tv Charlie Rose PBS April 3, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT
>> rose: welcome to our program. to want a conversation about politics and legislation with nancy pelosi, minority leader of the house of representatives. >> i have confidence in the merits of the case. i believe in judicial review and we wrote the bill, obviously, in compliance with the constitution of the united states. we thought we were ironclad. you never know in court. >> rose: we conclude this evening with bill bratton, former police commissioner of new york city and los angeles. his new book is called "collaborate or perish. : reaching across the countries in a network world." >> the whole concept in new york city that changed the revolutionary change in this
city in the '90s was the idea of the broken windows philosophy. the idea that minor rules which had been neglected for 25 years in the city, aggressive begging, graffiti, once we began to pay attention to that, the tipping point that gladwell wrote about in his book occurred very rapidly. so you can reverse an epidemic once you find the right vaccine, if you will. and in new york that vaccine was police doing what police are supposed to do: enforcing the law constitutionally, compassionately, consistently. poor neighborhoods; rich neighborhoods. you do it the same all over. >> rose: pelosi and bratton when we continue.
>> rose: nancy pelosi is here. she is the minority leader of the house of representatives. this june marks her 25th year in congress. in 2007 she became the first woman to be speaker of the house. she held that position until november 2010 when republicans gained control. during her tenure she was instrumental in passing president obama's signature domestic achievement, the patient protection affordable care act. last week, the supreme court challenged the constitutionality of the health care reform law during a three-day supreme court hearing session. the court's decision is expected in june and could impact the 2012 election. i am pleased to have nancy pelosi back at this table. >> thank you, charlie. great to be here. >> rose: let's talk about health care first. >> i have confidence in the merits of the case. nibble judicial review and we wrote the bill, obviously, in compliance with the constitution of the united states.
we thought we were ironclad, you never know in court. what's interesting about it, though, s that our republican colleagues when president bush was president and they had the majority, they were advocating something called court stripping. in other words, they'd write a bill and then they'd have a prohibition in the bill that would say the court has... cannot have judicial review, striping the court of the ability to have judicial review over the law. so they've not been particularly friendly to the courts. we have. we respect the court. now they are not... now they're for judicial review. before they said that marbury v. madison, the marshal decision that established judicial review in addition to the constitution, was wrongly decided. so we have a lot of militia mosh here. but we believe because we believe in judicial review and that we have to be constitutional that we... on the
merit wes here in pretty good shape. >> rose: there are those who also say if, in fact-- and this has to do with legacy, your legacy and the president's legacy. if his singular legislative achievement is ruled unconstitutional that is a damaging blow to him and you. >> well, again, we're not as important as, obviously, the american people. but i think that it is the crown jewel. it is the greatest achievement, but with stiff competition. the president achieved many things in the two years that we were in the majority in his presidency. not much since then legislatively. but the list goes on about wall street reform. any number of pieces of legislation. repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," ending discrimination against women in the workplace. >> rose: so health care is not necessarily the most important piece of legislation? >> no, i think it is the most important, but it isn't the legacy. there's a big legacy. but the fact is, the fact that
the bill was passed that, again, tens of millions of people have already enjoyed some of the benefits of the legislation takes us down a path. i don't think there's any turning back from that. one way or another we're going to have to find a way to make sure the american people are not discriminated against. that being a woman is not a pre-existing medical condition. that we contain and control the cost of health care to individuals, to families, to businesses, to our economy and certainly to public... the federal government. >> rose: well, as you know, the merits of the bill, people who applaud the accessibility of this bill complained that it did not deliver on cost containment. >> well, i don't subscribe to that, either. the bill does have... if there were no other reason to do the bill, as everyone in america loves their health insurance company and had access that the reason to go forward would be
for cost containment. and there are measures in the bill that take us down a path of reducing cost. but also like... i'ved that board that reviews costs, believe it or not, the republicans want to overturn that. and that's one of the forces for cost containment in the bill. >> rose: how significant was health care and the controversy about health care reform legislation to the republicans' victory in gaining majority of the house? >> my contention andnd being a politician and studying all of this very carefully all the time i would say overwhelmingly the main reason for the defeat of democrats in the 2010 election was 9.5% unemployment. you... it defies political gravity to win an election for incumbents when you have 9.5% unemployment. and it also is a shield to... let me talk to you about health
care, wait a minute, i don't have a job. i want a job, i want a job, i want a job. we had... had we not taken the measures that president obama and congress worked on immediately, the recovery act and other initiatives we'd have been at 15.5% unemployment. but nobody wants to hear that if you don't have a job. oh, good, we'd be at 15%, thanks, that makes me feel just great. so i believe that absent the 9.5% unemployment people would be feeling better and they'd be listening more carefully to what's going on. >> rose: it's still trended down. it's at 8.3%. >> yes, it's still high. >> it's still high. no president has ever won reelection when unemployment was at 8%. that >> that is true, but all assumptions about elections are steal. >> rose: right. >> they're all about yesterday and i think the direction, the path that we're on to lower unemployment is going to be understood and appreciated by the public. again, if they don't have a job, they're not going to be happy
about it burr we're on the right path and i believe that the president will be victorious and i hope that the unemployment rate will be lower for what it means to america's workers. >> rose: how do you see democrats versus republicans in the house of representatives? in all the contests for the house seats? >> i think that we're in pretty good shape. now, when i was here last time i told you i thought we were going to win and i did. we didn't foresee suffocation of money in the last week. it was just amazing. tens of millions of dollars poured into congressional races. a million year, $500,000 there depending on the costs in the region and that was in addition to 9.5% unemployment. over a hundred million dollars. that was unforeseen. i think we could have held absent that. but we didn't. now we're in a different place.
