Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On Iran And The United States 20140713

It is not only about the Peace Process. And we have to be engage in a the dialogue with all regional and International Issues that are on the table to negotiate. And so to be able to agree on the differences, iran and the u. S. Both want to seek an end state from the Peace Process to terrorism to the weapons of mass destruction, i give you one example. Some years i was involved in this. The reason was the iranians want to see the end of state and for them the end of state was their right to Peaceful Nuclear technology and in this, and never was in a position including this original. And that is why they could never sign any deal during these 10 years of initiation. And so for a period, there is no enrichment and it. And this is actually the main reason that they could get together. But recently the u. S. Said this is not correct policy and they have changed this to know nuclear bomb and when they have moved it know nuclear bomb and then to end this could be know nuclear bomb. And that is why they signed the in november 2003, because both parties see this. They assured that at the end they included enrichment that would be recognized. And americans did see that at the end iran would agree to different measures and transparency measures and no capability measures, assuring that they would not have in the future is a nuclear bomb. And it is exactly the case above every other disputed issues. If they can see the end from the beginning, then they will be comprehensive for every issue. And so the other issue that i have described in the book is the strategy both from washington to tehran to focus on Different Things for three decades and to forget to discuss on Common Knowledge. We mention this statement from Henry Kissinger that iran and the u. S. Have huge common interests and it is true. Concede today the situation in iraq and they both face the rise of one of the most dangerous invasions in the history of mankind. So it is a threat to iran and the u. S. And they both are worried about the crisis from syria and iraq for the whole region and they are both worried about this out of sectarian war for this region and they both want safe passage from the region and they both dont want to see the position of terrorists and the Oil Resources getting back to the International Oil market. The ability and the integrity of iraq, preventing the collapse of iraq as a state and a nation is a common interest between them and the u. S. And for a decade they have supported us. They have supported this including all problems and affiliates. This is one of the main problems in order to build the future. And also we need to negotiate and cooperate from Drug Trafficking to organized crime and security and the ability and many other issues and im not going to take too much of your time to explain every detail of the book, but i believe that there is a chance. And i am looking to the Current Situation and i see iraq and syria are on the brink of collapse as a nation and as a state in libya is not far from this and everyone knows the crisis in egypt and in yemen and its all about coming back to this policy, with the pakistani crisis that seems to be ongoing many scholars are very much worried about the future, whether we like it or not and whether the u. S. Likes it or not, iran is one of the most stable countries in the region. Ultimately today is one of the most stable countries. And then i look at the region i seek the most stable country. Of the others we have stability issues, with the crisis. And there is additional responsibility for tehran and washington to cooperate and to end my statement i do not believe the crisis in the region result between this and the u. S. And we need to engage in the other countries as well. We need a Regional Cooperation as i detailed in my book and also in the region. We saw this between iran and saudi arabia and even bilateral cooperation between them would not be able to manage the crisis in the middle east. And i would compare to stop here and then go on to the questions. Thank you. [applause] im going to ask a couple questions of my own and then we will go to the floor. What you just said, you mentioned saudi arabia and the need to include them and am wondering if you could asked him ask them about something that is currently now as we know preaching the Foreign Ministry and at one point proposed going out to the states to try to present the iranian case and i think we wanted to do this which makes it forthcoming. I think that has changed now, that maybe there is a chance we could have this between saudi arabia and iran. Could you report to us where this stands . Because the short hindu of the middle east as being basically a struggle between saudi arabia and the sunnis and the ram and she on the other hand and it would be remarkable if somehow there was diminishing of that tension. So how does that stand . I dont know whether we have an exchange, because there is no invitation for this to visit. I was going to say also that in the book we talk about when they chose him to go to saudi arabia. It was after eight years of war between iran and iraq, which saudi arabia supported in the situation was exactly like today where was extremely high and i went as a special representative and even that time he was the main decisionmaker in three or four others meeting all privately from 11 00 oclock at night and we were able to agree on the tensions of bilateral relations. And we have the security concerns and that is why from 1996 until 2005, at the end of the period, we have these relationships during this time. The crisis can be managed as well and i understand that they are very much concerned about the rise of influence in the region. When you look at this at syria, everywhere they have been. And that is why they have mobilized their forces and i believe that they are investing from scratch, which they would be the first victim. And i really believe that frankly are wrong would not be part of this and theyre on the wrong track. And the notion between iran and saudi