Welcome to Ideas in Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. This week: insurrection in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and throughout the Middle East. The uprisings come as Iran celebrates the 32^nd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power and while memories of the 2009 crackdown against the Green Movement are still fresh. What's behind these mass movements in the Middle East and will they inspire the Green Movement to rise once again?

Joining me to explore this topic are: Mohsen Sazegara, Iranian journalist and visiting fellow at the George W. Bush Institute at Southern Methodist University. He was a leader in Iran's revolution of 1979 and is now an activist in its pro-democracy movement;

Joshua Muravchik, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a prolific author on foreign affairs including his latest book, The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East.

The topic this week: uprisings in the Arab world, implications for Iran and the United States. This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:

Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Mohsen, what is the main driver behind these mass movements and uprisings we're seeing now in the Middle East?

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

I think it's democracy. Demand for freedom-- free election. And now is the time that the forkway that dictators like Hosni Mubarak has tried to draw for several years - they have said that there is only two ways in Middle East: military dictators, Islamism.  And Islamists had the power. Now there's a third way.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Of course, in Iran 32 years ago you-- you were there and you had a broad coalition that was in opposition to a dictatorship and what emerged was not a democracy.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

You know, 32 years ago we had a military dictator, he was the Shah of Iran, he came to power by a military coup in 1953. But the situation was quite different. All groups were united against Shah, but the main part of the movement against Shah were Islamists so they took the power. But last year in Iran, in the Green Movement of Iran, the middle class of Iran, many of the intellectuals, elites of the society, they united against Islamists in Iran and asked for free election, freedom of election, and democracy. So I think that that movement in Iran has inspired many of the Islamic nations in the whole region.

JIM GLASSMAN:

So what happened in the last-- 2009 is inspiring Arab countries?

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

I think so.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Ok. Josh, what do you see as kind of core of these uprisings that have gone on in Arab countries?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

The Arab world, the Muslim Middle East, has been an outlier. If you take away the Muslim Middle East, more than 70% of the governments in the world today have been elected by their own people in legitimate, contested, free, and fair elections. And if you look at the Muslim Middle East, the number that have been elected by their own people is essentially zero. Except maybe Iraq-- you know with the U.S. military presence. So this part of the world has just been left behind but the world is very interpenetrated these days, particularly the younger generation with electronic media, they see what's going on everywhere else. And there's been a lot of talk about, 'Why not us too? Why can't we choose our own government?'

JIM GLASSMAN:

So Josh-- so it's almost as though the solidarity movement in Poland is at the root of what's happening in Egypt?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

Well, I wouldn't go that far because I think these things are very inflammable and they tend to spread but usually within regions. So if you think back to solidarity when it rose the second time in 1988, by the end of 1989 every communist government in Eastern Europe had been overthrown. If you think back to Latin America in the 70s there was a military dictatorship in almost every country and over the course of a series of years they were all-- except for Castro's Cuba --they were all overthrown. And you could go all the way back to 1848 in one year there were-- when people in Europe were first fighting for democracy there were 50 revolutions in one year. I think that a spark has been ignited in the Middle East, first in Iran-- it took a while but when the Iranian demonstrations were going on in 2009 if you went to the internet and to Facebook and so on, again and again there were Egyptian young people saying, 'Why are we so lame? How can the Iranians get out into the street and fight their dictator and we can't fight ours?'

JIM GLASSMAN:

And you know this is a connection that I don't think has been made very much in-- since Tunisia and Iran-- I'm sorry since Tunisia and Egypt-- this connection between Iran and Arab countries. Is Iran being affected? Is the Green Movement of which you are an integral part-- is that being affected by what's happened in Egypt?

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

Definitely yes and these days I have several emails from young generation in Iran with big questions. They say that before Egypt they're asking about Tunisia. Because they say that 'Tunisia succeeded, why shouldn't we?' And as Josh said, you know, a young person in Iran thinks like an Egyptian young generation-- because of their new tools; internet, satellite TVs, many of them are good friends of themselves on Facebook.

JIM GLASSMAN:

But they don't speak the same language.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

They use English. I have seen several of them that they use English especially Diaspora-- the part of the movements who are outside the country, they have very close ties to each other and they try to learn from each other.

JIM GLASSMAN:

I want to go back to the Iranian revolution in 1979 because that was really-- was the biggest revolution in the Middle East-- the biggest popular uprising in the Middle East in our times. Do you think that what's going on in these Arab countries is more related to '79 or is it more related to '09 as far as Iran is concerned?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

I think decisively more to '09. There's been a big question mark hanging over Egypt through all political discourse for many years, which is: if the current regime were to fall, will the Muslim brothers take over? Is the alternative to Mubarak an Islamist Egypt?

JIM GLASSMAN:

And the Muslim brotherhood is-- just tell our viewers--

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

Well, they're sort of the original Islamist group founded in the 1920s and their slogan is 'Islam is the answer.' The answer to what? Well presumably to all political problems and in a sense, although there are different movements and the differences between Sunni and Shia but they were-- the Muslim brothers were really the originators of this idea of Islamic politics that were to a large extent borrowed by the Iranians. And people who followed Egypt have wondered about what is the real strength of the Muslim brothers. No one knew because it's all subterranean because there's been a dictatorship and there's been no free votes, there's no reliable public opinion polls and I think what we've seen just watching the demonstrations-- the anti Mubarak demonstrations-- is that the Muslim brothers have been there but they've been a very decided minority and they've been far outnumbered by people who are talking in clear terms, you know, not about an Islamic Egypt-- Islamist Egypt-- but about democracy and freedom. And, that's why I think the answer to your question is the Egyptians who are in the streets now are looking at Iran of 2009, they're not looking at Iran of 1979.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

Josh is right. You know, we learned from Muslim brotherhood--

JIM GLASSMAN:

You meaning--

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

I mean my generation in Islamic revolution. But what happened during the last 32 years we implemented those ideas in Iran, it didn't work. And now these-- go back to that mutual inter-- interrelations between these nations. Now if you look at the-- even Muslim activists in Islamic countries-- even them I mean, Rashid al-Ghannushi in Tunisia or Muslim brotherhood in Egypt they-- very simple they say that, 'We don't want to make another Islamic revolution, we don't want to make another Islamic Republic.'

JIM GLASSMAN:

So even they are saying that. And it's because, you're saying a big factor is the experience in Iran.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

Exactly.

JIM GLASSMAN:

That has not been particularly inspirational-- it may have been inspirational the overthrow of the Shah but what's happened since has not made anyone particularly excited about having that kind of regime.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

I think that not only the experience of those ideas in Iran failed but again I go back to '09, I go back to last year, everybody in Islamic countries saw that an Islamic regime is-- how brutal, how attacks to girls-- young girls-- boys on the streets and especially amongst the you know Arab satellite TVs they had very very good coverage about the events in Iran and this is the very simple reason that now even the Muslim activists they say at the first step they say, 'No we are not another Khomeini, we are not another Islamic revolution and we are just fighting for freedom.' I think that-- I have read some articles from the present Muslim brotherhood they have been changed as well; they have changed some of their ideas.

JIM GLASSMAN:

And is another change, Josh, the attractiveness of democracy? Could we even say that some of the people in Arab countries are looking at the newest Arab democracy, which is Iraq?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

I haven't seen signs of that, Jim. I was a supporter of the American invasion of Iraq. I hoped that we could turn Iraq into a democracy and that it would be a model for the region but I'd be very slow to say that-- that that succeeded. It may be that Iraq is increasingly becoming a democracy but the terrible hellish years that Iraq went through of endless violence in the street I think had a negative effect. I think in the region a lot of people looked at the chaos in Iraq and said, 'If that's democracy, I don't want that in my country.' So I don't think we can take Iraq as much of a model for what's going on in these other countries.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

Iraq is not a good example. It didn't happen by the hands of the people. There is nothing in Iraq to be learned by the other nations. That was U.S. and British troops invading Iraq and so what happened after that was terrible. But the general policy of the United States; that was a turn point I think. I remember that in those days I was in Iran in two different universities. In my speeches I said that, this is for the first time, we have the image of the United States as a government which supports the dictators, from 70s in Latin America or in the Middle East, supporting Shah, supporting Mubarak, supporting-- but for the first time, a president of the United States says, and Condoleezza Rice was in those days advisor of the National Security, they are insisting for new Middle East, new democracy for all countries and this is it. I said that I don't know what's the national benefit of the United States for such a policy but our national interest, which is democracy, is now in the same way with the United States. So we can push the dictators in the region.

JIM GLASSMAN:

And how important is this ideological point that Mohsen is making that the United States by promoting democracy is-- can have a real impact on countries in the Middle East that are-- where you've got people who are yearning for democracy? I mean do we-- can we really have an impact?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

Oh, I think the United States always has an impact. The fact is there are a lot of people who in the world who resent the United States, who blame the United States for a lot of their problems, but the United States is an enormous force in the world, it's the most powerful country. It's the wealthiest country and the American ideas are the ideas we're talking about-- democracy was thought of by a lot of different people but it was tried first in America and this is where it was proved that it could work, that you could have a successful, internally peaceful country governed in this way by the people voting. And even people who are angry at us around the world, in Egypt or other situations, you often see them in the streets saying, 'Why doesn't the United States support us more?' So obviously they care a lot about-- and I think if I can echo one point of Mohsen's, I think that the United States had a mixed record-- we had pushed democracy in Eastern Europe, in some periods we pushed it in Latin America, but never in the Middle East. There seemed to be a consensus that Middle East had to be ruled by Emirs or other kinds of dictators. Bush, whatever else he may have done right or wrong, he really made a dramatic break and said, 'No, that's wrong, we don't-- our interests aren't with these dictators, we want democracy in these countries too.' And remember he singled out Egypt in-- I think it was a State of the Union address, he said, to call upon the great country of Egypt which led the Middle East in peace now to lead it in democracy. And I think to have an American president talking that way left a certain lasting impact on the way people were thinking about the possibility of democracy in their own country and region. 

JIM GLASSMAN:

I want to come back to the Iranian revolution. So why did the Islamists prevail?

