tv U.S. Senate CSPAN April 27, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
>> the whole boeing team, thank you all for being our lead sponsor. [applause] then, of course, they were followed closely by their transport association with nick and nancy both as speakers and all of their generous contribution, we really appreciate it. aia, another good sponsor and marion the first moderator this morning. aopa, a great sponsor, not only sponsored the award, but they also brought their simulator and
that was terrific and greg was one of the moderators. i just have to tell you the ca howlett story, and the phone rings in ca's room, and this voice says is carol there? it was my husband calling for carol, but the switchboard had put him threw to ca howlett's room rather than mine. i thought that was a good chuckle for you at the end of the day. [laughter] moving on, there's worldwide holdings and of course with gary as one of the panelists, seth and jack were terrific today. coc did not have a panelist or a
speaker, but they were a john rows and very -- generous and very helpful sponsor and itt, jetblue with barger, and biojoe, such a great name and he's so terrific as part of the panelists. ed bolen and rolls-royce and don't leave behind your sticky ipad holders they gave you as long as the financial contributions. smith detix, united airlines, you will see what they have momentarily, and u.s. airways, great to have greg here and he and dave barger have been loyal participants and we really appreciate that. having ca here was great. west jet was generous. the hill, terrific, and all of the other speakers, this has really be a great day, and we
are grateful to all of you. for those of you who bought tables, thank you too much. for all of youing if being here, it's terrific. it's three after five, and now it's your time to have fun and win some airline tickets. we thank you very much, and until next year, thanks again. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight during primetime on c-span2, book tv. susan jacoby and the myths on the age of health care. then, donald rumsfeld on his meme roar, and bruce riedel looks at the global jihad movement. on c-span tonight, federal chairman's first economic outlook news conference. until today, the federal open market's committee report on interest rate changes was released in rating. today, he answered reporter's
of the wage project and eliminating age discrimination against women. she spoke to students at the university of massachusetts in boston on april 14th. this is just over an hour. >> good evening, i'm the directer of the center and prm of women in politics and public policy in u-mass public boston's graduate school. thank you for being here tonight. tonight's program is called "i want my million dollars, and why everyone should be concerned about the gender wage gap." this event is brought to you by the women in public policy at umass boston. studentings are with us tonight in the front rows playing an important part in tonight's evening. you met anne forthman, a tbix graduate and now an alumni coordinator so all the students
graduating, you'll connect with anne who will continue on the relationship with you for the graduate program into the future. our center's mission is to promote women's leadership in politics and policymaking to our graduate program by conducting research that makes a difference in women's lives and serving as a resource for women in diverse communities across the commonwealth, the nation, and around the world. tonight's event is being broadcast by c-span, so i'd like to wish a hearty welcome to our national audience as well. we have a fabulous speaker tonight. evelyn murphy, an expert on the gender wage gap, and the plans are to hear from dr. murphy for about 35-40 minutes, and then we'll open it up to questions to the audience. let's get started. i want to introduce our speaker. in 1980s, she was mass secretary
of environmental affairs and secretary of economic affairs. in 1986, dr. murphy was elected lieutenant governor of the commonwealth of massachusetts and became the first woman ever in our state's 200 year history to hold statewide office. we've had very few women since then, and evelyn murphy started the path to progress. evelyn murphy holds a h hd in -- ph.d. in economics and the founder of the wage project, a national organization working to end wage discrimination against women. she also authored a book on the gender wage gap called "getting even: why women don't get paid like men and what to do about it." we have a copy on the back table there, and it's available on amazon.com. she sits on the board of the center for women in politics and public policy, enevelyn, i thank
you for your support over the years and joining us here this evening. ladies and gentlemen, i give you evelyn murphy. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity. i'm a big fan of the program, and the reason is i just watched the number of women who graduate from here and get the opportunity, the tools, the techniques to actually participate in public life either in public office, appointed, elected, all the public jobs, and it's just -- i think there's no finer thing you can do with your life than play some role in our public life, so i cheer you all on and i'm honored to talk to you about the wage gap. i want to start for a minute just to understand the audience by asking you how many of you here now hold jobs? okay. out of this group, let me just ask for some examples of job titles. who has -- who is doing what
kind -- give me a position, a name of a job that you now have. >> evelyn, you -- linda has to hand the mic to whoever answers the question. >> okay. >> anyone who wants to answer the question, please stand up. >> stand up, state your name, where you are from. >> i'm from boston massachusetts, and my title for my job is education leadership manager. i work for a non-profit community center. >> communication education leadership manager. >> uh-huh. >> okay. who else do we have here? what other job titles do we have? >> i'm kate lin o'roilly and i'm an english instructor, english as a second language. >> and you're from? >> massachusetts.
>> okay. one other. yes. >> i'm betsy alvarez living in wilmington, but originally from hon hon diewrs and work director in communities for charter schools. >> you're a director? >> for charter schools. >> okay. now who are the students here right now that don't have jobs and that are looking for jobs? some hands went down. let take the ones looking now or thinking seriously. let me hear some of the jobs that you're thinking about pursuing. somebody wants to pull forth? yes. a mic. >> i'm jen living in brightton,
but i'm from oklahoma and texas. i'm looking for a health policy analyst job. >> okay. wish r one more. who is looking for jobs today, a student, and about to graduate? >> hi, i'm meggen mcman and i'm looking for research analyst position in education. >> okay, research analyst. okay. i want to leave those up here for a minute. i'll come back to them, but i want to first remind you that i guess tuesday you may know was
equal payday, and one of the questions about, you know, when is it that we're going to stop having equal payday? the answer is when the gender wage gap goes away. it's just that simple. the wage gap measures this inequality that we now start to try to eliminate when we celebrate and crank ourselves up for an equal payday rally as some communities did last tuesday. i want to talk for a couple of minutes and think about the gender wage gap. who knows how -- what is the wage grape mean? what does it stand for? do we know who is measured in the gender wage gap? i'm going to make this hard on the c-span people, but somebody have a since of that? anyone have a guess? okay. look. the gender wage gap is a measure
of all year round working, full-time year round working men compared to all year round full-time working women. that's what it is. it is a pretty precise measure. it's not -- so when you listen to that and you hear that the wage gap is 23 cents, that women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn, that's what's measured. these are federal data, so this is all of the people in the country, year time full time working men and women. when you hear that the wage gap is really about women who drop out to have kids, listen carefully because if you dropped out to have kids or raise chirp, you are not counted in that number. you're not in it, so it's not measuring that. you may drop back in and theory
has it sometimes you drop back in earning less, but it's not clear that that's the case, and the reason it's not clear is there's no national study yet that establishes that. until there's some nationwide study that says this is about dropping out to have kids or raise kids, stay focused on the fact that the big picture, the gender wage gap is 23 cents that women overall earn 77 cents for what men earn, and then equal payday last tuesday was the number of daying into 2011 everyone had to work to match up to what the guys earned in 2010. that's what we're measuring. now, the gender wage gap is -- that's for all women. for afternoon women, the wage gap worse. for latinos it's 59 crepts on
the dollar, so it's worse. throughout all of this when we talk about the gender wage gap, it hits different communities harder. i want to stay on the big picture, the 77 cents on the dollar because that's what we use all the time, and that's what we measure. now, how does this happen? how do we possibly get this difference? there's as many women now working as men who work as long as hard. we need the money as much as men do. we're as well educated nowadays. half the women graduating from college are women, so how is this happening? it happens in a very specific way. say you graduate from u-mass this spring, and you get out, and you get a job at a pr firm, your starting salary is $45,000. you say, wow, that's neat. this is a bad economy, i have a job that pays $45,000.
a friend, a guy who just graduated with you goes into the same firm, and he's hired for $45,000. oh, well, maybe i'm missing something he's got. no, you both just graduated from college. i can get by on less, but really food costs as much for you as him. finally you may say, well, i'll show by my horde work that -- hard work that i'm worth as much as he is, and therefore i'll catch up. the end of the year comes, the boss rates both of you, and he says, you know, both of you have done excellent work, excellent. that's your review. then he discusses with you the raise for next year. he says, you know, you are really -- you're good. you are a determined -- you plod along and do everything we ask
you to do. we're proud of your work, so we'll bump you up to $44,000. we'll give you a 10% raise. he's hard charging. he's out there doing things, really going at it. we're going to move him up to $53,000. now, the difference of $5,000 originally is now quite a bit more, $9,000, okay? now you say so the end of the year comes, both working, not quite a year under your belt, the end of the year, the revie, and you both get excellent reviews again, and so the boss comes to you discuss the raise for this next year, and suddenly, you think, well, i hadn't planned on this, but i'm pregnant, and i love this job, this firm. i'll be back in a couple weeks after the baby. my mom and mother-in-law will take care of the baby. i solved the problem.
you'll never miss me. the boss says, oh, okay, we want her back, she's been pretty good. we need to make sure that we motivate her to come back, we'll move her up to say $48,000. he comes in and the boss looks at him and says he's a hard chargers working so hard. he's going to be in management. we have to move him to the management track. that starts at $60,000, so now there's a $12,000 difference. it went from $5,000 up to $12,000 in just a couple years in these little pieces. what the message is here, the longer you work,ed wider the gap gets, and it keeps growing and growing. that's how it happens. it doesn't happen in a big way that you miss something and make a foolish mistake that there's something going on that, you know -- no, it happens in these little tiny ways.
