tv Campaign 2020 Marianne Williamson Details Peace Department Proposal CSPAN October 25, 2019 10:09am-11:14am EDT
becomes more selfish. >> i think that is true. it's an irony in a way. they would profess to be, you know, it's for the other man. everything is for someone else. in the end it's driven by selfishness. >> watch afterwards, sunday night at 9:00 eastern on book tv on cspan 2. next, democratic presidential candidate maryann williamson. she talks about her proposal to create a u.s. department of peace if elected in 2020. from the national press club, this is an hour. >> welcome to the national press club. my name is alison fitzgerald. i'm the washington investigations editor at the associated press. and i'm the 112th president of the national press club. our guest today, mary anne
williamson is a candidate for the democratic presidential nomination. and politics is a departure for williamson who has spent half a lifetime as a author, activist and non-denominational faith leader. for over 30 years she's been writing about the intersection about spiritually and politics. shae she's the author of 14 books, including her most recent a politics of love. a handbook for the new american revolution. she's founded several non-profit organizations, including the peace alliance and project angel food that's delivered meals to americans since 1989. she joins us here to talk about the creation of the united states department of peace. join me in welcoming to the national press club, ms. mary anne williamson. [ applause ]
>> thank you, everyone, i appreciate your being here. this is quite a historic building, thank you, alison. it's wonderful to have this opportunity to speak to you. as i was walking through the hallway, there were all these photographs. and these buttons from all these past presidential campaigns. and one is a button from the campaign of a comedian named pat paulson. i think that was back in the 70s. this is a fabulous line someone told me. he was famous for having said in his campaign the american people want a president who is smart and strategic and on their side. to which, i say, picky picky picky. i know that was just great. the truth of the matter is, as much as political humor is a long part of the american historical landscape, all the way back to the beginning, that same landscape has had very, very serious times.
i would say that this is one of them. i want to begin by saying that barack obama is basically the last american president who had the luxury of seeing the world through the lens of 20th century mindset. the 21st century is a different world, a different mindset. the 20th century, like in the same way was a different mindset than the 19th. the american people are just fine. the american people are forward thinking. the american people are regenerative. this is part of our national character. the american people get that the world is different now in every single area, in business, in education, in health and wellness, religion and spiritually. psychotherapy. in every area the americans are on the move, they know that if something's not working on wednesday we've got to change it before saturday. the problem as i see is it not with the american people. at the same time, when it comes to our political establishment, that's not regenerative. it's not on the move.
it's not forward thinking. and it has very little to do with a 21st century mindset. rather, it's stuck. it's stuck and it is corrupted, quite frankly. it's under the sway of a very 20th century mindset. that 20th century mindset at this moment -- this has been true for decades -- is infiltrated by the undo influence of money, specifically corporate money on our public policy. now, closing that gap between the consciousness or will of the american people and the way our government operates is the moral and political task of our time. that's what's supposed to happen in a representative democracy. the whole point is that the government is here to represent the will of the people. and it is certainly here in order to advocate for the health and well-being and safety of the american people. nobody here is under the illusion that that is happening now. for the last 40 years we have been sliding away from that. away from a genuine functioning
vital democracy through what might be called a corporate aristocracy. we all know this. we all know the short term profit margin for health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, gas company, defense contractors, et cetera, that has more -- they wield more power on the functioning of our government than does the concern for the american people. i'm here to talk to you today specifically about one of the ways -- there are many ways in which that corporate dominance has created tremendous amounts of unnecessary human suffering. and human suffering is what the government should be concerned with. the suffering of the american people. the unnecessary suffering of us, the unnecessary suffering of our children, the unnecessary suffering of other people in the world who are impacted by american foreign policy. that which is ultimately the suffering of people that will occur if we continue to desecrate the planet itself in ways that we do. there is a famous -- you know a
lot of times people talk about famous people's last words. one of the most interesting to me were the last words of the famous french scientist lewis pasture. i was wrong. it's not the germ, it's the terrain. the 20th century being dominated by a mindset that's a product of physics saw the world as a huge machine. if you wanted to change things, you tweaked things on the outside. that 20th century mindset dominates our politics today. and it is why there's no real transformation that emerges from washington. all that emerges from washington is a treatment of the systems. that's what our policies are about. that is what our policy discussions seem to be about. our politicians talk to us about changing this policy or changing that policy. but too often it's disconnected from a recognition of what caused the problem to begin
with. the 21st century is far more integrative and holistic. in the 21st century we recognize it's not just the germ, it's the terrain. it's not just the violence in terms of people's behavior, it's the thoughts and the feelings within people that led to the dysfuncti dysfunctional or malfunctional behavior. you can talk about the fact that 100 people are killed by guns every single day. we can talk about the mass shootings. we can talk about all of these horrible statistics regarding gun violence in the united states. and we could talk about a change in our gun safety policy, which i certainly support. like most americans i want universal background checks. like so many progressive democrats i want the same things those guys do. i want to outlaw bump stocks, close the gun show loopholes, the boyfriend loopholes. bring back the ban on military style assault weapons. i want to see a change in