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

One of the most important reasons was the network of the clerics-- clergy and the mosques all around the country who supported the revolution. You know, dictatorship of the Shah destroyed any political party, any opposition group, except the, you know the mosques and religious organizations.

JIM GLASSMAN:

But you know in our comparison now between Iran and Egypt isn't that true today? I mean, certainly Mubarak did his best to destroy or minimize the effect of civil society. You know you had the Muslim brotherhood but really not much in the way of other institutions. I have to say that you know when I was at the State Department we tried to help build some of these institutions but I don't think we got very far.

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

But there is a very very big difference between Iran and Egypt. Sunni countries, the network of the mosques are controlled by the governments, but in Shi'ism the mosques are independent of the government. So I mean in Iran, because of Shi'ism, the network of the mosques were independent from the government and as soon as Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader, succeeded to persuade the majority of the clerics of Iran to support him and the Islamic revolution then we had a very powerful tool against Shah.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Can I ask you a personal question? Why did you change sides?

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

It started about three years after victory of the revolution. Gradually I found out that the system doesn't work. When I saw the brutality of the, you know, ideologic regime against the opposition groups and inefficiency in the industries of Iran and the slogans against all the world including the United States and several other factors. Gradually I changed my ideas. I reread all the books of the founders of revolution and at last not only me, many people like me in my generation, we changed our ideas from a maximum theory of religion to a minimum theory of religion and to think about a democratic version of Islam instead of a revolutionary ideologic version of Islam. A kind of pluralism in religion, pluralistic religion instead of a monistic religion.

JIM GLASSMAN:

And you think that that is-- that kind of view is shared by many people in the Middle East?

MOHSEN SAZEGARA:

By many people yeah in my generation. The first step that came out of these types of ideas in Iran was reform movement in Iran in 90s. We tried to reform the regime toward a democracy. It didn't work because of the constitution so the next step was to change the constitution. What happened last year in 2009 in Iran-- to use the situation of election-- presidential election in Iran was the biggest step toward a democratic movement in Iran.

JIM GLASSMAN:

So Josh, given what you've said earlier about the kind of a democratic contagion regionally in Latin America and Eastern Europe, do you think that the Green Movement will prevail in Iran? 

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

I'm very confident that the Green Movement will prevail in Iran. Iran is the most ripe for democracy of the countries of the region. Even though they've lived under this terrible theocracy and before that the Shah's dictatorship but they have had voting, they have had some parties organize, they have had opposition newspapers. Mohsen was the one who published some of them. So the people there in Iran have some experience with the forms of democracy even though they haven't had the privilege to live under it and I think it would be easy to make that transition in Iran and I think the people will keep demanding it.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Josh, in your book, The Next Founders, where you profile leaders in the Middle East who are fighting for democracy, including Mohsen, you say this, 'A critical requisite of democracy is democrats,' small d, 'people who believe in democracy and are ready to work and fight for it.' Can U.S. policy increase the number of democrats in the Middle East? And how?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

Two things I would focus on. One is just the rhetoric from the top about the necessity for democracy.

JIM GLASSMAN:

And has there been enough of that?

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK:

Well what's heartbreaking is that President Obama has been, from the day he took office, so determined to erase the legacy of President Bush that he's completely turned away from Bush's innovation of advocating democracy for the Middle East. I'm hoping that the events in Egypt will give him second thoughts. He has a more silvered tongue than President Bush had, if we could hear this kind of advocacy of democracy from President Obama it might even reach further. And the second thing is, it's a young generation that's leading the push for change and it's also this young generation that's going to have to assume leadership of these countries when the change comes. They're going to need all new institutions to create a democracy. It's easy to overthrow-- not easy but relatively easy to overthrow a dictator, it's much harder to build a democracy that lasts for-- through elections and through political conflict and people need training, they need education. We did some very fine stuff after 1989 with young people from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, often bringing them here for a period of time or programs that we ran over there, to help give them more skills so that they could takeover the leadership of a kind of a new democratic country and I think we need to do the same thing in the Middle East.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Thank you Josh Muravchik and thank you Mohsen Sazegara. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching.

Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs, just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action - because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:

For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

***END OF AUDIO***

*END OF TRANSCRIPT*  

Welcome to Ideas in Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences.  I'm Jim Glassman.  This week: a conversation with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, author of Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America. The topic this week, race in America: where do we stand now?  This is Ideas in Action.  (MUSIC)

              ANNOUNCER:

Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at investors.com.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist at the Washington Post, a long-time journalist, an author.  He's just published his third book, Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America.  Welcome, Eugene Robinson, to Ideas in Action.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Thanks, Jim.  Great to be here.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Could you just lay out the premise of your book?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

The premise of the book is that-- the way we talk about black America is wrong.  That-- w-- we talk about it as if it were-- a single entity.  And-- while that was never exactly true, it was more true 40 or 50 years ago-- and it's not true at all now.

That-- that-- because of the successes of the-- the civil rights movement, and affirmative action, and all the advances African Americans have made, or many African Americans have made-- you just really can't talk about black America as one thing anymore.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And you divide the black American population into four distinct groups.  Could you tell us about those-- very briefly?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Sure.  I-- I went through census data and marketing studies, and everything, and came up with-- with-- with four groups.  One-- the largest group, which is a majority, actually, is the mainstream.  That's not a huge majority.  I mean, I'd say 55, 60 percent.  The mainstream is the majority of the-- African American population-- that has entered the middle class.

There's a too-large minority-- at least 25 percent, and maybe as much as 30 percent-- that I call the abandoned.  And these are-- the people who did not make the climb to the middle class, for whom that climb is-- is increasingly difficult and distant-- and who are, kind of, mired in the stubborn and multi-generational poverty and dysfunction-- in a cycle that we've really not been able to break.

And two other groups.  One-- the transcendent group, which is-- a very small elite that has wealth, power, or influence-- not just relative to other African Americans, but relative to the whole society or the whole world.  And-- and, you know-- examples, President Obama-- Oprah Winfrey-- African Americans who have just reached-- unprecedented-- heights in-- in-- in the society, and-- and have that kind of-- juice.

And-- the fourth group-- is-- is actually, kind of-- a bifurcated group.  It's-- there are two segments.  I call it the emergent group, emergent black America.  And I use that word because it kind of expands our definition of-- of what black America is.  The two components of that group, one is-- black immigrants-- from the Caribbean, and especially from Africa, and their children-- who are coming in-- in-- record numbers.  And-- the other group is biracial Americans-- of whom there are-- increasing numbers.  And-- and-- whose relationship with white America might be a bit different from-- from, say, mine.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And as-- President Obama, as well.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Exactly.  Exactly.  He fits in a lot of these groups.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So, how-- how did you get the idea for this?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

This had been working on me for a while-- really for several years, to the extent there was a discussion about black America.  It just seemed to me-- it-- it wasn't going to the point.  It wasn't, for example, saying anything-- to or about the black middle class, which-- which was obviously this huge and growing and-- and-- and really quite prosperous-- segment.

So-- I thought about it, thought about it, then two things happened-- both in-- in 2007.  One, I was-- asked at-- at the Washington Post just to give a five minute greeting to a group of-- publishing executives from the African American press, who-- who were having a reception at the Post.  And I was happy to go down, and do, kind of, a drive-by greeting of you know five minutes or so. And I-- I-- I went down, and started talking.  And these ideas about this diversity, and this-- questions about the community-- just, kinda, popped into my head.  So I just started talking about that a little bit.  And I was stunned at the reaction.  People really latched onto it, and wanted to talk more about it.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And they hadn't thought about it before?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Well, some of 'em-- they had had that-- the--

              (JIM GLASSMAN:  UNINTEL)

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--Same kind of proto thinking about it--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Right, right, which is always the best kind of idea--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--But they hadn't really-- exactly--

              (OVERTALK)

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--Ready for it.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

-- It's ready to be crystallized.  And-- and they just jumped all over it.  This five minute drive-by turned into an hour.  And-- as they wanted to talk, and they wanted to bounce ideas, you know, they're, kind of, thinking off of me.  And I said, "Wow.  Well, th-- you know, there might be something here."

And-- the second thing that happened was that the Pew Research Center came out with-- with a poll.  They did a survey of African Americans, and they came up-- it-- it, you know, in that survey was an astonishing figure-- that 37-- I believe 37.5 of African Americans-- who were surveyed said they no longer believed black Americans could be thought of as a single race.

And-- there was no follow-up question, so y-- you didn't quite know what that meant.  But I knew that meant something.  And it-- it-- it reinforced this-- this thinking.  So I-- I started going through census data, marketing studies, academic studies, talking to people.

And then something else happened, the Obama campaign.  And-- and so, as the year went on-- the campaign looked more and more viable, and I got, kind of, busy that year, too.  But we agreed-- Doubleday and I agreed that-- you really couldn't do this book without seeing how that story came out.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Right.  Yeah, I think one of the most moving parts of your book is where you talk about what pre-civil rights America was like.  Can you describe that a little bit-- within the context of the book?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Pre-civil rights America, I'm old enough to-- to remember-- some of it.  I was-- I was a child.  I grew up in Orangeburg, South Carolina-- at the tail end of Jim Crow.  Ours was the second class-- to integrate-- to go to the newly integrated white high school in town.  There was of course a white high school and a black high school.  There was a black side of town and a white side of town.  In 1968, when I was in high school, there was an incident in our town called the Orangeburg Massacre--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Oh, yeah?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--In which several-- several-- black students were killed in a demonstration over a segregated bowling alley.  So, in the context of-- segregated neighborhoods, in which most African Americans lived-- there were-- economically, culturally, and socially-- integrated communities, racially segregated, but in other ways integrated.

And so-- I remember in my neighborhood, you had, you know, my mother was a college librarian, my father taught at college.  One of my teachers lived down the street, but also the shoemaker, and-- and-- and-- and his wife was a seamstress.  And the lady who serves French fries in the South Carolina State College cafeteria lived next door.  It was-- we were, kinda, all together.  We were literally all in the same boat.