the generic polls show us ahead. we've outraised the republicans. we've outrecruited them. our candidates are outstanding and we have outredistricted them. they said they were going to beat us by 20 points in the redistricting. it's probably a wash one vote or another. but most important, our message is a clear one about medicare, about women's health issues and the rest. i would have said a month ago that we were, you know, sort of 50-50. since the women's health issues of the past month have emerged and women have shifted in their views of the parties i say to my republican friends-- and i do have many-- take back your party. this is the grand old party. >> rose: take it back from whom? >> take it back from extremists who are taking it over the edge. anti-government ideologues who really don't believe in a public space. so there's never a chance to
find common ground on issues like clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public health, medicare, medicaid, social security, because they don't believe in a public role there. they think medicare should wither on the vine, by their own statements. their budget breaks the medicare guarantee. so if you don't believe in the public role, it's hard to find common ground. that wasn't the way it used to be. i just had the privilege of speaking at texas a&m at the invitation of president george herbert walker bush. >> rose: his library is there. >> his library is there. on president's day. i was honored to receive his invitation and we talked at that time about civility and how we've... we're at a different place on the spectrum on some issues and could find common ground. but the vitriol that was injected later into the process is just very harmful and i praised him. kinder gentler nation, thousand
points of light. a gentleman and a statesman. but things had gotten different, as you know, later in the' 940s when the republicans took control of the congress. so, again, if we can reduce the role of money, that suffocation of money, increase the level of civility, that's what we have to do for our country. and i'll promise you one thing. >> rose: what's that? >> if we do, we'll have many more women, many more young people and in elective office. >> rose: 17% women? >> something like that. >> rose: that's really incredible. >> it is. >> rose: 2012. >> the incremental... >> rose: why do you think it is? >> well, some women don't like the idea that you have to ask people for money to run. the vitriol is not anything you want to draw to your family. many... all the people we want to run have plenty of options in life. we don't want people with no options to come take the heat. there are people who have many good opportunities one way or
another. so why would they do this? but let me say that incrementalism, it just hasn't worked for us. over 200 years of a country, not even a fifth of the congress being women i think we have to kick open the door, think in a new way. and one of the ways is a new politics, reducing the role of money, reducing the role... and it's a technique on the part of a... if you drown the system with money, if you suppress the vote-- as they're trying to do-- and you increase the vitriol, the public just turns off to it. >> rose: did you support the president when he said "i'll have to have a superpac in this general election because the other side will have a superpac and they can generate a lot of money to advertise on behalf, on the ideas that they support"? >> just this once. and i don't like it but i think you have to. you can't go to a baseball game without a bat. and since they have demonstrated that... >> rose: that's true. >> it's endless undisclosed...