american foreign policy which too often is dominated by the obsession with the perpetuation of the military industrial complex and its desire for profit maximization for defense contractors. however, those things of themselves are symptoms. we must ask ourselves, why are we such a violent society? that's why i want a united states department of peace. and the united states department of peace is very connected, also, with the united states department of children and youth and also i believe that my plan for reparations of slavery will answer a lot of the underlining turbulence that leads to the worst aspects of violent behavior in our society today, including white nationalism. when you look at what we know now, we know things about the brain of a child they didn't even know 50 years ago. we know how much now happens before the age of eight. how can you talk about gun violence, how can you talk about violence in our society and not even have a conversation about
the violence that is perpetrated by so much of our public policy. our criminal justice system is in many ways as violent as the violent crimes it seeks to prosecute. our food policies are violent in how much -- how many contammanants are in our water, how many carcinogens are in our food. how much violence allow they to be done to the earth in which we live. our educational policies are violent in the sense that if you're withholding a high quality public school education from any child, particularly given the fact that when that is withheld it's due to the fact that that child wasn't lucky enough to live in a rich neighborhood. we have the audacity to base our funding on property taxes. that's a passive form of oppression and that's violent. for that matter, poverty is violent. for that matter, hunger is violent. so this idea that we're going to deal with violence by building
more prisons, build -- fix violence by having tougher gun laws. we have to look in the mirror and realize we'll be violent until we decide to be non-violent. darkness is the absence of light. and all that violence is is the absence of peace. the question for the american people is are we willing to declare peace? because if we're willing to declare peace, we have to take a really good look at the fact there were 45 million impressions of violence against children last year alone on the internet. if we're seriously interested in dealing with the terrain out of which societal dysfunction and malfunction arises we need to deal with the fact that 13 million children in america are hungry. that 100,000 children in america are homeless. that almost a third of the american people live in conditions that are near poverty.
that is violent. this is where the seeds are, ladies and gentlemen. we should see in both -- we should factor into our domestic and international policies the fact that large groups of desperate people are a national security risk. when you have large groups of desperate people, don't go acting like you just have no idea where all that violence came from. because if people experience violence in accumulated layers of human experience over and over again, all that anybody has to do is to look in the profiles of most of the violent perpetrators who are in american prisons today and you'll see what a high number of were violently -- were the victims of violent abuse when they were children. that's why i want all of the issues we know to be brought to the fore of american policy. we need trauma informed
education. we need community wrap around services. we need mental health services, not only for our children, but also for the families. we need mindfulness in the schools. we need anti-bullying. we need violence prevention in the schools. washington doesn't look underneath the water line. it talks about policy but it doesn't talk about people. the next time a bunch of congressmen go to the middle east, i'd like them to go to chicago, or to gary indiana. 40% of all the girls in the public schools of chicago are deemed to have a form of ptsd. ptsd that is considered no less severe than the ptsd of returning veterans from afghanistan or iraq. we have millions of american children living with chronic trauma. trauma due to all the factors i mentioned here today. when an american child, and we
have this in the richest country of the world, who go to school every day and ask the teacher if maybe you have food for me. we have millions of american children who go to school in classrooms that do not have the adequate school supplies with which to teach a child to read. if a child cannot learn to read by the age of eight, the chances of high school graduation is decreased and the chances of incarceration are drastically increased. i want to repeat that. the chances of incarceration are drastically increased. now, we will then perhaps be incarcerating that person for what they did, but isn't the original question what we did? that is why america needs to look in the mirror. the same is true internationally as is true domestically. our government has become or corrupted by an obsession to advocate for short term profits, the huge multicorporate entities the unnecessary human suffering that results from this, the squeeze of people, the economic anxiety, the constant economic
tension that millions and millions of people live through. this is the source of the societal dysfunction. and yet this same level of malfunction on the part of what -- how we behave as a society governmentally in terms of policy is mirrored in maer international affairs. our agenda is dominated as we all know, basically by constant perpetuation of war. let's look at the math. we spend $760 billion in one year of our military budget. our state department, however, our state department which is mediation and diplomacy and development, they get $40 billion. now, within that $40 billion, there are $17 billion that goes to the usaid and that was humanitarian assistance and long-term development. also within that $40 billion, in addition to the $17 billion, there is less than $1 billion given to the peace building agencies.
and then the u.s. institute of peace, the independent agency of the u.s. nainstitute of peace gs something like $38 million. there are four factors that constitute what we call peace building. a lot of people don't seem to understand what peace building is. the truth of the matter is that peace building exemplifies skill sets and expertise just as sophi sophisticated. just as important and in many ways given some of the places where these peace builders are assigned take just as much courage. there are four factors to peace building, which when present statistically mean there will be a greater incidence of peace and a lower incidence of conflict. those four factors should not surprise anyone. number one, expanded economic opportunities for women. number two, expanded educational opportunities for children.