There were businesses, there were black owned businesses that were pa-- you know, patronized by African Americans.  And so, there was a real fabric to the community.  And I'm talking about a small, you know, small town in the-- in the south, but you could say much the same about the south side of Chicago, for example, or about Harlem, or about the lar-- northern cities-- where so many African Americans ended up-- after the great migration.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So more homogeneous ca-- socially--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--Not necessarily economically.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Right.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

But it's more, kind of, a feeling of-- of one-- one group, and a kind of web of support, as a result.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

There-- there was certainly a web of-- of support, and there were-- there were institutions, as well.  For example-- when I was a kid, the vast majority of-- of African Americans who had college degrees had earned them at historically black colleges and universities.  I think it was something like 80 percent.

Well, now-- a much greater percentage of-- of the black-- population in the country has-- is college educated, which is-- which is a very good thing.  But the-- the proportions have, kind of, flipped, and only less than 20 percent of-- of--  blacks who go to college go to historically black colleges and universities.  They all go to institutions of-- many of which didn't accept African Americans when I was a kid.

And as new opportunities opened up-- and it was possible in my home state to go to the University of South Carolina, or to go to Clemson, or to go to the College of Charleston, or whatever-- and it was possible for-- for the best professors to get-- jobs and then tenure at these white institutions-- that created a real crisis for historically black colleges.  And-- and-- and-- and some are surviving it, and some are-- some are not.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And you, yourself, went to the University of Michigan.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Yes.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And was that-- an experience during the '70s, I guess it was?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Yes, Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

The-- d-- were you-- w-- were you radicalized in any way?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

I think I k-- I kind of was, although more in the-- in the sense of Michigan at that time was-- center of campus radicalism.  And-- and-- and my first week on campus, I wandered in to the student newspaper.  And it was just love at first sight.  I never really thought I wanted to do anything else--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Michigan Daily--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--The Michigan Daily, yeah.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--Very good newspaper.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

It was a great newspaper.  I majored in Michigan Daily-- at Michigan.  I was-- co-editor in chief my last year.  And-- and-- and I-- I learned that that's the way I wanted to-- to experience the world.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And so you, yourself, are an example of someone who--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--Moved out of this, I don't know, cocoon, or this--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Absolutely.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--The-- this, kind of, homogeneous society.  So now, fast forward-- 40 years, so it's now-- 2010.  And in your book, you write, "It was increasingly clear to me that there was no one black America, that there were several, and that we had to distinguish among them if we were to talk intelligently about African Americans in the 21st century."

So-- so you've broken-- black America into these four groups that you-- you mentioned earlier.  Can you be a little more specific?  So the first group is the transcendent.  This is Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey-- Tiger Woods.  Did this group actually exist prior to-- the '50s, '60s, '70s--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Not-- not in-- not in this way.  African American president, African American, you know, financier-- CEO could not have happened.  It simply could not have happened-- in years past.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Do you think that the people in the transcendent category still suffer from racism in any way?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

There can be contexts where-- you're just another black guy, or just another black woman.  And-- if, in one of those contexts-- you run across someone who's inclined to discriminate, you get discriminated against.  But I-- but it's-- I don't think the people in that group spend a whole lot of time worrying that they, personally, are being-- being discriminated against, or-- or being treated-- being treated wrong, necessarily.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Middle class, that's the second group, middle class African Americans.  They've-- they have steadily risen in income, in education levels--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--And-- but you say they still live in two worlds.  Th-- th-- there is this distinction between middle class-- African Americans and middle class whites that maybe doesn't exist between-- in the transcendent group--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Well--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--Between-- African Americans and whites.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

I do believe that there is-- there is a kind of living in-- in two worlds-- aspect to middle class black American life.  The legacy of the civil rights movement, the sense of solidarity, and the sense of unity, and the sense of there being strength in-- in-- in numbers, and strength in-- in-- in finding, you know, common cause among us, and among ourselves.

And-- and that ethic, I think, is-- y-- you know, is still strong, even if it's in conflict with-- actual circumstances.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Right.  Right. So this is-- these are the two worlds that you're talking about.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).  Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

One is where there's more-- more, let's say, solidarity with other African Americans.  And there's another where y-- y-- where-- where you're more, sort of, part of an integrated world, and you--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Yeah.  Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--and you also, you feel that-- that sometimes middle class African Americans feel kind of torn, or even guilty about it.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Well, I-- t-- to a certain extent.  When-- the ability arose for-- for black Americans to move out of-- what were by then decaying black neighborhoods and live elsewhere, where they can have-- better schools, nicer homes, whatever.  They took advantage of those opportunities.  Of course they would.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So is there, kind of, a cognitive dissonance here?  In other words, you're-- you're-- you're moving up, but you, kind of, feel like, "We're leaving-- we're leaving people behind.  And we have some kind of responsibility for that"?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Yes, I-- I do believe that.  I don't wanna leave the impression that most middle class black Americans-- you know, sit around every night, you know-- you know, mashing their teeth, and, kind of-- you know-- at-- but there is-- the social consciousness, I think.  And really a sense of lost potential.  And there's one other factor, too, meaning in-- in one-- family, even, will be not just exclusively middle class-- people, but also people who-- who would fit in the group that I call the abandoned group.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

You call the group the abandoned--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--and why do you say that?  Who are they abandoned by?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Oh, I think-- by everybody, k-- (CHUCKLES) by everybody.  I mean, re-- you know, there-- there have been times when we-- when w-- when we talk, and try to act on the-- the, kind of-- scourge of persistent-- poverty and dysfunction.  And-- and recently, we don't talk about it a whole lot.  We did when Hurricane Katrina happened, and-- and-- and-- and kinda, flushed out all this dys-- dysfunction, and--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And you talk about that very movingly in-- in-- in your book.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

In New Orleans (UNINTEL)--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

But-- but you think that that's n-- that-- th-- that was just, kind of-- a moment? 

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

I think that was a moment.  And-- it was a moment, actually, when we said, "By golly, now, we're gonna gave that, sort of, you know, discussion about poverty."  Or, not just a discussion, but, "We're really gonna-- we're not gonna avert our eyes anymore.  We're not gonna pretend that it's not there."

And not just poverty.  I'm talking about entrenched multi-generational dysfunctional black poverty.  You know, that's, kinda, what I'm talking about in the book.  And, obviously, there are other kinds.  We said we were gonna talk about it, and we did for a little while.  But we-- we're not now.  I mean, we haven't been for a while.  And--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

But-- but-- but would you like to see this revived?  In other words, is-- is-- is this something that President Obama could do?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Well-- I think it's something that he could do.  I think it's something that-- that-- that any president could do, and, to my mind, at least, should-- should want to do, on any-- number of bases.  And I-- I don't think it's wise for this country to-- to write off that many people.  I-- I j-- I really don't.  I don't think that's a good idea.

And-- and-- I also-- believe that the rungs of the ladder that previous generations used to climb out of poverty, so many of those rungs just aren't there.  I mean, you can't do what Michelle Obama's father did-- you know, in Chicago, like so many other people did who were in the great m-- migration, get a good city job, you know, the-- the-- steady-- job security-- get a house, raise a family, send your kids to college, so they have a better life, have a pension when you retire.  It kind of sounds like a Grimm's fairy tale.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So-- so are you saying that-- you-- you note in the book that this group, this abandoned group, was, say about 50 percent of the population 40 years ago, and it may be 25 percent today.  And you think it's, kinda, stuck at 25?  Might even-- maybe it will go up?  Or do you think it's, kind of, evolutionarily gonna-- gonna decline, but maybe slowly?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

If it's gonna decline, I think we'll have to give it a nudge to decline.  I mean-- my reading of-- of the evolution is that it went down to that-- about-- approximately 25 percent.  And it's, kind of, bumps around.  And then it'll-- it'll dip, you know, when the economy's really roarin', it'll dip some.  Now that the economy is not roaring-- it-- it's gone up some.  But that's starting to look distressingly, to me, like a bench line.  And that's not acceptable.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So-- so what's the next group?  The s-- you got the-- the transcendent--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--The middle class, the-- the--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Abandoned.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--The abandoned.  And then your next group

              (OVERTALK)

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--is, sort of, bifurcated.  It's--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Right.  Well, let's talk about the immigrants first--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Okay.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--If you want to.  I mean, the-- the-- immigration from the-- from the Caribbean is-- is not really new.  It has increased some.  But what's-- what is quite new is-- immigration from Africa-- which was almost impossible back-- before the-- couple of changes in the immigration laws--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Right.  So this is--

              (OVERTALK)

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--Quotas--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--this is a result of legal change.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Exactly.  And-- so immigrants are, you know, from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana are-- are arriving in-- in unprecedented numbers.  They-- are the best educated regional group of immigrants coming to this country right now.  They're better educated than the Asians.  If you think about it, that makes sense, because if you're gonna come here from Burkina Faso, you must be really something.  You know, you must be prepared to, you know.

They generally arrive in intact families.  Two parent families-- strong, kind of, family traditions.  And they're doing very well.  And their sons and daughters are doing spectacularly well, and we're gonna hear a lot from them--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So what's the relationship between that group and, let's say the-- the middle class group of African Americans?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

You know-- some-- there has been some friction.  And there's-- there's a question that's out there that doesn't get o-- get asked that often, and-- and-- and really hasn't been answered.  But affirmative action, is that-- should that be for the sons and daughters of-- of-- or descendants of slaves?  People who suffered the injury get the rem-- remedy?  Or-- is it for black people who are-- potentially liable to discrimination, which includes a larger group including the immigrants?  And-- and-- where you, kind of, see this question being asked increasingly is-- is in-- in a question of college admissions.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And then the second part of the fourth group is-- people who've-- who've intermarriage-- biracial, or--

              (OVERTALK)

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Right.  Biracial, triracial, you know.  And-- and-- and it-- and it's just-- just--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Is that increasing?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Well, it is increasing.  It's hard to get really-- real numbers.  And frankly-- you know, w-- when you talk about-- race in this context, of-- you know, of course, you're talking about something that's actually totally meaningless, as-- as-- you know, in terms of biology, it doesn't mean anything.  In terms of sociology, it-- it means something.

