tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 10, 2016 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> now a discussion on political polarization in the united states. speakers include haley barbour and mike mccurry. they talk about the partisan divide in government and what can be learned from the current presidential race and past election cycles. this is from the george w bush residential center in dallas. it is just over an hour. [applause] >> it is great to see you all
here today. thank you for joining us. thank you so much for the dallas morning news for hosting this event. if you were up earlier today, questions of diversity in the newsroom, diversity on the panel, it is not always easy to embrace all kind of diversity in any given event, but i want to celebrate this event having done such a remarkable job of embracing ideological diversity. eventterrific to be at an cosponsored by the george bush library, the george w. bush presidential center. i want to put you out of your suspense. can democracy survive? yes. [laughter] the question we're all wondering and talking about today, how? how bad is it actually. ?
what we do about the issue. we all know a couple basic facts. much is a shift in how embers of each party to each other unfavorably. 1984, 60% of democrats beat on -- 16% democrat you'd open unfavorably. now itng percent of -- 43%. perhaps, the more interesting data point, the one that suggests that issues are no longer ideological, but have become a matter of lifestyle and identity. the fact that in 1960 4% of democrats and 5% of republicans would have disapproved of the child marrying somebody from the other party. now?are those numbers disapprovedrats but -- would disapprove and 49% of
republicans. i pulled out some fun facts. no one, you study this. is polarization real? >> i think it is true that polarization is real. what would we have studied this over a much longer history is to look at patterns of rollcall voting in congress. one of the best matters of how partisan or bipartisan our institutions have been over time. a headline fact is that the levels of bipartisanship in congress are the lowest levels since reconstruction. to put that into perspective, the party system based on the regional cleavages might just resolved civil war had more bipartisanship than the current congress. polarization has not been a constant in history. through much of the 20 century, it was not that way at all. there were large blocks of ,onservative democrats tha
republicans were liberal. lots of important legislation. we have seen over the course of the past 40 years, roughly from the night -- 1970's to the current, at large deterioration in the level of bipartisan cooperation. i think it is a serious consequence for the government of society. >> what do you think happened? is one of the core academic mysteries of this point. ,hy a very bipartisan unemployed system begin to take a different trajectory. to individual historical events such as the election of ronald reagan, the defeat of robert burks nomination, the impeachment in
1998, 2000 election. i don't think there is much behind this arguments. there has been a lot of focus on the way in which we conduct our elections, whether they be partisan primaries or gerrymandered congressional districts or uncontrolled campaign-finance. there's very little evidence that has much at all to do with gerrymandered commercial districts where the way that we conduct primaries. there's a lot less players asia in the 50's and 60's with a lot more gerrymandering and a lot more partisan modes of selecting candidates. there is some evidence that the campaign finance system has contributed to a system that was already polarized. it is probably making it worse at this point. i'm inclined to believe that our politics became our polarized because the state has become a much more diverse society over the past 45 years. whether that be through taking
patterns of immigration, racial ethnic opposition, or economic differences like economic inequality. i think we have become a much more pluralistic, divided society on many of the important legal cleavages that is going to be reflected in the way congress represents the type of society we live in today. >> you point to some historical touch points. we often hear about reagan and tip o'neill as examples of bipartisanship in the 1980's and the events of the 90's. i was to turn to governor barbour who lived through the highly contentious events of the 1990's. your chairman of the republican national committee during the. government shutdown.
lived experience, did you feel a change in how members of the two parties attracted? interactedive? -- ? for and what to washington dc was 1968. jimmy's one was an old segregationist, my granddaddy was his daddy's lawyer. they told me to come back at 5:30, i came back and he walked into his office and was how make a quick ted kennedy and to conservative republican from nebraska democrat senator from georgia. he was the chairman -- democratic chairman of the judiciary committee. they knew each other. they were friends. they socialize. having a drink together. it is incredibly unusual today. most of the members don't live there.
it used to be that the kids went to school together. their wives knew each other. that is one of the reasons, i think. another reason, and i have a different view, i think your mentoring has made a difference because, particularly in the sentence --ve to census it has made the u.s.lature reapportioned house of representatives and the state legislature. or years ago, the parties to get out, if we have control of the legislature, we can change the districts around a little bit will have a better deal. 350y, they are probably house if that not competitive between the two parties. that make the 350 party members, they are not worried by the general election. they weren't about the primary. if they are in a safe democrat
district in the northeast or west coast, or waiver, and i can't let anybody get to the left of them. if they are in the safe republican district, they will not let anybody get to the right of them. that has hollowed out the center. it does not directly affect the u.s. senate, but it certainly indirectly does because the legislation they see, the arguments that the senators constituents are here. there's anyk question this has happened. i think there is more than one reason. >> i'm sure districting is important. we will get back to that. what to talk about party strategy in the 90's. as you are moving into the majority republican congress, that was one of your future competence -- huge accompaniments. strategized party on questions of bipartisanship and early 90's? >> it was a big advantage that
had contract with america. we not had a majority in both houses in 40 years. the last time republicans, 1952. we lost in 1954. contract with america gay people something to vote for. most people who but a republican for congress that year were not regular republicans, they were mad at clinton. but having something to vote for like contract of america. easier for them. also meant, when we got the majority, we had an agenda. days,nt the first 100 bringing up the 10 points of the contract of america and are interestingly, the democratic national convention in 1996, when president clint made his -- clinton and his speech, cemented six things that have been done with contract of america. he took credit for ta that.
welfare reform and the balance budget. >> what you think about bipartisanship at this time? one little detail, this is 1995 when the white house does a study on the impact of the internet of political communication that is only get rightrst location of the wing conspiracy on attack of the patent -- the clintons. beginning of 1995, this is after speaker gingrich took office, we start in 1995, very contentious environment. remember, in the early part of that year, they were routine stories in the press about is the president relevant anymore. all the energy was with the new speaker and the new majority in congress.
the oklahoma billion was blown up. at that point, president clinton found his voice again and began to shape the contra argument of the contract on america. [laughter] >> polarization. [laughter] >> and we hit over and over again the fact that we needed to invest in the future of the country. we need to balance the budget, we needed to protect the environ. socialmake sure we cap security and medicare strong. that discipline around the message carried us through that you to the point in 9095 we had the -- 1995 when we had the showdown with the republicans about whether the government would be shut down. brenda stefon diggs at the white house in the morning and have to honestly say that we did not know it were not confident we would come out ahead of the republicans the question of who would be to blamed for shutting down the government. because of our discipline and
the president making the case, we ended up cannot on the upper end of that. -- came out on the upper and and that resulted in a strong election year. one thing, that haley said, i agree with -- when mrs. clinton was in the u.s. senate, we had breakfast event one day and i asked her, what is the source of this dysfunction and gridlock employers asian -- polarization? and she made that point. she said, we don't trust each other. we don't spend enough time with each other. we don't get to know each other well. i feel like if i go out how to
play -- halfway and put something medically risk, no one will meet me halfway. yes, there was a study of the internet in 1995. brickley, there was -- frankly, there was one on news cable station. no one was using social media, the internet site the white house had transcripts of my press briefings which were mildly entertaining. era -- it was an area for the major mainstream media should the contours of the national discussion. you still had come at think at that point, 75-80% of the country reporting that the news from broadcast reports, daily newspapers, the traditional
sources of information that we used to be coherent as a country. that has disaggregated now. newspaper circulation has declined. audio share for the major network has been declined. we don't gather around a common campfire to share our stories and develop a narrative. that is something us together as a country. not bring us together as a country. >> some people call it fractionalization and so the polarization. bring brett and here for a moment. he is a list of things people invoke as possible causes. finance,ting, campaign general fragmentation of the country, but sometimes, people point to the fact that since roughly 1980, elections have been much more contested in the
decades before. in that regard, we should recommend that we live in a period of contestatory politics. maybe that is what democracy is about. we should by over the direction that we are heading. brett, he were in the ache of it -- think of it. thick of it. how has this affected your efforts to be a voice adding thoughtfulness and delivering this to the public? >> many respects, it is more youicult just because, if are in the opinion business that i am in, and you offer a view that is not perfectly in line with what your audience anticipates, you're going to be treated not as someone who disagrees on one issue where a few issues, but as a traitor and you're going to hear it almost
immediately from 4000 people on twitter denouncing you in one way or another. it takes some intestinal fortitude not to try to paley that's out offy your audience to think that there might be an audience beyond simply be angry people who have time on their hands to fire off a tweet or a nasty e-mail. that is a real issue journalism. one thing that i fear that modern journalism is that editors increasingly have lost control of the narrative. why? we are looking, newspapers at that, looking at stores are going to be popular with audiences. did you get on the most viewed, most e-mailed list this week? was at that say about the quality of your writing?
