we are on track to hit that degree this century.
i have grandkids. one and a half, three, five they will live to that age. you just have to stop and question however president of the united states could willfully on the paris agreement simply to make a campaign promise on his side of the fence because how could humans contribute to this? >> for the first time in history in the middle of winter. to see changes in the oceans. floods and bigger and all of this was a warning.
with that sensible energy policy. >> so understand but now i try my hardest. and then to reach for responsible politicians. but to have an arctic program just in increasing body of water but the arctic ocean with the global warming there is much faster. because in addition to the possibility of asia and europe these countries that border
that are cooperating to some extent and including one part of this book is a chapter dealing with russia. >> syria was the most frustrating of all. i would've hope we would have found a way to leverage and to make it clear that we were trying to get a result along the resolution that we passed created by the opposition. and to bring about the global cease-fire and the russians supported the resolution as a
certain amount of time went by. and to go after extremism. in and fundamentally to make progress. >> it is a death spiral and for the future what was really a great country but as a member of congress going to damascus we all thought he could be a voice in this country and in this region. but he still had his father's cabinet and with that wrong
assumption. and one of the only functioning cities left and proud history. >> given what the russians and the iranians, at least it was a near massacre. but i would have hoped wiser voices would have prevailed. then to get to the table. with that special envoy to the united nations one of the principal players not to play
and my personal lightbulb went off. and then the democrats there. and harvard law school which is enormously enacted. and finally in 1991 and even those that were friends since high school. so all of the same folks but to describe the event in a wonderful way. because your family was not in politics.
and then to see a lot. >> but to talk about your earliest memory to go back to your family home in the north of france. >> put that into context so people understand. my grandfather was a businessman working between france and england at the time and raised a big family. 11 kids. living between france and britain. and they vacationed at the
emerald coast. so when the war started and they scattered and then they came back with the war effort and the kids were in various places our house was taken over and used it as a headquarters and working in paris as a nurse because the war was coming and taking care of refugees and in northern france. and the germans are about to march into paris and her sister's new husband.
so the part of the war that after the war 1947 i was four years old my mother had to return to the house to see what was there. i was holding her hand feeling that glass crunch under my feet. she was crying and i didn't know why. i was very disturbed. i could see a stairwell up into the sky. that was rubble that made an impression on me but then my mother said we will rebuild tha that. it is still there and all kids
and 29 cousins built the house. >> as the metaphor for the destruction of war. >> and to say to me with there are things around you. thank god those brave young people because i was so amazed by those beaches on omaha and juneau. they are incredible places that is now a peaceful place and a resting place and the
>> not only that and that led to a whole chapter as a war resister and certainly i remember that generation, it is mine too. and how i think that scar has never fully healed where i have -- i'm still a resident of my old district in los angeles. on venice beach where my house is, we still have homeless vets from that era, more recent vets too, but it is a tragedy that america sent them there and never welcomed them home.
i mention that in two ways, first of all, that experience, but then the healing experience that you and john mccain, a prisoner of war, tortured there, shared. >> there's a remarkable turn of events, jane, and one that profoundly affected me, one of the most important things that happened while i was in the senate was the reconciliation and partnership that we built. >> yeah. >> john and i were flying to kuwait on an airplane. we didn't know each other very well, but we were seated opposite each other by seniority, it brought us together, and we had a conversation into the night, talking about annapolis and his father and grandparents, his family, and his own service and his time as a prisoner. he wanted to learn more about what happened with us and how we fought and what it was like and so forth. and we pledged to each other right then that the country was