But-- but-- you know, we sound like-- like the laws used to be in Louisiana, where they would-- you know, who's a melano?  Who's-- an octoroon?  Who's a this and who's a that-- depending on what-- what fraction of black parentage you had.  And part of the traditional black experience has been this sense of otherness.  And with-- and so if--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And-- and that-- and that was imposed by-- in part by white America, by these laws, like in Louisiana, you know, if you're 1/16th black, you know, you're-- you're black--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Yeah, you're black.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--Y-- so-- so if that-- if that's dissipating in some way, I mean, is it possible that, kind of, that race will, in America, will, kinda wither away--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

You know, I-- I think it's--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

--As it has in some countries?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--I think it-- I think it is entirely possible.  I think that date is-- is in the future.  I mean, we're not in post-racial America.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).  How has President Obama affected-- race in America?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

He made something possible that wasn't even on the radar scope.  I mean, if you had asked me, you know, ten years ago, would there be an African American president in my lifetime, I would have said, "Well, gee, I never thought about that."  But I'd have to guess not-- if I did think about it.  And so an amazing and incredible moment, I think, for this nation in its nearly-- 400 year history of dealing with-- dealing with race.

But, you know, progress never comes without a cost, I think.  And-- and the cost, I think-- in this case, and I'm judging as much from the kind of e-mail that I get as a columnist as anything else-- clearly it's caused anxiety among some people, and-- among some whites-- or contributes to anxiety among some whites-- about-- demographic change, about-- race.  I don't-- I don't know what all is-- is involved.  But--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

w-- w-- what do they say specifically?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Well, no, I mean, that-- you know-- some--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

You-- you mean--

              (OVERTALK)

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

--frankly racist kind of-- kinds of--

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Th-- these are directed at you?  Or-- or they're  directed at--

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Or at-- or at President Obama, or, you know, or-- or both.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

But is this-- a kind of sentiment that you didn't s-- see before President Obama became president?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Right.  Right.  I hadn't-- I hadn't-- I hadn't been seeing this.  And I-- and-- and-- and not the sort of vitriol.  And, again, I, you know, one-- one assumes, and I hope this is-- this is a relatively small group of people.  But-- but it-- it's surprising.  It's stuff that I hadn't heard since I was a kid.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Do you think that President Obama, because he is an African American, has a more difficult time dealing with a problem of the abandoned, or race in general?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Yes, I do.  When-- when he was running for president, I wrote that-- candidate Obama-- in order to be elected, was going to have to be perceived as the least aggrieved black man in America.  And I still believe that.  I mean, that there-- th-- it-- it was-- it was new.  It-- it was-- he had a lot of history to overcome.  And-- he was just gonna have to be seen as a non-threatening figure by white America.  And he was.

I also believed, and-- and I think most African Americans-- that I talked to at the time believed that it was going to be just politically more difficult for the first black president to do-- to enact any sort of specifically black agenda, or, you know, a-- agenda aimed at-- improving situation of black America specifically.  That-- that was gonna be hard.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

So you're not disappointed, just a fact of political life?

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

I-- yeah, I th-- I think it's just a fact of political life.  I think, you know, it-- it-- there's-- there are special burdens that come with being first at anything.  And there's a kind of scrutiny, and-- and-- that-- that just doesn't-- doesn't attach when you're the second, or the third, or the fourth.  And it's, you know, first is first.  And this-- this is a new thing for this country.  And so, no, I'm not disappointed because I just thought that was just the way it was gonna be. 

              JIM GLASSMAN:

Thank you, Eugene Robinson.

              EUGENE ROBINSON:

Thanks so much Jim-- it's great to be here.

              JIM GLASSMAN:

And before we go, I want to remind viewers that you can catch Ideas in Action wherever and whenever you choose.  To watch complete shows, just go to our website, ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store.  And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action.  I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching.  (MUSIC)

              ANNOUNCER:

For more information, visit us at ideasinactiontv.com.  Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at investors.com.  (MUSIC) This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

              * * *END OF AUDIO* * *

              * * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *

Welcome to Ideas in Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. This week: is the drug war pushing Mexico into chaos? Lurid headlines in Mexico have become a daily occurrence. Mass killings and assassinations are on the rise as Mexico drug cartels battle each other, the police and even the Army. Now the US military has begun training Mexican troops to fight the cartels. Should America get more involved in the growing unrest just over its southern border?

Joining me to discuss this topic are Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, Arturo Alvarado Mendoza, a fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy and professor of sociology at El Colegio in Mexico and Armand Peschard of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CEO of a consulting firm for companies doing business in Mexico. The topic this week: are drug cartels taking over Mexico? This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:

Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Every day, nearly a billion dollars worth of goods and one million travelers legally cross the border between Mexico and the United States. The two countries' economies, cultures and populations are intertwined. And increasingly, so are its militaries.

Mexico is reeling from a violent drug war that has claimed at least 30,000 lives since 2006. That's when Mexican president Felipe Calderón called in the Mexican army to take on the drug cartels. Now, US military advisors have started training their Mexican counterparts. What more can and should the two countries do to combat the drug violence in Mexico?

Andrew, in January 2009, the US joint forces command said, I'm goING TO read this, Warn, "that Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed state," because of its ongoing "vicious drug war." Now was that hyperbole?

ANDREW SELEE:

I think it was hyperbole. I mean, we're looking at a country that has several parts under severe stress. Violence is concentrated in the northern border, near the United States, the main drug transshipment routes into the United States, some port areas around Acapulco and elsewhere and a few transshipment corridors. But most of the country's fairly peaceful.

It is, you know, nowhere close to being a failed state. But there are parts of the country where the drug traffickers are going at each other with incredible violence that are under great stress. And we shouldn't minimize that. But-- but overall, you can travel through most of Mexico and not feel like there's a war going on, not feel like there's even the presence of this kind of violence that we see in the news.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Do you feel, Arturo, that Mexico's a failed state?

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

No, I don't think so either. But what I think is happening is that we are seeing-- I mean, the implementation of a huge, new-- federal policy trying to cope with the problem, that has been producing also more violence that we can-- that we could-- expected on this issue.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

So Armand, so the policy itself is promoting more violence. Is this-- the idea is this is temporary, then they're goING TO get it under control?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

Well, you know, Mexico's a relatively young democracy. They're in the process of strengthening the judiciary. In doing so, not only are they trying to strengthen the judiciary, the prosecutorial process, but the law enforcement institutions as well. And in doing so, they're going after organized crime. Organized crime is-- very strong. It's a very lucrative business. And it's only natural that these-- interest groups would push back.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Is the Mexican judiciary getting less corrupt? I mean, the view that we have here is, whoa, these-- these guys are really corrupt. And a lot of them are in the pockets of the-- of the drug-- cartels. Is that changing?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

It's-- it's changing. It's an ongoing process. You know, the FBI has-- has been involved in-- in the administration of polygraphs-- vetting process. The US government is helping the Mexican government through its own technical assistance in trying to increase the integrity of these institutions. But-- you know, it's not-- it's not an easy process to undertake in Mexico.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Let's-- let's step back for a second. How important is the relationship between the United States and Mexico, economically, let's say?

ANDREW SELEE:

Oh, it's huge. I mean, Mexico-- I don't think most Americans realize how important it is. I mean, Mexico is the second export market for-- for the United States. I mean, this is, after Canada, the second country that gets our exports. We want to talk about reactivating the US economy, How do we really double our exports, you know, in five years? Mexico and Canada are probably the-- the two most crucial pieces. India, China, other markets don't take nearly as many exports.

It is also, obviously, you know, border communities are-- enormously interdependent. If you look at all the border states, Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, these are states who depend for their economic livelihood on production processes on both sides of the border, and commerce between both sides. And you know, if you look at our demographics, almost one in ten Americans is of Mexican descent today. This-- we're deeply tied to Mexico, both in terms of economics, but also in terms of our heritage.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

That's an amazing statistic. I mean, is that-- that-- that includes illegals?

ANDREW SELEE:

That includes illegals, but illegals are a really small piece of that actually. We're talking about-- about 10 percent of Americans have some-- have heritage in Mexico. Of that, about two or three percent of the people here ARE without documents. But the vast majority are people who were born in this country or who came to this country legally.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

So-- Arturo, so-- so the United States has-- a major stake in what happens in Mexico. I mean, not only is it close, but it's-- but it's-- we-- we're economically-- dependent. We're culturally-- inter-- intertwined--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

IntertwineD-- in a way, yeah. And-- and this interdependency's growing. And I-- I would like to stress to that, for the Mexican side-- United States is the most strategic economic partner and also the commer-- the most important commercial-- and political partner in-- in the region. So this is a crucial relation, both for the governments and both-- and also for the business community and for the Mexican society.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And you know, when you-- when you look at-- the-- the economic statistics, Mexico's actually doing pretty well. I mean, it has recovered from the recession --

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

not-- not as much--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

--And the stock market's going up--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

it's on the way - It's on the way. The stock market in Mexico, it's-- it's-- it's in the way of getting recovered. A few weeks ago, there was a bond that was-- announced by Mexico and was-- almost immediately at the stock market in the United States, which is-- which is just a sign that is-- I mean, that the investment community in the world trusts that Mexico has potential to grow and is an important economy in the world, so-- which is a good indicator.

But on the other hand, we're still on the-- I mean, on the back part of the recovery of the United States. The problem of narco traffic and-- and organized crime, as he mentioned, is not just a simple issue about this war against drugs. But it's-- I mean, it's an issue about all the interTWINED organizations and economic interactions that this organized crime has created in Mexico for decades.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Armand, is this-- is this something new, the nar-- this crime or is it just accelerated, or is it something we just haven't paid any attention to?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

No, I mean, organized crime has been in Mexico for many years. Part of what's happened is that when-- when Mexico was governed by a single party, one of the ways in which they dealt with organized crime by-- was by arriving at pacts of coexistence. That's much more difficult to do in-- in a democracy. Mexico has become very plural. You no longer have a single party holding-- you know, the presidency, the majority in Congress, the majority of governorships and municipalicities. Now, Mexico's much more plural. And it's very difficult for one party to try to negotiate with organized crime, which was what was done in the past.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

So how is Calderón doing? And-- and what do the Mexicans think of it?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

Well, I tend to think that at the end of the day, he's doing well. This is not an easy battle. There are always going to be critics. There are always going to be setbacks. But comparatively speaking, I think that this is a government that has done more than any other previous government, in terms of trying to push through the reform. It's not just the-- the executive branch. The Mexican Congress as well-- has been supportive in this transformation.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Do you-- do you-- do you agree with that, Andrew? Do you think Calderón's done a good job?

