tv Farah Pandith How We Win CSPAN April 16, 2019 8:56pm-10:09pm EDT
discussion of guaranteed savings accounts to help americans save for retirement with kathleen kennedy townsend of the economic policy institute and randi weingarten of the american federation of teachers. then we talk about 2020 presidential campaign with her publicans strategist robert smith. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on the morning. join the discussion. >> next follow a panel on how the extremist ideology and violence she's the first ever special representative in the muslim community under former secretary clinton. this is one hour ten minutes.
[applause] >> good evening. welcome. my name is alice greenwald and president and ceo of the 911 memorial and museum. as always it's a pleasure to greet you and to welcome everyone to tonight's program along with those jeanine in to our live web broadcast 911 memorial .org -- life. it is a special pleasure for me to welcome -- to the museum. were honored to have her participate in a public program cosponsored a few years ago with the us holocaust museum and during the museum's planning phase she graciously accepted our invitation to be interviewed for what ultimately became our reflecting on an 11 installation so we thank you again for that.
this evening she will help us consider practical proactive ways to counter extremist ideology. despite the years lives in billions of dollars spent fighting terrorist organizations extreme ideas continue to attract adherents and the threat of terrorism tragically persis persists. in dialogue with gideon, she will share powerful and seldom used strategies for addressing the scourge of global violent extremism. this happens to be the topic of her newly published book how we win and how cutting-edge entrepreneurs, political visionaries, enlightened business leaders and social media mavens can defeat the extremist threat. and she should know. leading expert in pioneer encountering violent extremism she serves as a political appointee under president george h to be brush, george w. bush
and rock obama. she was the first ever representative to muslim communities for the us department of state for both secretaries hillary clinton and john kerry. under president george w. bush she was director for middle east regional initiatives and the national council. chief of staff for asia and the near east. she's also served on the homeland security chairing its task force on countering violent extremism. currently she is a senior fellow at harvard university's john f. kennedy school of government and adjunct senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. gideon is the peter g chair and editor of foreign affairs, journal of the council on foreign relations. prior to this he was the senior fellow and deputy director of national security buddies at the
cfr. from 1994-1995 mr. rose served as associate director for near east and south asian affairs. he was on the staff of the national security council. he was assistant editor at the time of the international affairs magazine, national interest, from 1986-1987. at the domestic policy quarterly public interest from 1985-1986. following tonight's program we invite you to stay for a reception for you will have the opportunity to purchase the new book, how we win on the day of its release. without further ado please join me in welcoming -- in conversation with gideon rose. back. [applause] ...
of the war on terror that took place to respond to the challenge often made the problem worse rather than better. almost 20 years on, we can think about how we should have reacted and what we can and should do now. between stimulus and response, there is a space and in that enh space is our power to choose our response and they are lies our growth and freedom. what we did with the war on terror was to essentially react rather than respond. we need to be today knee-jerk temperature instead of thinking how should we solve these problems.