>> rose: so you approve of the president doing it? >> yes. but what i want us to do is win. first disclose. everyone should disclose where that money comes from. you're proud of your civic part station in stand by your ad. so disclose, win, reform the system. i'm talking about something dras nick terms of taking money out of the system and repeal citizens united. >> rose: you really hate citizens united. >> well, it's not democratic. how could it be okay to have spent endless money saying anything and all things-- true or not-- into the system. even if we could outraise them, it's wrong. we can't go down that path for our country. >> rose: you did outraise them in 2008. >> well, we frequently outraise them out of the money that is disclosed and limited. we're talking about unlimited special interest money to the tune of endless hundreds of millions of dollars. our founders, just by the way,
to remind, they created a democracy where the voice and the vote of the many determined the outcome of elections. not the bankroll of the very few. >> rose: do you think gridlock in the congress will stop after the next election? do you think somehow things will be different? >> i certainly hope so. i mean, it's necessary that that happened. but i think the most important way for it is for the public to pay attention. and the public is repulsed by the vitriol. that's why we have to bring civility back. so you have a competition of ideas. a marketplace of ideas. not everybody wins every argument. but you have to... you have to put an end. look, the republican chairman... the republican leader in the senate, he said after the last election the most important thing we can do is to make sure the president is a failure. that didn't mean a failure in the election. that's the democratic way. that meant failure in his
presidency. that's simply wrong. we never did that to president bush. >> rose: speaking of republicans and democrats, i know you saw this. it's called "who killed the debt deal? a washington who don it by matt buy." did you read this? >> i cursely read it. >> rose: it's an effort to find out why the president and the speaker of the house failed. why do you think it failed? >> because of the speaker could not deliver on it. i know for sure that the president wanted to have a grand bargain. there were many... >> rose: what was the president's grand bargain? >> well, it was to be... not to go into all the details but it was to have the bare outlines of it over $4 trillion in deficit reduction. it recognized that to do that... >> rose: over ten years. >> over ten years, yes. at least. you know, get us down that path but at least $4 trillion in
deficit reduction. that would have been great. in order to do that, there had to be sacrifice and change on all sides. the president was willing to address some sacred cows that were not particularly popular on the democratic side. >> rose: which one did he address? >> well, he talked about mandatory spending in terms of entitlements. snipe did he offer specific cuts that people could make an assessment on? >> yes, he did. yes, he did. >> rose: and did it exend to the left wing of his party or not? >> my caucus stuck by the president throughout because it was part of an agreement and an agreement doesn't mean "i'll have it all my way." it was part of an agreement and when the president asked me what do you think your members want know do if this is all we get? we wanted more tax... more revenue. >> rose: more revenue coming in. >> more revenue. >> rose: what in your judgment... >> and i said to him go for the
agreement. go for the agreement. we have to. these people... >> rose: and you had your members with you? you had your caucus with you? >> absolutely. >> rose: you say that with certainty. (laughs) >> you may find one... >> rose: you said absolutely because that's... >> no, i mean the point is... >> rose: that's what a leader does. a leader is able to bring his party behind him at a moment of decision. >> well, thank you for that. but the fact is is we build our consensus and people understand that we cannot have any doubt about the full faith and credit of the united states of america and that's when the so-called deal, but that agreement was being shaped and if you're going to make significant things which we had to do for whatever reason two unpaid for wars, et cetera-- you had to make sacrifices. >> rose: speaker boehner as you know and others around him made the point that they thought they had the deal and because of the so-called gang of six that the
president came back to them and wanted more concessions. >> my... what i know is the president left our room to accept the agreement and that is a fact. and this president... again, you have to... when you're doing something like that, you have some unhappiness on both sides. and i guess that's a good compromise if both sides are unhappy about it. some people define a compromise that way. but, no, on this, look, the president has the responsibility for our country, for our future. he had a terrible hand dealt him this was a way to say we're serious about this. we can govern. imagine, they walked away from that. >> rose: there's also this, simpson-bowles. >> yeah. >> rose: neither you nor the president at the beginning were supportive of it. first you. >> well, simpson-bowles is a
very good... >> rose: you say that now. but you did not say that at the time. you had real problems with it at the time. >> well, my problem is what it did as far as social security is concerned. but apart from that we said it gave us a great deal to work with. it had good bones, so to speak. it was a good framework in terms of revenue. in terms of cuts and in terms of defense spending and the rest. it was very bold. >> rose: should simpson-bowles be at the core of legislation to deal with the future of u.s. debt? >> well, it is an... you know, in other words... it was developed on the outside of congress. >> rose: but it had republicans and democrats on the commission. >> i know but the republicans... >> rose: including the chair of the house budget committee. >> yes. >> rose: would simpson-bowles have had a better chance if the president and you had been flat out supportive of it when it was announced by erskine bowles and alan simpson? >> i think what the president did was correct, was to use simpson-bowles as an outline, a
framework about how we go forward. that was its... that was its appropriateness. i had promised that if that committee had voted it out with 14 votes, whatever the vote was that i would bring it up-- we were still the majority then-- on the floor. the committee did not vote it out. it may be how they built their consensus they that they didn't have buy-in from enough people. that's part of how you get the vote is everybody... people buy into it. they understand why that consensus is necessary. i don't know why they didn't get the vote but i had promised and i said i will keep that promise, i will bring it to the floor. the republicans said they were bringing it to the... the republicans and democrats, it was bipartisan, but it was more of a caricature of simpson-bowles and that's why it didn't pass. if it were actually simpson-bowles i would have voted for it. >> rose: when americans in overwhelming numbers show that
they don't approve of the congress, why do you think that is? >> well, they don't see... i don't approve of the congress. so count me among them. >> rose: all right. >> the fact is that we've had a period of time where there's been just obstruction to anything that the president wants to do. the public isn't aware of... >> rose: but the first two years of this presidency he had an overwhelming majority in the house and the senate. until the brown election and... >> and we had 40% approval for the congress. it's about 25% now. i didn't think 40% was good enough, but nonetheless it's much lower now. congress is always... let's put this in perspective. congress has always been a mockery since the beginning of our country and if you looked at the history of it they've always been fighting over one thing or another. when speaker pope, one of the only speakers, i think, to become president of the united states...