now, then you say why does this happen? why? well, here's -- listen to it carefully. if you listen carefully what you find is the kind of biases and stereotypes. he's a hard charger, and she's doing good methodical work, and it results in different raises. he gets more than you did. that's unfair. that's strictly because he's a he and you're a woman, and it's discrimination, and it's illegal, but for the most part, you're not going to sue for that. you're just beginning your career and you think, oh, i'll make it up. you move right by some of this illegal behavior. that's part of it. there's another part which is if you listen carefully to the language, your own language, we tend to talk ourselves out of action, and so it's things like, well, i can get by on less or maybe i'm missing something that
he's got or it's, you know, all these things, it's i, i, i, and so we talk ourselves into not taking any action at all. that's the way -- this is way the gender wage gap happens. it's a combination, discrimination, and our own inaction. what i want to do tonight is i want to get you committed to acting, and the only way i know how to do that is make sure you understand what this gender wage gap means to you permly. i -- personally. i can tell you the numbers, and you'll memorize them for class, but the plain fact is until you internalize this, it's in your gut, it means something to you, you won't move on it. here's what it means. say your sister or a niece or somebody in your family just graduated from high school this
spring, and that young woman is going to earn over her lifetime $7 # 00,000 -- $700,000 less than the young man standing next to her getting his high school discrimination diploma. now, when you graduate from university of massachusetts this spring, you will lose $1.2 less than the man standing next to you getting his degree. if you graduate from law school, medical school or get an mba this year, you'll lose $2 million over your lifetime, $700,000, $1.2 million, $2 million. if you graduated 15 years ago thinking, oh, this doesn't apply to me. you're wrong. it does. the gender wage gap, that 23 cents was the same in the early 1990s as it is today in 2011, so things -- there's no natural
improvement here unless we do something about it. the next time you hear that the sender wage gap is 23 crepts, i want you -- wherever you are, i don't care whether you stand here in a classroom and somebody mentions it like the professor or you are out in a grocery store or on the street or in the home, wherever it is where you hear the gender wage gap is 23 cents, close everything out of your brain, and i want you to say out loud, i want my million dollars. then it means something to you, it matters. it reminds you of what you're losing unless you do something, so let me ask you to practice for a minute. if you hear that the wage gap is 23 cents, you say? >> i want my million dollars. >> now, this is being filmed. you can be more persuasive. you have a message for the women
of the nation. one more time. the wage gap is 23 cents. >> i want my million dollars! >> that's better. that's better. keep that in your mind and in your heart because it's that motivating factor that will help you act on this. now, there's two pieces to action as i've amized this and gone around the country. one is to be committed to acting which when you personalize this, you get the feeling. when you do act, it's not going to hurt you, but, in fact, you're going to get somewhere. that's what i want to talk about for the next 10-15 minutes, and that's really about what you do when you negotiate either the salary you have now or the salary you want when you're going to get a job, and to start with, they are both the same. for the jobs -- for those of you who have jobs now, and for those
of you looking for jobs -- so let me ask, back to the chart for a minute, and ask some people here, the woman who is the educate leadership manager, what is your job worth? not what you are paid, but what you believe this job is worth. do you have a sense? oh, yes, we have to get the microphone again. >> i would say $75,000 a year. >> $75,000 a year. okay, and how do you know that? >> because of all the extra work i have. i think that's the minimum i should be paid. >> okay. >> for all that the work that i do. it's two titles in one so it's a bargain for what i'm getting paid now. >> it's a bargain because of two titles. >> a lot of the stuff you can consider community service about
now. >> okay, that's what you think it's worth? >> yes, at least minimum, yeah. >> good. now, the english as a second language instructor. tell us what you believe your job is worth. >> i would say $50,000. unfortunately, esl instructors work a lot of part time, a couple part time jobs, but as a full time job, i would say $50,000. >> okay. how do you know that? >> because there's a lot of outside work besides just being in the classroom and you play a lot of different roles beside being an instructor. >> okay. >> as a counselor, job search, a career counselor and different roles. >> okay. because there's lots of outside work too? >> yeah. >> okay. okay, now we have the director of community outreach.
what is your job worth, not necessarily your earnings, but what you believe it's worth. >> $100,000-$125,000. >> okay. how do you know that? >> i'm also a registered lobbyist. >> okay. >> i do community outreach, community organizing, pr, i do a lot of different jobs and compared to what the, you know, all the people are earning, i think that's, you know, they are making a lot more than that actually. >> okay. you are doing this compared to other people? >> yes. >> okay. okay. okay. now, let's take the ones looking for jobs. the woman who wants to be the health policy analyst. hold on until we get a mic.
what is this job worth? >> i feel like about $100,000. >> you believe it's $100,000. how do you know that? >> two reasons, looking specifically for reproductive health policy position which is crucial to me for the betterment of women, and two, many requires master's degrees and some cases ph.d.es. >> okay. okay. now, timely, the research analyst. >> that was my old job, so i know i'm priceless. [laughter] i would say probably $65,000. >> probably 65, and what makes you say that? how do you know? >> it's more than i made, slightly more, but in terms of the position i'm looking for, it seems right. >> okay. seems right.
okay. now, let me say to all of you, nose who have jobs and those who are looking, that the key to being confident and the very starting point of any sounding negotiation is to know what your job is worth in the marketplace. it's not what you think. it's not what you were getting. it's not what somebody else told you. it's not that you're doing multiple jobs. this is objective data. the more objective you get, the better you're going to be able to negotiate. now, and the way you do that nowadays, the wonders of the internet is that these data are available to you. you can go on my website www.wageproject.org and you can calculate what your job is
worth, and then you flip on to a salary.com co-branded for me, there's payscale.com, salary, a bunch of them. use whatever ones you want. i use salary for the following reasons. these are data. these are reports from employers, not employees. what you get is employers give salary.com these numbers and the data so they can then get back the same information to know what they want to offer for people that work for them so this is pretty reliable data, but as i say, use any one salary engines. what you do is go in there -- let's take the health policy analyst. if you go in there for a minute -- i'll do myself. i'm going to graduate this spring, want to go into pr, and i just got my bachelor's in epg lish, a minor in communications and i'm going to be is starting
pr specialist 1. you go to the salary calculator, you punch in the zip code where you're going to work, not where you live, but where you work. metropolitan area zip code. go into that and look down all these jobs in the communications industry, and i find down there, pages of stuff. pr specialist, oh, that's maybe me. when you find that job title, you go in and then you can hit more and up comes a bit of information that says here's what you do if you have this job, and you read it carefully, and it says i need zero to two years of experience which is me. i'm just graduating from college. i worked for a year every summer at a pr firm, so i think i have equivalent of one year from the four summers, but i'm starting out.
here's the thing about finding a job title. it is hard for people who hold jobs now. i do a lot of things, i don't fit any box. don't do that. if you don't fit any box, look at a couple boxes. get the data on each one of them so you know what the market rate, what employers are paying for that job so you're informed and objective. so i go in there and say, okay, i found the job title. i'm a pr specialist one, the beginning job. i plug that in, and up comes a bell curve. well, i plugged in base salary free, and for free what you get on the salary engines is an algorithm and it is all the data, every employer with ps specials one, throughout the country reporting in the salaries, and then what the salary engines do is they then
do an algorithm to adjust for the wage rate and the cost of living in that community, and that's important because i don't want to compare my job in boston with a pr specialist in springfield or new york city. there's different prices and costs based on the markets in those areas, so i got my job in boston. that's exactly where i want to be, and there's a bell curve there between 25th and 75th percentile in the median. you want to know that curve. that's the objective range for the job you are looking for or the job that you have, and then the exercise you go through is figure out where should you be on that curve, and how do you justify it? you go down all the requirements in that job description, you say, okay, i did this, i do this, i do this and additional things. i have more responsibilities than just this job title, and i have more degrees than just what they require or more years of
experience. i believe i'm starting for one year, and i got such great reviews where i worked, they offered me a job. i don't want to work there, but they offered me a job. i have good reference reviews and a record of being a good worker. say the bell curve is between $40,000-$50,000. i think well, where should i be in the curve? $45 is the immediate yon, and i'm better than that because i have a year and i'm better and have the experience, i'm going to start and i know how to distribute to the media markets, the press releases so there's no learning curve for me when i start the job. i decided in the bell curve i want to be at least $45,000-$48,000 and i can justify that. that's the way you benchmark your salary, your worth in the market. you have to do that. the more you can talk about your
salary in the numbers in the marketplace, gnat -- not what your friends told you it's worth, but those numbers in the marketplace, that's what you do. once you benchmark your salary, then benchmark the benefits because what job you have has value benefits as well. you may find there's $20,000 worth of benefits with the job. you want to be sure later in salary negotiation you know the value of the benefits, and you can see the way they are categorized. $2,000 paid in sick time and $3,000 paid in your 401k. do the homework and see the basket of benefits to have in the job and negotiate that you have $20,000 worth of value in the benefits as well as my $48,000. that's the package to being objective and figuring out what you are worth in the
marketplace. that's step one. objective, and now the other part is being a good negotiator and being paid fairly and equitably and you have to be persuasive. if you're not persuasive, you won't get there. practice the language of being persuasive, and it's all practice. you think about the words that make your case. look, don't you recall from my interview that i worked for four summers in this company, that i got great reviews, that i have at least a year's experience, that i got some other -- they want me. you keep practicing the offensive language to be persuasive, and you practice the defensive language. well, you know, you don't have, you know, you don't have two years. well, i don't, but that's not what the salary is about, but the year i have. or you don't have x. whatever it is, think about what
is liable to be the criticism and how you handle it. practice that. that's part of persuasive. if she's going to say something, okay, i don't, so? here's the other things i have. it's practice. it's the practice of the language, the practice of when you make these arguments. once you've done that, now you're into the strategy of a salary negotiation. now, salary negotiations whether you're in a job right now or whether you're looking for one, if you keep your mind set, the mind set is this is a discussion. it is nothing more than a discussion if it's not a win-lose. it's not a fight. it's not ugly or nasty or mean. this is a discussion. you're just been discussing that you got a job offer or discussing what you have done on the job, and now you just want to discuss what you earn on the job. you can set this tone, but you have to do it, and that, again,
think about the language that keeps this as a discussion. now, let me break apart two parts of the salary negotiation i want to talk about those applying for jobs, and then those who have jobs. those of you applying for jobs, salary negotiation has three steps. first step is you want to avoid before you get the job offer any mention of what your salary expectations or requirements are because you can want win in that -- cannot win in that little dynamic. you're talking and this interviewer says, well, you must have some sense of what you expect. well, if you say that and what you pick as a number is so high that it's out of the ballpark, you just killed yourself, and they will think you are greedy and just care about the money and not the job. if you are so low that you're a
bargain, you'll get snapped up and penalized after that. there's no way you can at this stage before you have a job offer -- and by the way, before you have a job offer, there's nothing to negotiate because you don't have a job. the key before this in these tempting moments is to think through and practice the language of how to avoid that, and you can say, so he says or she says, well, you must have a salary in mind. you can say no, i care more about finding out more than the salary. tell me something, what the numbers are, and you can say, look, my research shows you this. my research on salary.com or pay scale or whatever, here's the numbers i'm looking at. that's what the market is.
the response i really like because it's -- it has some, i think, strong arguments for it which is i'll consider any reasonable offer. the reason you want to -- i urge you to they about that, use that language and make it your own so yows not mimicking something, but it's a nice line because "consider" means i get it. i want a negotiation sometime in this and figure out how we bargain this, and secondly republican says i've done my homework, i know what the curve is and the market. it's a nice way of sort of putting this off. you do all of this before hand until finally that interviewer says i give up. they offer you the job, and then here's the offer. this is now step two. you're now into a salary negotiation. the thing you have to do is when you hear that initial here's the
offer, listen to the language very carefully because it's going to be the clue, the tip as to whether when there's a negotiation or not. if the line is here's the number, take it or leave it, clearly said, the signals are there, you know, there's no negotiating here. don't take that as the final word. think about it. they just offered you a job. they have gone through so many interviews. they looked and talked to everybody and finally said you're the one we want. you're it, and so at this stage, it may not feel like it, but you have some leverage. you have a little bit more power in this discussion than it may feel like. always when it seems like the door is closed, say something like, well, you know -- especially if you look down at the bottom of the scale and you know it's not fair or you know
you can't live on it or something, so you can say, well, can you do a little better? this is awfully low on the scale just to test it, just to test it. they may say no, and then you have to decide whether you want to job or not, but you won't lose the job on that little test, and you may just open the door to more money. there's a better response which is, you know, i'm authorized to offer you $40,000 or i'm authorized to offer you $50,000 which is above what i want or $40 harks ,000 which is way below. whatever it is your response should be the exact same thing. you stop, you pause, you think, and then you start negotiating, and you say, do you recall that from our discussion when i was interviewing for this job that i
do have these four summers of work in the press office, and by the way, i had such rave reviews, and by the way, and this is the strategy of where you lay out your argument step by step, wait for the response, take the next step and keep pushing until you see how far you can go until timely that person say -- finally the person says i can't go any further. stop, this is it. okay. think about what you're going to do when the stop point comes. now that you moved him as far as you can. if you incline to take it, then you sit there and you say, i think we're close, but let's talk about the benefits because now you want to get into the benefit discussion. you pull out the sheet of paper that says my research shows that the market value for my benefits is another $20,000. let's go down these things and tell me the value of your benefits at the company.