arabia is something that i really dont understand and i see that they probably want to have a kind of balance between the role and influence of saudi arabia and iran in the region and then to go to negotiate. No one knows how long it takes. After years of all types of pressures and sanctions and chemical weapons they are more stable than they were. So how long before we bring the balance, i think the notion is wrong. And i believe that this is the same for even saudi arabia. And they are imperialism with u. S. Zionism and shia and iran and the kingdoms to all of the regions. And i believe that they are all in one go. Then they need to speak together to discuss this frankly and all concerned situation in saudi arabia plays a crucial role in the region and iran is extremely powerful. So i remember when i was talking to an individual who is now the king, he told me privately that they frankly have three pillars of the region of saudi arabia and iran and iraq and that is only told him that you have to step down and we can cooperate. Today there is no reason three pillars of the region should not and could not fit together and create the reason of this. We are saying that you said here tonight that three different presidencies including the presence here made efforts for the west and those efforts failed, as you also said. So why do you think that this one might work . Because as i said, in my understanding i have also explained in my book that we made the most effort even want to reach the u. S. And he was the first president to write of this letter and the first one who congratulated and elected the u. S. President , president obama in 2009. The highlevel talks again during this era when they had the National Security council in 2009 and even the direct talks between them and the u. S. Began in 2012 and 2011, it was a part of it. So the reason that i said that they have done this in three decades, it is a peaceful approach and they have never had to comprehend a strategy for relations. And they need to engage comprehensive dialogue on all issues, just focusing for 10 years is a story actually between iran and the u. S. And the best way that we are fighting nuclear. Really the problems are limited to the nuclear and this is the problem. In fact, the negotiation we are looking at right now is piecemeal and its focused just on this and they said that we will not deal with anything else and we will try to settle on this one and buildup for the future. And i think from talking to you, do you think that has a chance . The reality in the region, i think, it would bring a change in the mindset. So they really both feel a major threat to the National Security of the United States, the region and that is why i believe that there is a chance because the recent crisis in the region is educating tehran and washington to engage in this grand bargaining. Let me just talk about this. I believe i just exhausted some questions. If this negotiation, let me just say that my own thinking is the reason this particular one might have a better chance if you have an elected leader who was elected on a program by International Authorities and youve had one who ran a program and a foreign minister who has gathered an extraordinary credibility from his service here and he has lived here even longer than you have. Also when he was ambassador here, he was a very effective ambassador. So i am thinking these two guys, they have the support of this leader for doing what they are doing. So i wanted to ask, suppose it does not work in suppose there is a failure for whatever reason, and as i sat at said at the outset, their opponents on the iranians died on the u. S. Side in the u. S. Congress, israel, and we can talk about that in a second for another. And what would happen to him in a ran this particular negotiation broke down, and how important is it that this particular one succeed . I fully agree today we have a golden opportunity because we have the combination of obama and chuck hagel and it is something to my understanding that we have never had since 1979 in the u. S. We have have the same situation that is not much different and however there is a combination of this in washington as the head of an atomic organization, one individual graduated from mit and the reticular National Security council is also very important and the combination of this figure is also a great opportunity for grand bargaining and comprehensive deals. So i believe that this would be the same that could happen because they all tried and they all failed. Since were talking a little bit about the Supreme Leader here, and what i asked what would happen to them, i think i said what with the Supreme Leader say to them or do to them if they failed. I wanted to ask you how does the iranian government work . You have a president and you have a congress that you have security council. And yet on top of all that particularly when it comes to foreign policy, you have a Supreme Leader. So how does it work . How do you communicate with a Supreme Leader . The structure is very similar to washington. You have congress and you have parliament. And so the Supreme Leader authority in this country is similar to president obamas authority in your constitution. President obama may be able to veto the cost of decision by the constitution i cannot veto this and you have this National Security council which is the most prominent institution to decide on major issues related to politics and security like iraq and afghanistan and the understanding about the role of the Supreme Leader here is deep. There are conventional understandings that they are deciding and no one else is deciding how to renegotiate. Completely wrong reception here. And so it is true that he is the ultimate decisionmaker like president obama in foreign policy. But with this leadership, he has agreed with the other 90 of the decision with the National Security council, although in many cases he has the conclusion of this and just to give you one example. The Nuclear Policy compares this and there is a huge difference but it is the same. And because the policy was decided in this