the work shows the alternative path that could have been taken. it is essentially that of sincerely asking there is a terrible problem of violent extremism in the world and produced an awful attack that destroyed the towers. what is the war against pat we e fighting and what is considered thoughtful and appropriate response to that and how could and should be used in such projects? i see your book as a guide so with that, let me get into the
details. what is the fight we are winning, who is the enemy and what is the fight? >> it's about a very specific kind of enemy and a terrorist organization to lure all muslims into their army. we all know that there are all kinds of different actors in this world and unfortunately in the time we are in today some of the lessons in this book apply to the rise of neo-nazis. they apply to a common person experiencing hate in their communities. we cannot win against these kind of trigger this. it's the only thing we are doing is preparing a strategy for a physical war because there is an ideological dimension we haven't
focused on. >> so it is like the demand side we can kill them off but we will be creating more of them than we are killing off. so, how do you fight extremism without getting into it in a way that minimizes and dampens the problem rather than exacerbati exacerbating? >> we have to understand a strategy needs to be put in place and it is and what is the most vital piece of political architecture in the world that we need to go after is that this part of the world or this, can we do a little bit over here and over there. it's to understand that ideas don't have walls. as i looked at almost 20 years the path that we have to take
requires us to understand that there is an ideological battle we have to fight and we need to go all into fight it and the generation of people that are being born into armies like isis are a very particular demographic. thosof those that have grown up post-9/11 having a very specific experience. there's something really big that happenifit happens that tht hasn't really understood. it's not just about what we need to do in the building in terms of the strategy you are writing it is to understand what's happening within the cultures to nearly a billion kids under the age of 30 around the world. >> let's say i'm a brilliant warrior, antiseptic and want to
build teams and prefer not to fight. i know what to do in the connecticut part of the job. i hear what you're saying. it resonates i want to do this other stuff, but what does it mean in practice what is the bottom line i can put in place if i want to supplement my efforts what does that actually mean? >> that is the stuff the government doesn't know how to do well. when you say we need to talk about the fact that most of the millennial's are having a crisis of identity, people's eyes glaze over. emotional stuff, cultural stuff, we don't know how to do that. you can tell me how many tanks need to go into a place or how many guns i'm going to need or how many troops need to go but you can't measure what you need
to do to move someone away from finding an appeal of an ideology, but that doesn't mean we can't figure this out. it seems even though all of them have said it mattered to know how to do that the piece we need to do when. >> i'm going to bring you onto my staff and give you a budget and go off and do the stuff that will help being force multiplier that person is responsible for the physical war happening in the world. who is the person who wakes up every day in our government and says how are we doing on the ideological war, there isn't anyone, there hasn't been anybody. there is no strategy since 9/11
economic council you are the ideological czar to reorient strategy and what do you do differently. >> in the bush administration and obama what do we do about the organization problem that we have and can we build and fix so that we can call for the probl problem. they haven't put the money into the ideological war. that's important to understand but it isn't a problem with structure. it's a problem with credibility. how can you build if the government is the only one playing, you can't.
they know what is taking place at the grassroots level so what the government has to do is figure out a way to scale back so they know what works at the grassroots level and make it into a 24/7 machine we need to deploy that kind of focus and attention, and frankly that kind of experience and money towards the problem. >> if we did this, essentially we would create a counter ideological force that would be a sort of benign and positive approach to thinking into doing things that would offer the potentially radicalize teenagers a choice.
do our own kind of mass diversion of public education and radicalization and the attempt to stop the radicalization process before it gets started. >> one of the things that's important before we even get there is what is it that we are solving for, it's not just there are kids who find this appealing you have to ask why why do they find it appealing and one of the things i think we have and unpacked that doesn't make sense is that more of the us versus them connected to a crisis of identity over the world so they are asking questions about what it means to be between culture and religion how can i let mine out loud and the weird thing is
you can understand that and actually but it's surprising because it isn't just happening with those living in the muslim majority countries that is the living as minorities. so both the demographic problem is huge and there are muslims under the age of 30 if you understand it's an identity crisis we have to try to solve for, the only voices that can help a person navigates through that can't be those that say i'm going to tell you how to be a better muslim. it's important in the agency is important, the money congress gets to embassies around the world to work on this project if it's only one sector doing something to allow them to do