still too divided over the war, that we thought we needed to try to find a way to not just make peace with -- but make peace at home. so we set about to get answers for families who were distraught over the fact that there was a strong belief that prisoners might still be alive and people had been left there alive, and we have to answer those questions as a matter of duty but also as a matter of practicality. if you didn't answer those questions, you couldn't begin to have a strategy for vietnam. so we worked on it. and we had hearings. it was disgraceful what people did to john mccain during that period. they called him the candidate because he wouldn't believe somebody's fiction about what may or may not have happened. he was looking for hard evidence. john wanted to look for the truth. the truth mattered to him. we worked very hard at it. at one point he and i together went to hanoi to work on getting
the information. and we talked to countless people. we talked to the general. we talked to the prisoner -- the guards who held these guys prisoners. we talked to -- we went to the history houses. we had a team on the ground working at all kinds of information gathering. we went into prisons, unannounced and went marching through the prison to see whether there was any evidence that some caucasian or european or american, whatever, had been held in those prisons. it was a remarkable process. and in the end, we got unanimous consent of the committee and a unanimous decision that found that there was no evidence that anybody was still alive. there was some evidence that perhaps in laos or somewhere, someone may have been not negotiated at the end, but we didn't have any evidence -- >> that's a huge deal for the
families. >> huge deal because we had families in america that had been able to see remains coming back after painstaking efforts by american military personnel which they still do to this day. i went to visit john mccain, maybe two months, six weeks before he died and we talked about this experience of trying to make peace here at home and importantly, we talked about the process of these guys digging into deep holes to find some fragment, some component of the remains, even at risk of life sometimes, but john and i were proudest of the fact that we put together with the military and with the george w. h. bush administration and the clinton administration the most extensive, most far-reaching
accountable transparent system ever designed by any nation in any time of war in order to account for our missing potentially or p.o.w.s, m.i.a.'s, extraordinary process. >> it is an extraordinary process and an extraordinary tribute to you and john mccain. let me say a couple more things about it. one, in my first terms, i received a call from a local constituent in my district, who said that he had tried to fly the p.o.w./m.i.a. flag on a federal facility on a patriotic holiday, and he was told that that was against the law, that only post offices could fly that flag. and that set about a process, i was the principal author to get a law to change -- >> to be able to fly it everywhere? >> that you can now fly the p.o.w./m.i.a. flag on government buildings, on patriotic holidays on all government buildings. and we got it. the designer of that flag was in
my district. on the wall of my office, i have the signing pages with the pens for eight laws that i had a principal role in, one of which was intelligence reform in 2004, after our huge mistakes leading up to both 9/11 and the estimate of the intelligence estimate that was wrong on iraq. >> oh, yeah. >> but at any rate, i'm so proud of that, and that law was signed -- it was during the clinton administration, but the pen for the senate thurmond, you described him in quite interesting ways in this book. >> he was a character. >> he was a character but there were others. i'm very proud of that. i want to stay on mccain. you and i were both at the mccain funeral a week ago. i was sitting right behind you. it was an interesting thing.
but mccain's casket went by, and my heart broke, and when i think about his role, and, you know, like you, i had a long experience with him, went on his trips to the munich security conference at least ten times and have continued to go there. i'm now on the executive committee of that conference, but how do we replace mccain? >> god and country will do it if it's doable. and it's not up to us. but there are a lot of good americans. there will never be somebody who spends 5 1/2 years in a prison camp like he did and turns around and comes back and forgives and works in that kind of a manner. i think that's -- that was a gift. >> i think it was a gift. i think we should all just focus on that. so more -- this book just has so
much more. iran, you have done numerous appearances and talked about it at length, but i'm wondering if there are things to say that you have not yet said that this very sophisticated audience would like to hear, about the efforts to do a deal on iran which i personally supported which i think a lot of people supported after the fact, once it became implemented, i know i was testifying on the day that the administration decided to pull out, and most members of the house foreign affairs committee, where i was, said i might not have supported it then, but i support it now. >> well, jane, that's the point. i mean, president trump pulled out of it, without really i think adequately thinking through the consequences of what he's done. because china, russia, germany, france, and britain, and iran are all living by the agreement.