number three, a reduction of violence against women. number four, the amelioration of unnecessary human suffering. all of that is commonsense. look at the divergence between the commonsense of anyone whose heart is connected today their head is expressed how our government operates. we should see large groups of desperate people, whether we're talking about a corner of an american city or a corner of a far off country in the world. large groups of desperate people are a national security risk. large groups of desperate people are a risk. why? because desperate people do desperate things. whether it has to do with gangs in america, or it has to do with terrorist organizations somewhere else. and that is why if i'm president, when elected president of the united states i want a united states department of children and youth to deal
with the horrendous need that we have for a massive realignment of investment in our children. that's the only way to have a peaceful future. i want a united states department of peace in order to coordinate in both cases these departments are basically cordinative. we already have the the experts in peace building, we already have the experts in social work. we already have the experts in early childhood. we already have the experts in international affairs. people who know the humanitarian assistance that's needed, the expansion of opportunities that are needed. it's simply this is not what we fund. how can you compare $760 billion to the military and less than $1 billion that is given to our peace building agencies. it's not so much we need to bring in new people, ladies and gentlemen. it's that we need to coordinate among the agencies that already exist. the united states department of peace will do just that. the u.s. state department, the
peace building agencies, the usaid. the long-term development, all of this should be given equal weight to military. and when i'm president, they will. the head of the usaid should have a seat at the table no less powerful than our secretary of defense. we need the equivalent in global society of what already exists in health and healing. health and wellness pace. didn't have to take care of your body, didn't have to take care of your diet, your nutrition. you didn't have to take care of your illness. when sickness arises, which it inevitably will, you can go to the doctor and hope the doctor can eradicate the symptoms. we don't look at healing the body that way anymore. we shouldn't look at healing the society or the planet that way anymore either. and so we need to cultivate peace, not just be prepared for war.
i see the u.s. military like i see a surgeon. i have great respect for the military. my father fought during world war ii. my critique is not of the military. the decisions that i'm criticizing here are not military decisions. they are political decisions. every dollar that the military says they need, they should get. what i'm talking about here, what i think every american should be concerned about is the hundreds of billions of dollars over and above what the military says they need that has to do with short term money for contractors. if you want to be healthy, you have to cultivate health. sickness is the absent of health. health is not the absence -- you just can't war. we need to have the best surgeon on hand in case we need surgery. a sane person tries to avoid surgery. that's the paradigm shift we
need. this is not a shift in policy here or policy there that can be shifted back with the next president. we need a shift in the thinking of the american people. we need the american people to realize that one of the reasons we have so much violence on our streets and world is because our government is now so corrupted by the undue influence on corporations that are concerned with their short term maximization and do not consider it their worry about the suffering. that suffering leads to violence in the heart, violence in the heart is what leads to violent behavior. the american people understand this kind of thing. the american people are not stupid. it's time for the american government to catch up. thank you, very, very much. [ applause ] >> we'll go to questions in just a few minutes. if anybody has a question,
again, raise your hand. wait for the microphone to come to you and identify yourself before you ask the question. that will be helpful. i want to start off, if you don't mind, with you sell an awful lot of books. you're very well known and very popular. but your candidacy does not seem to have taken off in the same way. where do you think that disconnect is? >> it's an illusion. first of all, i sure as hell did break through. it's called the second debate and it's because of my popularity of the second debate. it was because of the fact i was googled more than any other candidate p. nobody knows what that means. you know what a smear is. let's not act as though we don't know what that means. the illusion. she's anti-medicine, anti-science. neither of which is true. crazy, dangerous lady, niereith of which is true.
what you heard today are my ideas, which are indeed disruptive to the status quo. those are who are so attached to the perpetuation of the status quo saw me and within three days the smears began. people can see that. people have continued to come to my talks, people have continued to donate to my campaign. it's interesting, because in the last election, the democratic party was gobsmacked by the success of bernie sanders, the republican party was gobsmacked by the success of donald trump. neither one can see beneath the water line. i would think the democratic party would be happy with the fact that i bring so many people who have not been involved in politics before. when those polls are done and they're polling likely democratic voters. people who come to my lectures and my talk and campaign rallies are not necessarily people who voted in past democratic primaries. many people who are republicans, many people who are independents. i also remind you, that there will be millions of people voting in this next election who
were not even born in the 20th century. so i think first there was an illusion and mischaracterization of who i am that contributed today the ways in which i have not broken through and other ways that i sure has heck have broken through and the same system is pretending it's not happening. >> you just came back from a trip in iowa. can you talk about the reception you got there? >> it's so fabulous. when you're in the early primary states -- i'm sure many of you are journalists who are spending time in campaign season and probably have for years -- it's a real honor to be in iowa, in new hampshire, south carolina, and nevada. you know, the things have changed in california now with the early voting now. i don't think the average californian has integrated that thinking in the same way. there are two political universes. one is the pundits, money, the dnc and all of that.