there's nothing more depressing than when the wall street aurnal has a huge expense of story about burma and only four people free. i can write another piece about donald trump and i know it would have a huge audience. there is a shelling of ing oflism in a shallow public discourse and rhetoric. naturally, politically want to play to those shallower narratives. it becomes difficult to see complex he and issues. it becomes so much easier to say we say you are on one side, you are on the other, there is no gray zone. there is no in between and there viewsroom for judgment or that are shaded or colored by some kind of park city.
that is a real issue. one thing, i want to point out, since i do write about foreign policy, what is happening in the united states in this electoral season is having all of the world. country, the buildings elected them and described as the donald trump of the philippines. we have a populist right-wing party, illiberal party governing poland. same story and hungry. the movement on the right is gaining traction in france. politicsof centrist that defined the postwar europe are fragmenting, falling apart not just in the united states. i think it is worth asking, why this is a global phenomenon. it all seems to be happening at the same time.
i think that is a question that ought to trouble us. i'm not worried about whether democracy can survive. i am producer democracy can survive. i'm worried about whether liberalism can survive. not left-wing liberalism, but the set of values that inform tolerant, pluralistic rules-based labbe society. -- law based society. >> what he makes about journalism and the pressure of this purity is felt by medical operatives and elected officials. -- political operatives and elected officials. this a group in the country that was. wants peer-to-peer in a two-party system, purity is the enemy of victory. these to work for ronald reagan. reagan copper mise on everything because the democrats
have the majority in the house. he compromised. he said that a fellow who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor. if youas bread said, think it is hard at the wall street journal, the about if you're in campaign accorded in south carolina or kansas montana. that pressure of, if you are not pure, i will be against you. they will get you in the priority -- party primary. >> where did that come from? >> personal, i don't think it came from a lot of people to be this to divided government. republican congress, democratic house. -- democrat white house. i don't accept that. ronald reagan was an artist a successful and divided government. enormously successful in
divided government. topassed reform with hundred democrat majorities in the house. i mentioned those for because they are complex and controversial. bill clinton was the same way. in six years, all republican congress, we passed welfare reform, the first balanced budget in a generation. it is not divided government. in president has to lead this president has not chosen to try to lead to congress, but in fact, he is polarizing. that is not the only reason. >> when my previous losses -- , that my previous bosses is probably what is happened. there has been a slow-motion erosion of those things that bring together a common good in of common purpose. billing clinton
and gamers were battling back-and-forth, they were still on the phone. these to annoy the hell out of everyone on the staff. they would get caught. at the end of the day, they were working in a system that was designed to produce an outcome which is either some form of compromise or some sort of mutual agreement of where will have. that is what is gone. our fundamental function of government, the things that medicine about the federalist papers are not working. >> the question is, to break down social relations, pasadena compromise, orientation to the common good, symptom or cause? what the playback and. -- i want to pull you back in. >> i think all those things are tightly related. you mentioned, the rise and competition and that everything
is competitive and every election is about control the white house or branches of congress, that is a factor. point, on brent's orthodoxy. one of the things that has gone hand-in-hand with limitation -- is party coalition. being a republican goes with having a set of policy positions that all somehow go together. they may not be coherent, but they understand the position. and they understand that democratic policy issue. this kind of extreme orthodoxy within both parties and the willingness to punish the heterodox has gone along with it in a lot of ways. opposition tha
compromise that the coalitions are fragile. you have to enforce this is orthodoxy because it is not coherent. if you look at donald trump, this timber lining is that he is the first person who is willing to challenge this orthodoxy. to somebody.ppeal it will be interesting to see what happens in the future now that we have a candidate who is going to say republican positions in some of the orthodox positions on immigration are not appealing to broad swaths of the electorate. getting back to your original question, why do all of these things go together and why do they started to get the same time is still very hard to explain. thinkestion, why do you
the system is collapsing globally? >> lots of reasons. , since 1978, to give you a data point, france has not had a signal year of more than 2% growth. thanars, not once more what united states is considered the upper growth. 10.5% unemployment rate, toy 5% rate youth unemployment, same story for much of europe to the last decade. we have had about 2% growth in the nine states. stagnant economies tend to lead to radicalize politics. i was for the last 10 years, i don't mean to be so marxist and , butst -- the materialist historically, and economies where investors did very well in
favors do very poorly, it tends to be a breeding ground for a certain kind of political radicalism. in theare an investor dow jones industrial average, the last eight years you have been great. if you had a savings account at td bank, maybe it made 100 bucks. phenomenon that is true from japan to europe to the united states. there is an economic explanation. there's also a historic back -- fact and then i think 20's and 30's, for a broad set of reasons, the west came disenchanted with april democratic policies as a set of institutions that created mediocre outcomes, but were broadly fair and inclusive. aere was a sudden thirst for charismatic style politics for men of action, guys who would
cut through the bull and make things work. the businessman at the that will throughout the regulatory nonsense. ridden this to the nomination. make it happen. i think part of the story here is that a failure of ordinary politics to deliver on the expectation that modern western societies have in terms of economic well-being, anxiety, turnects, has typically people into saying, but look at these more radical nonmainstream alternatives. what the hell, let's give it a shot. there is a lot of that in the politics now with the strength of bernie sanders and donald trump at the presumptive nominee. it also throughout the entire world.
if you're just an ordinary middle-class person or lower middle class person with money in the bank, you have not done well. you have seen the speculate in class as it is done well. that is one of the contingent factors. all caps of other things, but those are a few that come to mind. >> again, i'm not try to punctuate what he is saying, look at it this way, for three years in a row, public polling has measured by real clear politics averages that they publish every day, more than 50% of americans have said america is going the wrong direction. of americans are republicans, that means there are a whole lot of people who are not republicans or independents or democrats that have now for three years thought we are going in the wrong direction. why would they not? if you are in the heartland or
middle-class or small business person, you can tell the difference between the recovery and the recession. still feels like a recession. the national -- posted report that based on economic indicators like growth in gdp and income tax, only 7% of our 3000 plus counties are out of the recession. 93% are still in the recession based on those measurements. why people are mad and scared. what is interesting, and the hardest thing to understand -- we have polarity with essential parity. the two parties are very close in numbers. they have the white house, we have the house and senate. have an edge in the electoral college. usually in our country, at least
since the civil war, when we have been at parity, we then bunched in the middle. they ain't no middle. >> this election season is an interesting one. on both sides of the spectrum, we have the center, we have heterodoxy coming back. policy paradigms breaking. debt and sanders, and immigration. you made the point that there are serious problems that move politics toward extremes and empty out the center. if we think about how to fix it, how much do we need to address these physic issues of interaction, civility, tolerance, for alternative views, as part of engaging policy questions? that is, do we have to fix
polarization in order to do work on policy? or can we just mullah forward and focus on policy? -- muddle forward and focus on policy? >> we need more campaigns that are aspirational. the one thing i'm struck by are those numbers that say a majority of americans no longer believe that if they work hard, their children will have a better quality of life than they had. that is the fundamental american dream. that has been in the dna of what we think we are as americans. sense of restored some hope for the future -- by the way, there are different measures. some measures, if you look at things that obama has been able to accomplish, that indicate
that we have had some kind of recovery. 77 straight months of job growth. obama has basically accomplished a great deal as president. i am a communications guy. i don't think they have told that story very well. i don't think the country feels it. that is the important thing. we have got to restore that sense that we can move forward and we have a better future for our kids. we need candidates and politicians who speak at that kind of lofty level. we are not getting a lot of that in this campaign. host: do we need to be, in addition to securing those aspirational purpose, do we need to do the institutional work? may bring it back to redistricting. we might debate on whether we need to work on that.