and the leader of greece, even though i know some of the policies would be delighted, but he did not reach a decision of the majority. Perhaps one or two or 3 to dictate his leadership. I have explained one example during the time that they were talking about this and although it was part of this, everyone was extremely angry and the majority of members of National Security believed that enron should go in that after they like what president bush did and they believe that he should go after the taliban inside. But the Supreme Leader decided now. And so this is very much part of the range. s when you talk to americans about iran and the United States, one of the great issues is israel. So while the rhetoric has changed dramatically since the replacement it seems he has said that we are not denying this. We do not want to let israel out of the face of the map. And i still wanted to ask you for those that would be curious, what would they do and is it possible to imagine one day recognizing the state of israel . If that is not possible, can you imagine them not questioning the existence of the state of israel . Is there a possible compromise their . First of all, we need to have them say what is the change in the israeli position. It has remained the same and therefore it doesnt matter if someone denies the holocaust or condemns the holocaust. It is an instrument to use and play against the International Public opinion to play with the image of iran. Otherwise any changes in this position broad policy for them, the position that is very much the same. Therefore i dont believe a change in the iranian position would matter. This is a fact and you can compare it. And second, the problem with the compilation of israel, im very surprised why everyone is talking about iran than 90 of muslim countries, the majority of u. S. Allies like saudi arabia if you can convince them, commends them to negotiate. But for 40 or 50 years, you have not been able to convince your allies and you blame iran. I dont know, you have 67 countries. And this is not the issue with iran. But can you find one piece of evidence with any higherlevel of these individuals saying that they would wipe israel off the map . You would find a lot of statements, very high level and they said that we would not be a part of this Peace Process, it was that if there is a deal, they would not be able to disturb this process. Were there any changes in the u. S. Position, or that there was no statement of wiping them off the map . Therefore we have to think a little bit about this because its on yahoo everyday, asking for a military strike against iran. And so why are you putting this on them to attack them. But if they deny the holocaust like an earthquake in the u. S. , you know, say 10 times a day repeat attacking iran and they understand the changes that it is the reality of the situation there was not great Public Relations for them to speak that way at the time, and it just made it more difficult. Even when he made the season against it, i publicly rejected it. Let me just ask. In the introduction, i imagine if the tuition that if the nuclear deal works, you have this deal and it could produce a situation where in my own terminology from an American Point of view, you turned iran from being an enemy into being a rival and we have differences and we will will pursue those differences and we can pursue them aggressively with a great competitive risk. And that analogy is like the u. S. And china or the u. S. And russia and even the u. S. And the soviet union in the old days. So is that a fair way of looking at what might become the truth about them in the u. S. . I look at this case a little bit different because these levels between iran and the u. S. In the region, perhaps of the last 30 or 40 years, yes. But to my understanding the u. S. Is going to lead this issue within five years or 10 years, we are going to leave the persian gulf. We will not have any more military strikes and we dont want to have any other innovation because they dont care. And they have lost trillions of dollars because of iraq and afghanistan. And it seems that they are going to be independent in the least they would be not that dependent turmoil in the region. Therefore if the u. S. Strategy in the region is going to be changed, the engagement and involvement spends hundreds of billions of dollars to keep this president and i think it is changing. And the rivalry between them would continue and this includes this within the region. We need to find a solution within the region and then talk about the u. S. And russia. And this includes iran and saudi arabia with a specifically important [inaudible] avocation of departure of the u. S. And this includes the u. S. From iraq. So we look at that from the u. S. To afghanistan, the crisis and the danger of spilling this over to the whole region, this is the reason that my proposal initiative suggestion is a Regional Cooperation that is possible between iran and iraq for peace and stability and security in the persian gulf. And political cooperation like we know that they have in europe. Sweden have the same system here. Excellent. I would love to get questions from the floor and i want to totally that i told you beforehand before we began, but cspan is here televising this church when i call on you, you will get the microphone, hold it steady, speak clearly, please introduce yourself and identify your organization or your association. So i think i will take about two to three questions i want and we will start here in the front row and then another journalist there. And then a colleague as well. Can i please ask you to stand because it will be easier for the cameras. I think you expect me to ask a question that is not easy, as always. We do this and after all it was those that gave iraq to iran and that is held by several people and if you would like to speak about that grand bargain, which is a very good idea, could you possibly tell me what would the elements be with the ambitions with iraq and syria and this is the number one problem that they have and it is we are where we are and it wasnt