you find the ones they have and don't have, but they have some different benefits. tally those up. it's $10,000. i don't want to leave $10,000 worth of benefits only table. you say this is a lot of money for me, the market rate. other jobs next door, pr specialists are paid this with the benefits so help me. i'm very close. help me, make me whole. those kinds of things, and so then they say, well, and you can say i want to go back to university of massachusetts to get my masters, will you pick up the tuition? will you pick up the moving expenses? all these things you think about beforehand that might help you. if that fails or in addition to that you say things like, well, they are one-time bargains, you
know? is there a signing bonus? something like that where -- or, well, is there a signing bonus? are there other benefits like dental care and so forth that you can add on? then if you're still trying to push the benefits and there's leverage, you can say, well, i want to take this, but maybe you'll consider since we're so far apart that you'll help by having a salary months from now rather than the year? if you get that in the negotiation, you have a huge step forward because if you get rerued six months earlier, it gives you the opportunity that much ahead of the game later on. when all of that is done, you have to step back and say, okay, here's the compensation package, the salary and benefits. do you want to take it or not? you can be so satisfied you take it on the spot or take the night to think about it. that can leverage more, but at
this stage, they want you. you're close. stop and think about it, and then start out. okay. people have jobs. if i go through this and i'm a pr specialist, you know, three, and i'm earning $80,000 and that's terrific but i see i can be $80,000 to $100,000, but i have more years. i need paid, i need a wage. raises are earned before hand or earned because you now have new titles, new responsibilities, new stuff to do, and so that's important too, but you don't get a raise if you don't ask. here i'm sitting underpaid, i earned that. i'm worth that and i'm now underpaid for a few years. i want my raise, at least $10 ,000. the key for people who decide
you are underpaid for the work you're doing right now and that ewe deserve a raise is to pick the right time to start this process. sometimes the right time is that you just got a new big client for the firm or a big award or like me, you know, you're underpaid for a long time, whatever that is, pick the time that works best for you, and sometimes that's in the normal race cycle or pool, but i don't want to be in that. i want to be off cycle probably now. when you decide what is the best time for doing this, what you basically do is you call your boss and you say i want to discuss -- i want to have a meeting to discuss my career development, some things about my career development. if you want a meeting to discuss a raise, you get a no. discuss about your career development. then you go in and you sit down
and sit down around the table, you know, don't sit across the desk. that's stifling. sit by the table, bring in your data, numbers, whatever you want to do, put it out there, comfortable, confident, and say, look, give that boss the five minute elevator pitch. here's my case. here's my case. i'm underpaid, what i deserve, what i think, and then stop. be absolutely silent. don't talk over it. i would do a political asigh, but we'll run out of time. when you do this, your heart can be pumping and pumping because it's unnatural, but wait to see how he or see responds. before hand you an tas pated what the responses might be like, oh, you are already the highest paid pr specialist in the firm, and then you figure
out your answer. well, here's one answer which is don't compare me to anybody else. this is not about me compared to anyone else. this is about me in the market place and my worth, or i can't tell this to the ceo. i agree with you you are underpaid and you're tesk. i really want you, but i can't sell it to the ceo of the company. if you agree with me, you and i ought to go to the ceo. great, you can't have a better word than your boss saying to the big guy -- okay, so he or she says, look, it's not in the budget, and so then you say, well, if it's not budget but you agree i'm underpaid, can you put it in next year's budget? if you do it next year, you're in such demand you may be out of here so i want the con confirmation here. it works to have it in writing. then you've been able to say let's put it in for next year
with the adjusted cost of living, and now it's in that next year's budget and you're waiting for it. there's all ways to anticipate the objections, and then you have to anticipate what's the final line. let me play that through a minute. if the final line is at this point, no, no, i disagree with you. you have to come back to say, look, let's have another meeting. this matters to me and my family, i'm supporting my family. help me in a month or so and how we agree on my value and what i need to do or how we discuss this so that that boss knows this is not going to go away. there's a mismatch here. it is got to be clarified, or if you get a piece of this and so you say thank you very much, i appreciate some of the raise, let's talk about the benefit that go with the raise. of course, with that raise, you got to make sure that the appropriate benefits also go up
as well, so -- then if he or she says yes to you, you say thank you very much and graciously -- but also talk about your benefits if you got the whole raise because you want to make sure again you get the value of those benefits. that's the way you go after raises. if you do these things, the objective -- be objective, be persuasive, and be strategic. you end up with a kind of powerful, i think, ability, the confidence to get things done. let me tie this together and we'll go to questions. salary negotiations like almost any negotiations is moving on three dimensions. it's a three dimensional curve. the x-axis is from subjective to objective. you want to move further out on
the objective axis, further out you can ever get. on the y-axis, you want to be from passive to persuasive. you want to keep building your skills of big persuasive, and on the z-axis, you go from ad hoc to highly strategic, and you got to do all three things. if you are highly objective and highly persuasive, but you don't have a strategy, you aren't going to get there. if you are high lie persuasive and not objective, you will not get there. if you are not persuasive, you don't get there. every encounter you have, every discussion you have is the experience that you gain in learning how to keep moving out on all three of those plains and getting more sophisticated at it, effective at it, and confident. that's how you practice and you plan and then you try it, and you just keep doing this. if i can leave you with one
perspective on this, if you do this and you have the commitment to be paid fairly, just fairly, no special deals, just fairly, what the market pays for the job and what i'm worth in the job. if you have the confidence and the commitment to doing that, every encounter you have not only advantages you, but it helps everything single working woman because what we're doing here is breaking, you know, the scales on the boss' eyes of bias and stereotypes and all that stuff. we have to break them all off. i studied this for a long time, and for me the way to get to equal pay for every one of us to be paid what we're worth is that we have to do this from the bottom up. the laws are here. it is illegal to discriminate. the efc will never have the funding to be a draconian
forcer. we just don't ever give you the money. the combination of the eoc's enforcement, but our about -- activism here, all of us doing, that's the way it gets done. every boss has different ideas, perception, and understanding of what worth is for women. they won't do it if we don't do it. i say that to you because you're not only helping every other woman, but every time you do this, every time you take your step of trying to advance your own worth to where your paid fairly, you're building your own legacy for your daughter's and your granddaughter's to have an opportunity that they now don't have to earn an additional million dollars. we all need to do it. okay. let's have some questionings and thoughts and responses to this.
>> thank you. okay, questions? alicia, you want to ask? say your name and where you are from. >> i'm alicia from detroit, michigan. i read your piece, "why not a dollar" and why do you believe especially off the equal pay act of 19 # 63 that beginning in the 1990s the wage gap for widened or increased instead of decreases and the second part to the question is why do you think that that's still happening today? >> oh, well part of it is what i said. it's still happening because there's still a lot of bias stereotypes, discrimination, it just goes on, and it's throughout the work workplaces throughout the country. in the 1990s, and that's a great point, when times are good, the wage gap gets bigger. man have tended historically to
benefit more in good times than women. when times are bad, women tepid to benefit. that didn't even happen this time around with the recession. we haven't had it either way, but clearly in the 1990s, it was kind of a time of great wage increase for men, and we didn't keep up with that. this is one of the things where again if we think it's inevitable and this is just a matter of rolling through time, we're missing the point that we have to scrap and do things to make it happen because these trends have gone on forever. i mean, i hate to think about what i lost because i'm so old, but it's sort of, you know, for us right now, understanding history is important because it tells you we just cannot sit and let times roll without becoming active on our own behalf, and by being active on our own behalf does something for everybody else. that's the wonderful part. we're really affecting all
bosses' minds on this. you can feel the since of pride. every single boss you have whose mind changed and understands this set gets better is a step forward for us. >> that's very true. the "boston herald" publishing every year the -- how much every state employee by name earns. >> uh-huh. >> it's easy for myself to look at other center directors and find out where i stand with others, and it made a difference. objective facts are important. okay, other questions. how about stacy. stand up and where you're from. >> i live in summerville, and i found my female friends think they don't negotiate their salaries, and i'm wondering if you think that women are less apt to negotiate their salaries and if that affects the gap?
>> i think it is. that's what the studies suggest that women are more resonant than men. i did a workshop the other night at u-mass lowell and it was supposed to be for women, but ten guys showed up and took over the workshop. afterwards -- i'm always watching to see whether the got the audience or not, and so i'm watching the eyes of women, and they are taking every note, got all the information. it's in their minds going through them, but they got silent with the guys there so i think men tend to be -- this is all generally, but men tend to have a sense that they just go in and ask for stuff. we women, interesting thing about this -- about the workshops because we've done workshops in 200 campuses across the country for women about to graduate. what i discovered is we all
bring baggage to this. whatever the background, we all think that it's just us, and in my family, we didn't talk about money or in our culture, we don't talk about money. i do understand that every woman's culture and heritage has baggage to it in this regard that then we're going to get over the spirit about all of us doing it together, but we really are held back in part by our socialization from our families. ..
it's making a dent in this dynamic so this is all about how you step in and start to experience it but it's tougher for women. it really is. >> my name is nicole from california and i have two questions. if you take time off work to have kids to raise kids and have a family and take care of older parents and to you think the longevity will work for has man exit the work force more professional women will keep working and maybe there will be a point they will actually make more money because evidently by
the age of 50 they have accomplished what they will accomplish and can't retire if they decide to. i want to get your view on that and the second question is if you had a good salary and feel like you are accomplished and were not underpaid however if you want to reinvent yourself and enter the job market and do something else, how do you figure out or evaluate the market value in a different area where is that benchmark? >> the benchmark if you're going to shift into a different industry or different kind of career is to get the skills and experience you have from your existing or past career and analyze how they apply to get the attention this new career and so it's up to you to do the homework to say it's not i'm
starting from scratch, you've got a long experience in doing something and doing it well and the skills are typically transferrable but not unless you make the case so it's up to you to make the case to look at you write these things down, all the skills you have over here and exceed, don't assume for a minute and because you are switching careers you need to step back. it may not depending how good you were and what skills are and how you do that. the first question about the longevity bonus. for the men who have the luxury at age 50 wheeler now is they do not save much money and may be working male and female a lot longer in their lives and for
the rest of us the working-class folks of the country, we are strained right now. so i would like to think that would happen because women are working longer but we are going to find that unless in the next ten years the country picks up an economic engine could hide we will find is working long and hard to make sure we can afford the lifestyles we would have had >> i am originally from gna. if you have to job offers and the one you want more is offering less to think it is advisable to mention a job offer
during the negotiation process? >> that's a great question. it is absolutely particularly a job you want to say look i've got this other job offer and they are going to pay more. can you make it up so i can accept your job but i'm a foolish to what -- you can do that. you must never fake can't say i've got this other job offer because a lot will say tata and then you are sunk but if you've got it than sure it's fair to go through that down and to say leave it with them about why you this if you want the job that they should do this. great question.