do we need to restructure the electoral process as part of building incentive to work in the opposite direction? >> i would like to restore the actual process. i think one of the reasons why there are 350 members of the house has more with regional realignments in the south. people tend to find themselves in regions which were heterodox in the 1960's and 1970's and are not strongly partisan. -- are now strongly partisan. i think campaign-finance has to be looked at. i don't think it is the primary, initial cause, but a major contributor. if you go back to 1980, the top 0.01% of donors could you be did 8%.- donors contributed the top 10,000 people contributed about a percent.
now, they contribute 40%. we have a copy in finance system that is unaccountable. very wealthy people can put their policy views before the people without the same type of accountability that actual parties have. that is beneath your for exacerbating -- that has been a fuel for exacerbating polarization. what we have to look at in terms of institutional reform is about government. ultimately polarization is not necessarily a bad thing. in the 1950's, scientists worried there was not enough differentiating between the parties. the eisenhower republicans looked a lot like truman democrats. that is a real problem because voters don't have choices.
if you wish for something, you might get too much of it. [laughter] we have a differentiation, but we have not figured out how to govern with that level of differentiation. some of that is norms. a norm of designed. i understand where you're coming from if you understand where i am coming from. we are going to have these debates. we just have to figure out ways to solve them. congress could come up with procedures that are less partisan and more able to have debates and resolve them. one example of an institution that i think should be reformed. in almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world, the speaker of the lower changer is in an and ministry of bureaucratic position. they are elected to stand up and recognize speakers. uniquely in the u.s., the speaker is a partisan institution. we can see what happens when you have the speaker of the lower house being a partisan
institution. where a small fraction of the majority party can hold up position hostages. there are things like that that we can do. i don't like ideas of saying, let's try to eradicate polarization by eliminating differences of opinion. i don't think that is consistent with our underlying values. >> can i throw out one modest proposal? it connects to the idea of kind -- campaign finance reform. many of these members of congress are part of the reason they have their heads down when they were in washington, going to fundraiser after fundraiser. they spend all their time doing that. what if every wednesday that congress is sitting in session, we declare from 8:00 until 10:00 in the morning to be a fundraising free zone? [laughter] and we instruct the party committees, the dnc and all those raising money, that will
be sanctions against you if you host events for your candidate during that time. the expectation is that a number will call someone from the other side of the island say, let's have breakfast. there is one group called the faith and politics institute that gets people together for bible study. that is been important to the members that participate in it. or at least 1/3 of the senate. we create some spaces for these people to get to know each other and create relationships that can then translate to more trust. >> my own modest proposal was marry a liberal. [laughter] >> or a conservative. >> well, advised that i took. and it does me some good. both the essence of a good
citizen in a liberal democracy is someone that can say, i might be wrong. i am only in possession of say, 80% of the truth, and i don't know which 1/5 is wrong. that is an important personal characteristic to have. what are the institutions in our society which are cultivating qualities of self-doubt? i meant that. this is something that we think about often in our editorial meetings. toch might shock some of you hear. [laughter] >> tell us more about self-doubt at the wall street journal. [laughter] >> we try to resolve them before we go with the paper. [laughter] but also, in terms of our pedagogical institutions, i would turn around on you -- what are universities doing? one of the things that astounds me when i get mail in connection to the current article season -- we gave up on this do nothing
republican congress. and what do they do with it? you are tempted to write back, to you realize that the government can't be run out of the congress? you need the cooperation of the president? that is the way the system works? this nonstop assault from surgeon radio -- from certain radio show hosts about the losers in congress that do nothing, overturn obamacare and x, y, and z. clearly these people don't seem to know how our system of checks and balances work. i wonder why that is. i wonder what failures have taken place from grade school to college, to what people are listening to on the morning commutes, that they don't understand these things. all these institutional fixes
are terrific, but they are not going to work unless you have human beings who might say to themselves, i might disagree with the president/ i might disagree with him it vehemently, but i don't think that he is a bad man. right? can we do that as a country? that is the question i keep returning to. one last point. the republican party was born from a president that some aren't the better -- that summoned the better angels of our nature. i wonder who was summoning those angels in our political season this year? when one guy is saying put all of wall street in jail. another guy is asking for mass deportations of one ethnic group or another. who are the summoner's of the better angels? that is what i am concerned about. >> i want to talk about education and civic education. theink it is -- you list
victims of polarization. civic education is one of them. the common core curriculum was at its beginnings, a bipartisan effort. as we know now, it has become a controversial issue, fully embedded in the polarized conversations. one feature of the core curriculum was that national governors association worked with governors -- worked with educators to establish standards in math and language and social studies education. out.third piece fell it was unachievable because of polarized views about how we should engage with american history. in some esense, the battle what are over whether or not the narrative should be triumphalist, fundamentally critical about the failings of
the u.s. and efforts to overcome them. we have a deep problem with regard to this issue of education. and out and ability to share a common historical narrative. were you in office? >> i was in office. some of you may know that my state is a little conservative. [laughter] of peoplea lot against common core. i publicly supported the development of common core. . what it never gets said. fixes englishly and math. that is the whole curriculum. all the complaining is, they are going to take religion out of the schools. they are going to teach god knows what in terms of history and social studies. that's bunk.
[laughter] i mean, the mississippi state department of education ultimately decides what the curriculum is. they have common core standards for english and math they decide, are we going to use these? the state totally controls it at the end of the day. the federal government doesn't. but that goes back to something that i think was the 1.i was going to make, if i didn't any other. i became chairman of the republican national committee at the time of the rise of rush limbaugh. fox news. i loved it. i mean, i had grown up in the same america as y'all. when i graduated from high school and and we got, 90% of the stations, we thought all of liberal. stations were we would finally get some conservatives out there, tell our side.
in the last 3-4 years, the most bitter, the most harsh, the most negative critics of republicans have been the conservative media elite. the sean hannity's, the rush limbaugh, the laura ingrams, some of these people are friends of mine. but the fact of the matter is, may be because of ratings, but they are the leaders, they are the agitators for the purity cause. for saying, if you don't agree with me 100% of the time, you are a bad person. that is the opposite how you win in our system. the american two party system is about a bigger party. it's about addition and multilocation, not division and subtraction. mitt romney got 60 million votes last time. if you think we are going to have a party where 60 million people are voting on everything, you need your head examined.
my wife and i don't agree on everything. she says i have the right to be wrong sometimes. [laughter] cannot get towe where you have to agree on everything to be a good republican. one of the biggest victories we had in 1994, one of the things i was most proud of, in state after state, you see pro-choice pro-lifen voters for republican candidates and vice versa. he agrees with me on 10 issues out of 12, and i'm not going to vote. that is how parties are supposed to think. until we get back to that, we are going to have a hard time. >> on this prior point, there was or is a national civics
curriculum that looks at k-12 that would leave us with more fully functioning citizens going out into the world as they move into college and become voting age. i think there has to be an intentional commitment to that kind of work in schools. we are asking a largely public school system to do some things that are risky. i technology that. social studies teachers, when they are dabbling in government works and how they function, you know you're on shaky ground sometimes. you might get some parent group coming into complaints. that is where collectively voices can stand up and say we cannot avoid to teach these students -- to cheat these students out of some understanding of this country. a lot of work has to be done on that.