>> rose: james k. polk. >> he said "this place is so out of order i'm not going to recognize anybody." but the fact is is that if you can get civility back... that's why the public has to be part of the solution. they have to demand and insist on the stability because it's a tactic by obstructionists. if you want to obstruct, you make it so unpleasant that no one wants to pay attention. >> rose: what do you think of the occupy wall street movement and what,... impact do you think it might have on the election. >> i think occupy wall street movement made a very strong statement about the 99% versus the 1%. they themselves would not want any politician giving any imprimatur to them beyond that, i believe. but i think they gave vocal exfrogs the frustration. we have disparity of income, disparity of ownership in our country that's almost reaching a point of taking us to an
oligarchy or plutocracy. and if you put on top of that-- which they do-- the role of money in politics and government you're hastening the process to a government of the rich, a government of the few. so i think their statement is a strong and important one. i don't think they would want me to be associated with their efforts in any other further way >> rose: what do you think of the insider legislation legislation? >> stop act. it could have been stronger. we wanted to have... >> rose: you wanted it stronger? >> we wanted to have political intelligence in there. in other words the idea that people largely in washington, d.c. benefit from not any insider information but just being around and that's a marketable item and we wanted them to register... we wanted them to register that we wanted that in the house bill, senate orr grassley wanted in the senate bill, it didn't pass. but the bill passed and it's
something. >> rose: was having insider information a real issue for the congress, do you think? >> if the public thinks it is... nobody should be operating on information that is not available to the public. if the public has the impression that some in congress were, then remove all doubt. then remove all doubt. >> rose: and "60 minutes" pointed the finger at you. is that unfair, do you think? >> yeah, but i didn't know what they were talking about to be honest with you because the fact is they were saying that there was some bill that passed in the committee that i didn't bring to the floor like on the last day of the congress and that was the day we were bringing tarp to the floor. so they may have had a legitimate question but it really... i have fought the credit card companies... that was the issue, credit card companies. i have been their worst enemy. no, carolyn ma maloney, she's been the real champion on this, but i've helped her on that.
so i thought it was... i don't want to say unfair on their part but if we had had more of a conversation that might have been what are you talking about here? i don't feel any they're doing their job, i do mine. >> rose: there were three important issues. one, afghanistan, clearly the general has been back to testify before the house and the senate and to be on this program and others. clearly he thinks that they'll have to make a decision in september about how fast the drawdown will come. he'll make that decision and recommend it to the president. what do you think? >> well, i trust his judgment and he has... i have met with him when he came to the hill to testify as he has said here, he believes that we're on schedule to be out by the end of 2014. we'll make a determination how quickly that goes... >> rose: the surge troops have already... are in the process of being withdrawn and there will be 68,000 there after, that u.s.
>> but how quickly the rest of them leave. last year... i go every year afghanistan and to iraq, but not this year to iraq because... to see the troops and thank them and they're not there, thank god thank you, barack obama. the last year was one of the first years that i could really say that i saw some real progress being made in terms of issues that related to corruption, governments construction, and security in afghanistan. using those four metrix. that's not great. the initiative to reconcile taliban with other afghan people the reintegration at the grass rootss level of those people is a peer effort, not easy byny means but the training of the police force and the security force...