that's one universe. and here in washington, you know all about that. then there's another political universe that many of you know about as well because you've travelled to these states. that's what's actually going on on the ground in iowa. in new hampshire. in south carolina. in nevada. and there it is so profound, actually. people in those states, though -- iowa specifically which is what you're asking about. they have the power. cnn doesn't have the power. fox doesn't have the power. dnc doesn't have the power except insofar as they're able to manipulate the views of people in those states. political establishments such as political parties should facilitate the process of democracy, not dictate the process of democracy. so when i'm in iowa, as i was on my maryanne mobile. go to maryanne2020.com, see the
pictures of the mobile traveling through iowa. people in iowa are very smart. they know how much power they have. they know the issues. and they're not concerned with all the hoopla. they want to hear what you've got. and people are showing up. people are listening. i feel we're engaged in a deeper conversation about what is happening in this country. about traumatized children. about economic injustice. about a world war ii mass mobilization to reverse climate change and change from a dirty economy to a clean economy. they're interested in the department of peace, changing from a war economy to a peace economy. and they're interested in reparations. so when i'm actually there, it's one of the greatest privileges and honors of my life. and, you know, i've been saying recently when asked i have learned from this experience that the system is even more corrupt than i feared and the people of the united states are even more wonderful than i knew.
>> on the debate stage the last time, you have been very critical of the dnc. is their method of managing the debates? >> when you say i was very critical. somewhat critical definitely. yes. i'll be glad to articulate that. as i just said it should be the purpose of the dnc to facilitate american democracy, not to dictate american democracy. the constitution does not mention political parties. george washington warned us against them. to the extent to which they're appropriate -- i believe they are appropriate. they should take a back seat. they should be serving the political process. not in any way dominating the political process. so what happens right now is that these debates, which on a certain level are like a reality tv show. what's happening right now is that the dnc says, well, there's so many people running, so many
candidates, we've fwagot to nar this down. i don't agree with the premise. i think it's healthy for the democratic party and very healthy for the united states that there is plenty of -- this is an all hands on deck type of moment. anybody have any good ideas? we really have to win in 2020. we really need to take a new path forward. anybody have any good ideas? i know i can say as a candidate, every time any of the candidates have a good idea, i think it ups the game of every other candidate. the idea of limiting the number, i heard one woman say, well, you know, it's like with children. you just can't give them too many choices. and i looked at her and i said the voters are not children. that's the point. it's so paternalistic. what's supposed to narrow the choices? the primaries. that's what they're for. that should be up to the voters. the voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. i've been in iowa.
this is the most consequential election. this is one of the most important elections in american history. it's time to think this through. and particularly if you're a candidate like myself who is outside the box people have to process this. but i think this is important because the box itself is saturated with corruption and toxicity. people need this time and in no way should the dnc or any other forces including corporate media be trying to manipulate or limit the opportunity of the voter to hear everybody, see everybody, and make their own decision. >> you've been stumping on the campaign trail. members of congress here in d.c. are interested in what you're saying? is anyone reaching out to you?
>>. >> are they interested in what i have to say? >> have they shown you interest? >> congress is not a monolith. they're very wonderful people who i've met in government nothing that i'm saying is pers personal. i'm running with a lot of really good people. it's the system that is corrupt. sometimes it's very, very well-intentioned people who become part of the system in both media and government and it's like you get sucked into it. so i don't know, some people have been very kind, some people have been kind. i don't know what they're saying after they're kind to me. i don't know. this is far too important to be filtering through too much of a personal how i feel about this or that. this is too serious a moment to be even thinking about things on that level. >> we have a question here. >> hi, i'm with the daily mail. donald trump has said he
deserves a nobel peace prize -- >> he said he deserves a nobel peace prize? >> first his work in north korea but for his work in iran and syria. what do you say to him? >> i'm sorry. he said that. >> especially with north korea. >> poor darling, i don't think he can help himself. what the president did in iran is extremely dangerous. he should never have taken us out of the iran nuclear deal. for all we know it seemed to be working. iran seemed to be complying with all the strictures they were given. one of the things i'd do as president is go back to trying to be part of the iran deal. he has destabilized the region even more. his increased sanctions in iran have only caused more and more misery among the iranian people. he is foolish to think this will make them turn against their