i'm going to tell a short story. when i first went to work in the senate as a press secretary, it was in 19 summary nine. there was a piece of labor legislation to reform labor law. i worked for the chairman of the senate labor committee, very prounion democrat. as i wrote a press release one day, it was aimed at orrin hatch, leading to filibuster against labor law reform. i wrote a quote "any senator who would suggest that the slightest leads to mandatory unitization --mandatory unionization breaks truth to the breaking point." he's took me out in the hall, and he said you better be damn glad if that press release didn't go out. that puts in the mouth of our
boss a statement that calls one of the colleagues in a statement a liar. stretches truth to the breaking point? that is toxic language compared to what we have now? [laughter] my question is, who are the people taking the young hotshot preceptors in washington? who are those enforcing some sense of civility in our discussion? the media is gone. they used to be something like a referee. now they are more a part of the problem than the solution. collectively, it might sound will martin -- sound school marmish, these people that throughout these toxic courts, that is not how we conduct ourselves in politics.
let me ask one question before we turn it over for questions. your point about setting standards was very well taken. brett, from your point of view, what can newspapers and news organizations do to set better standards in this regard? can they do anything? is that a lost cause? >> that is a great question and answer.n a 2 minute [laughter] look, there has been a shallow in of the news. it turns out that not only it makes for bad journalism, it makes for bored readings. it's not an accident that the newspapers that are still doing reasonably well are the ones that take the deeper dives. in the country of 300 million, if you have even 1% of the
country, that is a lot of readers. the journal has 2.4 million. we would like to get to 1%. bucking thens almost irresistible trend towards catering to the audience preferences. and what seems to be popular now. it means, essentially, following nition that youo don't know what you want until i give it to you. you did note that you wanted an iphone until you got one, then you could not live without it. i think the news business could do something similar, which is to try and wrest back control of who gets to set the agenda. there is a wonderful line in "scoop," a novel in which the
lord whatever his name is, the all press baron asks that questions be answered with "yes sir" or "up to a point, sir." a lot of we do in the news business should be considered in an up to a point way. of course we want our readers to be in sync with us, like what we do, but up to a point. we want to have grown ups in charge of the newspapers, not be slaves to audience preference. that is true in academia, where i sometimes feel professors have lost the agenda setting prerogative. may be in government as well, where senators are terrified of being primaried. how do you get the grown-ups to be in charge? it is a great question. i don't think liberalism
survives almost those grown-ups -- survives unless those grown-ups reassert those prerogatives. host: let us open it up since we have these mics. would love to hear from you. i understand that george washington in the early days of our country warned of the beginning of the two-party system being the death of the republic. so this year in the primary what i am seeing, and i understand that in primaries, there will always be a disagreement and people citing mean things about each other. but in this particular year, candidate after candidate has said that one of the candidates is a con artist, a pathological liar, dangerous. all sorts of scary things. is now suddenyly that he
presumably going to be the nominate, suddenly that is okay. i have a problem with the idea that party politics is just some kind of a game. i think the preservation of our country as we know it should be more important than that. i'm wondering how you see those things. yeah.l, [laughter] mike mentioned that wonderful phrase from pat monahan, defining deviancy down. we have a new normal in this country where serious presidential candidates get away with saying things that i find a scandalous. that is not going to stop unless some larger number of americans say no, this is not right at all
and we will run you out of our political system for saying these things. this is what worries me about this political season. bear in mind, i will say something overtly partisan -- these are the candidates we are getting. when growth is around 2%. one-day growth is going to be minus 2%. what are we going to get then? and what will be considered all right then? one last point -- you mentioned george washington. i was rereading the other day -- george washington spent time as a young man writing out rules for conduct and stability. it is well worth reading, not spitting in public or how to comport himself with a lady. this is how the republic was founded, with a man of that kind of character. and republicans especially, go on about the character issue, may be should care more about the character of the candidates
they put forward for high office. >> let me make one observation about the two party system. montesquieu, or one of the 19th century french philosopher's said that the two party system is the miracle of america because it acted like a teeter tottering. if one pottery got -- one party got too far this way, the public would run to the middle. that certainly hasn't happened in either party this time. one of my old friends from the white house days said, can you understand any of this? i said no, nobody can. i have never seen anything like it. >> he said yeah, that had to create a new term after sanders and trump. it's called electile dysfunction. [laughter]
we are hoping one of the big pharmaceutical companies-- [laughter] >> i think we all needed that. thank you. >> mr. stevens made a remark that i fully agree with. i too would be concerned if we 2%come a country with a minus growth rate, reminiscent of the early 1930's. my questioning goes to the , when there was a presentation of statistics that the negativity that is felt towards our potential candidates for president. over the past 30-40 years, we have seen a diminishing percentage of our citizens voting.
are we going to continue to see that? and if so, is it that i real threat to the democracy? actually we haven't seen a diminution sense 1972. there is a good reason why it dropped, is because 18-year-olds got the vote, and they still don't use it. the real changes in the electorate, other than increasing numbers of residents, since 2008, turnout has been higher than it as ever been. yet it hasn't resulted in changing this conflict. one thing that concerns me, you look at the public opinion polls and see that voters have much more extreme views then nonvoters. it seems obvious that you should give some of the nonvoters to vote.
the evidence shows once they become voters, they become just like voters. [laughter] in a have just as extreme views. i hate to be negative on this. turnout is probably not the problem. the problems are probably deeper than that. >> i was wondering about how much the polarization has to do and the gap between wealthy poor? i had a question for the governor. if you were still in the committee, the republican national committee chairman, would you have endorsed trump? [laughter] choices.s a series of [laughter] and if the choice for president is hillary clinton and donald trump, i'm going to vote for donald trump. it wasn't my first choice. but that's the choice that i've
got. campaigns, through 2 a third-party candidate is a vote for clinton. you might as well go and vote for clinton instead of some third-party candidate. i was chairman of the republican national committee. id on't know if you were born then. [laughter] no, okay, thank you for that. not my party. and donald trump is going to get 12 or 13 million votes in the primaries, not mine. mine was not one of those. and i'm noton, going to put my opinion, my views above these people. they have the right to pick the nominee. and i have the obligation to
compare the choices. i voted for some democrats in my life, don't get my wrong. i'm just not going to vote for this one. >> what we do know is that periods of american politics in which partisan divisions have been the largest are also once in which economic divisions have been the largest. earlier, polarization was quite high during the gilded age through the 1920's. theously a period in which golden age was one of high economic inequality.lots of polarization and he was history from the 1930's to the 1970's, the lowest recorded levels of economic inequality. the upward trend begins in 1975, which is not quite steadily the the same time economic inequality started going up. there's a lot of debate about what the causes are. but i think that based on my
work and others that there is some causal relationship. that different groups of americans suffer different economic success. it polarizes the discourse and leads to greater divisions. what we said about low growth. economic inequality and low growth tended to correlate with one another. and low growth does lead to political extremism, as we have seen in the u.s. and increasingly throughout the rest of the world. >> thank you. thank you for a great panel. this has been terrific. >> thank you for sharing oyyour thoughts. very appreciative. my question is along the lines of the difference between governance and ideology.