>> do you think there's less of a gap in the nonprofit world than corporate america? >> no i don't. the studies i have seen show that there's a gap in the nonprofit world particularly in the higher-paying nonprofit the lurcher research foundation, so i think the nonprofit world at the low end there is it as much of a gap, but at the high end the fund research that shows that its sevier sevier and its male-female has the wealthy well off nonprofits and its financial officer and everything where there's a huge gender gap. >> can i ask a question?
>> i assigned an article from "the wall street journal" that came out on tuesday called there's no male and female wage gap and this article argues a woman who writes it argues there isn't sex discrimination more sexual patriarchy but that women make to places to take jobs in certain sectors and that the choice is sacrifice higher pay for jobs with, quote, fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. >> i would say there are very few working women that have that luxury and that is for the most part we are all scrapping with jobs that have tough conditions in the everyday work is hard work. i saw that article and to me
there's a couple things i have trouble with. there is no gender we each get and yet the discussion was about unemployment so i'm still waiting to see the data on the wage gap so there's a distraction. well, you know, that's not an agenda which that numbers coming and the argument about the occupation of kind jobs of the women work, my feet for example the is a "new york times" magazine over a few years use of these women pushing baby carriages down central park west and the talk that the women who dropped out to have kids and reese cates and the all look really happy. having the time of their life but then you look at who they are. who can afford to do that nowadays? the highest earning mbas or lawyers or something that just a thin sliver of working women but
it's not for all of us. so i don't like to generalize on those kind of things because i don't think that's what working women in america are doing i think the jobs are hard and that when we choose things, our choices are very limited. they are limited because we all need to work. we are supporting our families more and more. women are some support for major supporters so this is not easy times and the occupational stuff by the way, we choose the occupation but look at the occupation. we find the male nurses more than women nurses in the occupation and same happens with teachers there's a very interesting research thing for the women's policy research which shows the predominant number of occupations of the women still make more less than men just a couple handful in
which the women earn more. so, you know, this stuff doesn't hold up for me to the research data that is their and we know of the conditions through the country. that is an ied like thing but it's not for most of the working women. >> it's funny because the subtitle says it was a study of single childless urban workers between the ages of 22 to 30. it's a very small subset of women also. >> the potential impact of the supreme court decision to determine whether the women can do an employer as the class. >> the impact of that is potentially huge wal-mart can
establish the class action it is huge. i've done a study along with their colleagues at the policy research on the consent decree and it's clear the consent decree can be effective where the class actions are. wal-mart at the stage if this can be classed the settlement is going to be -- it's going to be a message, back in the part of how do you accept from the top down discrimination, just the systemic discrimination welcome it takes one example like wal-mart if that's the coup that class action is established to scare other employers into looking at the data between gender and race because every bit of discrimination is about race as well. so, for them to look at and take seriously the data that they have and certainly assure people are paid fairly. so this is a very important
signal to the country. class action can be established it will be the most important signal for the rest of corporate america to shape up on this and if it's not it's a huge loss. >> time for one or two more questions. >> state your name and where you're from. >> i'm rebecca from alabama. i just really appreciate you and everything i learned tonight. i'm sorry that i came wheat but think you for the great information that you've given especially the responses when they might give different reasons but i wondered had you ever heard stories of a woman in that experience or even that you mentioned light you might have a
job offer somewhere else but wanted to stay here as anyone wanted to eat their words and going too far even though they felt they could still push boston i'm still kind of worried and i will say too much. >> you don't know until you try. >> we have an understanding about the people we are dealing with. there's no human being behavior. so when you're sitting there and start to discuss your salary could half you get the sense of how long you can push and how to turn that around we are at this
stage in our life pretty good at this. but i haven't heard regrets. what i've heard -- i've heard some people in the workshops of the for working women and so i knew this 20 years ago but i wish i had -- it's sort of we don't talk about this. the workshops the project does is the only country right now doing stuff. it is a piece of understanding that's just not of their. so the more that we can start to discuss it because we are ahead of the curve. you have a question here. linda? >> i have two questions. compared to other industrialized nations, when in in the u.s. tend to be on issues like sexual
assault and access to health care. how do we wait comparable nations in terms of the pay gap and pay equity and the second is that of all of the reading of the i.f. stone for the paygo and wage increases the women are never included and so i would like to know if you know of the studies in which we've actually be included and how we fare in terms of pay and if you don't, why aren't we being counted? >> it's an interesting question. i don't know of studies about native american women in the workforce and i also when you look at the large sense is what gets rolled up the number of native americans is so small it doesn't get reported my sense about this is that the bureau of labor statistics and the bureau of labor right now headed by the secretary is a latina would be
the most sensitive towards doing special research studies of the kind that need to be done because there are no studies that i know what so i would take this to the secretary herself and the head of the women's bureau who was a terrific woman, talk to them. this is our time to get these kind of studies done and started. on how to compare internationally, the honest answer is i'm not sure. i am so absorbed in trying to get this right in america i haven't had a chance to look at the end to the analysis of the country a lot of western europeans are a lot better than we are up this and we are not to speak to them and lacking in that perspective. i will do my homework before i'm invited back. [laughter]
i want to see first of all what a wonderful program and i want to to give a great round of applause. [applause] >> now the discussion on russian foreign policy on russia's national identity and the relationship it has with other countries including china and japan. this is from george washington university. it's an hour. >> we are very pleased to have these panelists with us this afternoon to discuss the paper. we did one of our regional seminars as you recall from our announcements this morning in moscow in november of last year we had some spirited discussions at that conference under the direction of igor who is with us today. i want to say a special word of
thanks to jim who is chairing the session. i don't need to introduce him he's known to everyone in this town and well beyond this town for all the years of reporting and foreign policy analysis he has done and he remains active in that area, and we are also very grateful to tom gramm who is here with us as a discussant. again, the resume are in your folder and i don't need to go over them in any detail but we are grateful for your being here and managing to survive the problems of getting out of new york this morning so with that let me turn it over to jim and the panel discussion on russia. henry, thank you. it's a pleasure to be here on this beautiful day.
it's a testament to all of you that you're here inside rather than strolling along the boulevard. so we are going to talk today about the world view of the rising power or more precisely the foreign schools foreign policy school of thought which builds on the concept in which strongly believe and that is the concept of national character, the concept of shared history, geography and culture joined to establish certain dominant traits in the people contained within the nation state borders. by examining foreign policy school of thought, we capture the diversity indeed at times the rivalry that exists within the national character. as people from roughly the same geography, the same socioeconomic groupings and the san intellectual back crounse come to totally different
conclusions about the place of their nation does and should occupy in the world, how best to protect or advance that place and what political basis must be mobilized were maintained to accomplish those goals. the diversity and the competition of the world view held by the political and economic elite, and unconsciously use elite and cingular term for the state of the politics and the economic conditions of russia today i think we can use the singular, but that competition is a compelling theme of the paper we will discuss. we will have a discussion now by one of the authors of the peter and for about eight to ten minutes.
and i love tom phyllis what is going on. in his fashion. i hope it is a very good paper. it examines and gives a usual examination of the roots of the professed dichotomy of the views of russia's please in the world on the part of the two men who occupy the top leadership positions in russia today. dmitry medvedev and vladimir putin. there's a lot of discussion in my business about whether or not this difference in divergence and views israel or its contrived. in any event wherever you come down you hear the echo in this jury valuable paper of 40 authors identify as the conflict between the age-old conflict in russia between the finals and the western and the decline that
division into a more subtle picture. at times overlapping even of how the main schools of foreign policy fought in russia today that are the toomas secret contradictions between the various schools that are in competition to prevent their views and make those count in policy terms. it is introduction to the book that will build on today's conference and we now ask the so what question. it's a journalistic device every story has to have a so what explains clearly to the reader wonder leader should take into account this article today.