government more because they're absolutely clear about where these sanctions come from. that's number one. in terms of syria, what he's done is not only equally dangerous but even more dangerous certainly to the kurds. he has caused tremendous suffering already, slaughtering among kurds. he's created a situation where why would any ally of the united states trust us. they had fought on our side. what's happened now will probably have consequences we can not imagine. in terms of the prisoners that have been let go, isis fighters. this is terrible what he's done in syria. by the way, if anybody out there thinks he's bringing them home, they're not coming home, they were just sent to iraq. let's be very, very clear. this president does not deserve a peace prize for either of those things. he possibly, however, deserves
impeachment. >> steven lee from bloomberg environmentment i was wondering if you can talk about climate change. what would be the number one item that you would take on to combat climate change? >> first thing i would do is make sure that the environmental protection agency is headed by world class environmental scientists, or jay inslee. we need the lobbyists for the oil companies to be gone and the epa needs to become a magnet for world class environmental science. we have a situation where if we do not act and act radically within the next 12 years we could have within the next 15 or 20 years a level of social collapse unseen in the modern era. we could be on the way to a situation in which whole swaths of countries possibly whole swaths of continents are
uninhabitable because of the heat. that means of course that food cannot be grown there. economic collapse, it means massive food shortages and levels that could possibly be up to the hundreds of millions of environmental refugees. right now we already have a terrible environmental crisis, over 63 million people who have been displaced. you think there's an environmental refugee crisis, wait to see what would happen then. we need nothing sort of a world war ii level mass mobilization to reverse climate change. not only do we need to sequester the carbon, we need to reforest, we need to develop new forms of clean energy. we need to deal with animal factory farming. even if we did anything else, we'd still have the same level of problem because of the methane if we do not deal with that. it's interesting because a few years ago we were talking about the paris climate accords. we were saying, of course, the
democratic president has to get back into them. that seems almost quaint. that's like only step one. and now we're going through the same kind of transition regarding the green new deal. rejoining the paris climate accords are the least of what we need to do. to be honest, a green new deal is not the least of what we need to do. that itself will not go far enough. we need an enrollment unlike anything we have seen since world war ii. first of all, the people, the institutions and the industries that have done industrial scale harm to the earth, we need those industries to help us do industrial scale repair of the earth. and we have to admit, you know, there was a time when the use of fossil fuels, people didn't know, and it did not seem illegitimate at all. we would not have fought world war ii without the use of fossil fuels. it's very important this be a just transition.
one of the things i feel i bring to the table is the ability to navigate systems carefully. the question that lies before us, the challenge that lies before us in terms of our need to move to a clean economy is similar to many areas. we need change, but we can't have chaos. we've already seen what a chaotic president does. we need fundamental change, but we need someone who can navigate this change in a non-chaotic way. one of the things that this has to do with is a genuine and tender respect for the thousands and thousands of people who make their living in fossil fuel related industries. so that they understand they have a president who has their back. we need your creativeativiity a research and development. we're going to do this carefully and we're going to take care of each and every one of you so this transition not only serves the country, not only serves the planet, but also serves you. and the united states in doing
this, it's not only to be participating in all of things i said, including regenerative agriculture. we need in this area as in so many areas for the united states to become a leader once again in doing the right thing. >> ben jacobs. you've been critical of u.s. military intervention. which times do you think the u.s. has intervened in the past decade, things you approved of? >> i wear hearing aids, so i only heard 50% of what he said. >> you've been critical of u.s. military intervention. when have they intervened -- >> there are three things that must be present. a direct threat to our homeland. number two, a direct threat to the safety and security of an ally. number three, when the world -- the security and safety of the world order is being violentate.
i certainly think the invasion of iraq was an absolutely horrible transgression on every level. we should not ever forget the genesis of isis comes from that. i believe, however, for instance, this is not one that did happen but should have happened. rwanda, after bill clinton left office he said he made an apology and said one of his sorrows and regrets was that he had not used military power to help the people in rwanda. and i think i would have. i'm certainly not a pacifist, but i think the use of the american military should be along the same corp principle of all other public policy. i want public policy to be that which helps people thrive and makes a stand for morality, democracy, and humanitarian values. >> yugoslavia or against the taliban in afghanistan? >> it's interesting on the
taliban. this is the deal, even before 2001, i was an american woman very aware of their brutality towards women. you know, the conversation about the taliban and their brutality to women predated -- even here in this country -- predated 9/11. so when we sent troops to afghanistan after 9/11, this was not illegitimate to me. this was not inappropriate to me. [ inaudible question ] >> probably not. but i would have been -- had i been president -- very interested in ways we could be of service. there are a lot of ways the united states can exercise power short of military intervention.