we see ideology playing out for several decades, as far as what colbert would call truthiness. the idea where facts are now see n as subjective, not objective. and that please so much and are -- that plays so much in our convertible campaign process. now i see it much more read into our governance. we have stayed legislatures -- state legislatures in texas that propose solutions to nonexistent problems. and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on problems that don't exist, but exist in people's minds, or placed there through politics. again, not based on fact, the solely on opinion or identity
politics. what do we do about how it creeps into the way we govern? i had a democratic majority in the state house everyday. and i had a democratic majority in the senate seven years out of 8. the last thing that i wanted was a partyline vote. what did we do? we nature the democrats understood my job was to get the job done. that we had problems that we had to do with, an big problems. ote withouta winning democrats over. we did it by focusing on solving problems. lott, io tell trent would like to say he was a
third-year law student and i was a freshman. i would say, trent, senators talk about doing things, and governors do things. [laughter] that is the attitude that you have to have. together andrk learn to work the job. it doesn't have to be 100% my way every time. i have an ideology, but my job is to get the job done. >> i want to defend the press, since we are here. 100th anniversary of the pulitzer. a surprising thing for a guy that used to be the human piñata for the press. [laughter] the ability to make facts come alive, and make the truth important enough and vivid enough that people engage it
regularly -- that is the hallmark of brilliant journalism. for not sufficient journalists ti sao say, we haveo tweetw welikes, more have to boost circulations,. that is never been the task of the journalist. the task has been to take the important information and make it interesting enough of that people will pay attention. we did not know enough slaughterhouses in chicago until the muck makers mucked. that is what we have to get more out of. i tell editors and folks that i meet with all the time, we understand in politics that you have to say things over and over again for them to penetrate. you in the news business, we tell you once, and we've given you the news. therefore is no longer news and we don't have to report it
again. these things that matter need to be on the front page day after day. with interesting angles and different takes and new perspectives. we get some of that. i don't wnat to shortchange the journalism out there. we need more of that if we are going to get people to focus on what is important. [applause] >> if we could thank our panel for this terrific conversation. thank you so much. [applause] this is an amazing family story if you think about it. terrible cool tees, great love affairs, but where fathers killed their sons. where whites had their husbands -- where wives had their husbands overthrown and murdered.it was a family unlike any other. >> sunday night on q&a, a
discussion on "the romanovs: 1630-1918" about the dynasty that ruled russia for over 300 years. >> all the girls and children were wearing their own bizarre bullet-proof vests. not bulletproof vests, but vests sewn with the romanov diamonds. hundreds of diamonds have been sown into their underwear so they could have money in case they escaped. sewingd spent months these diamonds in. when the bullets came, tragically, these made their agony and education much longer. because the bullets bounced off diamonds, the hardest substance known to man. and they did not die. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. defense secretary ashton
carter talks about efforts to modernize the military. than the president's special envoy for the coalition to counter isis takes questions from reporters at today's white house briefing. essential candidates hillary clinton and donald trump speak at separate events earlier today in washington dc. defense secretary ashton carter spoke about efforts to modernize the military at a defense 1 tech summit in washington dc. he spoke with defense 1 executive editor kevin barron, who asks about the president' recent decisions to allow for additional airstrikes against the taliban in afghanistan. this is one hour. please welcome executive editor of defense 1, and the secretary of defense ash harder. -- ash carter. [applause]
ladies and gentlemen, thank you much for being here and thinking it is a thrill and honor to have secretary carter here. those of you at home or watching at home as well. some quick points from his bio, before i give him the microphone. he became secretary last year. before that we knew him in the pentagon for a while. he was the deputy secretary of 013.nse from 2011-2 that is like the coo of the building, where things go, and
where things are probably buried. before that he was the under secretary of defense which was the pentagon weapons buyer. before that, in the clinton administration he was the assistant secretary of defense for international security. the guy that has to go around the world. he has been through it all. the middle part gets more interesting and relevant for today where the secretary spends time in boston and other corporations working in the field of technology and innovation. that is what he brought with him back to the pentagon and part of what is at the core of what he is trying to do. he was a distinguished fellow at stanford hoover institution. he was advising investment firms. at harvard kennedy school he was the professor of science and international affairs. he was chair of the international and global affairs faculty. he was on the boards of a miter corporation.
before that, longer ago, even longer ago, he had his degree from yale where he studied physics and medieval history, of course. [laughter] before he gets medieval on all of us, will let him get to his speech and hear what he has to say. a round of applause for secretary of defense. [applause] sec. carter: thank you, kevin, thank you for having me here and organizing what is really an extraordinary gathering and meing on the airplane with all of the world. do very much appreciate that. i want to thank all of you. i want to thank all of you participants what is america's wonderful, innovative open technology community. it is one of our country's great strengths.
i am committed to building -- at rebuilding the bridges between our national security endeavors at the pentagon and innovators throughout the nation. from the tech innovators in silicon valley, yes, but many other hubs and places around the country. i visited silicon valley four times as secretary of defense, but a week before last was with the submarine engineers in an electric boat in connecticut. it is very widespread. it is the pride of the country and the strength of the country, our entire technology base. as we continue building these bridges, i am also focused on promoting the great innovators who are within the department. in the labs, schools, on the battlefield. you heard from some of them today. our innovators, our senior leaders involved in both of these critical and
interconnected missions. alongside the many technology and business and academic leaders who joined the discussion today, they play a critical role in accelerating the spirit and innovation we need to maintain our edge in a complex and changing world. what i wanted to do is describe the logic of my commitment to this agenda. the actions we are taking to pursue it. describe how these efforts and they continued creativity and engagement of so many of you will enable us to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. now, when i began my career as kevin pointed out in physics, most technology of consequence of originated in america. much of that was sponsored by the government, particularly the department of defense. today we are still sponsors, but more technology is global.
the technology base is commercial. indeed, the security environment today is also dramatically different from the way it was 25 years ago. requiring new ways of investing and operating in its own right. we have come a today, as you know, no fewer than five immediate strategic challenges -- countering the prospect of russian aggression and coercion, especially in europe managing , historic change in the vital asia-pacific region where china is rising, which is fine, but i but behaving aggressively, which is not. strengthening our deterrent and defense forces in the face of north korea's nuclear provocations, checking uranian aggression in the gulf, and confronting terrorism, including accelerating the certain defeat
of isil in iraq and syria, and wherever it metastasizes in places like afghanistan. since, moreover, we have a pretty good record of never predicting successfully the strategic future. we have to also be flexible and agile, preparing for it. preparing for unknowns we cannot anticipate. in the department of defense we do not have the luxury of choosing between these challenges, or between acting in the present and investing in the future. we have to accommodate both changes in technological landscape and strategic landscape, we have to do it all. to stay ahead of these challenges and stay the best i have been pushing the pentagon, all of us, to think outside of the five sided box and invest
aggressively in innovation with innovative technologies and innovative practices, and innovative people. let me address each of those in turn. first we are investing in high technologies to enhance our own asymmetric and hybrid capabilities. overall, the budget invests nearly $72 billion in r&d. let me give you context -- that is more than double what apple , intel, and google spent last year combined. that includes $12.5 billion specifically invested in science and technology to support groundbreaking work happening in the dozens of labs and engineering centers across the country, as you just heard about from mary miller. it also includes investments and work in innovative companies, and universities and darpa to develop and advance some of the
disruptive technologies and capabilities that steve walker talked about earlier today. we are making groundbreaking advances in areas like undersea systems, hypersonic's, electronic warfare, big data analytics, advanced material, energy and propulsion, robotics, autonomy, and advanced since and computing. those funds also support the growing nationwide network of public, private manufacturing innovation institutes. we are working with companies, universities and research labs to fund technologies like 3-d printing, advanced materials, integrative photonics, and digital manufacturing and design. we announce a new one this spring, focused on revolutionary textiles. they combine fibers with electronics to create fabrics that can sense communicate, store energy, change color, and
much more. another we announced last fall is focused on flexible hybrid electronics which makes it possible to shape lightweight, structural integrity sensors onto ships, bridges, aircraft and so on. meanwhile, also investing to continue to make dod a leader in innovation investment in cyber security. the department of defense has three missions in cyberspace. first, the highest priority -- defending the networks and weapon system. that his job one. they are no good if they have been hacked. our second mission is to help our partners across the government defend the nation against cyber attacks from abroad. the third mission is to provide offense of cyber options that can be used in a conflict, as we are doing now against isil in iraq and syria. the latest defense budget, we are investing more in all three missions, a total of $35 billion in the next five years.