intervention in syria which has the last becoming one of the armies in syria and these do unfortunately talk about this with the situation. So what would be what is going on now and please dont tell me about this regional work. Because you understand this and you know that. I think it would just have to be a part of one question. Being the good journalist she is, she was hit a few questions. When you talk about iranian ambition and you do this influence coming you should never forget that it wasnt arab country and iraq invaded iran for eight years and it was all the arab regional countries supported their and 600 billion of damages and that includes the chemical weapons and saudi arabia, the u. S. , europe, they supported this and you forget this part of the history and youre talking about todays influence. Definitely the iranian influences offensive in iraq. Because you forget the cause of the history when you invade iran. If they have not invaded iran after this revolution, it would have been completely different so no one would forget the hundreds of billions to support the invasion. And what was the target of the invasion . This integration, you remember, you forget that the notion of regime change, if iran has influence in the region, we we should know that this could be really defensive. First of all it is about cooperation and Common Knowledge. And definitely they have differences and they have Common Knowledge he. It is about cooperation and negotiation and this is one major part of it. Also we have four major disputes including iran and the u. S. , and weapons of mass destruction is just part of it. Terrorism, human rights, and cooperating on Common Knowledge, in the grand bargain they would need to negotiate to find principles to settle the differences on these four major issues. And the third is about reshaping my belief that iran and saudi arabia, if they agree, they can establish the Regional Cooperation system. And this is a must for the region. To my understanding the u. S. Is not going to pay for this for the region. So some countries would not be able to employ the u. S. For their security. We need the regional system for our security. And this can be a part of grand bargaining. I believe the u. S. Was opposing Regional Cooperation system and now the u. S. Does not oppose a regional operation system. And then we have one about the crisis in afghanistan and iraq and in syria. Of course serious equation would be different and they would need to have russia and saudi arabia and iran to manage the syrian crisis, but iran should be a part of the solution otherwise isolating iran and syria, you would never be able to get the solution into this crisis and that is why youre going to have this freedom of the state. We will take to. Hello, i am a journalist. I have a question in regards to iraq. Does it present opportunities for operation within the u. S. On both sides that have been officially denied, and secondly how do you see the future of iraq and would you believe that that solution is a good solution or would you see this in the region of iraq are not. And margaret, your question was about iraq or not. Just. Okay. Hello, i have two quick questions regarding turkey and am wondering if you could elaborate on how you see iran moving forward, especially with what is going on elsewhere. And secondly, could you talk about yemen and how the potential for the dialogue between iran and saudi arabia and individuals, could you explain how that possibly materialize . Sumac yes, yemen is the most easiest and for them to cooperate, compared to iraq and syria, definitely this is those that have had poor relations for up to 400 years. And there is really no hostility between them. They have had the ability to look at the relationship and always it is in the top three. We have egypt and turkey and iran and this in history. They are the biggest nation in the region. For any kind of regional arrangement and that is why i always believe that this relation is crucial for stability in the region and also we can always play a part of the role. So for a short period of time making they are trying to not to disturb this because of syrian issues. And so iraq definitely is an opportunity and they officially stated this and they cannot deny that the current deserve some is a threat to iran and the u. S. So we cannot deny that iran and the u. S. Both avoid the u. S. Intervention in the region because before it was different and now they have a common understanding and they both want to talk about the u. S. Than military intervention in the region. They are both worried about the possession of oil sources in the region by terrorists. I mean, this is a matter of concern for the u. S. And for iran because the safe passage of oil is extremely important for tehran and washington. And so from the early days of the syrian crisis, no one paid attention. In tehran was very clear that iraq would be the first victim. To my understanding, they are the next to come. So it is not an immediate solution to the Current Crisis in syria and iraq and they are interrelated. They are related together. And as i have said, they have supported the same government and therefore they want to prevent a disruption of the same system that this would be a failure for tehran and washington both. Securing war is really a matter of concern. So although some of my friends believe washington is after this integration of iraq am i personally dont believe this is the case. I believe washington doesnt want the same regulation because they know if there is this, that the region would be part of this and other countries. Okay. We have kathleen and then three in a row. First i would like to say that we havent offered a word of gratitude to president bush for having taken care of iraq and maybe he deserves a bit of this in some quarters. So i wonder if you may exaggerate a bit the intentions of the u. S. To pull out of the region, which i havent seen signals of quite yet. But lets focus on the region at all. It must be a blow to this sense of important but for all of this , no one looks to the Islamic Republic is a