the so what question here is very much are there, and points in the domestic debates in the fight rising powers about their foreign policy that would enable us to glimpse or perhaps fashion a framework for studying the global power shift seems to be underway. that's the challenge to u.s. and audiences to help identify those points of view. the other question the title and the inclusion of russia and this paper bring to my mind perhaps mischievously but that's what the journalists do to some extent to afflict the comfortable and comfortable to be afflicted the other question is given its demographic crisis, and the misshape in nature of its one-dimensional economy built on the natural resources
should we include russia as a rising power for a purposes of this conversation? is it in fact a dwindling power given that its population is on the decrease and its economy hasn't been able to move from the primary into the more developed economy. the more important thing is the russians themselves debate that question and it's an integral part of their own place in the world and how the view that so i think it's fair to raise it and perhaps our presenters will have a go with that question as well as the others presented. and true to a country known in watching him in the meetings in russia year after year where he poses the toughest questions
glenna putin and dmitry medvedev have to answer will present the paper and he will be here to fuel your questions. [laughter] >> thanks very much for the kind introduction and the division of labor the hard questions go to the smarter team. when i was approached a couple years ago by henry about this project i thought finally someone is asking me to do something i was trained to do. i was trained back in the 1980's. [laughter] the job of myself and my mentor was to look at the so-called schools of thought in the soviet union to try to understand who is up and down and why it takes place. when i got my visitation in 92 the country no longer existed so
later you are making me feel useful. thank you. i want to express my gratitude to my co-author. everything good about this and all the deficiencies are my own but this is a case i think where he's one of the soliloquies philosophical test to plus two equals five. somebody can google that right now. you put together the whole is greater and some do not feel that way. it may not be a rising power it is interesting in the project certainly it got china and india for sure, japan 20 years ago the
imperial power was to the united states of california. that is a bubble but it's been a bit slightly downward. the russian case has been remarkable in that in the 1990's you have this deep drop and then even more was the rapid rise after the financial crisis of 1998 and the rapid growth of the experience. okay, down is up. officious is jim pointed out we put these were separated into three schools of thought and some extent it does kind of come
down to the old western miser's debate. there is a linkage between how they think about the domestic economic political model of development in the country and tied to the foreign policy interests and there is a linkage between external foreign policy and domestic and the same on of the nationalist side essentially in that while there are all kind of different nationalisms in the russian spectrum from fascists to isolationists to a number of others and one thing they have in common is that the liberal economic space model of development is inappropriate for russia and the pro-western liberals a specially merely the 1990's to the yeltsin administration not only did they
see that as the western the democratic economic liberal model appropriate for them but to achieve that it had to be true integration with the west saw it was the transformation of the country through integration and what we call the great power balancers and basically realist's but we don't call it realist's because technically it's more focused on military power. there is a linkage between how they view the development of the country versus foreign policy orientation and its like said years ago doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white or catches mice, whether it is effective and a pragmatic and flexible integration, global litigation is all different directions come integration with of the rest is desired but not
on terms are dictated by the west and that is a difference i think with the first school and one of the weaknesses in the early 1990's. we go through this brief period for the last 20 years and again, i think there may be more fluctuation in the russian case than some of the others because of the most tumultuous times russia has gone through over this period but there was a brief period in 1991, 1992 were the pro-western liberalize your predominant. they were quickly the dominance was lost for two reasons and the economic fallout, the collapse of the economy which had a tremendous impact on the political popularity and also a sense of maybe disappointment with the west or maybe illusions held about both the speed and the transformation of the degree
to which they would be supportive of it. subsequently for about nine years we see it as kind of faith launch of the pro-western liberals and great power balancers, the sort of quintessential great power balance in the russian context is the former foreign minister and the prime minister realist kind of kissinger in the russian context both the way that he looked at the world and his statesmanlike status. some of the folks that were in the pro-western liberals quote initially because the move as well because of the disappointment and the mission of the reform in russia has been hurt by the u.s. foreign policy measures etc. so this period
goes into the first part of the vladimir putin period who of course came into power at the beginning of 2000. 2003 to 2008 we see another shift and this also i find its roots i think in both domestic development and external factors and the shift is more the direction of not just power balancers but increasingly the russian nationalists and to try to block particularly the u.s. foreign policy initiatives. the confidence was driven by the rapid growth of the economy which began to take off a significant way about that time. 2005, 2006 is when russia payoff its paris club debt and it
became sovereign financial sovereignty that meant political sovereignty, very important for vladimir putin and a continued to accelerate and the sort of watershed moment then became in 2007 when mr. putin gives the famous speech at the security conference in munich and says the balance of power in the world is changing. the world has gone into the etc., etc.. the shift we are to visit had to do with a lot of the u.s. policy and the perception of the bush administration policy which whether it be missile defense deployment, democracy promotion, nato expansion were viewed and portrayed in the russian political context as efforts to weaken the russia and directly
attack their interest. this period reached the peak in august 2008 with a georgia war that was the u.s.-russian relations and then we finally see the one last ship kind of back in the direction of the great power sort of a more centrist position which is where things appear to be today. what was one of the sources of the shift? one i think part of it was the outcome of the george war that suddenly the u.s.-russian relationship was in its worst condition and 20 years and that perhaps this wasn't really in washington's interest or moscow, so much more significant though for i think the russian political elite is the impact of the global economic crisis because coming into the summer of 2008 there was the sense of almost dizziness with success and if the wind is at our back everything is going our way we
are the island of stability and women may not be affected by the prosecution causes but they were hit upside the head into the negative impact of the crisis was made under the g20 country. so the second realization coming at that is this changing balance of power in the world was accelerating and was exonerated in the favor of manly beijing and i think there's been an increasing question about to what extent does this very rapid growth of the chinese principal economic power applied politically to what extent is that in their interest and i think that it led to the sense that maybe we ought to balance and hedge our position with the u.s.. the other factor to think of courses in the obama administration policies. the shift in the policy on
missile defense, the effective tabling of the data expansion there was the growing realization overtime that the policies were not being designed, they were designed to accommodate russia or if not a comedy and not directly attack their interest. now the impact of the 2,000 mine shift on the selected countries the usa we have had a quite significant and the so-called reset relations. china there's an increased sense of economic vulnerability but no significant policy course change and the russian policy towards china has been steady and consistent for a long time. india is similar, no shift from moscow. iran, the other case in the study with relations were worsened. the russian position was taken
on the resolution in 1929 and the u.n. security council and perhaps even more so the decision of the russia to back out of the sale of the s300 anti-aircraft system which led the russians to actually have to pay money back. the anomaly is japan and russia has been in the past year or so the most antijapanese set of policies and least the last 20 years and part of the rationale for the improvement of relations with the united states versus europe also is some sense of you to strategically balance the position in the world than white you undertake a set of policies that seem to be so tough on washington's closest allies in asia if you're concerned about
china. since we are short on time i will go into it. happy to take any questions though. >> following jim's instructions. a couple of key variables to the future. well, one is what are the variables that can affect the shift in which school of fought seems to be dominant and the policy to be pursued? for a long tennis courses in the oil price. this isn't to say that russia is a petrostate and that this is tall explanatory variables there's no such thing. but there's a relatively strong correlation of the techniques between the more assertive and aggressive foreign policy in the high your environment there is economically the stronger position. the second most -- the third position is the other most
important variable is the u.s. policies and this is the key thing to take away from the last ten years to complete counterfactual. did russia russian foreign policy toward the united states in 2009 on the change because to be in the budget was president from 2001 to to listen to. part of it was the sense of the economic growth and increasing the influence they had but also in response to the united states did pick if we look to the future, who actually is the president of russia in 2012 may be less important than the external factors the day the oil
price, with a u.s. policy is, possibly what china policy is etc. let me stop there and now you can hear what is really going on from my good friend. >> i've come to know andy is a tough questioner and i now introduce pomegranate why can to know is a man that could usually answer very tough questions which frequently came from presidents on russia, russian policy. his force and an additional russia is virtually unparalleled my experience and now we will hear tom's view. >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. we forgot to mention as i worked for two administrations each of which took the u.s. relationship and drove it to the lowest point. [laughter]
the clinton and bush administration increase to the ground work of the current administration. let me say that i perhaps would have benefited from this type of paper if i had read it 20 years ago and ten years ago. i think it does as you have seemed an excellent view of the school's fault in russian foreign policy. i want to make three very brief comments. the first starts with something that this paper addresses right up front and that is that there is a broad consensus in russia of certain principles that should guide the russian foreign policy, russia's role in the world. you mentioned the idea that it should be a great power across all three schools. the idea at the international affairs is a darwinian tide of world of each for his own and a war of all against all in some
ways. that russia has always been his starkly in the position of having to catch up to the leading powers particularly in europe and in the united states over the past 300 years. and the debate about russia and the west whether russia is part of the west or something distinct from the west. i want to add it to others that i think are important for understanding russia and the russian identity. the first is a central role of the state. many commentators have noticed that russia can an employer before it became a nation and the core of the empire really was the russian state which over the centuries gives shape and form of only to the state could russian society to the extent that it existed as an independent factor. and this creates a certain link between the russian national identity and the role of the
state. most russians think first of all of their own country as an actor in the world affairs. the state proceeds the nation. and this creates some problems in the current period and in part because we have a russian state now in the territory looks beans that there's very little resemblance, and historical russian state for a least the past two to 300 years. and so the question, one of the core questions they are discussing in russia today and half the past 20 years is what is the central identity of this russian state, what is going to be the fundamental principle behind the russian national identity? there's been a lot of talk about russian ethnicity as the foundation for that national identity and of course this creates problems in russia today, something that this paper does discuss this its ethnicity that is the foundation for the nation what do you do with those
17 million russians beyond the borders of russia in the former soviet space. we try to do this specific identity the question still is why the borders and how do you identify a specific within the borders when historic leave russia has been much more, a much bigger country and eurasia and this leads to the second point. i think again, a common element in all russian thinking about foreign policy. and that is the former soviet space which we should remember is also the former imperial russian space. it is the territory that is given russia's historic the steel, political. it's a part of the world that almost all russian elites believe is critical to the own prosperity and security and all of these schools that this paper mentioned think that russia
should have privacy and the former soviet space the only exception may be who wanted to shrink russia to the russian nation based on ethnicity but almost everyone else believes that russia should have privacy and the former soviet space. and the only issue that divides them is how we have to bite several years ago writing a paper about the liberal russian empire how you would use market principles to reassert russian privacy over the former soviet space. you see putin as president whose grin to rely on the levers of oil supply, the economic context between the countries is more or less unified economic space that have grown out of the period has a basis for in a sense compelling these countries to be under the russian domination.
so the former soviet space is a critical element in thinking and the question that divides only to the limited extent is how you go about reasserting the dominant domination. the second point i would like to make is following along on what i've already said about there being a consensus in the russian foreign policy the peeper is absolutely right that there are three broad schools but if you look at russia today, what is striking is that there is only one major school, the pro-western liberals and the nationalists tend to be marginal in the russian political spectrum and the only question i think is much of the schools is more marginal, the pro liberal west or the nationalist and that has as pointed out very overtime. what i find interesting in the paper is to devote equal time to
the three schools, and what i would urge this if you take a look at this again is a focus much more on the great power of balancers and try to get the variations within the school of thought and how they might play themselves out over the next several years and a lot of questions you need to ask the mustard with the obvious one of the west. what is the west today? if you are in russia and thinking about this you do not see the unified west so you need to begin to reconstruct the west. you've seen people like putin and healton before who tried to use the germans as a counterweight to the united states and during the iraq war there's a element in the way that putin thought about the russian foreign policy.
if you look at the world today particularly after the financial crisis, and the deep crisis in europe itself both physical but i would argue even more profoundly one of identity of with the european union is and europe is going forward ask what does it see as a power in the world today? can you use europe as a balance in any real sense given the disunity in europe. also if you look at the way they've conducted their foreign policy despite the fact they tried to use your petraeus certain extent to balance the united states. they've never been in favor of the european union. the policy has been and this is across the spectrum has been built around bilateral relations
with the key european countries, germany first of all, france and the second place and italy to the lesser extent, try to do what they can to undermine a more cohesive unit become a look at the gas policy for energy policy when he was president, clearly aimed at isolating the eastern europeans, the polls from germany, so i think what you see is russia trying to counter the united states but at the same time trying to undermine european unity which seems counterintuitive if you want to use in some ways to counter the united states. now of course, the russian elite has always looked for the past decade if not more to china as
the counter balancer. you think of the formation, the shanghai cooperation organization clearly constructed of the intent of limiting the country to was activities in central asia particularly after the united states got involved in the afghanistan operation began to build a military basis in central asia. as andy pointed out there is some rethinking of china under way right now particularly after the financial collapse and in part because the chinese are acting in a much more assertive fashion. for all the concern they have at the united states over the past decade and trying to build pipelines out of central asia to cast and undermining russia's monopoly over the export from central asian states it turns out that the chinese had built the gas pipeline out of the
caspian region across central the show into china effectively ending the russian monopoly of export routes. if you look at the way that the chinese to with of the russians commercially it is clear they don't cut than any slack, the deal that was signed between china and a few years ago. the price per barrel was 21 to $22 this is at the time when the price was somewhat of 100, 120. so the chinese are not making an effort to build up russia as a major power and don't see any reason to as i said make the concessions to the russian allies, rather than push very hard to commercial and geopolitical what vantage and this i think is finally led many in russia to begin to consider
the role china is going to play and with the russian relationship with china should be. a senior level clearly there is the understanding the need to have good relations with china. but beginning more to think about how do you begin to balance against china and part of the recent policy is in fact i think motivated by the design your for closer relations with the united states as a way of beginning to create an effective balance to the chinese in central asia and north east north east asia and one final point i would like to make about more less the context in which russia is formulating its foreign policy now.