a great deal of that is helping to modernize and secure dod's hundreds of networks. all the while, where pushing forward with breakthroughs in cyber technology by creating network defenses that can swiftly adapt to threats and self patch practically in real-time. technical innovation and investment is necessary, but not sufficient. we have to pursue innovative practices and organizational structures. the world we live in demands it. the cold war with characterized by strength of the leaders having more and vigor weapons. today's era of competition is characterized by the additional variables of speed and agility. such that leaving the race now depends on who can out innovate faster. it is no longer just a matter of what we buy, it also matters a lot how we buy them.
how quickly we buy them, whom we buy them from. how quickly and creatively we are able to use them in different ways, all of this to stay ahead of future threats. our dod labs and engineering centers are embracing new --hods and practices needs to meet the needs faster, more efficiently and effectively. we have encouraged this. i have encouraged this through persistent reform such as better buying power. six years ago, under secretary of acquisition and just ask, dod began buying power to continuously improve the way we bought. secretary under frank kendall, , we are under a third version of that. focused on reducing cost growth and cycle time through greater use of prototypes, modular open systems and architectures, and accelerating the integration of commercial technology. it all comes down to meeting the needs of the war fighter faster,
more efficiently, and more effectively. in what is an intensely competitive world. this is a particular focus of dod strategic capabilities office. you heard about that from will roper. when i created it in 2012, i was deputy secretary of defense, i did that to help reimagine existing systems and our inventory by giving them new roles and game changing additional capability that would confound our enemies. we are building fast. i think you mentioned this -- resilient micro drones that can be thrown out of a fighter jet at mach 9 heavy winds. magazinen air board that can fit different payloads. these are just a couple of examples about what they're doing. stay tuned.
tuesday innovative going forward, dod has to continue to be open to new ideas and new partnerships, that is why we have embarked on initiatives like the startup and silicon valley. i was there last month to announce we are iterating the effort to be next level. diux 2.0, if you'd like. first of all, it is a nationwide release. there is a second office to be located in boston. you'll hear more about that in july. we will have more processing power since the budget requests include $30 million in new funding to direct to nondirectional companies with emerging commercially-based technologies that meet our military needs. of course its principal purpose is to connect innovative companies with that $72 billion of annual overall innovation
funding. we have upgraded the operating system with a new partnership style your ship structure led by raj shaw, a combat veteran and cofounder and ceo of a successful technology startup. we will keep iterating together and learning from each other going forward. that is the point. that is also a reason why i had recently created the defense innovation board. to advise me and future defense secretaries on how to continue building bridges on how we continue to change to be more competitive. i am pleased that eric schmidt is serving as the first chair. he is doing a great job putting together the rest of the board. today i can tell you this board will include for example, reid hoffman, the lead of linkedin.
mcraven,mmander bill and the noted historian of innovation, walter isaacson. we have additional innovators lined up. stay tuned. they will begin their work over the summer. i expect to receive their first recommendations in the fall. among other things i have charged them with helping keep the secretary of defense to keep the dod imbued with a culture of innovation in people, organizations, and technology. to support people who innovate. to support those creative figures in the department willing to try new things, fail fast and innovate and iterate and ensure that we are always doing everything we can to stay ahead of potential adversaries.
i stress innovation in people because as good as america's technology is, it is nothing compared to the people. they are the key reason why the military is the finest fighting force in the world. in the future we have to continue to recruit and retain the very best talent for what is after all, and all volunteer force. that is why we are building what i call the force of the future, to ensure amidst all of the changes in generations, technologies, and labor markets, we are always postured to bring in, developed, and retain the best young men and women that america has to offer. as part of that, we are implementing new initiatives to give some of our own people military and civilians the opportunity to get out, spend time outside and learn how the rest of the world works outside of our walls. for example we are broadening the corporate fellows program, including by opening it up to qualified enlisted personnel. another example is the career
intermission pilot program, which lets people take a sabbatical from military service for a few years while they get a degree, learn a new skill, or start a family. we are looking for ways to allow more of america's brightest minds to come into the dod, maybe just for a short time. maybe for one project. but to contribute to the great mission of protecting america and making a better world. we're working with as president entrepreuners. we will hire a chief recruiting officer to bring in it top executives for leadership roles, as we have done in the past with dave packard, cofounder of hp who also served as secretary of the fence deputy. he is one of the people who got me into this business. we have created the new defense digital service you heard from , chris lynch earlier today. he is helping us bring encoders
with companies like palantir and shopify for what we call a tour of cuty. they have solved problems like improved data sharing to make sure veterans get access to the benefits. we are also nearing completion, as i stand here today, of our called hack the pentagon. we invited vetted hackers to test our cyber security. this is similar to the bug bo unties that many tech companies have. a best practice in the world. that we are conducting the first ever one done by the federal government. it has exceeded our expectations. over 1400 hackers registered, they have discovered over 100 bugs so far. they are helping us to be more secure at a fraction of the cost.
in a way that enlists the brilliance of the hackers rather one to learn the lessons of the black hackers. the force is full of talented people, some active-duty, but also reservists who have saved networks for us by hunting down intruders, performing forensics that help keep them secure, and combating our adversaries in the cyber realm. these are some of the actions we are taking to build the force in the future in a way that reinforces our innovation initiative. we also have announced action to help retain talent. helping to retain service members by helping them balance their commitments to the force and their families, through expanded maternity and paternity leave, extended childcare hours on bases, and by offering military members of families the possibility of geographic
deployment flexibility in return for additional service commitments. yesterday, i announced the next two links in the force of the future. the pentagon courtyard to expand our ability to attract, train and retain the best talent to expand our ability to attract, train and retain the best talent america has to offer. side, we've ry proposed changes to the romotion system to allow military officers to pursue broadening opportunities like earning their doctorate or other advanced training or doing a tour within industry, to temporarily defer when promotionnsidered for without being penalized by timeline restrictions. move.ig we've also moved to allow civilians with very specific skillsets, such as cyber and other scientific and technical qualifications, to enter the at a level s comensurate with their experience. permit this for doctors, but not for other jobs
that are not only high-skill, hard to fill, rapidly changing and in high demand by sector.ate we're proposing changes that in our ster innovation civilian workforce. for example, we have proposed recruiters to hire top talent directly from college campuses. for , for the first time us. a kid graduates, ain't going to an offer from he government, from dod, to ripen for six months. that's not the way we're going miss the good ones. we're expanding the dod stem, exchanges with the private sector and we'll better leverage our to directlyhorities hire what are called highly into jobs xperts across the department. today, we only have 90 such people on board across the department. heard from two of them today, chris lynch and will
roper. i'm sure you'll all agree we're service, f for their and we will be well served to include more incisive thinkers contributing ctly mission from national defense. competing for good people from all volunteer forces is a critical part of our military edge and everyone should understand this need and my commitment to it. to ave always been able out-innovate our enemies, because we have our people, the operators, the innovators from our military and civilian force, as well as our our nation's d overall wonderful strength, which is its technology base. creatively, are flexible, who have always been ble to combine our advanced technology with creative operational practices to solve a problem at hand. in order for our people to continue accelerating the breakthroughs and progress that dominance, ontinued we have to back them up with the reedom to innovate and take
risks. and also, a stable and secure environment. i remain reason is why concerned about proposals in the draft defense bills in congress the would undercut bipartisan budget agreement reached just last year, and it was supposed to guide our budget years.o the unravelling of bipartisanship could end up in a which is sequester, our greatest risk as a department. also objectionable in a time of war, are provisions cutting the overseas war-fighting accounts. and there are also some new and unstudied managerial proposals, adding and moving boxes here and there, that the department's recommended.as not i'd hoped that such micromanagement will not be a enacted mdaa.y a role in ensuring the success of the national security mission.