what they know they can do that requires a partnership and cooperation across the sectors. government and the private sector as well as regular citizens themselves. >> to scale up and to distribute and maximize the benefit, somebody does a good program here and it works. you put the entire force of the community behind it and follow up and end up essentially crowd sourcing the problem and then the best ideas it makes perfect sense. if the intervention you can then scale up. >> i can't get them to watch the tv shows i'm going to watch or read the books i'm going to. if i can't do that with my kids, how are we going to do that with people in yemen changing their preferences and getting them
onto the right path? >> we would have a different problem on our. we have people in trinidad and in argentina and brazil. brazil. we have people into jacob stein and china are in india and pakistan think of the diversity of all of those countries. think about all the people that are growing up through an identity crisis that have understood that they can connect to what it means to be muslim by their peers in a social media platform, and i'm not going to call you it is one or the other. it's all of them combined. some are using instead, some are using pick your thing. if the messages they are getting from their parents because by the way your kids aren't going to listen to you. it's not going to be what you are watching your home but what
you are seeing in pictures and the emotion you're getting from your groups. >> we are helping, basically talent scouting around the world which neighborhood are we dealing with and who are the influencers in the neighborhood. some things have to exist you can't have a vacuum but the only thing that's been filled as when the bad guys comment. we need content to. >> its local constructive support groups and networks for
at risk youth around the world so they get some good influences as well as the same things they are getting in general society as well as a radicalized mosques and the community and belonging and oin the purpose and meaningt ties into the project that can be used. >> the central point is there isn't a monolith that is islam. there isn't one way of being muslim and kids need to understand they can live their identity out loud in a lot of different ways and what we are seeing around the world is instead of that happening, it is going in reverse. when kids are asking questions about what it means to be modern and muslim, they are seeing one answer. and one uniform way of thinking. and they are picking apart all of the diversity 1400 years of history that have been pulled apart so that they only see one way to live their religion in
the way they think is pure changing the nature of what the community feels like. what we have to understand is because of the demographics we are talking about, a billion kids under the age of 30 dealing with this can't stan constant a, every day in and with bad guys that are there interested and we are not, that's the problem we are facing because we don't even know what is coming, meaning we don't know how these kids are going to decide to live their identity out loud and what i
know is the government is limited in its ability to add a valuvalue at a community level. but it can do some really spectacular things it can be the facilitator and intellectual partner with the ideas we earn on the ground. it can bring attention and america especially to the ideological war because when it begins to say that it's going to do something, a lot of countries begin to say what is america doing it at the innovation doing with the creativity where is the partnership with the creativeness into the design thinking from the problem we have and most importantly this is the thing that absolutely kills me in the years that i've been working on this, i am not a social scientist. im somebody learning from what i see and when i talk to people about what i've seen and heard in the identity crisis people have asked me or their behavioral scientists you are talking to about the human brain because if it doesn't get mature
until 24, shortly the government has brought in the social scientists to talk to us about how to disrupt what they are seeing and of course we have not as you have been in government too and we know that doesn't happen so i want to turn things on its head and say if we know we can solve this at a local level and hear all the things we can do, all the actors we can bring forward to be able to work on this with us. >> preventing extremism or de- radicalization takes a village and in some ways what we are doing is helping generate the cultural and social to extremism that works by creating a healthy immune system and the society locally that can then fight off these bad set of ideological -- >> that is essentially what i'm saying because you cannot fight this if we are doing at the same
old way. we've tried for 20 years to do it, and we failed. >> i have two caveats because i think it is fascinating. i love the idea and it sounds like it would be great. number one is this, and i think you are onto something that is very important that is different from the way we usually talk about this which is we talk about the struggle against extremism or the war on terror or how to win the fights as if it is a classic binary structure, good guy bad guy, it is a symmetrical conflict but it's not really because what you are talking about its loss would say us fighting the saudis, it is us fighting with the saudis for control over the next space of the developing world. so, we are competing with the saudis for customers as it were, rather than hiding them and so
our efforts to reaso to raise an important agreement like this, that means our job isn't to fight the saudi efforts. our job isn't to stop the madras us or shut down the extremist preachers because there will be almost impossible to do. it's to provide what you're saying the way to win it isn't stopping the other people that provide a better product and have a better answer, do better efforts of our own that will provide a more compelling product and alternative that the clients and customers and developing worlds will want to choose if they can. i've written this book out of positivity. i do believe that there is a path forward that i want to say a couple things. number one, i am not saying that we can only do this if we fight a physical or.