and what we need to understand is that this russia for the past 20 years has been phasing in lawful geopolitical context. for 300 years from the time that russia emerged as the european great power of the time of peter the great up until the breakup of the soviet union in 1991, russia, soviet union was the dynamic core of eurasia and gispert its power of from the russian heartland of around moscow in all directions come east, west and south. for almost 300 years. that ended in 1991. and we've had a 20 years now where that parity hasn't been reversed. if you look at this now for the first time in the modern period it is surrounded by the regions that are all more dynamic than
russia. economically, demographically and politically. so clearly china in the east could obvious but economically you see the energy of the muslim world to russia south growing populations and ideology that is penetrating into central asia and into the russia proper. and even europe despite its current difficulties still acts as an attractive power in places like ukraine, certain places in russia and also is providing a form of regulatory imperialism as russia tries to build its trade relations with the europeans. and so, one of the debates and one of the challenges that russia faces over the next generation i would argue is how can it recreate itself as the dynamic core of eurasia and how
has this been pointed out with a declining population and certainly this will be the case the next 20 years and this is what the debate inside russia is about today as they prepare for the presidential selection in 2012. and to see various camps beginning to for more ways we can think about this is state capitalism the way to go, building national champions. is this going to provide the power that it needs over the next generation or does russia really need to do a better job of building free-market attracting small and medium-sized investors and to russia it created a type of dynamic economy that you see particularly in the united states or europe.
when you think about innovation, should this be focused on rebuilding the russian industrial base, the automotive sector, aviation, even though oil and gas and using those sectors as a way of innovating the economy or you take the approach which is focused much more on i.t. and are seen as in many ways cutting edge high-technology to the contemporary world. clearly the debate going on over that. and this is related to the debate over the political system. i don't think there's anybody at the senior levels that really believe that you should open up this political system of unfettered access to the political process but there is a debate over how you open this
up, how much of for the next generation with a putin on the one side is still very much in favor of controlled democracy, people like him being at the head high in the country forward and president medvedev who would like to open up a little more to encourage the type of debate political and economic as he believes the country needs to move forward, and what the paper might to do in the future is to see if there is a correlation between this domestic program and the tide of foreign policy that russia might follow within the great balance your school which i would argue is likely to remain the central one in russia for at least the next ten, 15, 20 years and probably longer than that. but we stop there.
>> thank you. we have time now for some quick questions if you would. please identify yourself briefly. start right here. there's a microphone coming. >> andy knows i'm going to ask this question because you invited it. what were your musings about why they were beating badly towards the japanese? >> because they can. [laughter] the explanations are not mutually exclusive. one is that take a dog while it's down. the russians are extremely sensitive growth china because they see it as a rising power and that is why they signed the agreement in 2004. they don't see japan as a rising
power but i think the interest of the strategic significance of japan for sure but you're not going to see the border agreement. for some domestic political mileage to be had by appearing to be the nationalist going to the territories etc.. but i think the more interesting aspect is when i see them talking about the military deployment deploying the french destroyers, possibly in the islands, the s300 antiair systems i think in that we perhaps the russians may be using japan as a sort of trojan horse. there's certainly no strategic threat emerging to them from japan. ..
maybe this is the most interesting. maybe a way of the russians to say i love you. i want you. prickly embrace from the bear. now that might be -- that explanation could be mutually exclusive of at least one the others. >> back here. >> you have shown enterprises, the reserves position on oil that russia has, it's higher than the u.s. but nowhere close to the middle eastern producers. on the other hand, they have the largest reserves of natural gas. they have considerable amount of the european market. the natural gas is really the
clean fuel, the choice fuel of the future. they have growing market in china and south korea, japan in particular is going to be a customer it looks like. so why not natural gas? considering all of those elements that i talked about and instead of war? thank you. >> i didn't mean to exclusion natural gas. there's anchorlation, but not a direct correlation. if you look into the revenues versus gas export and oil export, the gas number is significantly larger than gas. you be point well taken. i don't mean to exclude them. is >> walter?
[laughter] >> the word ukraine wasn't really mentioned. and it does seem to me that one the big changes in russia coincides with the fact that ukraine no longer seems to be so slithering out of its grasp as much as slithering back down hill a little bit. i wonder given russian sensibilities and so on, if the state of ukrainian question doesn't loom much larger than russian minds than it does in our, when they assess where they are and what they need to do. >> well, first of all, ukraine is an extremely important country of four self-perception in russia for russian national identity. and it is indeed very difficult in the minds of many russians to
separate russia from the ukrainians. but it is not clear in mental math held by many russians where russia ends and ukrainian starts. so to say. i agree with tom who talked about about that the former soviet space is the critical element in russia foreign policy of thinking. having said all of that, i would argue, however, that this issue is in decline. it's more and more sort of elite think. it's a less important issue in public mind, especially for the youth. ukrainian is just, well, a neighbor. but it's another country. that's it for younger
generations. so the strategic and this ideational meaning of ukraine for russia will be less in my perspective in the coming years. at the same time for foreign policy chancers, ukraine is very central. not only because of ukraine itself, but because of relationship between russia and europe. russia and the best. it's very difficult to accept russia policymakers. ukraine will be accepted in larger europe and russia will not. so one the many things, i think your final question is indeed very important as it is. we should pay more attention to that. >> do you have a question back here?
>> gill, princeton, i want wonders tom graham if you could expand on the great power balancers, and how that plays out with regard to russia awakening about china's assertiveness. particularly as china became much more assertive last year, not just regard to some of the east asian countries and the united states, and with regard to other issues that seems to be of interest to russia in particular. do you sense there are schools of great power balancers with china at the center of attention? >> you know, i think they are beginning to develop a -- perhaps a school of thought that does have china as the center of attention going forward. and this marks the shift. clearly the united states has been at the center of the attention to great balancers for the past 20 years. and this russia before that for
40 years or more. but, you know, it's interesting in the private conversation that you hear some even very senior russians beginning to articulate concerns about where china is going. and some of this will be surprising. because it's not necessarily the people that you would -- that you would think about. i deponent rule out the possibility that over the next decade you'll find someone like putin beginning to identify china as a longer term strategic threat to russia. now part of this -- and part of the reason i think the russians have been so hesitant in these conversations is china clearly is a rising power along the border. it becomes a bit more difficult to do because the russians also believe the united states is a
declining power. certainly in relative terms, if not absolute terms. if you want to balance against china, aligning yourself more closely with the decline of the united states may not buy you a lot other the long term. so i think that's a problem. but again, you know, i was in moscow about a month ago. and what a lot of foreign policy thinkers, exforgets stressed was that if you read russian foreign policy essays now, there's a much greater orientation on the east than there was just a few years ago. it's factors much more heavily in their own thinking and clearly behind this is how are you going to balance this rising power? how are you going to protect or rebuild your own sovereignty over siberia in far east, given
the demographics. so i think you'll see that. it will be people like putin who will lead the thinking on that. who others, i think prowestern will focus more on rebuilding the relationship with the united states. with china in the background, the back of their minds, but not something out in front as a clear and articulated reason for why they are rebuilding that relationship with the west. >> so, igor and andy get the last statement on the subject of power balances. >> i would like to try to put it into context. the real shift in russia foreign policy debate which is occurring right now is that the debate becomes more and more about real issues along the global arena. because if you look at our three main groups, what are the
differences? it's primarily, it's about russia. it's not about international relations. it's about what is russia? and this is a striking difference between foreign policy debate in russia and in china. because my understanding from my place in this project that foreign policy debate in china is surprisingly is about the nature of the international relation system. in russia, it's about what is russia. this is the first question. so but it started changing, and my point is that one of the driving forces of these change is china. because this is a real issue. what is russia, to initially have been a part of the question of about the relationship between the russia and the west? the rest of the world did not exist in russia intelligence for
200 years. you know, russia and europe and then russia and the west and the emergence of china and the russia foreign policy debate to where it should be. it is about the external war. but what is going on out there? and then what should we do? thank you. >> quick comment. your question, gill, and a response to tom's excellent remarks. i think at this point, the russia concern is a more -- has seen the sort of mercantile economist policy in china. it's not expanding not only within russia, but within the countries around it. the best anecdote the russians have to address that is to clean up their own system. and make their own investment
environment more attractive so there's greater competition amongst a number of players, including japan and south korea ya. especially the western portions of the country. you could find a somewhat similar responsible to maybe what we are seeing with some of the asean countries in developing the expand and overall growth of the china power. tom, you are absolutely right to put the on con sensitive. you know, if i -- if we just took putin for right now, there's no question, at least on the rhetorical level that they
have difficult rigs, at least what it means for russia. and put mr. medvedev -- they are both in the great power balancing leaning protest liberal. or as i see, vladimir putin. we have seen the evolution over the past ten years. >> we'll now take a minute to change name places, name cards. before we do, i know you'll want to join me in gives a hand. [applause] [applause]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now here's the winner of c-span student cam competition. he's joined by senate historian don ritchie. the part of the topic is compromising congress. >> you are going to meet the grand prize winner of the student cam competition. the topic of his documentary was that of the role of compromise in government. here it is. >> we cannot continue down this road. >> the senate is an institution built on compromise.