for those interested in foreign national security, there are a lot of interesting challenges and problems to work on. this is also true for those in technology, but the intersection of the two is and an opportunity-rich very fulfilling environment. all for to thank you being here today for considering he words of the foreign-thinking individuals from government, business and academia who shared their thoughts with you already today. my pledge to you is that you will always have are a strong willing partner in america's defense.nt of we may not know how to do it, or perfectly, but we're always trying to do it better. helping defend your country for defend your to country and making a better world is one of the noblest leader ort a business a technologist or an person neur or a young can do with their life. and we are grateful to all of
passion, the the interes interests, the spirit of us all on that makes stronger and safer. so thank you. . [applause] kevin: well, thank you, mr. andetary, for those remarks thoughts. some of us have heard you say before repeatedly throughout the year in your effort, and some are new. maybe one way to start off, and as i was standing there listening to you go through all new efforts and the expansions that are happening, just heard from a lot of folks who are interested, but some skeptics as well, but b do, either trying to on the whole or specifically valley duix silicon outreach. do you understand that
skepticism? better question -- the - you know, you budget for that particular budget would jump to $30 million. new leadership in place. a lot of folks who know the defense department think, that's to whatole lot compared the defense department spends. why is this not something with a of e-star general, a staff bust level y really dod type thing? good very : two important points. first of all, are we iterating, re we making -- it is experimental for a reason. we're trying things out and why i just made some big changes in it. that's fine. that's like, you know, good do.ovators they start down one direction, and they decide that i should bit, and that's what we're doing, and that will continue to happen, by the way. fact that we're doing that and, in fact, that we're
my blishing more reflects confidence in the basic idea, which is to have another way -- just another way, because connectingy ways, of to the wonderful innovative ecosystem of the united states. it's a way of signifying that a way of making a funnel that can come into the $30 billionnot just worth, but $72 billion worth. o it's the connection that is important. now, i also want diox, because will be an exchange place and trading post from which innovative people come back and when it have some money itself sees an opportunity. but one of the principal things connecting s connecting eople
innovative people to our mission. and where they can plug in to the department of defense. that's its principal focus. and as you probably know, kevin, know because of your own expertise, we have to work on -- i'll use an engineering term, being a trained person, the impedence match between government and industry, between operates e government and the way in the private sector -- now, not all of that gulf will ever be bridged. mean, the public sector is the public sector. way here we can change the we operate to make us more connected to those who are that's pretty much -- that's principally in he area of speed at which we act, the speed at which we make decisions, the speed at which we funding to r & d principally in that area. that.ed to do otherwise, we won't be the most agil. competitive world, if ou're not agile, you're not
going to be the best and we need to be the best with everything changing and we keep everything i've just described in a good kind of way. innovation.spirit of but i'm confident in the concept of diux, because i'm confident connecting the defense department to the world of innovation is one of the secrets military 's future strength. kevin: tell me more about the progress of that connection and gap.ing the a hink we talked about this .ittle on the ride home the defense secretary was the go to the world economic forum. and ambassadors and it's switzerland of all places, so it's really not for the military, but the reception was fairly warm and i remember asking you then, i want you to
give us a progress report, of he reception that you're hearing or feeling from the meeting, both at the ceo level, compared to the erception of some of the reporting of the ground swell of this military divide between men and guys like chris wail out in the valley. why's the reality of it and are they willing to bridge the gap? is it because it's good for usiness or any newer sense of patriotism like you said in your remarks? sec. carter: first of all, the generally, is over whelmingly gratifyingly positive. not because we're so great at what we're doing or how approach, but because these are people who want to make a difference in life. that's why they're in our culture so it's in their nature to make a difference and the mission really inspires people. mean, keeping people safe, creating that life that allows people to get up in the morning school, their kids to leave them
work, live off to heir lives, their lives, dream their dreams, create their family, creating that environment, contributing to that mission, that's really inspiring. so these are people who want to .ct in an inspired way difference make a and contribute something. of our people do this and are there reservations? two principal reservations, kevin, you touched on both of them. is, well, i hope clunky tion isn't too for me to connect to and there, it puts the burden on us to try to open up the door and easier for ible and people to connect to us. is about, and x
letting people and ideas go back and forth, so we've got to make easier. the other thing is, are we going to put any restrictions on people? and there , we also try to minimize the restrictions and the we understand and that this is an open business community, that the internet is and a free internet is a value all by itself and we're standing for the values of our society. defending. we're so we are adapting to that as well. to me, those are hesitations people legit mely have are job to overcome them. >> one of the executives you met elanmusk.week was what was that talk about? sec. carter: great innovator. innovation.t great one of the
innovators of our country. me, he and i ng to have a great relationship that goes back years. he takes an interest in what we're doing. we didn't talk business there. that wasn't the point of that. other people do that for me, but we were talking innovation in every way, and i'm looking for people like that. why the defense innovation board is so important people whouse i want have innovative experience to try things themselves and come say, you know what, here's something i did that worked, and i can say to myself, hmm, i wonder if i can apply that here. of that perfect example everybody does that outside. and why aren't we doing that, if a good idea? it turned out there was no reason we couldn't do it so we it's been really great . evin: what are some of the other -- or prioritize the successes that come from out of this.f you were deputy secretary, under-secretary, you've been
trying to change and stream line long time. for a here you go, there's a room full of folks, a lot of them are acquisitions and program managing. what do you think of your roudest achievement changes so far and what happens to happen sooner? sec. carter: well, there are things we're trying to do in addition to being agile and innovative. one is we're trying to be so it was a big priority for me as acquisition executive to make -- and that's better buying power, to make sure that we get he best use of the taxpayer doll dollar. we owe them that and, by the it's ore importantly, easier for me to go and argue ith the congress, which is difficult in today's environment f -- you know, i mentioned gridlock and everything. it's tough in washington. for the money we need to protect ourselves. for that off arguing if i can also show that we're
us g every dollar they give well, and i wasn't satisfied as that as undersecretary for acquisition technology and and i wanted to improve that. and i still want to improve, and successor frank kendall wants to improve that, and that also is an imperative that every out there constantly get leaner, constantly do better, drive cost out of things. that in our programs too, because then we et more for the dollar, and we get more trust for the dollar. and then we have to be in our war practices, too, quite honestly. so i told you about the problems now.ce right you follow very closely what we're doing with isil. isil.going to defeat we have to defeat isil. it's a new kind of enemy. hat means we need to be innovative in how we go about it. using air we're power. we're using all kinds of partners that we can work with here who can hold and govern territory that we take back and help them take back from isil,
using new things that we haven't suicide befo -- that we haven't suicide before, like cyber. talking about prioritizing all these things, we have to be innovative across the board and 'm completely committed to it and, moreover, it is i think understood in our department that that is a key to just me.e, so it's not you've heard it from other people today, and most people in our society know that to be good, you've got to be agile. couple of for a more, and then we'll turn to the audience. we know you have a hard stop to leave. mentioned isil and i wanted to ask about -- we had a darpa to daesh, and about the speed of technology getting to the today's warfront, which are so more either ncreasingly or more importantly, special operators, doing elite work that's often
secretive. with the pace ed of that new technology reaching those guys now? sec. carter: never. any question you ask me that satisfied"? "am i no because we've got to do everything better. that's not to indict us. it just means we've got to aspire to doing better. getting stuff out in the field faster and faster is important. now for, experience you know, seven years, most of the lion's share of that time afghanistan and iraq, and getting things into field. in the case of the mrap, for lives, we hich saved had to do things outside the system in order to get the war they wanted. you say, well, what kind of system do you have in order to
what they fighter need, you've got to go outside the system. well, there's an answer to that. system that is basically meant to buy things over a long period of some time, and the best things. that's a problem when you have ongoing operations and, by the rapidlys a problem in a changing world. so making our acquisition system run more quickly, the war taught us some things. otherwise, you know, there's not a whole lot to say great about having a war. we had to do what we had to do and, you know, people made great sacrifices for it. one little ave silver lining on it, which is we learned a lot about agility. mrap's an example, all our counter-id stuff. sadly, we've made advances in medicine in response to things tbi, prostheses and other
places. also today's fights, and in the fights we don't want, but say north happen, korea, again, you've got to be an innovator. ou've got it say to yourself, if something happened there, what would i have wished i had done? what tomorrow would i have i'd done today. and boy, you don't want that wish list to be very long. you mentioned north korea. there's a sense that because of the wars we're hearing about, of war and the act of fighting, it is special operative focused and units, and at the same time, we have two aircraft carriers in the same region. and have nuclear concerns still have big worries. sec. carter: the full spectrum. you're absolutely right, from high-end -- what's called high-end. but even the low end, as i've out, i mean, you can consider the counter-isil fight not really. it's no fight today is truly low end.