>> rose: as far as you're concerned that's been moving at a pace that is satisfactory or that is to be expected? >> no, i wouldn't even say... it's taken a turn. >> rose: that's general allen's point. >> well, i'm going back in another month and i'll see the improvement. >> rose: and if it's not happening, if you come to a conclusion that the... whatever effort there is to train the afghan and to enable them to do it on their own has failed, what would be your recommendation? >> i don't think it would be failing, no. i mean, the... the fact is that it's a long haul. literacy. a lot of them have to learn to read to protect people to even read instructions on their manuals and the rest but remember this. >> for 2001 to around 2009 there was no plan in afghanistan. we went in; we routed the taliban. we did not necessarily really
defeat them. we routed them. they headed for the hills. we headed for iraq. then they started coming back and when president obama went in he said we need a plan. >> rose: and then he decided they needed a surge. >> they needed a surge and that was almost right from the start and that is reaping benefits. but you can't measure it from 2001. you have to measure it from when we had a plan and i see a big difference in terms of the progress. it's very hard. and we're talking about a country... if you travel throughout the country, as i have, you're like going back 500 years. it's really challenging. and we only have some that we can do and then we have to come home. >> rose: suppose the president wins reelection-- as the polls show he will at this time. >> at this time. >> rose: suppose democrats gain
control of the house and maintain control of the senate. so it's a bit like 2008 all over again. what would you hope to accomplish? what will be the agenda for america from this president and you as the speaker? >> well, to continue to grow the economy. that is essential. that's what the president did from day one with the recovery act, a week and a day after he took the oath of office. but to continue to grow the economy, to invest in education, to keep america number one, to keep america number one. we calm it reigniting the american dream, to build ladders of opportunity for people that we really have to do and a-b-cs of that are, a, to make it in america. to stop the erosion of our manufacturing, industrial, and technological base. make in the america. the american people... >> rose: we can create a new manufacturing base in your
judgment? >> we have to. and it's to stop the erosion. our productivity is good. our workers are great. but we cannot continue to let that productivity go overseas. b, build the infrastructure of america. we have trillions of dollars of deficit in terms of infrastructure of... everything from water, highways, high speed rail and even broadband and the rest. build that. do this from the community up so that the people, the common sense and the american people are making some of these decisions and, d, disclose. >> rose: transparency. let me ask you this. i want to get to you... >> jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. >> rose: i got it. do you have a particular means of creating jobs that has not been tried yet? >> what i talked about here has not been tried to the fullest. the president was on that path with the recovery act and....
>> rose: do we need another stimulus program? >> let's hope that we get taken to a place with the unemployment rate going down that we may not. i think we do need... >> rose: do we need another stimulus program? >> one thing we do need... >> rose:... to increase consumer demand? >> rose: one thing we do need is a transportation bill. a transportation and infrastructure bill to be reauthorized. it has always been one of the biggest job creators and this is something that the republicans in congress have kicked the can down the road on. we have to pass that bill. >> rose: 2016. whoever's president. would you like to see the secretary of state who's leaving office run for president again? >> yes. >> rose: i thought so. >> that would be so exciting. and isn't she a magnificent secretary of state? >> rose: do you believe she will? >> i have no knowledge. i have no knowledge of that but... >> rose: she would be the instant front-runner in the
democratic party. >> you know what? we're talking about a hundred years from now. we can't even predict who is going to win the election. >> rose: but when you're talking about debt reduction you're talking about ten years from now. we have to think in terms of planning. >> every assumption in politics is an old, steal, and almost false one. new communication, new people coming forward and the rest. >> rose: but suppose the republicans came to you and said... and you were part of the decision making process along with the president and republican leaders in the house and leaders in the senate and said to you "we will accept for every one dollar in tax revenue increasing if you'll give us $3 in spending reductions." would you buy that deal? >> we've already done that. >> rose: okay, so you'd do it. the answer is yes, we'd take that deal. >> we can't do it again. in other words, we've already given much more in cuts and they have given nothing in revenue. so you can't keep saying "okay, we'll do it again." it has to be much more equal in