but you can't only do it if you are doing the ideological war. there is a balance. what we've done is we have a warped system that all we've ever done is tried and experimented in the physical side. we think how can we do this and you mentioned saudi arabia. i will come back to that in a minute. the system that is undermining extremism, the thing that allows the us versus them ideology to grow and make a difference to these kids who are having a crisis of identity. what are those undermining the system one of which is the identity crisis and another of which is the kind of thing the countries we call partners and allies are doing that are actually at the end of the day destroying our ability to win
over and build antibodies. so, in the book i do talk about saudi arabia. every single country i went to nearly 100 countries around the world no matter where i went, this pernicious, violent idea of an us versus them and they monolithic islam was born in many different facets. so, it was seen by me with the eradication of cultural history for example. the same thing hitler did to make sure you can never remember the past that he has a new way of thinking about the world as they've done not to ancient mosques. translations that require us to
not see the tech but to see it through their eyes and the perspective of what it means to be a muslim. i picked up books that would say things like all jews are pigs. the printing of these kind of materials it was very dangerous to see that it wasn't just one part of the world. it was everywhere is one of the things is to look at the kind of relationship we have with saudi arabia and to understand there'e is more we can be doing to make sure there are things we know how to stop to stop and it isn't just one thing. it's not just the training with the publication, but it's this effort to make it a monolith and eradicate. >> let me give you the question. two possibilities.
you can do some kind of virus that will screw up the saudi dissemination program and hurt their efforts in spreading the model, screw up the translation or an leave their efforts aloned you can watch and through the u.s. sponsored version flooded the world with our version of things and support networks for the groups, the infrastructure for the community, whatever. what would ultimately produce more benefits do you think? >> can i use the amount of money they've spent over the last few days thanks i would still say it rather gate with the saudis are doing. >> their problem in radicalizing is actually a hugely significant thing that wouldn't just be countered by the efforts on the side. >> i'm not the only person that
has said this. and it isn't in the context of the brutal killing of the "washington post" journalist. it's about something much bigger and i would say that if we don't get a handle on that kind of ideology that's been spread over decades in a lot of ways we are not even tracking and don't know this but the listening matters. if we only apply our measurement stick by what must be happening in morocco because of their bad example you can't understand what's really happening. go to the border area and south america. go look at ancient cultures in south asia and ask your self what is it about the experience of being muslim that is so different than it was 30 or 40
years ago. what is the factor that has changed. and when you begin to ask that question and you will see what i saw and what i know to be true. this isn't just a thing that happened recently. this is a decades long and very deep and important for all of us to understand. it doesn't mean we can't be partners on other things. it seems as america we need to get serious about the fact putting troops on the ground and in places in the world we are fighting because ideology has been building over years and allows the groups to come in its incumbent to tell every american president has a child overseas ask the government to do more because there is a role for us to be playing as honest brokers on what we are seeing. >> would cue condition allies on the performance improving --
>> we haven't even begun to experiment on the kind of things we can do when we are thinking creatively about the kind of things in ways we can work with saudi arabia, one way has been lethal than they need to do this. they come back and say we are working on it and then we kind of go to the next year and we tell them that and they come back or we write a human rights report that is through the inner agency on how much we can really say about what they are doing and can we do this, but we need them for that. let's take that off the table for a minute because that hasn't been working for us. let's be more creative how we are doing things. if for example they tell us they have in fact been working on bringing them back let's say all these typical things the translation and there are not any more out there which is what they will tell you they've done such a good job.
>> if you say we've done such a good job -- interesting stuff. the u.s. government wasn't doing a good job at this stuff in the administration of supposedly cared about it. now after what comes next with realistic possibility is there that you could teach the united states government to do cultural listening, this is the real world so if that is your answer, doesn't that just mean we are
screwed? >> you've got all kinds of signals from wherever you go to buy that color of suit. everybody watching us today has little things that they get moved in a particular direction because of signals they are getting from the way people analyze behavior and the way we work on the web and go to stor stores. all that data is collected in tulsa for good story about who each of us are. i believe that in trying to deal with this problem that we are dealing with, we can't just wait for government to suddenly wake up and say okay i'm going to work on this and we are going to put in a lot of money. because even if we had all the money in the world, government can't do that alone for the reasons i told you, we are not credible, although it's kind of things. but we also don't have the latest information about how
people buy things and how they are persuaded, which is why it's so important for the private sector to actually get involved in this. i see a role for the private sector to play that isn't just about throwing money at a one-off kind of event that they say they are trying to fight as great as that would be and i wish there would be more of that happening around the world, therthatthere is a partnership n happen between companies that have knowledge about how humans behave coming u," the ngos are n the ground so that they are marketing people and the behavioral analytics and the way in which the function to move people into particular directions can be varie buried h what they are actually doing to stop hate. the people on the frontlines of this are actually nonprofit organizations. they work for every dollar they get to keep the lights on and pay salaries because that is the way they generally work. they go grant to grant and it's
really hard and they watch these beheading videos and pay attention to these awful things that most of us don't think about all day every day because if you are not in the space of working on stopping kids from joining a group like isis and instead of going to them and saying what can we do to help you do your job better at scale what it is you know after 9/11. what we are doing is saying keep looking for the money that you are trying to get him to prove to us you are going to stop doing this but meanwhile we are going to talk about other things, and i think there is a mismatch. when i think about if i could do anything how we think about these things there is a governmental role to play in a way that we described they don't have the kind of personnel to
build a brand when government that is going to fix this. the private sector companies that do this, why was he not use that? >> i hear you saying three things. one is this isn't primarily a problem the government can solve, certainly not the u.s. government, but the outside. and the efforts to do so aggressively by the u.s. government in an active and direct way with the bureaucratically screwed up, insensitive and put aside and do more harm than good. the government is able to play that is the coordinating directing and supervising forces mobilizing force chief community organizer. second, all the other players and actors that have human connections, all of the various
every plaintiff contact isn't just the official government that the government has a monopoly on violence, the government has no monopoly on the building so everybody is involved in the project, all of us not just government. what can we get our government to do. i hear you say that is part of this. the third thing and this is important sure isn't going to solve the problem. it's been here before and it will be here in the future but every little thing can help you each is the problem with the result of lots and lots of people doing bad things and if we can manage to get everybody to chill a little bit and be tied together in more supportive ways and create healthier communities in various ways that
will lower the temperature of everything in the extremism and terrorism and negative consequences will ultimately diminish. so it is and, it is every little bit helps even the small old things because every step towards greater empathy and connection that hopes to build the communities and relationships either way at the sources of the extremism that ultimately leads to things like the twin towers being knocked down a. >> when you talk to people on the ground in afghanistan and iraq and places that we have been fighting and then you ask about the power of one person doing this comment you can and you know each of these interventions actually make a difference. it is march 12 and almost of the anniversary of the boston bombing. two kids who grew up outside of
boston who decided they were going to do what they did at the boston marathon. it doesn't take hundreds of bad actors necessarily to do something bad. if the one person to say i am going to do some ring as evil as the. what i am saying and you are rightfully saying is if we have a different way of thinking about the way in which we are living our lives" frankly we want our communities to feel like we can make a difference in reducing the us versus them which will make a difference. there is no magic wand or silver bullet that's going to fix everything. we can reduce the appeal. in my work in the years since, one of the things that was so frustrated beneath the frustrating to me there were so many serious problems for which
we do not have solutions and we don't know what it is going to do and it's going to take 100 years before we can get to a place that we say we have moved on a particular issue. this doesn't have to be one of those things. unlike other problems this does seem to have interventions if we only were able to take in scale and redeployed them we could make a difference. so the hope for making things better is what creates a hopeful possibility unlike other problems that really are just like my god we have to manage this forever. okay. the boston marathon one is a segue to something i wanted to ask you. one part of me says i hear everything you are saying. i sympathize and want this to be true but it's never going to happen in the foreign policy, and it is more significant and
urgent. okay, yeah i am upset that the radicalization buying more upset at the radicalization in boston. the call was coming from inside of the house. the radicalization efforts that you are talking about a broad are one thing. how do we do it here in a year and a half ago, and it was back in the grand got radicalized here and drove a school bus and led a rampage and ended up being stopped right outside. i got a call the school has been
locked down, potential terrorist attack and i thought about the irony because there is no place in america that represents the openness to diversity in the future connection to the world and of the hope for an america that lives in peace and harmony with the world beyond its borders. thousands and thousands of extraordinary immigrants and people from different backgrounds making their way up and then they represent the mirrored image of the failed assimilation encourage. how do we deal with those in the world are here. we are not out there reading bad commands to petc if they end up blowing up the boston marathon or school buses, how do we stop
that way as a foreign-policy problem if we are doing what you're saying why wouldn't we want to do it here first? >> i'm glad you brought up what is happening domestically because it is important. we are sitting here on sacred ground. when 9/11 happened, there were 90 countries that were affected here in this space and we tend to think of 9/11 as something that happened to us but it happened to the world, and it happened to every religion in the world from every race in the world we didn't have one kind of person that was attacked. the kind of way in which we look at this ideology has to be a
sober account of the thing we are actually dealing with. ideology that affected that guy that ran his truck to try to kill people. thankfully there's been nothing like 9/11, but the ideology that motivated those individual thesm doing something is not ideology that is over there. if ideology that is existing within the entire demographic that i'm talking about. ideology doesn't exist and is contained in a place we don't have to worry about. and my worry is as we see a rise of hate and if you haven't read the report on what is going on in the nation around anti-semitism, i hope everybody does.
it's sobering. what is happening we are seeing a rise to all kinds of hate and us versus them. they are all connected to each other. when i think about what we ought to do when you are talking about the department of homeland security, we took a long time after 9/11 to begin tuesday what do we need to do on the ideological front and we haven't done it perfectly but by the end of the administration there was a system in place to welcome the administration we are getting into place we didn't scale the way we needed to, but we are moving on this today spending less than $3 million on the ideological war and it isn't only about sort of every kind of ideology. we are not spending the kind -- spinnaker programs that were started -- >> it is a political argument but i would say to you as we think about how to protect
america, i get hopeful about is the decided to take it on. they are waitin not waiting ford statement from washington they are saying what we want to do in our own communities in louisville kentucky, two amazing mayors ones that i'm going to be a mayor of kindness and another that i'm going to be a city of compassion. what does that mean? they are making a statement about how they wanted their community to be. that means something to me. i believe there is more of the candy we can just wait for the dhs to get more money to do the kind of programs and scale back the things that work. we can do far more. >> we were saying before this started that modeled the discourse of problem-solving
rather than generating. there is a debate going on in congress over some legislation. it's politicized at the core issue is real and you just raised it is hate connected or distinct? is anti-semitism from misogyny, bigotry, are they all variants of a kind of negativity like ghostbusters when the ghost underneath the city, all the extremists feed off each other when you put heat on society and
in which case the answer is to condemn all of that hatred and d negativity, or are there specific hatred and extremism you wrote your entire book off why can't we get along but one specific community what should we focus on. how specific is the problem of extremism and hatred or is it all variants of a common problem that we have to recognize they are all extreme. >> it's an important question that as humans i would hope all of us would reject hate in every form. we should be human and kind to each other obviously and respect each other. i believe here in america the most dangerous country in the
world we should respect differences, period. it doesn't do anything but how you give dignity to another human being that is first and foremost. when you look at the research around how people get radicalized of course all these things build off of each other and a systemwide failure has been exactly that question. we can't walk and chew gum at the same time therefore we need to take this versus that we need to build coalitions across different groups that are experiencing this kind of stuff i need to go back to what washington said in 70 when he wrote a letter to the congregation and said in america could bigotry we get no sanction. that's who we are as americans. that is the ideal we should be holding onto. it isn't about who is the bigger victim and what must we do with
who are we as americans and what do we stand for? >> i want to do one final thing. this is interesting those of us that live through these debates in the immediate post-9/11 period, there is a strong debate about who is the enemy and what is the specific nature. it was a very different context. a few years later the administration put forward the global struggle against the extremism and things like that. there was a whole community of hard-liners who felt relabeling the fight, something like that, plus a politically correct way of diverting attention from the struggle and another said this isn't just papering it over. what you think of the struggle this one subset of a broader struggle and we are just literally addressing the core problem of which yours isn't a
fully included subsets. i hear you saying strongly the second perspective is correct and we couldn't come up with a good acronym just with military operations other than war. your point is that is the real thing. it's an abstract struggle which manifests itself in a lot of wof competing but somehow all of life against us. >> it's separating how the government talks about these issues and what we do day-to-day. regular people need to understand there are changes happening in their communities
that bear on each other which is why the coalitions need to be built. different groups that have dealt with these very difficult challenges and discrimination and bigotry and we can go on and on. government has the wrong analysis to say what is the one thing we must do? we made some serious mistakes in how we defined the problem we were dealing with. we thought this was a heart and mind kind of thing if we could just get everybody to love us. can you remember how many years we went on and on because it is the wrong solution for the problem. public diplomacy, persuading him to what america stands for is an important thing our country does
for a lot of different reasons but you can't apply that to this problem we should be spending a lot of money on effort and creativity to do far more to talk about who we are as americans. i'm all for that. but that isn't going to be the cure for the things i know we can do. if we have learned anything it's what we thought we knew another way tha, the waythat we deployed brightest so today my hope is we ask the right questions and see the answers in the toolbox because the bad guys have sent
toolbox and they are using the same tools we have at our fingertips so why would we let that happen? >> we have a few minutes left until we get some questions from our guest is here as well. please wait for a microphone. thank you so much for your interesting talk. a very brief question. a lot of the efforts that you shared and discussed our covered by the global engagement center they have about seven or eight different versions since it started in the bush administration this is a government agency that has a mandate of pushing back against
the kind of things being said in the social media space they are also looking at russian propaganda they are also looking at the kind of things we can do to push back. i take a very strong position in the book. it's not to be disrespectful of my former colleagues who tried very hard, but the idea that america can go out there out of the problem we are in isn't going to work there or players outside of the government to do that better. my recommendation is that we ask those to do it and do it right.
>> they don't want to sit around talking about what they should be working on or why i'm envisioning having soccer games tegamestend to put them across e i live also and would be honest. and another school that the block and a half away with the students see each other on the street at the end of school every day but don't know anything about one another just setting up any activity that was engaging them. the boys want to play soccer, ie if the girls want to do art or whatever it is. and i would think that from there, let them articulate what they might have in common are what they might need to form a stronger bond and what might help them understand one another better while it's great to
understand why things are the way they are and what we need to do and said that's not what the kids want to do. >> i love that question. thank you for it. you are absolutely right sitting around having conversations is in thei the sweet spot. it's to let us show you who you are a. we build programs all over the world in which kids can do stu stuff. they had open microphone night and different things with each other. i think one of the things we haven't done enough for us to oo listen to people that have these great ideas and do things they wanted to help them do it. that is something every one of us can do.
the professionals talk among each other. of all the various organizations and have them do all the kinds of things. they all go together and then you know what as far as i can tell even though the wonderful efforts have been a great thing, i don't think there's been an actual immeasurable impact one
of the things that is problematic is the idea of a one-off organization that's going to fix the world. i want to be clear not criticizing and also individuals within organizations are transformed in some of these ways. here's what's missing. the scale of all of these things, there's not enough of them on an individual level but we haven't seen is the kind of momentum by those doing the kind
of work i've been describing. they are only getting a very small sector, and it is ad hoc. what happens if you go all in and decide the next five years in this particular town all day everyday we are going to use all of the ngos, the libraries, the schools, the pairings are going to do this, we are going to do it big and then measure. then tell me what we are doing. you cannot measure the way we have the world today because it can't just be that little thing happening in ontario or in palm beach. it has to be a coordinated effort and that is why i talk about the mayor's because i think about these capacities can do things in libraries and schools and ptas can do things. i am not pollyanna. if i were sitting at a table
with you and we were having this conversation on where we are going to do things or what paper i would recommend, these are the kind of questions we would ask. are you kidding that is going to do something? we have to show how many, how often and what is the return on investment. that investment. i believe that we haven't even tried. we have no way of measuring because there has been nowhere in the world that has done it all day every day on this issue. but they've done it on recycling and awareness with health and other ways we can measure what happens when we are going to have a recycling town and this is what we are going to do and in five years they went from doing this to doing that. there was a systemwide experiment actually changed. in my book i talk about an example in iceland and i'm not going to give it away but it's to that point because we are not living in lala land over there
weren't pushing as many unicorns and rainbows exist in this world also that would'v would be nice. we are talking about the real deal and i think it is fair to ask that question. i think that is a wonderful answer and. you are not going to go after one specific disease or one specific program to build the local systems in countries and that is kind of more important than the specific. extremism is also almost like a public mental health issue and so in the same ways that is going to stop it or control it isn't a one-off thing but building stronger communities.
.. one is, this is a case of how serious professionals talk about issues. in the u.s. we have a penetrated political system. unlike other policies around foreign policy or have amateurs come in. in the u.s., we have several top players of people that go in and out and in and out. that could be back when it becomes politicized and hacks who come in and don't know anything or camping capacitors. but the upside potential of the
intubated in tunsystem. it can bring an infusion of new ideas and new approaches to how government works. the best of them can bring an appreciation of what government can do, can't do and how you should mix these things. that is genius and that is what these conversations should be like. secondly, the connection to social science. you are not a social scientist but what you just called for was more social science. in a wonderful partnership between, the government and the ngos in the social science committee which is just now starting to apply real-world techniques of project management and assessment actually tell what they do to randomized trial that things were seen in the age world is revolutionary to what we thought of a generation ago
of how you evaluate progress. it is similar to the scientific approach. if we can bring rational social science the buses passionate in evaluating the interventions we will be on track to a progressive and accumulated strategy that works better over time as we incorporate the results from real scientific test from trying something the key thing is to build research in and reflectivity into our programs go better over time not worse. >> 100%. thank you for this and think all of you for coming and hopefully we will do better in the next generation on this challenge than we have done on the last generation. if we can be mindful in the void introducing space between stimulus and response and thinking of national policy as a
considered response rather than a reaction to stimulus. if we can do that and fill the space with public policies it would be my entire answer. we have one quick final comment. [inaudible] >> a few years ago i attended the commemoration of the liberation and there is a phone nominal gentlemen and you can google him. he was a survivor and he were to dm and if he could have the love and commitment it should be thou shall not be a bystander. i think we all need to remember each and every single one of us can do our little bit and see other people as human beings and help do whatever it is that you can do because of movement starts not only from government policies but at the level.
that is how so many people did survive the holocaust because a simple person help them. not government. the government can't. okay. >> and victor recorded in the beginning. he found in a life dedicated to meeting of men test allies when everything around was a disaster. that is not mean that he had locked two. but people who had flocked to survive. and have happy happy lives. the people who did not have luck died. and the people who did not have a good mental attitude -- we can make things better and you half-full better than half-empty. >> their solutions and their affordable and available. >> thank you for being here. [applause] >> you are watching book tv on c-span2 for complete television
schedule visible booktv.org. you can also follow along behind-the-scenes on social media on book tv on twitter, instagram and facebook. this week you are watching booktv so you can see what programs are available every weekend and nowhere else can you find nonfiction books on politics, national security, economics, health and medicine. enjoy book tv now and every weekend on c-span2. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning a discussion of the savings accounts to help the american save for retirement with kathleen kennedy townsend of the policy institute and randy weingarten of the american federation of teachers. then we talk about the 2020 presidential campaign with
republican strategist rob smith. be sure to watch c-span "washington journal" live as seven eastern wednesday morning. during the discussion. here is a look at our life coverage wednesday. on c-span kathy kreger talks about her priorities for the agency. the bipartisan policy center at 10:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day the road to the white house coverage includes south bend indiana mayor in des moines, iowa and former texas congressman at a town hall in alexandria, virginia. on c-span2, a discussion at two new knees. and later the american enterprise institute takes a look at modernizing the foreign agents registration act which requires lobbyists working on behalf of another country to disclose the relationship and finances to the federal
government wednesday book tv and primetime futures books on health and medicine. we will hear from stephanie and thomas on their book, the perfect predator. jeremy brown on influenza, matt richter and elegant defense, charles graber, the breakthrough and all experiencing, tell your children. book tv and primetime start to 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. next a former foreign policy advisor. at the 9/11 memorial and museum he argued that the period of peace around the world after the fall of the soviet union is being dismantled today by russia, china and iran. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. and thanks to cspan at'