ANDREW SELEE:

I think he's done the right thing. I think he's done the only thing he had to - Any president in his position would have had to-- to really step up. The thing, you know, as-- as drug cartels-- shifted their strategies from the Caribbean to Mexico, this was going to happen to whoever was sitting in that-- in that office right there. And so I think he's-- he's stepped up. He's been committed to this.

That said, where they've moved slowly is on the judicial reforms, the police reforms, the kind of things that make it hard for organized crime to operate. Always say that you have-- you know, the biggest consumer nation for drugs in the world, the United States, sitting next to a country with weak rule of law, Mexico, that's just gone through a democratic transition. I mean, that's a recipe for disaster. Mexico has done very well in going after some of the cartel leaders. They've had some real success in the last year. They've caught some of the-- the biggest fish in the-- in the pond.

But they haven't done as well yet in stepping up the-- the pressure on reforming the police and the judicial system and the prosecutors. You've still only got about two to five percent of major crimes that are-- ever lead to a conviction and putting someone behind bars. If you're-- you know, if you're a hired killer, your chances of ever ending up-- behind bars is very low, which means there's huge incentives to continue doing what you're doing. If you're a drug trafficker, huge incentives to continue doing what you're doing.

And on the other side of the border, in the United States, there's a lot more we could be doing to help Calderón out as well. Particularly following the money trail and-- and the trail of weapons that are going southward and-- and getting into the hands of the drug traffickers.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Because the Mexicans are complaining that they get all their-- weapons from the United States. They're saying, you know, if you had-- if you had tougher gun laws-- we'd be better off. I don't-- do you think that's true?

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

I mean, it might-- it would-- it might be better off. I'd like just to add one thing that it's important to point out in this-- contemporary poli-- federal policy about the organized crime, the war against organized crime, that there is strong impunity even now. I mean, the government has not really improved its-- policies and-- and the development of-- better policies to improve and to reduce impunity. That's the first thing.

The second thing that is important to note about this policy, that has been implemented at the fEDERAL level, is that-- to begin with, there was no-- I mean, forecast to why-- how long this was goING TO take. Still we don't know what is going on. And third, there is-- a systematic problem with violations of human rights of citizens. And citizens are still, I mean, on the dark-- on the darkroom of all these things. We are completely unprotected when you go to these wars, because the wars are going on in the streets in Mexico, in the border cities, in Monterrey and in other places.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

You know, I--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

This is a major issue that was not forecast by the govern-- Calderón government. And they have not done enough in order to really protect the citizens through these things. So this policy has to shift, has to improve the security of the population --

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And does that--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

As well as foreigners.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Does that affect the poor disproportionately?

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

I think it's affecting--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

This kind of abuses you're talking about--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

--most of the poor and the middle class in major cities in the country. One issue that you can see clearly, for instance, is in Ciudad Juárez, in the border city, most of the people is migrating to the United States, in order to pro-- protect themselves, protect their faMilies--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Right. But they're protecting themselves against organized crime. They're not protecting themselves from-- from government abuses.

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Well, up to the point, no. But the problem with the army and military police abuse goes all the way from middle to lower classes. And this is not stopping yet. there has been strong discussions at the Con-- at the level of Congress about reforming the military, the military justice system, And also trying to bring up the military into civilian justice. We have not-- been able to really put this into, I mean, a legal new settlement.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And do you think-- well, let me ask Armand this question. Is-- is that a good idea? In other words, Mexico is a federal system, like the United States. And-- there is pro-- there are problems with local police. Would it be better if the federal government had played a bigger role, either through the federal police or through the military?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

Well, that's, I think, what they're trying to do, is professionalize and try to-- weed out, for example, some of these lower-level police officers that have been on the payroll. They've been-- they've been providing outsourcing security services for organized crime. And the challenge for the federal government is how do you address that? And one of the ways in which they-- they figure to do that is by trying to create a federal police-- that would be deployed at-- at the state level to basically administer-- law enforcement operations at state and municipal levels.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

This-- this also brings up the issue, which you raised earlier, of the role of the United States. So during the Bush Administration, there was the Merida Initiative. Is that still-- what is that? And is it still robust? And is that a way to help-- Mexicans in this-- in the law enforcement effort?

ANDREW SELEE:

Well, I think-- I think we've had a real positive development. The Merida Initiative, which was announced by President Bush and President Calderón, was the idea of the US supporting Mexico with a package of aid-- some hardware for the police and military, but also training for the judicial system, for the police and-- and for prosecutors, as well as some software inspectors, things you can-- you can find. You know, weapons and drugs that are crossing the border.

It's worked fairly well. It's-- it's moved slowly. But-- but where it's worked most effectively is I think it's gotten the US and Mexico to go beyond blaming each other for the problem. In the past, people in Mexico often said, "The US is to blame. You know, you guys are using the drugs up there. If you'd stop using drugs, we wouldn't have this problem." In the US, we'd look across the border and say, "It's the power of corruption in Mexico. You know, if the authorities weren't corrupt, we wouldn't have this problem."

We've moved beyond that. And we're talking about shared responsibility. Now what that means depends on the day. But-- but finally, we're talking about the fact that, "Wait a minute. This is not gonna get better until we deal with the consumption side in the US, until we build rule of law in Mexico. Let's see what we can do together."

And there seem to be some genuine efforts, where I think it's been most effective. The-- the aid is flowing slowly, slower than it probably should. But it's flowing. But more importantly, I think there's a lot of information sharing. Particularly as-- as these drug dealers move across the border, they've started to share intelligence about their movements, about where they hide out, where their money is located.

So we're starting to see some captures of leaders, some captures of money that we didn't see in the past. Starting to see some capturing of weapons, though not as much. And so I think we-- we've seen a cooperation that's increasing in a positive way. Could it go a lot deeper? Yes. I mean, I think we're at the beginnings of this.

For Mexico, there's a lot of distrust of the US. And you know, sort of the traditional, the big country to the north. And I think in the US, there's sort of a distrust - You know, where is corruption in Mexico if you share information? How's it goING TO be used? But the more they have the successes, the more they move forward.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Arturo, this-- this-- this issue of demand for drugs in the United States. I agree. The blame game doesn't help anybody, but the fact is--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

--it does not help in the end.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Right, but the-- but the fact is that this is-- a critical element--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Element--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

--in this entire puzzle.

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Yeah.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Is there something that the United States could do on either-- either legalizing drugs, for example, or-- or-- or being tougher on drugs--

(OVERTALK)

JAMES GLASSMAN:

--that would help the situation in Mexico?

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Well, but I mean-- you can take it not only for the United States, but also for the Mexican case, because drug conSUMPTION in MeX-- illegal drug consumption is growing. I mean, a very steady, fast-- pace, which is another problem that we are facing. And there's no policy for that. Legalizing illegal drugs now, it's a very complex process, because you don't-- you will not only legalize the consumption. But there is the whole-- production chain that you really have to look backwards.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Right. So you're saying--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

So this is--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

--if you legalize consumption, but you-- but production, unless you-- unless you change that entire--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Entire chain.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

--supply chain.

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Now the other policy that I think that-- that both countries are not implemented to the full length and the-- ability that we have is prevention policies, which is the major point in here. I mean, so you not only have to fight the organized crime, which you will have to do anyway. But you also have to develop policies that will prevent younger persons and adults, too, of getting involved and-- and consuming illegal drugs, because they don't-- this is not only a policy about drug, illegal drugs. It's also about human trafficking, which is very-- it's very important and it's the second-most important locality(?) business--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Yeah, what-- what about--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

--in this thing, and from that, smuggling and other issues that are important.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

There is a tremendous amount of-- of human trafficking-- the exploitation especially of-- of women-- I know it takes place a lot in Texas. Is there anything-- what's the relationship there?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

Well, I mean, you know, I look at organized crime as multinational corporations-- that have multiple divisions, business lines. Drug trafficking is one. Human trafficking is another. Contraband is another. Arms smuggling is another. And so at the end of the day, you know, if you want to take-- either tackle organized crime and-- and-- and the drug smuggling or organized crime involved in human tracking--trafficking, You still have to go after these organizations.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

You know-- a lot of Americans believe that-- that there is a problem with secure borders. So if the border between the United States and Mexico, which is 1,950 miles, were somehow made secure, would that have an effect on any of these problems?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

You know, I personally don't think-- I think it's more of a political solution. You know, I think it plays well with the public. Unfortunately, I don't think it's very effective. You have to strengthen the intelligence-gathering capability on both sides of the border, to give the law enforcement the information to be able to carry out transnational operations, sting operations, that not only dismantle some of these illicit activities, but that gets you the intelligence necessary to secure prosecutions.

And the US and the Mexican government have started to, as Andrew mentioned, share intelligence. And there's been operations on both sides of the border. But in my opinion, it's not enough. They're moving in the right direction. And that's where I think the foc-- the focus has to be.

ANDREW SELEE:

There's a real diminishing returns, I think, for spending money at the border. The-- the more boots on the ground at the border, probably the less efficient. I mean, the more boots on the ground, if you want to-- you know, really go after drug traffickers, you have to hit them in Monterrey, Nuevo León, and you have to hit them in Atlanta, Georgia, and not just at the border. And we haven't done that. We've actually keep spending on the border and we don't spend in Atlanta and Monterrey.

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

Let me-- let me also make a point. We also have to be mindful that at the end of the day, just sending forces to the border is also going to increase their exposure to organized crime. And we are kidding ourselves if we think that it's only Mexican forces that are vulnerable to corruption. These organizations handle, you know, millions if not billions through their various business lines. And they're paying off officials on both sides of the border.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And a million people cross the border every day. And a billion dollars worth of goods. So it's kind-- it's-- it's a lot. It's very hard to-- hard to control that. The US military is getting involved in Mexico, as you mentioned. Is that something that-- that Mexicans are concerned about?