terms of... >> rose: so you're saying well, we've done it again but i'm not prepared anymore to accept a $1 increase in revenue for every... and then give you $3 in spending cuts. no longer are you prepared to make that... >> we already did it. you see what i'm saying to you is we already are making the cuts without anything commensurate on the revenue side. so this is what we have to do in the sequestration. >> rose: is it fair to say also that... i mean, republicans you can never have a serious reduction of the debt unless republicans are prepared to have a serious look at raising revenue by eliminating deductions and other means. you cannot have... >> exactly. >> rose: you cannot make a serious encroachment on the debt deficit and the debt, unless you're prepared to raise taxes. >> well... is that true? >> let me just respond in this way. it may not be your answer but it's my response. you cannot proceed with any
changes unless you have some serious revenue coming in. in the budget that the republicans have on the... just passed on the floor. they don't touch one hair on the head of people making over a million dollars a year and yet they ask seniors to spend $6,000 more on medicare while it lasts until they sever medicare. how can you ask seniors to spend $6,000 more and say to the wealthiest people in america "you're held harm he is from all of this"? it's just not fair. the only way that you can strike the balance and make these agreements is if there's fairness in the system and with that we're prepared to make all kinds of changes. >> rose: would you also be prepared to urge your fellow democrats that unless we take a serious look of entitlements we cannot make a serious effort of
reducing the deficit. we cannot continue with the entitlements structure the way it exists today. >> but let me make a clarification about that. i believe that everything should be on the table. but there are different tables. if you're going to do social security and you want to make some changes in social security that adds to its stability you keep that all in the... you don't say "we're going to change social security so we can give... you and i will get another tax break." no, social security is for social security some of medicare is trust fund, some is not. but we're going to make the change we make in medicare to keep it strong. these are values, they're about the stability of our seniors and the rest are economic and health security and other people as well. so when you strengthen them it's not to avoid raising taxes on the rich, it's to strengthen them so you have to keep them in your separate categories.
that's what i believe i do believe that we have to... if we're serious about deficit reduction-- and we have to be-- that we have to make cuts and we have to have revenue and we have to address the entitlements. but in a way that keeps them strong. >> rose: and you have to let the bush tax cuts that might have benefited the middle-class die even though it came from a republican president. >> well, definitely letting die the tax cuts for people making over a million dollars a year. >> talking about the middle-class tax cuts. that's not what they mean >> i'm talking about the high end. i'm talking about the high end. >> rose: what about the middle? >> you can make a judgment about that. >> rose: you're not prepared to say they shouldn't be continued? >> in our caucus there is a school of thought that says let get rid of all the tax cuts. >> rose: and the former speaker of the house says? >> i say let's begin by getting
rid of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars a year. i'm not even saying $250,000. the president's saying $250,000. a million and above. who can argue with that? >> rose: that's one what someone else suggested. people making more than a million. >> well, people making more than a million should not be getting bush tax cuts. we should go back to the clinton tax rates. we had a very prosperous economy at the time. but let's get back to the issue of fairness about investing in our future. for example, not to do what the republicans have suggested. i said we should get rid of the tax cuts for the... for big oil. the big five oil. >> rose: the subsidies. >> yeah, let's get rid of those subsidies. that will save us $38 billion over ten years they don't need incentives to make tens of billions of dollars. >> they say we don't have any problem with that but make sure
you reject subsidies for all manufacturing. >> they say that but this is something the american people are dependent upon this is not an option. this is mandatory. so instead of getting rid of tax cuts, subsidies for big oil they said you can get that same $38 billion by lowering them t amount of money we invest in pell grants. can you believe that? that's the fact. and that's the battle of values that we have. >> rose: so you are saying this coming election should be a battle of values. >> every election is every election is about the future. when we talk about values we talk about the education of our children, job creation for our workers, security for our seniors. clean healthy neighborhoods, safe neighborhoods for our kids. a world at peace done in a fiscally sound way. they're not issues, they're
values. they're priorities for our country. they're not even political, we should leab to find common ground to do that. about what role of the private and public sector is. the president is very wedded to market oriented solutions, public/private partnerships, fresh thinking about how we invest in the future that's why i think he will be reelected and hope he will be serving with a democratic congress come next november. >> rose: and you'll be the speaker. >> it's not excluded. >> rose: (laughs) i suggest for all of you who have more interest in understanding the nuances of how washington goes about grappling with essential ideas in our future read this "new york times" piece called "who killed the debt deal." thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> rose: now you have to go to new jersey. >> yes, and my pleasure to do that as well. thank you. >> rose: we'll be right back.