they're all keeping it. they all want to keep it. and donald trump is trying to do the best he can to try to disrupt that. now, why? because they have a theory of regime change? i mean, if that's the theory, we're not very good at regime change historically. we don't do this well, number one. number two, if you did have it in the country, i guarantee you, you're not going to have a jeffersonian democrat come to the surface. you're going to have the hard-liners who will use this to reclaim power. because they said don't negotiate america. you can't trust america. what donald trump has done is guaranteed this generation of politicians can't trust america. will not sit down with him certainly. i mean if people that were more
trustworthy come back might be a way to work out of this mess, but i guarantee you they're not going to sit with him. what would have been the smarter thing to do? stay in the deal and get all of those countries i just listed, get china, russia, germany, france, and britain to come together with all of the countries in the middle east and give iran an ultimatum with respect to their activities in yemen, their activities in syria with hezbollah, their activities against israel, their activities in iraq and then you'd be standing with these other countries, legitimately stopping terrorism, arms weapons, transfers, engagement in another country, now having pulled away from all those countries, if there were to be a crisis and we were to go into a conflict, it is very questionable whether those countries would be with us and support us, whether we could get a u.n. resolution if we needed it because we just snubbed our nose at the u.n. and
walked away. this is not a smart way to approach foreign policy, period. >> well -- >> it's dangerous. it is really dangerous. >> two comments on that, first of all, as i understand it, and a scholar of non-proliferation issues at the wilson center and our senior vice president points out the deal was transactional, not transformational. the hope was the region would change. but the deal was just about nukes. there was a legitimate criticism that would have been a better deal, i'm not saying it is the deal you could have gotten, but it would have been a better deal if it was permanent. i know in some ways it was permanent, but you got what you got. >> what they never put on the table when they say oh, they're going to be able to go enrich is the fact that we have 130 additional inspectors in tehran. we have television cameras,
tracing every bit of the centrifuge production, tracing everything they're doing in terms of the enrichment process. we have a 25 year limit of tracking from cradle to grave, every ounce of uranium that they dig, and they're subject for life, forever, to something called the additional protocol, which gives us the right to challenge and inspect. if we think there's a building that something suspicious is happening in, they have to let us in. if they haven't let us in within 28 days, all the sanctions come back -- >> you understand i'm on the same side. >> i'm trying to underscore for people who are listening that -- i'm trying to underscore the degree to which we would have known what they were doing. so i was never vouching that iran might not in whatever period of time have an aberrational leader who wants to come in and say i'm going to break out. but guess what? the breakout time for the next
15 years was more than a year. >> right. >> the minute you take the deal away, it goes back down to a matter of months, and that's a more dangerous place for israel. it is more dangerous place for the community. by the way, that's why the security establishment in israel actually supported the deal. the top security people thought it was working and thought we shouldn't get rid of it. so politics drove this. it's really what it is. and it's very unfortunate because american national security should not be the prisoner of politics. >> well, right, and it used to be that criticism stops at the water's edge, which has sadly fallen off for decades. >> to say the least, but can i say something about my book, if i may? >> of course. >> jane, for folks listening to this, my book is not a policy prescription or a policy tone or a policy analysis by a secretary of state, when he finishes the job or she finishes, this book
is actually a recounting with stories, anecdotes, insights to the old senate versus the new senate. what happened to make it change? what happened with richard nixon? how did we get the things we got when we made issues voting issues so that we held people accountable? i think this book is sort of the counterbook -- not counterbook, but the companion book to bob woodward's book because bob lays out brilliantly all the things that are happening in washington and who is saying what about what's happening in washington, etc., etc. but doesn't tell you okay so what do you do? i think my book does tell you what we do. it's about citizenship. it's about democracy. it is how you make your democracy work. and it shows the journey of, what, 40, 50 years of trying to do that, sometimes failing, but mostly being able to make it work and be accountable. >> and it's about feeling that
you're in congress to help solve problems. it is about a vision for the future. it is about bipartisanship. and you mentioned some of the greats, like dick lugar who was and is a prince and who sadly lost in a primary in his state to somebody on the far right and then he lost and that election was lost to a democrat, joe donnelly. >> which is one of the reasons why today we have gridlock and lack of accountability in the senate because a lot of republican senators are not as worried about their general election as they are terrified of a primary. and the primaries are used as a leverage to -- >> well, it happens in the democratic party too to be fair. a lot of people are worried about a challenge from the left. >> sure. >> and the center has disappeared. the center is not just people in the center. i think i was in the center in many ways not on social issues,
but certainly on defense, security and economic issues. but back in the day, when i was a blue dog in the house, there were 55 blue dogs, these are people with very moderate views on fiscal matters. we didn't agree on other matters. but at any rate, there we were, 55, now there are 15, going down to probably 10, but most of the people in the center have lost in primaries and have left, and now there's another issue that we're seeing which is in the massachusetts election, i think the woman who beat the interim congressman used to work for you and i have a feeling she's enormously impressive. but one of her arguments was we need younger new leadership to represent this district. so that's coming up too. >> i used to argue that, and now i argue you need experience but anyway -- >> she's experienced and younger. >> she's terrific and, you know,
