to ask then should we never go to regimes which are dictatorial. are you hopeful for libya? i m torn. i m hopeful when people rise up in the name of freedom and demand self-determination and demand freedom. you sound like you there s going to be chaos. my fear there is, partly because the world is assuming it s cairo all over again that we re overlooking the presence of al qaeda down the line. that we re overlooking the presence of a possible civil war. that we re overlooking the possibility that tribal rivalries will come out when gadhafi is gone. you will find different tribal chiefs acertaining themselves. my fear is that we have not yet established the foundations for democracy and here, you ve written so eloquently about this, we know historically that most revolutions in democracy s names have not achieved revolution. in part because it takes
isn t it a difference between a revolution from the regime change from outside and regime change from within. isn t the right analogy eastern europe or post-soviet russia. post-soviet russia didn t go so well. a lot of people argued that s because there wasn t enough support of the transformation. we don t know which the better analogy is. given that uncertainty i come down with nick. if there s this organic home grown drive for democracy how can we not thereabout to support it if we believe in anything at all. that s where we have smuggled in something. we know what there s a drive against. when you say they are fighting for democracy. you don t know that. you hope they are fighting for democracy. you hope they even maybe they don t have a positive agenda at all. sometimes not one more day of this. we got to take a break and when we come back we ll talk about the far less consequential but important budget battles in
representing business interest, government interests all over the world in burma, in saudi arabia, in iraq and pakistan who represent nothing other than an interest in exploiting for their own benefit those regimes. my presence and my presence in the gadhafi foundation on the international advisory board has been from the beginning to work and i static long term dictatorial regime. for internal change. when it became appearent saif joined his father, at that point the entire international board resigned. but to say we resigned because now saif gadhafi and the regime are not for change and then try to rewrite history, back in 2006 and 2007 when the bush administration was working hard to create new alliances, to send an ambassador and saying those of us in libya trying torque internally for change is more than dangerous and people have
you would go further, you would argue, i assume that public sector workers should not be able to unionize because in effect they are on both sides of the bargaining table. wouldn t want to be quite as categorical as that but we should have a big burden of suspicion against it. and i lot of cases its led to great waste of money. by the way a great failure of governmental institutions. people on the left who want government to work should be aware one of the reasons government works so much worse today than it did 30 and 40 years ago because of the spread of these work rules. to comment on your point on being on both sides of the bargaining table. one of the arguments we are hearing a lot. i think we need to be careful about making that argument because there are a lot of actors in society that vote, that contribute to political campaigns, and also have economic relationship with the government. and a lot of those actors are big business. the health care industry, ge, for example,
in tahrir square. it was being attacked by mubarak thugs. i was in a field hospital there. i was photographing this guy who had been hospitalized seven times in 24 hours fighting these mubarak thugs and each time he would go off and get attacked again. i ran into this guy and i wheelchair who lost boston his he lost his legs and legs. wheeled his wheelchair in to fight for democracy. in a situation like that how could we be doing anything else but coming on the side of those people. the skeptics are mostly on the right. i was struck by the fact that eliot was presenting this very eloquent harry truman, john f. kennedy defense of spreading democracy in the middle east and the two conservatives on the show very cautious. and on the further right and i sense there s outright hostility. yes. there are a lot of ideologically