stay with us. >> rose: bill brot on the is here, he served as police commissioner boston, new york city and most recently los angeles. "time" magazine called him america's top cop after he reduced the crime epidemic in new york. he's known for his success in combating urban crime and gang violence. his new book is called "collaborate or perish." reaching across boundaries in a network world. i'm pleased to have him. i expected it to be something different but this is really about how to get organized, how to manage, how to produce results. yes? >> that's the substance of it. it's the heart and soul of the book. eight things that we think are essential to collaboration. >> rose: when you say "we" you mean you and your co-author? >> that's correct. psalm schulman a senior researcher at the kennedy school at harvard. it was his original idea for the book and i was happy to collaborate with him. >> rose: when you say hahvahd
you sound like you're from boston. (laughs) >> i'm giving away my background. my roots. >> rose: so you said there's a story we ought to tell? >> three years ago we were at the kennedy school attending a session on twitter, this new social media device twitter. i still hadn't figured out blogs and now they're talking about twitters and zach at lunch approached me, we've known for 20 years and said i have an idea for a book. and the idea for the book... he had the title and the publishers... >> rose: collaborate or perish. >> publishers loved the title and it was the idea to play to the book with some of my experiences which he felt met the guidelines he had developed around this eight essential elements to collaboration as he's identified them and when we matched it up against my new york and los angeles experience they match perfectly so from there we're off. took us two years.
we were fortunate that crown publishing opted to go with it. >> rose: tell me about the eight things that are essential that you have learned from your experience. >> the two essential ones are number one and number eight. number someone vision. a leader to have a vision and eight is for that leader to have a passion about the vision so stories we tell in reference to myself, new york city, 1994, giuliani is the newly elected mayor in new york, he had a vision and passion that he could do something about crime in the city he was aware of my earlier experience in the subway systems turning around crime there. malcolm gladwell wrote about that in "tipping point" and approached me to be his first police commissioner. so we had for at least a year a very successful collaboration so when i went to los angeles-- and that's the second story we tell about the book-- i married the two mayors that i was fortunate
to work for there we staid very closely together within the political headlights they accomplished. the idea is to have a vision, find those that share the vision and will work with you in new york. i have the extraordinary team with john timoney, john miller, the people you know well. in los angeles i had another super bowl team to work with. essential also is the idea of finding a common platform that you can bring people to. the idea of people who are willing to see that there's something in it for them whether it's financial rewards, whether it's psychic rewards. platform in new york city was the new york city police department and its members, the public, the media, mayor giuliani, everybody felt a safer city was in it for them. so that shared platform was easy to create. los angeles more difficult the
race tensions in that city his historically. so trying to get the african american community and the los angeles police department who had been at war with each other for 50 years to get on the same platform and see a safer l.a. was beneficial to both of them more difficult. it took seven years there instead of the two years here. >> rose: continue with the eight platform wes need to understand. >> well the platforms are the idea that one of the stories we tell is about the arab spring, the egyptian experience that the widely understood phenomenon through twitter, through the web how a platform was found where the government shut down most of the normal means of communication, the media, etc., they were able to find on that platform. the internet, twitter, where they could exchange ideas, where the rallies were going to be held and so there's an example of the whole theme of the book
in today's networked world it's so easy to have a platform, to have a vision. one thing we didn't write about in the book because the book was done before it occurred was the occupy wall street phenomenon. we list phenomenon, the leaders of it are still not really known and i think that's one of their weaknesses that they don't have leaders who are identified and they found an ability through the internet to get a lot of people in a lot of cities around the world to come together around the scene... >> rose: using social media? >> using social media. and so they had a vision. they had the ability to make it pay for anybody to get into the demonstration, whether you were homeless, whether you were... lost your job that the wide variety of people who joined the movement. they were able to life size the ploob in the sense of what was the problem they were trying to address and in the life sizing of it it was the idea that the greed of wall street had
impacted on so many lives and so many different parts of the world and that that that something needed to be done about it. so the eight steps, if you will, the essential heart and soul of the book, the book is a book of stories. there's two dozen stories, business, public sector. there's actually something in it for everybody. if you don't like one story, move on and get to another. >> you make this point in the introduction. collaboration is about people. unless you can collaborate and brick people together you cannot get the job done as well otherwise. >> and just look at the politics in the united states at the moment. we have 20 of people with vision, they're surrounding themselves with people who share the vision but on the platform they can't get others to get on the same platform. if anything the platforms are like icebergs that are floating apart from each other so technology can help but it comes down to the old-fashioned issue
of a person with an idea or group of people. if you look at steve jobs, he had... he created apple. google was created by a group of people so the vision is not necessarily just the idea of one person. but it is still the idea of gathering people around you and technology can speed it up. technology can magnify it, wall street became... wall street became an international movement literally overnight because of technology. >> rose: how do you handle that? because it is a test because you want to respect free expression, you have a certain obligation to stability, security and safety. >> it really was a test and what was interesting is how it was handled by different cities, speaking specifically to the united states. in new york you lad the odd tom nonthat it was a public part but privately owned. and it had to be open 24 hours a day so the ability of the city
government to move on it required the cooperation of a collaboration with the owners of the site and that was not given initially. los angeles made the mistake of inviting the political leadership of the city, inviting the occupy wall street movement to occupy the long surrounding city hall i spent up seven years trying to clean up skid row and then created skid row at city hall overnight. so the beauty of what went on was a wonderful test of the diversity of the american political and law enforcement system. and no instance did the police move independently of political guidance. in some cities, chicago, rahm emanuel the mayor told the demonstrators in grant park the park closes at 10:00, at midnight we'll move you out and they did it. in new york city they did not. in l.a. they invited them to stay as long as you want.