you have to run the race in every district in that district. >> i agree >> that's the way you run it. you know that better than anybody. you don't pick some template. she worked hard and she's going to be a terrific congresswoman. and also because i know you are friendly with him, i think mike served that district very very well for many years. he's a good man. >> i agree. >> this is what happens when our democracy decides to remake itself a bit. >> which is healthy, but bipartisanship is very healthy. it is now a dirty word. if you are bipartisan and talk to the other side, you get primaried. that's a word. who knew the word primaried. in most places that's really dangerous and so people don't do it. and they stay in their corners and lob grenades across. >> do you know what i find almost -- i mean as disturbing as anything that i can think of right now is -- and you don't have to answer this because i
know you're in a nonpartisan position, etc., but i'm not really speaking partisanly, i'm just stating a reality, in washington today, everybody knows for a year and a half most of what's being thrown around in this anonymous op-ed and in the woodward book. what's happened is it's now being confirmed more and more, while people plead guilty to one thing or another, more evidence comes out. people are seeing the facts. but despite the degree to which this city and foreign leaders are deeply perturbed by what they are seeing in washington, they wonder if they meet with the president, does it mean anything, or is the defense secretary going to counter it or is somebody going to steal a paper off the desk that was subject to the subject of that particular meeting? is the president going to continue to attack the justice department in a way that applauds the idea that you
shouldn't indict somebody during an election period because you will affect the outcome? that's not what justice is about in america. so put it all together, you have a problem in washington. and i think a lot of people in the house and senate are not -- about the oath they took about upholding the constitution and defending the institutions of our country. the senate deserves more than people who are more interested in party, protecting the president, and in the power of their position. >> i will comment on that part. i mean, article i of our constitution is the legislative branch, which was designed to be a check on abuse of executive authority and then which is article ii, not the abuse, but executive authority, and article iii is our federal court system. and the checks and balances inherent in that have not ever been smooth, but congress has had a big voice in restraining
executive abuse. you mentioned the nixon administration, but there's been abuse before. >> sure, goes way back. >> and there were some questions about presidents since president nixon. let's just leave that. but where is congress? where is congress's voice? and sadly, a lot of people conclude that it's more about getting re-elected than it is about being a check to things that -- you know, we can argue pro and con, but a check to things that some people feel very strongly are abusive. >> i agree. that's very appropriate way to put the focus on the founding fathers and what they intended with the congress, for sure. >> yeah, i mean, i think most of us have seen hamilton which is one of the great -- >> i love it. fabulous. >> and a lot of these issues in a brilliant musical score come up then. so this isn't all new. but let me mention one other thing because everybody wonders how this administration happened. did it fall out of the sky?
well, i don't think it fell out of the sky. i think both parties ignored a lot of the anxiety in the middle of the country having to do with the total transformation of work and the global economy. and that includes the democratic party. and most or many people didn't speak to the problems and the issues and didn't come up with good ideas. i mean there was stuff around, but it -- >> no, jane, you are absolutely right >> the people there felt ignored and i think the election reflected that. >> i think it is more than just feeling ignored. i think it is a fact that the things that made a difference to people's lives, that would have improved their lives, were not the focus of the congress, except when president obama came in, he tried to put healthcare in place for everybody. >> yeah. >> but look at what the opposition was to it and the party that opposed it and still opposes it. what has donald trump been trying to do? end obama care, throw people off of healthcare. it is the complete opposite of
what people need and want in the country. and workers were working harder. you had to crash of 08, 2008. >> right. >> people had big mortgages on a home. all of a sudden the homes were half of what it was before but they still had the mortgage if they are lucky enough to have a job to pay it off. so you have people working harder, working more, earning in many cases less or taking a second or third job to be able to earn enough to make ends meet and then they see the richest people in the country walking off with these massive tax cuts and/or benefits that they can afford to pay through the lobbying system in america. there's an insidious corruption that is loose in the country that right and left and center are in touch with, and they're angry at the system for not responding. so you know this better than anybody. you went from the gingrich revolution in the early 90s to the tea party to the freedom
caucus to the hostile takeover of the republican party by donald trump. on our side, we have our own battle on our side also. >> which is still playing out >> which is still playing out. so i don't find any mystery in this at all, except the degree to which people who are smart allegedly are ignoring the reality and not working together to address some of those things. >> and i agree with that. and the tragedy is at least at the moment focusing on congress the business model is broken. the business model is blame the other side for not solving the problem because if you work with the other side to solve the problem, you are bipartisan and that makes you fodder in your primary. we have a few minutes left. maybe we can kind of go there. you know, as -- >> you want to talk about the title of my book, don't you? >> yeah, i do. now i do. i do understand what it is. but i think you should explain it and i want to talk about the
optimism that is underlying. >> i'm an optimist. i really make that clear in the book. i end the book with an after word that really talks about how we can make a difference and change things. the title "every day is extra" comes from a bunch of guys who came back with me from a war who survived and who felt that you couldn't totally explain why this guy made it and that guy didn't, and you feel a sense of obligation. it's a gift. >> you knew some of those guys who didn't make it. >> i think a lot of people did, people who didn't even go knew it. which is why you don't need to go to war to have a sense of this every day is extra, you fought cancer or someone in your family passed away or had a tough battle. you know that life is fragile. >> i know that.