so we've got to do it all, and to that.rt i mean, we stand watch just in north korea every -- you know, slogan there is, "ready to fight tonight," and nobody wants to do that, but we're ready. kevin: so one more question, staff to givevent us our game clock here so i can make sure we're on schedule for the secretary. in the last e news day was reports in afghanistan, change toare going to allow for greater strikes or to airstrikes on the taliban. can you confirm or expand on out there? ing sec. carter: i can. the president made a decision to enable the commander there to additional authority to act proactively. that is, to anticipate afghan ns in which the security forces would benefit from our support.
this is using the forces we have in a better way, basically, s we go through this fighting season. rather than han -- being simply reactive, and, yeah, this makes good sense. it's a good use of the combat power that we have there. our mission is the same, which is to help the maintain control of the ountry and to avoid having a counterterrorism challenge once again. from afghanistan. so that's what we're up to. now enable our ommander there to do this in a more effective way using the there, and he has to general suant dunford's and my discussions with him.
the president gave it his full support, and i'm grateful for that. make and good move to help the lly help us afghans even better this fighting season. kevin: okay. thanks for answering. we have very limited time. these things go fast, and they really depend on how fast he reads the speech. [laughter] i'll call for one question get it and hopefully eyesighto someone in my sec. carter: kevin, go ahead. late. start a little kevin: to the event staff, you heard it from him. a . carter: i'll try to give short answer. audience: tom risen u.s. news and world report. thank you, mr. secretary. i know you're very busy. have we lost some military tech dvantage against china because of their increasing research and -- theft ofe fact our weapons system, are we
that to regain some of advantage with the third offset strategy? sec. carter: well, yes, and yes. china has, in the last 25 years, mproved, obviously, its economy, the standard of living with its people and with that omes advance of its military apabilities, no question about that. and we have a number of allies friends in the region that we're always and equation he deterrent there, not just with respect to china but north korea and others in that region. mentioned russia also, which is trying to improve its military capabilities. of these are different situations and, again, no, we're not looking for conflict with those. but do they measure themselves against us? i'm sure they do.
making sure that the nited states military remains the best and, so to speak, the firstest with the mostest, is of ours? jective it certainly is, including the third offset. middle of t in the the aisle. audience: mr. secretary, shawnlingus with computer week magazine. hacking isil is unprecedented but as you probably know, during the surge in iraq, there were a lot of those digital tools used as well. draw upon ng how you those lessons learned from those -- from a few years ago? a good ter: well, it's question. did in iraq and afghanistan. recognize you have to using il's tradecraft in technology to advance evil
objectives, both operationally is ideologically unprecedented. frequently said, and i think it's basically right. al-qaeda was - if an internet generation terrorist is a social media generation terrorist group. the different, even than it was just a few years ago. so yeah, we learned some things from there and we can use some we used chniques that in afghanistan and iraq in those days. this really is different. even as what's on your desk is different today or in your three years t was ago, five years ago. up-to-datee guys are in that regard. in general.inking, [laughter] a good point.'s but you said in recent months,
.s. was engaging in cyber warfare with them in a way like never before and how -- you months ago. s sec. carter: it is like never before, which isn't to say we've but it is it before like never before, and we've priority.de it a and that's logical and to this room, that's probably unremarkable news. ut a lot of people associate the fight against isil with airstrikes and the things they and they may not realize that this is part of e part of the formula for success. nd we're going to have success in this area, and we need to do this. okay, another question, in the back. audience: thank you very much lab, alizing lincoln that language for a while. a question about future, is the
nitiation of broadening the education of the military and civilian leadership so that they understand the technology, what how to use ng and it, and if so, are there opportunities for world-class universities where you have military populations. i'm thinking of william and mary in the middle of hampton roads. they play a role, or is it just going to be military education? no.. carter: first of all, the future is our military and civilian workforce about the whole pipeline. it's about recruitment and sure that we're connected to the entire population. 'll remind you, for example, something i said yesterday, which is most of our new come from onlyts six states. to reach out.eed hat's why -- women in service, that's half of our population. i want to be able to draw from the entire pop -- if i want to the best people, at least people have to meet standards,
ut i want the widest possible pool, so it affects recruitment. it affects retention, which is this comes in. partly, people want to improve themselves. today's world, people know we all need to keep changing and improving. schoola that you went to and that you live the rest of your life on the backs of what learned years ago, that doesn't fly in today's world. we all have to keep learning. and people are going to only want to be with us and stick feel that they have opportunities to develop. o that's one of the reasons to it. plus, they get better, which means they do better stuff for us. and then, you know, retention is a complex matter. for e make decisions complicated reasons. i mentioned family programs, for example. are important for the very simple reason, we're not just trying to be nice to people. that's the nice thing to do too. but when people have been with
and, therefore, we have made an investment in them and they know a lot and they e very capable, and still have a whole career ahead we don't want somebody who's at that point to leave, all se they can contribute that going forward, and we've invested all that in the past. so you don't want to lose them then, but that happens to be the time when many people are having a family. matters whether you can consistent, with everything else we need to do. you know, we need to send people need to send them when we need to send them. can't do anything about that. that's the profession of arms. but where we can make it possible for people, easier for people to reconcile everything do, with re trying to us, that's in our interest. o it's a whole pipeline, accession, retention, in-service, the whole deal, and it's military and civilian. how we doe innovating that, because people are
in ning all kinds of ways human resources management that, you know, a generation ago weren't done. helps that. etwork, linkedin is an example of that. that's why i'm so glad reed has joined my innovation board. keep thinking o about how we manage our people if we're going to keep, retain the best. kevin: are we going to recruit a cyber colonel? bring someone in at 06, that level. sec. carter: that's the get from we have to congress. i'm seeking that kind of authority. now, i want our service chiefs trying to ries, i'm give them latitude, not rules. so i want them to decide which specialties and so forth that sense.ost so we'll see that over time as they think about it. the 'm trying to give them latitude to change where they see an opportunity that the rigidity doesn't permit exploit. kevin: i'll go right here to john.