>> hi, i'm with the national journal. i've been talking to folks who are on the ground combatting the opioid crisis, first responders, healthcare providers, who are worried that the rhetoric kind of emphasizing holding drug companies accountable could potentially take away focus from plans to increase access to care for folk whose are dealing with the opioid crisis. i wanted to know if you could detail your plan to increase access to care to folks who are struggling with that. >> talking about the opioid crisis and the current sort of zeitgeist to hold drug companies accountable, maybe taking away from access to treatment to people who are actually suffering. >> let's be really clear here. the united states has got to stop enabling and protecting big pharma. predatory practice said on the part of big pharmaceutical
companies, at what point is this going to stop? we have attorney generals throughout this country who are prosecuting executives who are known to have practiced predatory terms in order to overmanufacture and allow for the overprescription of paincolopainical killers. these people are being prosecuted. it's fascinating watching the settlements that are happening and how basically small these settlements are compared to what they should be. i'm really not playing a violin worried about what is happening to big pharma. big pharma has an important function in this country. we need painic killers. for that matter, we need to fly. but clearly, we shouldn't have allowed boeing to do whatever they want. there are a lot of areas, not just with the fda, with the centers for disease control, epa and with the faa.
we need to remember that these agencies were established to advocate for and protect the american people against overreach by corporate entities who went unfettered by government regulation and serving only their own short term profit bottom line can hurt people. no, i'm not concerned. i'm concerned for the larger issue of making sure that pharmaceutical companies are serving the american people before they are serving their own bottom line. >> if the focus is on holding drug companies accountability, does it get taken away from treating people who are suffering from addiction? >> no. name a way that it would. you never have to worry that doing the wrong thing -- having integrity, having legitimate regulation is going to hurt people, it is the lack of
life-saving regulation that hurts people. >> hi, mrs. williamson, i'm chrissy clark with the federalist, do you know how much you would allocate toward the department of peace. >> first we need to sit down and look at the pieces. a lot of it coordinating things that are already there. so i'm not sure that it would cost much of anything if we need to start with a number in terms of what we could go to and say, okay, we would have this space if needed, i would say no problem with 2% of the u.s. military budget but i don't think anything like that would be necessary because as i said you're talking about changing power positions and where money is spent more than talking about how much money is spent.
but i think you'll be better off spending money to cultivate peace -- excuse me let me begin with where i was going. if you spend more money cultivating health and you'll spend less on doctors later. so if you spend more money on cultivating peace, we'll have to spend less money later on military adventures and too often misadventures. the american people need to wake up and smell the coffee and stop pretending like we're children. this has to do with corporate profits. and corporate profits for huge multi-national defense contractors. i wonder how many americans know that the u.s. air force has ordered 100 b-21 raiders. the b-21 raider is an airplane that is a bomber and you expect bombers to drop bombs. but these planes, each one of which costs $560 million have an interesting and rather unique characteristic.
and that is that they drop not only conventional bombs, but also nuclear bombs. now let me ask you, maybe i'm just dumb, i don't understand. why do we need 100 airplanes that drop nuclear bombs? you drop five of those, it's over for human civilization as we know it. you drop ten of those, because remember nuke that exists on the planet today makes hiroshima and nagasaki look like a pinprick. you drop ten of those, it is over for our species on this planet. so does anybody think that 100 airplanes at $560 million each that drop nuclear bombs are only an expenditure there to keep us safe? are we that foolish? this has to do with the money of nuclear industry and it is time for the american people to wake up and i find it stunning that
only two people in this race have even talking about these things. >> i'm penny star with breitbart news. to follow up on the opioid question, it seems like doctors are left out of the equation completely. big pharma is blamed and we know there is the addiction and death. but what about the doctors because people can't have access to them unless they are prescribed. and on the institute of peace and hhs, those are already dedicated to peace and children and families so why would you want to expand government? >> well, first of all, you talk about the hhs, they are agencies that help with working families, families and children and the education department. it is really good that we have an education department. and it is really good that we have hhs. but how could anyone look at the facts, look at the infiltration of the foster care system by the
sex trafficking industry and the fact that we have 3 million children that we know of that were violently abused last year alone and look at the fact that 13 million children are hungry. how -- how can we look at the fact that we have so many children living in constant trauma due to the factors that i've mentioned here today and say oh, we have a handle. hhs is fine and the education department is fine. clearly we need a massive realignment of investment in the direction of our chin. a and just like we put together the department of homeland security because we knew there was a tragic problem on 9/11 because the fbi and cia weren't conversing. we need a much more wholistic view of what is going on and as president i want to sit at a table with all of those agencies and as well as all of the people, many of whom i meet throughout this country, who, as i said before, are social workers, early childhood