>> the point is that if you adopt the right spirit about it, it gives you a sense of obligation, a sense of duty to live a life of purpose. and as i write in the end of the forward, only a little paragraph, i write the author's note i write that there are a lot worse things in life than losing a debate or losing an election. >> absolutely. >> or, you know, but the worst thing would be to do nothing and to show indifference to some kind of problem that's around you as a public citizen. i believe in public citizenship. and you know, it comes from my mother. it comes from my dad. it comes from our family to some degree. and i still believe in it after all these years. but every problem we face -- i guess this also can be traced back probably to a lot of other people but certainly president kennedy, all the problems on the planet are created fundamentally
by human beings. i mean, do we have problems that are god given? yes. a storm, hurricane, whatever, although we're adding to the problem of hurricanes now because of climate, but we can solve these problems if we really want to. if we bring the g 20 together, shut the door, don't let anybody out, till you put a trillion dollars into the green climate fund, we can put new energy into countries so they don't have to build coal-fired power plants. there are countless numbers of things that we could do on education, on rebuilding america, using energy -- i mean, we're just not choosing to do this thing. >> just listen to you. here is this guy, who has the same fire and passion that he did. i want to remind you of one thing before we wrap up, and that is you and i were on an airplane to los angeles in 2011, i know that year because i will tell you why i know the year, and i took you aside and i said john i have been offered the job
of president and ceo of the wilson center, succeeding lee hamilton, a member of congress and chairman of the house foreign affairs committee for a long time. and i'm ambivalent. i've been elected to my 9th term. i might disappoint some of my constituents. i might thrill others. i said what is your view? you didn't pause. you said do it. it has been a great decision, eight years in to run an institution dedicated to nonpartisan serious scholarship leading to actionable policy ideas which is the frame for woodrow wilson or only phd president and our first international president. so you spoke there as in 2016, maybe earlier, but 2016, on your last dayss a secretary of state, and i appreciate it -- on your last days as secretary of state, and i appreciate it, thank you very much.
we had a conversation of trade, if i remember. i wonder what you think of the value added at a number of think tanks? i think you spoke at carnegie today. in this town especially now? >> they are an essential ingredient of our democracy. they are a key check and balance, if you will, on those who aren't choosing to think. think tanks are very very valuable because if you're in public life, as you know well, the pace is such that you don't have the time to do your own research or to go out and just dive into something. you need people to present you with an idea and give you the sources and tell you what to go read. and i find the contribution of whether it's bookings, it's carnegie international, aei, on the other side of a lot of things, but they are so important, all of them. in fact aei has come up with a couple of ideas that we tried to
implement which have now become taboo. they were born in the aei, and they are taboo on the hill because of the orthodoxy of some ideology now -- so i think everybody is suffering for what is happening right now, right, left and center, and what we need to do is restore our democracy -- really reinvigorate our democracy and get people to focus on the fact that every individual really makes a difference in that endeavor. it's not something someone else can do by themselves. you've got to have massive participation. we don't vote. here's the key numbers: 54.2. that is the number of eligible voters who voted in the last election. 54.2% of our eligible voters chose to go vote. ::
>> you have probably done that. i was stunned by the numbers of people who come out to vote sometimes the first time in 50 years. then they sit in the sun and then you vote at 90 percent eligible. >> you are as passionate now about these ideas and the journey that somebody has value that you were as a young man. congratulations on a thoughtful, serious and fascinating book.