ANDREW SELEE:

I think very much so. Although the-- the US military has been very reserved in how they do this. I mean, there aren't-- there isn't really a US military presence in Mexico at all. And I don't think Mexicans would ever accept that. I mean, there-- there is a sense, given the history between our two countries-- there's-- a strong sense of sovereignty in Mexico. I mean, willingness to work closely with the US, but not to go that far.

But there is-- military training going on. I mean, Mexicans coming up to the United States, meeting with people who have experience. There's some experience being shared from Afghanistan and elsewhere. And-- and actually, I think one of the most exciting things in this relationship, because we're such close countries, I mean, you're seeing judges, attorneys' general, I mean, a whole state attorneys' general-- prosecutors who are going down to Mexico, training their counterparts. Bringing their colleagues up for training to see how the US judicial system functions. And I think that's actually some of the most exciting exchanges going on.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Is there concern among Mexicans, though, about military mission creep?

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Yeah, there is-- strong concern in-- I mean, in the public opinion, in society, as well as in the military. Most of the military, I mean, groups inside the groups, I mean, will never accept the-- the physical presence of US Army troops or even-- training operations in Mexico.

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

In so far as the successes in-- in-- in bringing down some of these capos, these cartel figures-- it's not just been the-- the Mexican federal police. The Mexican army and the Mexican navy have had some successes. And they're-- they are in this fight. And the US is-- is-- what is-- what the US is trying to do is trying to help them to mature as well institutionally.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

I want to ask all three of you how you see the future-- beginning with Andrew. You all three said you don't think that Mexico's on the verge of being a failed state. But do you think that the-- the battle against the narco terrorists, let's call them, is improving? Are things getting better? Will things get better over the next year or two? Or does Mexico risk falling into chaos?

ANDREW SELEE:

I don't think Mexico risks falling into chaos at all. I mean, but I think the price of the government getting better in their strategy is that things will get worse on the ground for a while. The more that they can get some of the bad guys and put them behind bars, the more you create fights among the different cartels.

I mean, what we've seen that-- that most of the violence is really drug traffickers going AFTER drug traffickers. And-- and they're more than drug traffickers. As Armand said, I mean, they're involved in all sorts of businesses. But these organized crime groups going after each other. That's the real bulk of the violence.

This is goING TO increase. The more they get some of the top leaders, the more there's goING TO be leadership fights within these groups, the more they're gonna split off. So this is goING TO be bad for a very long time. I think the challenge in the long term, for this to-- for the violence to go down is when you start to see people actually arrested, prosecuted and put away in jail in credible trials. And I think Mexico's still a long way off from that. I think they're working on it hard.

But it's going to take, you know, five or ten or 15 years before we can say the police are completely credible, People feel comfortable going to the police, They know the prosecutor's always doing the right things, And the court system is fair. When that happens, you'll start to see drug traffickers be very careful about their actions, like we do in this country.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And-- and by the way, we-- we do have-- extradition from Mexico of some of the worst-- drug traffickers.

ANDREW SELEE:

Which has been very effective--

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Correct? And that's been--

ANDREW SELEE:

It's been very effect-- and that's what they're real--

(OVERTALK)

JAMES GLASSMAN:

That's what they're really scared of.

ANDREW SELEE:

And actually, for the top drug traffickers, they really are getting them and-- and sending them to the US. And they fear-- they're starting to fear that.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Armand, briefly, how do you see the future?

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

I'm positive, because at the end of the day, Mexico is in this-- process of transformation, trying to-- to strengthen the judiciary. I think it's important for us to realize that it's in our best interest here in the United States to make sure that Mexico's successful in that transformation. We talked earlier about the economic interdependence. Our future here in the United States is tied to the future of both Canada and Mexico. I kind of look at it as-- as a neighborhood. And we really need to look at-- helping Mexico to continue through this transformation.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And I should add that right now, the Mexican economy is actually growing faster than the US economy. Arturo, how do you see the future--

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Yeah, I'm also positive about the-- I mean, the future. I see several transformations that are important-- on the ground that are goING TO start having some effects. Not in 15 years. I would say that between three and five years, we will start looking at effects.

The longer the federal government is involved itself in this-- I mean, military and police war, there's still going to be violence. But I think, in a year or two, we're goING TO see major crackdowns on the organized crime. I mean, they have dis-- disrupting the-- the routes. They are disrupting the way they have been working in cities. And even though they have to reveal the cities, reveal the con---- the institutions, the basic institutions, police, the-- the municipalities-- the local governments. I mean, they are doing-- a major-- a major job in this thing. And we're goING TO see some changes by the--I think by the end of this administration of-- Calderón.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Thank you, Arturo.

ARTURO ALVARADO MENDOZA:

Thank you very much.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

Thank you, Andrew.

ANDREW SELEE:

Pleasure to be with you.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And thank you, Armand.

ARMAND PESCHARD-SVERDRUP:

Thank you.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

And before we go, I want to remind viewers that you can catch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you choose. To watch complete shows, just go to our website, ideasinactiontv.com, or download a podcast from the iTunes store. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman. Thanks for watching.

* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *

He has taken a struggling democracy and slowly consolidated his hold on power, nationalizing key industries such as 

oil and food distribution.  Tyrant, Dictator, Socialist Hero; whatever you call him, Hugo Chavez is committed to keeping 

a tight rein on his power and those who oppose him.  And now he has stated a commitment to developing nuclear 

capabilities. What do his policies mean for U.S. foreign policy?

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:00:01:00 Welcome to Ideas in Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences.  I'm Jim Glassman.  Venezuela's president has taken a struggling democracy and slowly consolidated his hold on power, nationalizing key industries such as oil and food distribution.  Tyrant.  Dictator.  Socialist hero.  Whatever you call him, Hugo Chavez is trying to keep a grip on politics in Venezuela and creating real problems for U.S. policy in Latin America.  But the man some people call "President for Life" may be losing the support of his people.

00:00:36:00 Joining me to explore this topic are Carlos Ponce, a fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy who served as the Secretary of Venezuela's National Human Rights Commission.  Mark Weisbrot, an economist and co-director of The Center for Economic and Policy Research.  He co-wrote Oliver Stone's documentary about Hugo Chavez, South of the Border.  And Roger Noriega, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.  He currently coordinates the American Enterprise Institute's program on Latin America.  The topic this week, Venezuela:  How do you solve a problem like Hugo?  This is Ideas in Action.

00:01:18:00 (MUSIC)

ANNOUNCER:

00:01:33:00 Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:01:52:00 Nearly ten percent of the U.S.'s oil is supplied by Venezuela.  Yet, its president, Hugo Chavez has been a thorn in the side of both the Obama and Bush administrations.  He increased government control of industries from oil to travel, seizing millions of dollars in assets from American companies like Hilton and Exxon.

00:02:11:00 His self-proclaimed socialist revolution alienates the capitalist world and embraces rogue states like Iran and North Korea.  He has championed domestic programs for the poor but his policies have resulted in a 30 percent annual inflation rate.

00:02:27:00 Polls show that almost half of the Venezuelan people oppose him.  And in the September 2020 elections, opposition candidates captured more than a third of the National Assembly.  Carlos, what does this election mean?  A third of the National Assembly captured by the opposition.

CARLOS PONCE:

00:02:45:00 The opposition is getting better and better.  They have been improving from an opposition that took for granted that Chavez was somebody who they can control-- when he won almost 11 years ago, to-- try-- nationalist strike.  Try a coup d'état.  Try failures.  Try-- try-- even-- even not to participate in the last el-- in the-- past election for the Congress.

00:03:10:00 So, now the opposition has gained a more and more coherent, kind of, approach.  They believe that it's failures of Chavez in terms of the government, and also winnings in terms of the opposition becoming more and more democratic for it.  And this means that all the game has been changed.  Now, Chavez needs to improve his way of government or to step aside-- in terms of-- of power.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:03:33:00 What about that, Mark?  Is Chavez losing power?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:03:36:00 I don't think that one third of the Assembly is really that-- a gain.  They could have had that in 2005-- according to the polls before that.  That was the last legislative--

00:03:45:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:03:46:00 -- But they boycotted the election.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:03:47:00 They boycotted the election for no real reason.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:03:48:00 So, you don't think that he's-- hi-- that his-- favorability, his support is declining--

00:03:52:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:03:53:00 --Well, just like, you know, President Obama declined-- from-- 68 percent approval to 45 percent today-- you know, 68 percent-- last year.  Chavez has declined similarly.  When there's a recession, the opposition gains.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:04:07:00 But does this mean he's going to have less power?  He doesn't have a super majority, as he did-- he had a two-third majority in the legislature.  He won't have that.  Does that mean he's going to lose some power?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:04:16:00 Well, sure.  But I mean, that's how democracy works.  I mean, they could have-- like I said, they could have had this power five years ago.  They chose instead to pursue-- a strategy of trying to overthrow the government.  And now they're participating.  And I think that's-- an advance for democracy in Venezuela.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:04:33:00 What about that Roger?  Chavez's supporters say that, you know, this was a fair election.  And-- and apparently the-- the opposition certainly did a lot better than it did before.  I mean, doesn't Venezuela have a real democracy?

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:04:44:00 Well, it has democracy Chavez-style.  First off, I congratulate the opposition for participating.  It's an obligation for any opposition to participate, offer new ideas and new vision.  But they did so, in this campaign, against the-- state having all of the resources of the state for-- behind Chavez's candidates.  The media-- virtually under control of Chavez.  There are some outlets that-- that-- that are independent.  But-- the vast majority of the communication is-- is on Chavez's side.  The rules rigged against the opposition.

00:05:16:00 And here's what I mean by Chavez-style.  In the past, when Chavez has lost these elections, and he has lost elections in the past, for example, the mayorship of Caracas, what he does is strip that entity of all of its power.  And I suspect that Chavez has the same thing in mind in terms of the Legislative Assembly.

00:05:33:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:05:35:00 Can I respond to that? A lot of this is just not-- true.  Okay, so this stuff about the media, for example.  I mean, there's an affiliate of Nielson that does surveys of how much-- audience watches the different television and the state-- television, as opposed to the private opposition-- controlled television.  The state has between five and ten percent of the market.  If you go and look and look at the newspapers, the biggest newspapers are opposition newspapers.