>> the nature of the democracy rests on the art of compromise. >> this is exactly what our founders fathers can, they compromised. ♪ >> we need a wake up call. >> september 19th, 2010, on this day, my family and i departed on a thrill to -- trip to washington, d.c. on this trip, i hope to learn more about our nation and the nation capitol, as well as how it relates. today washington, d.c. is the center of one the largest metropolitan areas of the country, housing all three branches. also home to 174 foreign embassies, as well as many of the nation's monuments and exams. apart from politics, the city also has a strong local economy. it took much for washington, d.c. to get where it today.
december 22, 2010. this on day i interviewed the co-editor of the first federal congress project from george washington university and author of the creation of washington, d.c. for more information on the history of capitol city. >> can you imagine that the united states congress met in the capitol building of a state? >> but this all changed in june 1783. >> when a crowd of revolutionary war soldier who's had not been paid gathered outside the building. >> it was aimed at the state, not at the congress. which meant missing buildings. >> the only way to get their pay was to go to the state government. >> congress created the special committee, led by alexander hamilton. >> alexander hamilton was the founding father. war time hero. >> alexander believed if the state of pennsylvania paid the federal government's debt, they would lose power and
jurisdiction. >> hamilton said look you have to call an emergency session of congress and get them into the state house before the soldiers get there where we are going to lose all kinds of jurisdiction and power. >> the emergency session was called and the congressman entered the building. now they can use the situation to their advantage. >> they can argue that the demonstration was against congress. and that the federal government's dignities had been insolved. >> that might they called another. >> they believed if the state militia wasn't called, they will bring up pennsylvania. >> this was against pennsylvania. >> he said i am not going to call up the pennsylvania militia. do you think the men of pennsylvania are going to take up arms against the very army that won us independence? >> congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in new
jersey. >> now congress needed to find a new permanent capitol. >> it took many years to decide who -- decide where to put the capitol. >> some wanted new york. some wanted philadelphia. >> it was sectional. north want it had in the north, south in the south. >> the union would not be able to survive without a compromise. >> it was a result of political compromise. >> it had more advances. the location wasn't the only decision. the committee was created to see how large the federal city should be and how many jurisdiction they needed over it. >> the committee existed of people who wanted to empower the federal government. >> like alexander hamilton who didn't want what happened to philadelphia to happen again. >> the states laughed the committee report off of the
floor. >> however, at the institutional convention, a section passed that gave congress exclusive jurisdiction over the capitol city. but congress would soon exploit these powers, voted soon became a heated issue. in the speech, representative tom davis spoke about what happened next. >> the political parties couldn't come to an agreement. imagine that. >> federalist wanted strong control, while anti-federalist wanted limited control. >> jefferson planning to take control, the crisis compelled the federalist into action. >> instead of working with the anti-federalist. >> congress passed the stripped down version of the bill. >> they stated the citizens of the district were no longer considered citizens of maryland or virginia. >> there's no evidence that the founding father who's had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government decided the only way to secure the government was to
deny representation to some of their fellow citizens. >> this injustice was an unintended consequence. and today. >> we live in the exact same position to the federal government of the united states as the american columnist lived in london and great britain. here we have taxation without representation. >> despite the issues, and thanks to the growing thought after the civil war, washington -- washington, d.c. has become a symbol of strength and hosting most of the agencies. the national archives preserved the declaration of independence, bill of rights, and the u.s. constitution. >> but the constitution wasn't created without many conflicts of it's own. may 29, 1787. on this day, they introduced the virginia plan. the late senator robert byrd spoke about the virginia plan.
>> under the virginia plan, both houses of congress would be apportioned by population. an arrangement that would favor the largest states. >> the smaller states felt threatened. william patterson countered with the new jersey plan. but the smaller state still had enough votes to keep it. >> on july 1, the convention split 5-5. >> the convention was in a deadlock. >> they appointed a committee to solve the commute. >> they determined how the legislative branches sun today. >> the compromise and portion of the house and gave the states equality in the senate. >> this successful compromise would become known as the great compromise. >> the great compromise is one the more momentous events in our country's history. >> and the great compromise helped create the governments of checks and balances that we have today. >> today we live in a political climate equally challenges of the founding fathers with many
opposing view points. but we all can agree. >> this is imperative to find a compromise. >> legislation is the art of compromise. >> compromise isn't always the best solution. imagine what may have happened in abraham lincoln compromised the south before the civil war. we must find the proper balance between compromising and standing firm. and how much? like the bill that created taxation without representation in washington, d.c. when we pass legislation without truly examining the issues, arguments, and solutions, we often times create unforeseen consequences. compromise is needed in legislature. and often times it will create the best solution. perhaps it's time for another great compromise. >> over the past two days, we've introduced you to this year's top prize winners. today we are pleased to
introduce to our grand prize winner, carl colglazier, congratulations. you have won grand prize, that comes $5,000. now you are on television. what do you think about this? >> it's pretty awesome. the equipment is cool. >> yeah, you are interested in camera equipment. i saw you have your camera. >> yes, i do have my camera. >> is that the one you used? >> yes. >> how did you come about coming up with the idea of your documentary? >> well, it was actually pretty interesting. my family had been planning to go to washington, d.c. for a couple of months before the topic was even announced. so when i went on the computer and i saw the topic was washington, d.c. through my lens. this would be perfect. i could use my trip as washington, d.c. to get great footage or whatever else i need
to get. through going to washington, d.c. that i decided that i would look into a little bit more on what i could use from the history of washington, d.c. as i saw information on the history of washington, d.c., i thought that might make an interesting documentary. >> why is that? what did you learn about dc that sparked your interest? >> about washington, d.c. the city? >> yeah, and the history of it. >> well, i went through a lot of different circumstances that helped create the city. first of all, when congress was in philadelphia, there was a mutiny, and they were forced to leave philadelphia and find a new capitol. i also learned that the location of washington, d.c. washington,s something i had never thought of -- how they decided the location. i learned it was created through a compromise between the north and the south. so i learn a lot about how dc was created and set up today. >> did anything surprise you? >> yes, definitely.
i was really surprised to see how little has changed in the political climate from the days of the founding fathers all the way until today. there was a lot of political maneuvering with one side trying to pass something as quickly as they could before the other side. and there was a lot of different things that people did such as using certain situations to their advantage. it was very interesting how little has changed in politics since then. >> do youlike politics? >> somewhat, yes. i've been interested in politics for a while. >> history? >> yes, i have always loved history. >> why is that? does your family talk about history? do you talk about politics? >> yes, our family does talk about history and politics a lot more than would see usual. as being home schooled, i've been able to really pursue some of the topics that really interest me and history has definitely been one of them.
>> how did you go about making the documentary? talk about that. for those that just saw it, they probably saw the graphics that you used different software, et cetera. >> i learned something knew. i learned a lot about graphics. the program that i used was calledsony vegas pro. i put each image, people, buildings, flags, whatever you saw was on it's own track. i key framed these tracks to make things move. so using the computer, basically, i took the image, told them to do what i wanted to do, and rendered out the image. you got what you saw there on the graphics. >> part of the competition, you have to use c-span footage. how did you go about choosing what sort of event or debate that you were going to use in the documentary? >> well, i spent quite a few hours searching the c-span video library for stuff about the
great compromise, history of washington, d.c., pennsylvania mutiny. i searched all of that information on the c-span video library. and a lot of interesting things came up that i was able too use for my documentary. a lot of that footage dates back to the 1980s. it's interesting to see how things have changed in the broadcasting world. >> you went deep into the video library archives to find the material that you used. can you tell us how many hours or talk about how much time you spent? >> a long time. i found all of the footage before i went to shoot the on location shots. it was a major part of the preproduction process. so i did spend quite a few hours. i don't know how many, but it was quite a bit.
>> what did your parents say when you said this was the topic that i want to do? >> when i talked about the topic, every single time, you find of have to see it. what's the documentary about? it's very complicated and really hard to explain in a very short amount of time. i kind of told them this is basically how my documentary is going to work. they are like okay. [laughter] >> i'm pretty sure they are confident i could throw it together. at least, i hope so. >> all right. we were talking about compromise in washington, that was the topic of carl's documentary, grand prize winning documentary. here joining us at the table here, donald ritchie, senator historian to help us take questions from viewers. let's begin with the great compromise. why was it called that, mr. ritchie? >> it was essential for passing the constitution. when they met, one the biggest
differences was the large states and small states. the large states thought they should be represented, the more population, the more representation. the small states said no way, we are not joining any union in which we are not equal because of the articles of confederation. the constitution almost came to an end until they formed a committee overred 4th of july weekend, and came up with the ultimate compromise, two houses of, one by population, u.s. senate, all the states will be equal. they wrote a special provision, no state will lose without the consent. no state would give the consent. the senate will probably remain as long as the u.s. government stands. >> carl talks about the great compromise and gives us an example in his documentary of not willing to compromise on an issue. what struck you about his
documentary? >> i thought it was very creative. i liked that he used so much of senator byrd's speeches. he gave a whole series of speeches on the history of the senate. i think senator byrd would have loved to watch the documentary. he would have liked the fact that it was a good portion of his speeches included in it. but he believed in the institution. he believed that people had to rise above the politics and the emotions of the time. said, all legislation is a form of compromise. there are certain moment when we all marched together in the same direction, but for worst of our history there is a lot of continuity. -- but for most of our history there is a lot of continuity. host: has there been a great compromise since the one that is documented? guest: there have been many
compromises. among the greatest is the missouri compromise of 1820. the other was the compromise of 1850. both of those dealt with the issue of new territory that we have incorporated. how with the territory becoming into the union of states? -- how would the territory becoming in to the union of states? they tried at first to divide the nation with a line, the missouri compromise line. above the line there would not be slavery and below if there would be. then we acquired more territory. there were great divisions between the north and south over many issues, slavery being a primary issue. in 1850, henry clay and other senators tried to put together a compromise to avoid a civil war. what they did was they delayed the civil war for about a
decade. it was known as one of the great compromises. certainly throughout history there are constant compromises and the senate and house because there are 100 senators and 435 house members. every issue that you want to get past you have to build a coalition of support. -- every issue that you want to get passed you have to build a coalition of support. a good compromise disappoints each side. each side has to swallow something they do not want in order to get something they do want. host: carl talk about this in the documentary as well, but small states. what is the role and what is the impact on that in legislation today? guest: the supreme court said legislative bodies have to be in proportion equally. the only legislative body in the country that that does not apply
to is the u.s. senate, because in the unionstate's -- half the population of the united states lives in 10 states. the other half lives in 40 80tes and the havey have senators. in the house california has 53 representatives. william hayoming has two. that means the small states have a much larger voice in the senate and they do in the house. host: we're talking about the history of compromise. it is the topic of our grand prize winner. we should do the documentary at
the beginning of this. if you're interested in watching this again, go to our website. studentcam.org. you can watch all of them there. let's go to florida. first phone call on this. caller: if good morning, and thank you for taking my call. thank yourning, and for taking my call. i wanted to say congratulations to carl. i just watched his grand prize documentary, and it was fabulous. he really gave me an education. you are never too old to learn. i wanted to call and congratulate him on that. it was a marvelous teaching tool. i hope you continue to make many more. host: tim is a democrat. caller: we need you for
president. i really liked that. i just have one question. what was the difference between the emf back then and the emf now? host: we just lost a phone call. i am not sure what he meant. let's talk about history today in the congress. you mentioned robert byrd. he knew the history of the congress and how it worked. has anyone fill that void? guest: there are a lot of candidates. he was a very unusual senator. he went to law school at night while he was a u.s. senator. he felt because he did not get a formal education as a young man the rest of his life was learning. he continued to read. he got very interested in not only that history but the rules
and the presidents of the senate. of thethe presidentence senate. usually every friday afternoon he would stand up and give some speech about some aspect of the history of the united states senate. these were compiled. almost no one else has matched that kind of devotion to it, but certainly among the senators, especially among the senior senators, people like senator alexander and other people who have been here for a while and to our real institutional list, you often feel in their speeches they will talk about the historical precedents of whatever the issue is today. there is a lot of continuity.
if you are debating something today, it is not the first time the debt has been an issue. it is not the first time these issues have come before the senate. some senators have a longer view and greater historical perspective on it. host: is compromise possible today? guest: the onetime absolutely broke down was the time of the civil war. we looked at what happened in that instance. the confederate states left and lost everything they left for. for one, all of the state senators lost their seats. actually the civil war was at an extremely productive period in terms of american legislature.
the emancipation of slavery was something the confederate states have d left the union to avoid, and it wound up suffering. everything they let the floor from was what they wound up losing. that is why you do need to compromise. host: we will go to john on the line for democrats in michigan. caller: congratulations, carl. if the congress was being developed today, what they're be -- would they do it the same way? what the people be able to represent themselves with internet and telephones and the like? guest: it is very interesting. communications have changed tremendously. that 1880's it took a
long time for communications. they would go and spend months at the time for tcapital. members of every state go home almost every weekend. they are connecting with constituents, and they all have internet sites and web sites and they all tweet. they are constantly communicating. the question is at some point could we avoid representation and have people vote on every particular issue? the issues are so complex and are so fast and furious that it would be hard for the citizens as a whole to pay attention to everything that came along. there would probably be a hard core group of people that would do the leading, and everyone else would wait to see what happened. we are very much dependent on
transportation and communication. host: what do you think? do you think politicians today should compromise? guest: i think compromise that we depend on the issue. some compromises like the impending government shutdown, we needed a compromise otherwise we wouldn't have huge consequences. there are other issues that may come up that would not be a good idea to compromise on. in most cases compromise is definitely necessary to get things done in the house. but there are some exceptions. host: it sounds like you are following this issue, even though you finish your documentary a while ago. guest: yes, definitely. it is very important to me. host: we will go to a calller from ohio. caller: i am calling, because i tould like to ask him have
discuss the idea of the unlimited lobbying and unlimited donations that the big corporations are handed out to our suppose it representatives. the fact that they are now owned by these contributions, and what are we going to do about it? isn't this really distorting the democracy? guest: certainly the lobbyists are a daily part of what goes on on capitol hill. lobbyists are from all different corporations. from large corporations to unions to and our mental groups and others. -- from fundamental groups and others. money talks, and the more money you have, the talk is louder, and that has been an issue from
the very beginning. since the 1930's the congress has set requirements that they need to file on the showing who their sponsors are and where their money is going. there were a number of roles in the way finances could be distributed. congress is still trying to grope with this. that issue is not a new one. it is certainly one that has persisted through much of american history. not to say that lobbyists are pertinacious. they provide information on issues. they also represent groups that have an interest in what ever the legislation comes out. they do not want legislation that will essentially punished one region of the country or one form of industry against another. every piece of legislation that comes up you will hear from all of the groups that are concerned that that legislation will affect them. host: tony, republican.
you are next. caller: carl, well done. i really like tell you took me into washington, d.c., with some of the issues. i have a question for you, carl. i understand with the militia that hamilton somehow got us into debt, which paid for the militia. i understand jefferson had an opposite way of doing it. what was his way, or did you know about that? guest: i do not believe that really came up in my research. guest: alexander hamilton was an economic genius. relieve the beginnings of our country were very much dependent on his decisions that had to do with taxes, a banking issues, the tariff issues. one of his big issues was the united states had to pay off the debt.tion a waary war
jefferson believed and a smaller government and opposed this. that was a big issue in terms of deciding where the federal government would be located. in the sense the south accepted the proposal. the north got the economic program they wanted. tried very hards to reject the debt. there was one moment where they had no debt. there is a brief moment with a pay off the national debt, but national debt has been part of american history since the american revolution. we have only paid for our government through a combination of immediate taxation and long- term debt. host: that brings us to today's
headlines in "the washington post." we're talking about compromise today, because that is the subject of the grand prize winner. calller from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to congratulate young carl. good job on the technical aspects of what he did. i appreciate the fact that he chose a liberal arts history to bring some items forward. could hoping mr. ritchie a lovely -- could elaborate on some of the issues that came about in the project in the situation that arose after world war i when the veterans were
striking outside washington, d.c. guest: very good point. you talked about the mutinied but there was ak then, moment when thousands of world war i veterans marched on washington, d.c., to demand the bonus they had been promised. it was not due until 1945, but because of the depression they said we will not be alive to collect the funding. president herbert hoover allow the u.s. army to drive the veterans out of washington, d.c. that was one of the contributing factors to his defeat in reelection. president roosevelt when he came in, one of the things his administration proposed was the g.i. bill to take care of veterans. historian said it had an
enormous impact in terms of raising the education level of the united states, raising homeownership and establishing a long time of prosperity that follows the second world war. we do learn from our history along the way. yes, indeed, there have been military difficulties that has played a role in decisions government has made. host: do you get phone calls from senator saying what happened on this issue back then? guest: we do not usually get phone calls from senators on career issues. the one time we did get that was during the presidential impeachment trial when senators were on their way to eat their press conferences or to town meetings, and they realize that questions of a historical missnature was going to come up
these days, and we tend to deal a lot more was that and speech writers who are looking for factual information to support issues, and in fact, we provide the same information to both sides in the debate. the basic factual knowledge of what did we do in the past and what type of responses came out. the senate historical office is much less involved in policy issues the and it is an institutional issues. how the senate as an institution responded to issues. what are the parliamentary procedures? things like that as opposed to what are the details of this particular issue? the congressional research service provides strong factual information on every piece of legislation that congress will deal with. host: vinny on the republican line. caller: i wanted to get a recommendation for the video.
there are two books called " and they areurse" great books on how they had a vision of central banks. host: any thoughts on that? guest: i am really impressed that carl has grasp so much of american history. i hope he will continue in the enormous amount of reading that can be done on these issues. one of the startling statistics to me is that the average college freshman knows more about american history than the average college senior. it is not because colleges have poor history departments, it is because so many students do not take history class is while they are in college. states require a large amount of
american history and world history while you are at a high school level. high school students are pretty well informed of what is going on. i wish our college students are required to take more of it, because there is a rich base of literature to drop from. host: what do you think, would you keep learning about our nation's history? guest: definitely. i think it is very applicable to today'. host: what do you think? will you do this again? guest: probably. every time i do a project like this i learned something new and do something i have never done before. i hope i am able to enter again next year i will have an even better documentary. host: if what did you learn this time around? guest: i had access to a lot
better equipment than i did last year. not only did i have more functionality i was able to take advantage of, but it was also able to really use my equipment to the best of my knowledge to create a lot of the motion graphics, a lot of the audio techniques that reduce and all sorts of things. host: what will you do with a $5,000 to one? guest: i will tithe 10% of it. i will save most of it. the rest will use to upgrade some of my equipment. i will upgrade to a better software. then i will invest in getting decent lighting. host: we think you look great in your documentary. michigan, paul, independent calller. we're talking about compromise
in washington. caller: my question is he seems like a go getter. i am curious why there is such a rift between these parties? could he do a documentary on something that would compromise everyone to be for america? host: are you talking about in today's time? guest: people say is this most political partisan divide in american history? i say no, quite frankly we have always been a partisan nation. it was the coming together on those positions, first the passing of the constitution and then the bill of rights that really changed the constitution. from the very beginning we have
had great disagreements. the whigs and the democrats. the wigs of the republicans. that is a form of dynamic tension in the system that has propelled a lot of ideas, that nobody has a monopoly on the best ideas. that in a sense compromise is forced, because not everyone is an agreement on those issues. no states where there is know disagreements tend to be dictatorships. host: johnny, democratic calller. and caller: i called to congratulate carl, and called to say i watched c-span as often as i can come and i consider it the best ivy league university in the country. i feel like i am back in college for free.
i like listening to the different opinions when people call in. i would just like to say continue the good work, and i will continue to pay my cable bill to make sure you stay on the air. you all have a blessed day. carl, i give a shout out to you. host: thank you. we appreciate that. let's talk about those who talk about compromise. what issues represent a compromise in today's terms? guest: carl made a good point that not always is compromise the best solution. it depends on what issues were. there were politicians who were famous not for compromising, and to set i would rather take nothing rather than half a loaf. you wanted a full loaf on every issue. he wasn't willing to split the difference.
that meant a lot of issues he favored were not going to pass. much of what he did want to come about, but not because of him. he had a very meager legislative record. there are moments where people feel it is the board to draw the line and compromise. if you want to enact something and get something done, you move forward, you usually have to reach some sort of an agreement. the question is how far are you willing to go? how far are you willing to stand on your principal or to relax its? that is a universal issue throughout american history. host: talk more about politics and how it has changed since the great compromise. guest: since the early years there have been some very difficult changes. we had one senator who was beaten with a cane by a member of the house representatives to
came over and objected to one of his speeches. fortunately we do not have physical violence in the chamber, but there is great difference on the issues. it is interesting if you watched c-span today, you hear the senate and house are very polite in the parliamentary language. it is almost 19th century language. that was required by thomas jefferson when he was the presiding officer of the senate. he wrote the first parliamentary rules article. he said they are always going to be heated arguments, and the only way to have a rational solution to these issues is to try to cool down the rhetoric and cool down the behavior, so that senators are not to address each other by name. they are not to criticize each states or motives.
there is a force decorum that the senate has upheld in the senate to a large degree as well and have required of their members to try to have a civil debate over issues of which they feel passionately different. host: how long is the book on decorum and rules for the senate? guest: the senate book of procedures is a very long book. it is well over 1000 pages long. i recall senator byrd standing up and sang every congress he read through the book underlining different sections. i know there are some senators who have never opens the book. they rely on staff and others to tell them what the procedures are. the senate is a governing body. the rules have not changed dramatically over that amount of time. they sit at the desks that they
sat at. there is a great sense of connection to their past. unlike the house, which reinvents itself every two years. the senate is an institution that is based much more on continuity and tradition. that is why so many senators are often interested in the history of the institution in the history of the nation. host: perry, democratic calller in south carolina. caller: the best compromiser was lyndon johnson in my opinion. even in the senate when he was there and became president, it was all because of compromise that we got a lot of the 1960's civil-rights things past. guest: that is a very good
point. he to say come let us reason together. he would get us to sit down and figure out what they needed to get them on board. when they were passing the civil-rights act in 1964, he was president of the united states but almost the super majority leader of the senate at the time. they needed 67 votes. the only way they would do that is for both parties to be on board. it was a minority faction within the minority party. johnson knew he needed to get the minority party on board. much of the bill was written in the backrooms of the republican leader. they worked with the republican leader to come up with a bill that would bring on enough votes to pass it. that was one of the most of the good pieces of legislation that came about because jobs and do have the legislative process worked. host: thank you for being