constitutional model for everyone which then raises the question what are the iranian purposes in the broader region and one kind of influence does it really exert on any of the other countries other than through the couple of proxies to whom it has provided some very tangible and deliverable goals. And those relationships, either shiite loyalty or are they expedient and you can cut these loose. I would like to know a little bit about the role of the revolutionary guard withers back to relation of iran and the u. S. And what their role and influence in. Could use a little bit more about the possibilities of cooperation because one of the companies that you referred to it is facing possible problems is pakistan. And then there is a rivalry playing out between these two countries and in particular of militias that are affecting and instability of the country. So i would like to explore a little bit more as to where they may go to the cooperation and how. Okay, questions . Definitely they have a lot of contention in the region. No doubt. But whether we can find salute sins are not, i believe that we can find a solution. Because i have personally been involved for good relations between iran and saudi arabia. I personally consider and i really cannot imagine this and there is something that is coming from not only saudi arabia but i cannot imagine this is something they like to see such as hostility between iran and the u. S. And saudi arabia and i maintain that they should use the opportunity to relate a new approach because i really dont know what is going to happen after this with iran and saudi arabia. After this transition with our problem, no one knows whats going to happen. So in 1988 or 1989, when president bush invited ron to facilitate this, and have explained in my book that we were mandated by the president and foreign minister to manage this, but very frankly we couldnt make a deal without this and so there really is this now. So then there is the war on terror and it was impossible for the cooperation to bring iran and the u. S. To cooperate and fight and that was revolutionary so it depends how you deal with that, i mean, they have extensive power and they know how to react. And so the rainy and regional objectives, i have explained in my book onestory and it was every day of my mission in the first issue here he raised with me was the Regional Cooperation system in the persian gulf and she doesnt like it. And i told him that iran was a positive and he was really shocked. And then he asked me to manage this and he was Carte Blanche to go for Regional Cooperation system and it was in 1990, not in 2014, right after the war. He came to washington in washington replied. So before you can see from the beginning, they have been sitting for a type of Regional Cooperation and reliability in 1991, he paid a visit to all the Different Countries in that time i was in Foreign Ministry and he raised the unwillingness to establish this but as you can see they were not in position to agree because of the u. S. Position. And so i really dont believe that iran is going to have a dominant role in the region and what is the conventional understanding here is that they have more Regional Cooperation with those even including saudi arabia and just, what i said about the u. S. Departure from this region, i never mean that it is immediate. It is gradually to my understanding that the u. S. Is going to have a gradual investment in the region, which would take five or 10 or 15 years and its not going to happen in one year. I have time for three more questions, one from a colleague in the front and the woman in the blue dress in the back. And first of all, thank you for your speech and i do look forward to reading your book. My question brings us back to iran and inside the country, here in the u. S. , its always very fuzzy when people report that the president is going to have a hard time convincing the hardliners. This big dumb fella, could you tell us what this assessment is of a hardliner challenge and do you think that how far can he go before this tight rope and he seemingly snapped. To to the issue of u. S. Commitments to israel. Thank you. I have no doubt about u. S. And israel and its israel who has president obamas Peace Process. John kerry invested on a twostate solution and who declined, who oppose the u. S. President at the u. S. State security . I was netanyahu. Despite all this facts, i know the u. S. Commitment to the security of israel i have no doubt but the issue is whether the israelis are making right promises with the current promises they have in the region or they are isolating themselves and blaming others. This is my issue. Whether we would have a republican president are not may have this system i understanding wrong. For me it is difficult to imagine the gain over public and present. I think america has gotten a good lesson. The final question from adam from a college from the new york times. Incubator wonderful presentation. My name is adam stoldt month former times person and independent. Much of the discussion has been framed in geopolitical terms and the question that occurred to me is there is a school of thought a spouse in part by people which sees the instability in the region especially in syria as the failure of political systems to respond to environmental issues. So i wondered if you might be able to comment a little bit from that perspective and also if you accept that view. What do you mean by that . Well creactive and how that led to instability and the failure of the regime to respond in a meaningful way. Tom friedman did a documentary on this. So i wonder if he could respond a little bit too bad it also if you do accept that view do you see opportunity for corporation between the west and iran in environmental areas . On syria, myself, i believe president assad made the mistake at the beginning of the crisis shrinking the opposition. He could have better treatment preventing the crisis but second, today, the reality is that the Assad Government is part of the integrity of the states and nation of syria. Believe it or not if assad today