finally after three months and $3 million worth of damage to the city hall grounds they decided they had enough. it was a wonderful testing of... >> rose: what was the leadership of those three? >> in my own preference chicago. i'm a great believer that you have rules. rules are to be adhered to by everybody. the whole concept in new york city to change... the revolutionary change was the idea around the broken windows philosophy. the idea that minor rules which had been neglected for 25 years in the city, fear invasion, aggressive begging, the graffiti. once we began to pay attention to that, the tipping point gladwell wrote about in his book occurred very rapidly so you can reverse an epidemic once you find the right vaccine, if you will. in new york that vaccine was police doing what police are supposed to do, enforcing the law constitutionally, compassionately, consistently. poor neighborhoods, rich neighborhoods. you do it the same all over i
think lessons learned with the occupy wall street movement, there were a lot of different experiments under way, i think most successful was grant park. you can go back everyday and basically demonstrate but you have to leave at 10:00. you can't effect efly set up a skid row homeless encampment. >> rose: what's happened to the friendly cop on the beat? >> unfortunately with the budget situation we are back to the same numbers of we had in the 1990s after the great growth under president clinton, the omnibus crime bill, the cops program. there are fewer of them in every city in america and the shame is in the 1990s we finally got it right as related to collaboration between police and community. there were more of us, they were focused appropriately on dealing with... because there were enough we could deal with serious crime and we came to understand that people were as concerned with minor crime which they saw everyday as they were with serious crime with the
majority of them experienced by reading about it. so we had the right medicine bus we are now reducing the medicine, the number of police. and in doing that we've benefited from the investment of the '90s because crime rates have continued to go down or hold steady but the longer we go forward with the stresses on law enforcement, numbers of police we'll have to see. >> rose: what's the balance between that, that essential necessity of having smart intelligence and at the same time making sure you don't in a sense go too far? >> you have at this point in time in this city, new york, a very interesting situation. dual situations occurring. as it relates to traditional crime, dealing with crime in the streets, the whole issue of stop question, and frisk, or stop-and-frisk as it's more commonly known which is an absolutely basic essential tool of american policing is under
great challenge and great stress. as recently as this morning the paper is reporting a whole group of organizations a r threatening the next mayoral election the mayoral candidate will have to address that fundamental issue of police and their ability to question. and the issue with terrorism, what is also being questioned is police tactics and strategies designed to try and keep the city safe. both of them to deal with the same phenomenon of how much policing is appropriate, how intrusive can that policing be, how transparent can it be? and it's going to be an interest said of issues to watch evolve in the coming months as we move toward the mayoral election because effectively what's happening in new york will impact the rest of the country. this stressing and testing of stop and frisk to deal with traditional crime and the stressing and testing of the tactics that new york has developed that are far superior to any other police agency in
the country including possibility the federal government agencies on how to keep the city safe against the terrorist efforts that we're dealing with. how many grown as well as external. >> rose: david cameron, the prime minister of great britain, invited you over. there was some question as to whether he might make you head of scotland yard which i thought was an interest idea. >> i thought it was a great idea. >> rose: you would have loved that. >> it would have been great. as much as i love what i do now here in new york, working in the private sector i spent 40 years professionally in the n.y.p.d. commissioner and metropolitan police commissioner those are the two pin pinnacles and i've always been a great admirer and love for britain, london and the issues and that's a unique position because it has traditional responsibilities for the city of london but national responsibilities for dealing with terrorism for the country.
there's no police position like that in the world. so i was not offered the job. the press made quite a deal out of it. >> rose: you would have been prepared and your wife to move to london? >> her bags were packed. >> rose: william bratton, thank you for coming. >> pleasure to be with you, thank you, charlie. >> rose: the book is a lesson for all of us. collaborate or perish, the value of reaching across boundaries in a network world. thank you for joining us. see you next time. le