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:06:01:00 I'm not talking about soap operas--

00:06:02:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:06:03:00 --The radio is also-- well, the point is--

00:06:04:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:06:07:00 We've read a lot in the United States in liberal publications like The New Republic, for example, about the closing of outlets by Chavez.  For example, Globovision, one of the biggest networks in Venezuela.  Chavez put out-- an arrest warrant for Mr. Zuloaga, who's the owner of Globovision.  He shut down the-- the single most popular network in Venezuela or-- or took away their license.  So, you're saying that--

00:06:36:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:06:37:00 --Venezuela has a-- has-- a freer press and-- and more of an opposition press than the United States.

00:06:42:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:06:43:00 --It has more of an opposition press than the U.S.  There's no doubt about that.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:06:45:00 W-- explain that.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:06:46:00 You look at the newspapers, the radio and the television.  You add up who reads and-- well, who are the biggest circulation, who has the biggest audience?  It's the opposition TV.  And--

00:06:57:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:06:59:00 -- This is a balance--

00:07:00:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:07:01:00 --more oriented to the--

00:07:02:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:07:06:00 One at a time.

CARLOS PONCE:

00:07:07:00 The major TV station there right now is Venevision because of soap opera.  It used to be Radio Caracas Television.  And the government took control of Radio Caracas.  It's good or bad or-- or not.  But what Roger said is the government has been also changing all the electoral rules.

00:07:20:00 In July this year, just a month before the election, the government changed the electoral votes-- one month before the election.  If you travel to Venezuela, if you go there, you still see the sign in the street that major candidate in the whole country was Hugo Chavez, was not the members of his political party. It was Hugo Chavez. He was a single candidate-- against the opposition using all the power of the government.

00:07:43:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:07:45:00 What about these rules?  Let's talk about what-- what Roger said about changing the rules?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:07:47:00 This is, you know-- again, I mean, what do we do in the United States?  Let's compare it to the United States, okay?  I mean, every ten years we have a census and then the legislatures that redistrict.  And if the Republicans have power in the legislature and-- and governorship in a state, then they change and redraw the districts, okay.  There was a little bit of that in Venezuela.  Nothing compared to what we have here, okay.

00:08:11:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:08:13:00 --you know-- I mean--

00:08:14:00 (OVERTALK)

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:08:16:00 --free speech here, okay.  The point is 50 percent of the national votes for the opposition-- may I-- may I just finish my point.  And-- and if you said that-- what I said was untrue, tell me, is it correct that the opposition got roughly 50 percent of the votes and gets roughly 40 percent of the-- of the seats in the National Assembly?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:08:37:00 Yeah, that's absolutely right.  And--

00:08:39:00 (OVERTALK)

ROGER NORIEGA:

And that is absolutely unfair.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:08:40:00 In the U.K., the Labor Party has gotten 24 percent of the vote and gotten the majority of Parliament.  And you've had worse discrepancies in Spain.

00:08:47:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:08:48:00 --discrepancy in 2008, in the United States.

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:08:50:00 But look, you and I are Americans.  We're foreigners.  Our wish should be for-- the welfare of the Venezuelan people.  And I would hope that if Chavez were to, in the-- in the months ahead, disadvantage the Legislative Assembly because his people can't compete with the-- the Democratic opposition, which is a bunch of talented, independent people-- that if he does to the Legislative Assembly what he did to the mayorship of Caracas, then I would hope that you would be-- prepared to condemn anti-Democratic moves by Chavez against the legislative assembly--- I'm not counting on that happening. 

00:09:24:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:09:26:00 --for everything I disagree with them on.  And I'm not here to defend any government--

00:09:30:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:09:31:00 --Roger let me ask you a different question.  And I think this is something that-- that Mark certainly implies here.  The Venezuelans, it seems anyway, even though his-- his support has gone down, just as President Obama's support has gone down-- there's a lot of support for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Why should the United States be involved in being critical of his government or the way that elections are held when it's-- it seems, anyway, that the popular will's being expressed by-- him being in power.

CARLOS PONCE:

00:10:03:00 But I believe that the U.S. has not be-- to be involved in Venezuela.  That's one of the major problems.  It's a problem of the Venezuelan and the Venezuelan needs to figure out how to-- how to solve their problems.  Their problems with Hugo Chavez-- Hugo Chavez is not the major problem of Venezuela.

00:10:18:00 Hugo Chavez is a consequence of bad government.  Hugo Chavez is consequence of the-- the people were telling the governments in Venezuela, before Hugo Chavez, when the-- when they took a president to jail because of corruption.  Then came a government that had the opportunity to solve some of those-- social problems and promised that the president (UNINTEL).  And he just-- slipped in-- under his own promise.  And then Chavez came in a time when people wanted change.  But Chavez is not the one who has been delivering the changes.  Chavez is one more of this autocrats governments of Latin America.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:10:51:00 Let me ask Roger th-- the same question.  What is-- what is the United States' interest in Venezuela?  I mean, Venezuela has not-- the-- they haven't attacked the United States.  We buy ten percent of their oil.  We obviously have a relationship with them there.  So, w-- why should we be concerned about what goes on internally in Venezuela?

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:11:11:00 Well, an unaccountable autocratic militaristic regime that makes alliances with the likes of Iran and Cuba and even Russia and China should be of concern to the United States.  And this is-- this is a regime that, because of the lack of democracy-- can do what it wishes with the substantial-- petroleum resources-- and to undermine-- U.S. interest in the region.

00:11:37:00 And what we should be concerned with is the drug trafficking, which goes on unabated with com-- with virtual complicity of-- of the Chavez regime.  His ties to Iran, his illegal support-- for the-- Iranian nuclear program, perhaps the mining of uranium in Venezuela by-- by the Iranians, which is also illegal, his support-- for-- terrorist guerillas in Columbia that are-- waging a proxy war-- against-- al-- a member of the United Nations-- Columbia, which is a violation of international law.  All of things should be of interest to the United States.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:12:13:00 Th-- those--

00:12:14:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:12:15:00 --sounds like pretty serious concerns, Mark.

00:12:16:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:12:17:00 --Are you bothered by them?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:12:18:00 I can pick, you know, any one of those.  You know, look at the terrorism allegation, for example, okay.  General Doug Fraser, who's the head of the U.S. Southern Command, was testifying before Congress on March 11 and-- John McCain, Senator McCain, asked him about this allegation.  And he said, "We have been very-- paying very close attention and we don't find any connection between the government of Venezuela and terrorism."

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:12:40:00 Mark, he contradicted that the following day--

00:12:40:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:12:42:00 Yeah, and the next day, of course, he met with the State Department and then he changed his statement.  But I happen to believe that he was right the first time because he's the one with the satellite data.  He knows what's going on there.  And he didn't see anything--

00:12:54:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:12:56:00 --eight years-- that's right, in eight years--

00:12:58:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:12:59:00 We've had anonymous officials saying this for eight years now in the United States.  And not once has the United States government presented one shred of evidence to back up this assertion.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:13:10:00 How about President Chavez's temporary powers to rule by decree?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:13:15:00 Yeah.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:13:15:00 What about that?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:13:17:00 Well-- he doesn't have those right now.  He had that-- for a while a little over a year ago.  The Assembly voted to give it to him.  And again, our Assistant Secretary of State, Tom Shannon, said, "Well, that's constitutional."  And, you know-- and-- and, you know, he didn't abuse it, by the way.

00:13:31:00 I mean, there wasn't anything that he ruled against-- he ruled or-- or did anything.  It was mainly used against foreign companies-- in order to get-- you know, in order to do some of these nationalizations that you talked about, which by the way, are a lot less than a lot of other counties-- certainly less than Bolivia.

00:13:45:00 And the state in Venezuela is-- is still a lot smaller in its role in the economy than the state in France, for example.  So, this is-- you know, all-- everything you hear about Venezuela is exaggerated.  You're getting the-- the tea party view of Venezuela here in the United States.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:13:59:00 What-- what about-- w-- he says-- he says that the view is exaggerated.  One of the things that-- that-- a lot of Americans are concerned about is pursuing business people, Barrueco.  I mean, I could name a whole bunch of them who have either been put into prison or have been tried to-- ha-- have been-- escaped the country because of charges.  And some people say that's because Chavez wants to nationalize their businesses or take them over himself.  Is there any truth to that?

CARLOS PONCE:

00:14:25:00 The problem is that-- when the government controls the judiciary.  And even right now, the government is in a hurry to appoint all the-- all the justices from the supreme tribunal before the election-- before the opposition gets into the Congress.

00:14:36:00 When you try to do business in Venezuela, you have to face the judiciary.  And you don't have anywhere to go.  And you have to face a government that can decide whatever they want, any time they want, because the president decides that day that that business needs to be nationalized.  You don't have the tools to do good business in Venezuela.  So you have the risk all the time.  And that's why you-- all the business is growing now in Venezuela, business from people around the government.  And they're going to get into trouble when the government (UNINTEL).

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:15:04:00 And-- and is this having an impact on the economy?  I mean, the Venezuelan economy is, kind of, amazing.  You have the-- the sixth or the eighth largest producer of oil in the world and  yet, they're now one of the few countries in the world that-- that's actually going to-- won't grow this year.  In other words, the recession continues.  And they've got 30 percent inflation rate.  W-- why is that?

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:15:26:00 The economy's collapsing because-- governments can't run-- the private sector.  But governments have proven in Venezuela, for example, that they can't deliver food as-- as efficiently as the private sector can.  So, you see food rotting on-- on-- in-- all over Venezuela.

00:15:43:00 And the economy is going to collapse.  The-- you see shortages of-- of-- of energy-- ha-- blackouts-- that are collapsing the private sector.  And it-- and it's an extraordinary problem.  The-- returning to this issue of the Legislative Assembly.  There's a banner outside the-- legislative palace-- today that has a picture of Hugo Chavez that says, "Welcome opposition deputies.  Help us build a country that you're going to flee from."

00:16:12:00 That's the message that we're supposed to-- accept as some-- as indicating some sort of democratic vocation or democratic convit-- commitment.  He's essentially saying that they're going to run-- continue to run out of the country, anybody that opposes him.