collapsed it was going to cover serious . Who has a better alternative . What is the alternative . Do we have a united position and . Do we have a united war in syria . The fact is that the army and the security establishments of syria still are relatively united. Compare syria with iraq. What is the problem today with iraqs . The u. S. Made a big mistake to resolve the Iraqi Security system in the beginning. For 10 years the u. S. Invested billions of dollars to educate or to train or to organize the new Security System in iraq in d. C. That the army is weak today to confront the 1000, 2000 surgeons. Is it the failure of the u. S. . I think iranians were wise enough to support assad and his government to prevent the collapse of army and security establishments of syria. Because no one knows whats going to happen after. On the environmental issues, i think on weapons of mass distraction in the middle east for the last 30 or 40 years the only realistic major success has been dismantling of the syrian chemical weapons. We dont have anything else and this is only and only because of trilateral cooperation between tehran, washington and moscow. Therefore you can see if there is real cooperation what can be the result. No one else could convince assad to give up his chemical weapons because his chemical weapons was against israeli chemical weapons. The refugees, today really there is a big room between the regional countries, iran and the u. S. And the europeans for humanitarian assistance. We have 9 million people, refugees in this place. Perhaps 50 of syria is destroyed. We need refugees to go back to their homelands. If there is any possibility of cooperation between iran and the u. S. And syria first of all i believe we need to bring the regional powers to cooperation. My idea is r5 plus p5. P5, the five numbers at the u. N. Security council plus five regional powers iran saudi arabia turkey iraq and egypt. They need to stick together to manage to find a solution for syria. Second, they need to agree on some at once. We cannot rely on syrians. They are helpless. They cannot manage. They dont have any real united option to negotiate. The rule of majority, like free elections some principles i think iran regional powers can agree upon and then after agreeing on the principles then definitely there would be a transitional period. They would need first the refugees come back. They would be billions and billions of dollars of investment for humanitarian affairs. Recently the refugees in syria and then go to a free election by the united nations. To make sure that this is a free election. And then whomever the syrian select go on to this country. Adam thank you for asking that question because it allows us to bring the argument back to the united nations. As i told you before im going to take was saying here to chat with those of you who werent able to get your questions asked and to sign books. I see the publisher in the back. Did you find some more books . Excellent. I urge you to read it. Its an excellent book and i want to thank hossein for being such a wonderful guest tonight in all of you for asking such good questions. [applause] [inaudible conversations] up next on booktv after words with guest host subtree american radios white house correspondents and American Bureau chief. This week jason riley in his latest book please stop helping us. In it the wall street Editorial Board member says government assistance programs helping africanamericans are ineffectual at best. This program is about an hour. Host please stop helping us how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed. Arthur jason riley. If i were to tell you that i have taken this book around with me to several cookouts, just around town and political circles it has raised a few eyebrows, just the title alone and spark conversation, what would you think about that . Guest i think the publisher would be happy. But now its not surprising. When i went to get the jacket photo taken the photographer is black and he asked me whats the title of your book and there was an immediate conversation started. Host you to touch a lot of third rails in this book. You go from president obama, the black president. You talk about voter i. D. And you even at the conclusion a third rail that you touch on and i want to talk about that later on, you talk about the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Thats really a third rail in the black community. Talk to me about how you have come up with these thoughts and brought things together for this book that typically is not thought of in the way that you have written in the black community. Guest well a lot of these ideas come from the people that i dedicate the book to to black conservatives, academics who have done a lot of research in this area and britain about it for many years and im familiar with their work and the Younger Generation of blacks should saying the things they are saying for a new generation of readers and that was part of the impetus for writing the book. Host you are an independent and neostart of chapter 1 barack obama in the white house. Talk to me about that. Guest i think obamas presidency has, as his first election in 2008 was the culmination of the Civil Rights Mission that pushed political power as a means of raising blacks in america. And i think obviously gains are made with Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights act of 65. Since then however liberals black liberals in particular has made political power and i i think bill palmers presidency was the combination of that vision and i wanted to say so, we got that now what do the black masses to to to use a data term have to show for a . I that was really what prompted that chapter and what i get that in there as the history of groups that have gone that route. They have pushed political power but for that pushed. Host you talk about it being in his industry. Talk a little bit about that. Guest yes i think what you have on the left today is a group of individuals and organizations that are searching for relevant. I think the big battles have been fought and won. The trouble they have today is convincing people that the problems they are calling attention to, the true problems that black space and i think they have really become parodies of what they used to be under king. It is as if the naacp spends his time scouring vinay chin with white use of the n words saying oh there you go, say nothing has changed. Dont hold blacks responsible for their Economic Situation today when we still have Donald Sterlings out there or clive and bundys out there or someone waving a Confederate Flag of the tea party rally. I think thats a search for relevance. I dont think racism in general is what is primarily old and blacks back today. Racism has not been the primary barrier to black advancement for some time. Guest i want to go back to something you said. Battles of an fought and won when it comes to the black community but what you say to the disparities in the jobless rate in this country lets africanamericans still to this day ive have the highest Unemployment Rate in the nation. Its been that way since the inception in this country. Also there are disparities in education. There is predatory lending situations where africanamericans are targeted for these loans that may go into default or foreclose. There are so many other issues out there. Thats just in the criminal Justice System at as well and thats one of the recent president obama came out after the George Zimmerman verdict because there is a thought and there is a feeling and there feeling and there is facts to base upon that africanamericans are at a disproportionate level given higher sentences for things like crackcocaine versus powder cocaine and also in jail for Different Things versus a white person. Talk to me about that when you say the battle 75 and one. Guest i guess i take issue with the premise that you pointed to Unemployment Rates and said for instance that they have been that way since we came here to this country. If you go back to the first part of the 20th century, as far back as the 20s, 30s, 40s and even into the 50s you will see black Labor Participation rates higher than white Labor Participation rates. You will see, if you go back to census studies coming out of slavery in 1870s, 1880s and all the way up until the 1940s you will see a rate of two parent households higher among blacks than among whites. So you have to look at the trends that were already in place but for some of the major civil rights legislation passed. You have between 1940 and 196840. Drop in the black poverty rate in america, 40 points between 1940 in 1960 before the Voting Rights act a bit for the Civil Rights Act. That trend continued after the act was passed but at a much slower rate. They were continuing a trend already. Host lbj began to warm poverty. There has been poverty and i understand you are talking the census and out of slavery and in the 50s and 60s but the quality of jobs and what kind of jobs. There was a big difference at that time versus now when you have people in management positions and the president of the United States versus the lower end of the spectrum of kind of the farming jobs agriculture agrarian said housekeepers and thinks about tie. Guest thats not what im talking about. Im talking about skill jobs. Blacks are joining the skill professions at faster rates right to affirmative action policies which began in earnest in the 1970s than they were after those policies were put in place. Teachers, craftsmen and so forth. Blacks were joining the profession at a higher rate prior to passing these policies. Again we almost without thinking credit policies like affirmative action for helping to increase the number of black College Graduates. In fact affirmative in fact affirmative action is at the opposite of that. We have had 40 years to look at the at the university of california in the state system racial preferences in College Admissions were banned back in 1996 and a voter referendum. After that ban took place, what College Graduation rates at the university of california rose by more than 50 . It didnt rise in general. They also rose in the most difficult disciplines of math and science and engineering again by more than 50 . A policy intended to increase the ranks of the black middle class wasnt that producing fewer black College Graduates than we otherwise would have had. Host in the book, you cite Supreme Court Justice Clarence thomas and you talk about affirmative action. Talk to me about that and how i guess the spouses philosophy. Guest again whether you are talking about Clarence Thomas or Shelby Steele they say lets look at the track record. What is working and what isnt working and when it comes to Something Like affirmative action but the evidence shows is that affirmative action is mismatching kids with schools than what i mean by that is that often sets up kids to fail. It takes smart kids who might do well and funneled them into a more Selective School and that more Selective School but are more likely to drop out altogether or switch to an easier major. A quick example is a study at m. I. T. Several years ago. Black students enrolled at m. I. T. And scored in the top 10 on mathen s. A. T. Scores. Regardless of color. We have some very smart kids but they were in the bottom 10 and class scores so you take these very bright kids who would just be hitting it out of the park at a less Selective Schools but they are at m. I. T. Struggling and as a result of that struggle many dont graduate. M. I. T. Does not care about that. M. I. T. Cares about how its freshman class looks whether it looks like america whether theres enough diversity whether the College Catalog has the right look whether or not those black kids are graduating is at best a secondary concern for m. I. T. For me someone who is concerned about the number of black graduates in this country i would like to see more of them graduate and the evidence shows me that were graduates in the absence of a current action policies than when they have policies in place. Host please stop helping us how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed and the other with us today jason riley. This is a very hot conversation and im thrilled to be sitting here talking to you. I really am because its interesting to hear what you have to say. As you are going by facts and as a reporter i get a different set of facts i guess but as for the listener and the reader and the viewer to make the assumption. I appreciate what you have to say. Guest there are lots of footnotes. Host at the end, yes, yes. Guest people can look it up from themselves. You dont have to take my word. Host lets go back to this affirmativeaction situation. We have seen it with the university of michigan and talking about preference. We heard about the opportunities during the bush years with the university of michigan but i want to talk about the examples. You give an example of m. I. T. But what about places Like Harvard University that really go out and recruit africanamericans to come and and they give them scholarships. They give them thousands of dollars for scholarships to come to the school and Harvard University in amherst have been battling back and forth to be the Number One School that graduates the most blacks. The way we understand from Ivy League Schools in general. Guest many of those are black immigrants by the way. Theyre not people who grew up in the black subculture that i talk about in this book. There have been a number of studies on this about which blacks are graduating in the schools and many of them are immigrants. You find that when you look at the education across the country particularly in big cities. Here in new york where i live you have selective high schools and the black kids that manage to get into the schools tend to be immigrants. So there is that but the issue with affirmativeaction again is are we helping the intended beneficiaries . When you lower the standards for emissions are you helping or hurting that childs chance of graduating and i think the evidence is overwhelming. Host in Society Today and i hate to say this but we are hearing this. You dont make anything if you dont have a college degree. Host guest why are we assuming yale or nothing . Host i didnt say harvard or yale. We were talking about m. I. T. M. I. T. Is a influence on wonderful school. I brought to the table harvard. Other Ivy League Schools have made appeals but harvard has been very prominent in how they were true. Guest i have no problem with harvard recruiting kids to get handled the work. The problem is when they recruit kids who cant handle the work because they want to make their freshman class more diverse. Thats what i have a problem with. Where they can handle the work and are more likely to graduate just like most people. They go to schools where they can handle the work and you have a higher graduation when the person entering as a freshman when their credentials match the credentials of the average student of that school. Thats where kids graduate. Host very interesting conversation. Very interesting conversation that i want to talk to you about another topic. Again lets go back to the title of the book, please stop helping us how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed. Voter i. D. Its been a very big issue in the black community especially since the last couple of years even though for this president. We have been talking about the voter i. D. Issue in this come to a crescendo especially with this black president. I want to read a piece from your book that says it so happened that the turnout surpassed white turnout for the first time on record in 2012 even while more and more states are implementing the supposedly racist voter i. D. Laws. Twothirds or three eligible blacks, 66. 2 voted in the 2012 president ial election higher than the 64. 1 of nonhispanic whites who did so. Thats according to the census bureau. Talk to me about the fact that we dont need voter i. D. In your opinion . Guest at the reason i address this in the book is because i think its shameful the way, from the president on down really an attorney general eric holder is another one who has essentially been going around the country trying to scare blacks to the polls by saying these laws are being passed to disenfranchise them. As i said at the end as you just read black voter turnout the rate of black voter turnout exceeded the white turnout. That trend dates back as the son says makes clear to the clinton years when the black voter wa was black voter turnouts began steadily increasing in the other point to make here is that its not only do most democrats and republicans and men and women and conservatives and liberals support voter i. D. , so do most black americans in polls. So the president is out there telling black people who support voter i. D. And the majority of blacks in a number of polls taken in recent years have shown us. Hes telling them that republicans are not interested in ballot integrity. They are only interested in suppressing their vote and my point is that given these voter trends and get a nice turnout transit if republicans are trying to suppress the black vote they are doing a pretty bad job given voter turnout among blacks occurred and also one of those you mention the statistics and for some of us just it strictest voter i. D. Laws in the country. Host some question why do this voter i. D. . You say it is reminiscent an up is reminiscent an up or months for for procedures in the past when it comes to voting for blacks. Guest i think thats insulting. You need i. D. To get caught medicine. Host certain cough medicines. Guest you need i. D. To get a library card. The idea that its too much to ask for people to produce identification to vote i think is quite insulting to blacks and again most blacks agree with me. Amar jorde of them have told pollsters repeatedly that they too support voter i. D. Support for voter i. D. Is wide and deep in this country. You would never know that listening to the white house rhetoric but it has been widely deeper long time. Host i am sitting with sub jason riley the author of please stop helping us how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed. A very hot topic i think and before we go any further our viewers are like do is