educators, what you were saying about the doctors being left out, that is true as well. with our policies regarding children, teachers and social workers are left out and the same is true with our trade agreement when workers are left out. this is all back-room deals these days. a bunch of people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars sit and talk to lawyers and department makers and they come to a policy and if i'm president of the united states, those days are over. >> nick ballas with bj media news. i want to ask you about democrats making the case since 2016, since the election that president trump had no government experience when he came into office. how do you respond to democratic voters who are possibly making the same case about your candidacy. >> i don't see the president with the lack of experience, i see his problem to be the lack
of ethics and visceral taste for democracy itself. if the president had wanted to bring in fine and political experts and mechanics, he could have. and he didn't. and any close to the job he got rid of soon enough. let's remember, very experienced politicians took us into iraq. and very experienced politicians agreed with the decision. very experienced politicians took us into vietnam. very experienced politicians brought us here. we're naive to think all of the problems were created by donald trump, all of these problems creates donald trump. we need to do more than not just go over the cliff, we need to get out of the vicinity of the cliff. the kind of experience presented by political experience and while i admire it and respect it in governance, there is another kind of experience and another
kind of qualification that i bring to the table that i believe is lacking in other candidates. franklin roosevelt himself -- this is the president who led us through world war ii, the president who brought us the new deal and led us through the depression, hardly someone who didn't understand policies and plans. he said the most important role of the presidency is moral leadership. he said that the administrative aspect of the presidency is secondary. do we need political experts? the party is filled with them and with a president we need more than a great mechanic, we need someone to discern what road we should be on and that is what i bring to the tame. >> my name is ag har. >> thank you. >> i want to go on to the iran subject. clearly the iranians attacked the gulf tankers in the gulf and saudi arabia. you mentioned that you will go
back and sit down with the table with them. president obama he did the best that any president could do, he sent them an airplane full of money, i think he said $1.8 billion to the iranian and he was the easy as any president could be and the result for that, they still work on the nuclear weapons and stuff. so i just want to hear from you, like, why you want to take it easy -- >> now i would do this but i'm not because of the television cameras i would walk up to the person and hear you so i'm sorry, i did not hear what that gentleman said, could you tell me please. >> yes. he asked about you saying that you wanted to sit down with iran and get back into the iran nuclear deal. he basically is saying that the president obama was very easy on iran, iran then went and bombed saudi arabia and bombed oil tankers.
so why would you want to go back and negotiate with them again? >> well, first of all, the bombings that you mentioned came after we exited the iran deal. so there is no connection between us being in iran and the bombings. i think that president obama and former secretary of state john kerry would admit it wasn't as far as we would have liked to have gone. but it was the beginning. when you're talking about diplomacy with other countries and others that are adversaries, you don't enter the room expecting to get everything you want. but you expect to get the best deal possible and i think that is what -- there was a worldwide consensus among the western allies and those part of the deal that we got the best deal possible and as i said before, the iranians for all we know were complying with the part of it. what the president has done by leaving, this is what has destabilized the region more including the bombings that you mentioned, the bombings that occurred after the president left the iran deal.
>> hi, miss williamson. amril robinson, and i want to go back to what you said about moving away from fossil fuels and there are regions that are reliant on the industry and you said their creativity could be used and you could find work for them. i'm from one of those areas. they felt like the obama administration was very hard on them and not economic opportunity presented as they went against not ill fuels. clearly hillary clinton did not help herself in w with her comments on it. they feel like people make promises, say we'll find you other economic alternatives, it is a very hard thing to do. i've talked to leaders in those regions about how do you do that? what are alternatives and there is a lot of flowery language and hopeful talk, but let's take the coal region, what is your idea
for alternatives and how to create economic activity for them. >> okay. first of all, your point is very well taken but i would like to deconstruct it if i might. in defense of hillary clinton that line was so taken out of context. when she said we'll take jobs away. you listen to the whole thing said, she was talking about a larger conversation of about what we needed to do. in terms of president obama and not just president obama but the left in general, i believe, and this is not just regarding the subject you mentioned, i think it is regarding a lot of things. there has been what has come across to many, many people an arrogance and elitism and what has appeared to be a lack of concern for the short-term -- for t for the -- the collateral damage that people need to put food on the table to feed their children and i don't think they've come up with flowery language but per fenktory language that has made people feel dismissed.
i have not. notice i said one of the reasons i feel i'm the good person for the job is because i don't have this combative attitude so much as i have a cooperative attitude toward as i said industries have that done industrial scale harm that we need to do industrial scale repair. martin luther king said you have very little morally persuasive power who can feel with people, people who can feel your underlying contempt. i led with the need. to me when i talk about it just now, i led with that need. the american worker in every situation, whether it has to do with trade or adjust transition or anything else, deserves to feel the american people have their back. and i feel, even if -- first of all when you ask me what industries. there is so much money to be made and so much jobs to be
created greening this company. whether it has to do with solar or wind or reforestation or regenerative agriculture or planning for floods, or wetlands and management. there are plenty of jobs. i don't think the issue is there are not plenty of jobs. the issue is what you just said and i'm very sensitive to the issue and i think you're right and that is the part of the conversation on the part of the president that we take managing this transition as i said earlier is about change and not chaos and i use the phrase tender respect. i feel that. and i believe that people hear you on the level that you speak from. and i think people hear me when i say that because i mean it. >> marianne, matt purdy, breitbart news. good to see you. saw you at the second debate. would hillary clinton be part of your department of peace? if so, or if not, why? >> you know, i don't agree with
hillary clinton about everything. but i don't want to be drawn into this piling on of hillary clinton that should offend every american woman. >> can i follow up on the question regarding -- >> listen, let's not kid ourselves. hillary clinton is the person who said women's rights are human rights. remember when she went to china and made that now legendary statement. hillary clinton has spent a lifetime working with issues around girls and women around the world. in fact, if anything, i believe that a mistake she made in her presidential campaign was that she didn't talk more about that. so even though i do not agree with mrs. clinton about everything i was a passionate bernie supporter although once the primaries were over i absolutely supported hillary
clinton. i did -- one of the first people to tweet in support of tulsi gabbard the other day. however, i think that all of us have a lot to be grateful for in terms of the service that she's given to this country and particularly on issues of peace-building, soft power development and soft power. we could talk about other issues, militarily in terms of the secretary of state where i might not agree with her and i do not agree with her. but we all need to be very knew nuanced right now and keep our conversation, all of us, on the left and on the right, need to do everything possible to return to honorable debate and honorable disagreement and when it comes to hillary clinton, to me she's a perfect example. where we agree, where we don't agree. but not piling on. it hurts every woman when any woman is made a target.
>> [ inaudible question ]. >> pardon -- >> [ inaudible question ]. >> if i am elected president of the united states, i will think long and hard about everything. including personnel. >> i wanted to go back to the question about jobs. and we had earlier this week andrew yang here and he talked about the displacement due to artificial intelligence and automation. and he has proposed this universal basic income which he described here as a way to give people the freedom and cushion so that they if they aren't fully employed, they could find a way to move on. what do you think about that proposal? >> i read his book and he convinced me. i did more research having read that book and he's absolutely right. we have a tsunami on the way. there are nine states for instance in the united states in which trucking is the primary industry. so let's say somebody has been a
trucker for four decades and then what happens is what in fact is going to happen, we're going to have driverless trucks. what is that trucker supposed to do? this is an industry after industry after industry and the more you read up on this and the more you realize that a lot of us who might think well my job can't be re placed by automation, don't kid yourself. no person should live only for themselves and no generation to live only for itself. we have such short-term thinking and everything regarding our public policy and think about what is coming down the road 10, 12 years down the road. and that is why i agree with the universal basic income. and who else wanted universal basic income, milton freedman. he said none of us will be safe without a universal basic income. the idea of the universal basic is not something new.
and i agree with andrew. and i've mentioned here already today that i believe that all foreign and domestic policy should be built around the core principle, what will help people thrive. tense, anxious, stressed people are not at their best. they don't have time and energy and band ridge to be there for the lovers and for their friends and partners and children who want mommy or daddy to read a bed time story before they go to sleep at night or the bandwidth or the energy to be there for children and to participate in family dynamic the way they might. they don't have the happiness and the stress-free ability to be good employers and employees. this is the genesis of societal dysfunction. this is the genesis of sital malfunction and malfunction is what happens when dysfunction is so bad that you're talking about self-destruction here. so anything that helps people
thrive allows people greater access to their own creativity and productivity and that is where money comes from. we need to throw away bad economic ideas that are holdovers from the 20th center. money is not from drop of crumbs from a table. and money is produced by people spreading their wings and manifesting god given credential and being their best. that is why we start companies. that is why we should have universal health care and true tuition at state colleges and universities and that is why we should cancel the college loans. how many of these -- $1.5 trillion college loan debt. how many of those hundreds of thousands of people would love nothing more than than to have actess to $2,500 so they could start a website and get going. they just want to be part of the game. and we're leaving them out.
so to me, anything that helps people thrive helps create peace and prosperity. >> we are now out of time. i know there are more questions. i think miss williamson might be able to talk on the side if you need. before you go, we would like to present you with a national press club. a very highly sought-after -- >> thank you so much. thank you everyone. i appreciate it. thank you. [ applause ] [ meeting concluded ] live tonight, two candidates challenging president trump for the republican nomination,
c-span hosts the conversation with bill weld and former south carolina governor and congressman mark sanford. they talk about their plans, strategies and why they're running against the president. they'll also take your calls and tweets and facebook comments. part of c-span campaign 2020 coverage live tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch any time on c-span.org and listen wherever you are using the free c-span radio app. politicon is live from nashville on saturday at 2:00 p.m. on including ann coulter and david from and james comey and chief political analyst for msnbc and nbc news, nicole wallace. commentators james car ville and sean hannity and al franken.
watch live on c-span, any time on c-span.org and listen wherever you are using the free c-span radio app. former vice president and 2020 democratic presidential candidate joe biden was in his home town of scranton, pennsylvania to talk about his economic proposals and other issues facing middle class families. ♪ ♪ >> please welcome rosemary baldwin. [ applause ] >> good morning, ery