00:16:26:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:16:27:00 --What do you think Mark, about the future of the-- of the National Assembly?  Do you think that-- that Roger's right, that you've seen examples of Chavez essentially stripping power from institutions where the opposition has moved in.  Do you think that's gon-- just as a prediction, do you think that might happen with the n-- with the National Assembly?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:16:46:00 Probably not that much.  No.  I mean, it's-- it's-- you know, they had the Assembly.  They had 48 percent of the Assembly-- back in-- in 2004, you know-- before they boycotted the election.  And there was compromise.  And there was back and forth.  For example, when they had to appoint an electoral council for the 2004 referendum.  They had a long negotiation process.  And-- they ended up with-- you know-- a pretty-- balanced council.

00:17:14:00 So, on the economy, you know, this is something that I actually-- you know, study and have-- have written about.  And, you know, the economy's probably already begun to recover in the second quarter, if you use-- seasonally adjusted data.  And these guys have been talking about the collapse of the Venezuelan economy for, like, eight years now.

00:17:31:00 And, you know, from 2003, when-- the government got control over the oil industry to 2008, the economy doubled in real terms, in size.  It's adjusted for inflation, okay.  And-- poverty was reduced by-- you know, more than half, extreme poverty by more than 70 percent.  And-- and then they went into recession, like most of the countries in the hemisphere in 2008.  And then they're going to come out--

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:17:55:00 Right.  They're the only country, though, according to the economists or consensus--

00:17:59:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:18:01:00 -- that will decline this year in Latin America--

00:18:02:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:03:00 --recession went on--

00:18:04:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:18:05:00 --and they've got all this oil.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:07:00 Yeah, well, their recession went on perhaps one or two quarters more than some--

00:18:11:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:13:00 --It wasn't as deep as Mexico, for example.  They didn't lose as much as--

00:18:16:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:18:17:00 --Mexico is going to grow this year.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:18:00 Yeah, but Mexico--

00:18:19:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:21:00 --shrank eight percent in 2009.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:18:23:00 So, you're pretty sanguine about the Venezuelan economy--

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:25:00 I'm saying that, you know, these stories of collapse-- it's like everything else.  It's just exaggerated.  I'm not sanguine about it they have real problems.  But they have real problems just like everyone else.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:18:35:00 Do you think their problems are related to what Roger said-- the-- the fact that there are all businesses that have been nationalized, there's all this worry-- as Carlos said, about the judges coming in and saying, you know, "We're going to take your com-- your company away," or "We're not going to allow you to operate"?  I mean, is th-- is that kind of thing a damper on economic-- prosperity?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:18:57:00 I think that, you know, in every country-- this-- Venezuela's not the only country with a left government in South America.  It's the majority now.  In every one of these countries, you have had some problems with foreign-- investors.  And the rules of the game have changed.  And, yeah, that's going to be a problem.  And they're all focusing on Venezuela 'cause they want to isolate the guy with the oil--- and make it look like he's--

00:19:16:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:19:20:00 --like Brazil-- that has been actually reduce in poverty because the numbers in Venezuela are not quite clear when they call unemployment "unoccupation."  And they begin to change the name of the stuff to manipulate the system. I prefer--

00:19:33:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:19:35:00 --The IMF and the World Bank and the U.N. accept their numbers, okay.

CARLOS PONCE:

00:19:36:00 Well, okay.  But-- but--

00:19:37:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:19:38:00 --in Brazil--

00:19:39:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:19:40:00 --A left government like Lula's.  It's a good government reducing-- with social problems, implement the problems with democratic ways, respecting opposition, respecting everyone, respecting civil society.  Civil society in Venezuela has been under threat for the last eight years because Chavez from one day decided to begin-- at-- an action against civil society.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:20:00:00 Civil society also tried to overthrow the government and succeeded--

00:20:02:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:20:03:00 --for 48 hours--

CARLOS PONCE:

00:20:04:00 What-- what civil society was that?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:20:05:00 In 2002.

00:20:06:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:20:07:00 --the same people your-- your opposition that you're talking about--

00:20:08:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:20:09:00 --I was opposed to to-- to the-- to the temporary government--

00:20:11:00 (OVERTALK)

CARLOS PONCE:

00:20:13:00 --The majority of the respectful NGOs-- they were against that.  And now-- on the--

MARK WEISBROT:

00:20:17:00 Well--

CARLOS PONCE:

00:20:18:00 The majority of NGOs-- Radio Pollo, Fotopalorvida (PH), that's-- that's-- a group of NGOs.  And not so much for the organization have been facing persecution for government.

00:20:28:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:20:29:00 Let me bring Roger in here.

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:20:30:00 --is-- what-- what Mark is doing is what Chavez does-- this McCarthyite-- denunciation-- tarring all of the NGOs because if you can say that they tried to overthrow the government in an illegal way, you can treat them like criminals.  And what they are, are Democrats who want the best for their country.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:20:51:00 W-- what about what Mark says about other governments in Latin America?  It's true.  Brazil has a left government.  You can, sort of, say Peru has a left government.  But these are-- th-- these are countries that are actually prospering to-- a great degree.  What-- what's the difference?

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:21:07:00 Absolutely. The governments that respect the rule of law grow.  Governments that want plural democratic institutions grow.  Those that don't, fail.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:21:16:00 L-- let me go to an issue that we, kind of, touched on very briefly, and that is oil.  Roger, you are concerned that-- Venezuela's a major supplier of oil to the United States and we should be worried about what?

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:21:31:00 Actually, I'm not concerned.  I think that we should be mindful of the fact that Chavez has every intention of ending the Venezuelan independence on the U.S. market for oil.  He is looking for alternative-- markets.  He has every right to do that.  The Chinese are perfectly-- willing to do that.  They're putting more money in-- agreed to pay $20 billion to Venezuela.  They're building the refineries and the tankers that will take that Venezuelan product.

00:21:56:00 We, as (LAUGHS) Americans, need to be prepared-- to take up the slack and find other sources of oil.  And that will happen over time.  It's a market.  It's a commodity.  I am not-- I don't carry any brief for U.S. petroleum companies.  But they better wise up because Chavez has every intention of ending-- sales of Venezuelan petroleum-- to-- to u-- to the U.S. market.

MARK WEISBROT:

00:22:17:00 Can I respond to this charge of McCarthyism because I find this deeply ironic.  I mean, in Washington, anybody who even tries to give-- you know, this is-- you know, and I congratulate you, by the way, for having this show, because this is the first show on national TV in the United States that actually has had a discussion like this where more than one side of the story on Venezuela has been-- presented.

00:22:38:00 And so, the McCarthyism's really in the other direction.  I'm not tarring all the civil society groups or even the opposition in Venezuela.  I'm just-- all I mentioned that was because there-- that was part of the-- that's part of the stories.  And I'm not letting the government off the hook either.  I think the government has been unnecessarily-- polarizing, as well.

00:22:56:00 But-- in-- in terms of, you know, being able to talk about this and have a reasonable discussion, this is-- you know, what is all this stuff about Iran?  Brazil has-- very good relations with Iran, the same as Venezuela.  Vaz-- Brazil has publicly defending the right of Iran to enrich uranium--

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:23:13:00 Let me let Roger respond on the Iran point.  And then we really have to wrap things up.  Is there a difference-- between the relationship between-- Venezuela and Iran and that of Brazil and Iran?

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:23:23:00 Well, the-- the Iranians aren't helping the Brazilians develop-- nuclear technology.  If the-- the-- the ir-- the Iranians are cooperating a nuclear technology with-- Venezuela, it's documented.  The-- the agreement was signed in November of-- of-- 2008 or '09.  And that's-- against U.N. resolutions.

00:23:48:00 (OVERTALK)

MARK WEISBROT:

00:23:50:00 --about this.  And they don't have any concerns about this--

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:23:51:00 Quick-- quick question for everybody.  And we're going to go around the table.  What do you think-- do you think that Chavez will be reelected in 2012?

CARLOS PONCE:

00:24:00:00 It depends how-- how he-- he move from now to 2012.  He will begin to-- to change all the rules again.  He-- because any time that he loses an election, he changes the rule again.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:24:10:00 Okay, but yes or no?

CARLOS PONCE:

00:24:12:00 I hope no.  I hope that opposition's going to begin improving.  And I hope that this is going to be-- a major movement of people against Chavez in the next-- election.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:24:21:00 Roger.

ROGER NORIEGA:

00:24:22:00 If the process is more fair, if the opposition is able to-- to change the rules of the game to where there's a more level playing field, in terms of access to the media, et cetera-- they can end, if they're unified.  I think they can give him-- a real contest.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:24:37:00 You think Chavez will be reelected in 2012?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:24:39:00 I think probably.  I mean, again, the opposition does control-- still a majority of the media.  And they have a majority of the wealth and income of the country 'cause these are the richer people.  So, they have advantages.  And it's true that the state abuses its-- incumbency, like it does in most countries in this hemisphere.

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:24:56:00 You think Chavez will win?

MARK WEISBROT:

00:24:57:00 I think he'll probably win because-- you know, he's the only president they've ever had who has really sided with poor people.  And that's still a really large part of the poor-- population, poor or working people.  And they've gained a real lot in terms of education, healthcare and-- and everything else.  So, they'll vote to reelect him.

00:25:15:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:25:17:00 I'm sorry?

CARLOS PONCE:

00:25:18:00 According to him, it's a perfect country.  It's good to know because the people that live in Venezuela think in different way.  And you have to go there and see that the people think in different ways.

00:25:26:00 (OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:

00:25:31:00 That's the last word.  Thank you, Carlos.  Thank you, Mark.  And thank you, Roger.  Before we go, I want to remind viewers that you can catch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you choose.  To watch complete shows, just go to our website, ideasinactiontv.com or download a pod cast from the iTunes store.  And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action.  I'm Jim Glassman.  Thanks for watching.

00:25:58:00 (MUSIC)

ANNOUNCER:

00:26:13:00 For more information, visit us at ideasinactiontv.com.  Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at investors.com.  This program is a production of Grace Creek Media.

* * *END OF AUDIO* * *

* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *